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 18, 2007
    COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN - JANUARY 18, 2007

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

    Host: Keith Olbermann

    Topics/Guests:

    • IRAQI PRIME MINISTER AL-MALIKI VS. PRESIDENT BUSH: Dana Milbank, Washington Post; Gen. Barry McCaffrey, U.S. Army (ret.)
    • FMR. SEN. GEORGE MCGOVERN ON IRAQ: Fmr. Sen. George McGovern (D-S.D.)
    • IS "AMERICAN IDOL" TOO MEAN?: Maria Milito, Q104.3 midday host

    Herr Olbermann was on his high horse as soon as he barked the opening spiel: Maliki smacks down Condi, George McGovern has a solution for Iraq, the Missouri kidnappings, another O'Reilly attack (why does he "still have a job?"), and the grand, overwhelming eeevil of American Idol. But the best was yet to come, as an Olby guest catches him pulling stuff out of his rearward orafice, and The Future of Television News stoops to doctoring a clip in order to lie about Simon Cowell. Man, you just don't get this stuff on reputable programs.

    MADMAN

    Krazy Keith was all over Maliki's comments, giving "context" with a heavily snipped quote from Condi, and running the usual clips of Tony Snow being hectored by the MSM, in particular the tonsorially-enhanced David Gregory. Dana Milbank, sans gaudy garb, says the Bush plan is dead anyhow, so this is just more headaches for the Prez.

    After some grousing about the Attorney General, and more complaints that Bill O'Reilly should be fired, it was on to Gen Barry McCaffrey, a surge opponent. Monkeymann rattled off four generals who were against sending reinforcements, and the gullible viewers might have swallowed that had the General not pointed out that one of those four actually supports the plan. Yes, A-Mess-NBC's own expert catches Keith making up facts, live, on national television. One of the very small pleasures of having to sit through The Hour of Spin.

    But there was more. When the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann brought up one of his favorite schemes, manipulating the funding to keep the surge from happening, the good General shot that down too: a "bad idea, it's probably not constitutional, it would be deeply resented by the armed forces". Word! Guess what the General didn't get? Great thanks.

    The topic stayed on Iraq as KO resuscitated George McGovern, the failed Democrat Presidential candidate. Another Dem interviewed on Countdown? Stop the presses! Time to update The List, a stunning documentation of why this is the most biased hour of news on television. George immediately slobbered all over Krazy Keith, praising him for his "common sense", and promoted his book plan to withdraw every single American in the next six months. Oddly, neither ace journalist Edward R Olbermann, nor the rejected candidate, bothered to explore what would happen to Iraq should George's plan be adopted. TMI. Instead, McGovern came up with a startling new insight all his own: Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Great thanks.

    O'Reilly attack #142 began with Olby, naturally, twisting what Bill said (Blue Blog Source: Media Matters) about the Hornbeck kidnapping, taking a sentence out of context and ignoring everything else. Standard practice at The Hour of Spin, as is describing O'Reilly's "perversity" (pretty bold talk for "Man on Fan" Olbermann) and again calling for him to be fired. Well, that would be one way to stop losing to The Factor by anywhere from 3-1 to 9-1 night after night after night. The actual reportage on the kidnapping was recycled from NBC. Then a typical Countdown segue directly into Britney Spears, Buddy Holly, and Art Buchwald.

    The #1 story was the Breaking News that American Idol judges can be mean. They've been mean for how many seasons now? Five? Six? Oh wait, isn't American Idol on Fox? Oh, OK. While whining about the "cruelty" of the program, Fat Ass Olbermann played a clip, where Simon told a shrieking singer, "Why don't you get a job down in the port?" Outraged, Olby bellowed, "Did she have to be told that she should go prostitute herself?" His "expert" guest had no clue, but in fact, this is just another small example of how Olbermann lies to his viewers. After Cowell made that statement, Randy asked him what he meant. Simon replied she could get work as a foghorn. Guess what? Edward R Olbermann cut the clip to take that part out, so he could pontificate without having to worry about his diatribe being reality-based. What a tool.

    The Media Matters Minute was the usual assemblage of stuff filched from far-left, highly partisan websites. John Gibson (Fox slot) defending 24 (Blue Blog Source: TVNewser)--that really makes him a "worst person" contender, doesn't it? Bo Dietl (conservative) was "worser" (Blue Blog Source: the 9/11 conspiracy site PrisonPlanet), and "worst" was "Mister" Bush's Republican administration (Blue Blog Source: Think Progress). Surprise, all three slots filled!

    OLBY

    Muted mongrels: Herr Olbermann loves to lift stuff from the New York Times. Yet today the paper reported some news that Olbermoronn completely spiked. Why was that? Could it be because it dealt with Iraq cracking down on Shiite militias, with some 400 arrests, and Olby doesn't want to report any kind of progress in Iraq? Ya think? He was so eager to spike this news that when he ran a clip of Tony Snow, he cut it off just at the point when Snow mentioned all this! Classic. The discredited sports guy pounded horrible poll numbers re the surge: only 17% support sending more troops to Iraq. But these numbers only get reported when they move in Olbermann's direction, and now that the latest poll says that support for sending reinforcements has more than doubled, it doesn't get reported on The Hour of Spin. Meanwhile, just as Krazy Keith covered for Sylvestre Reyes's unforgivable ignorance about the war on terror, he has pointedly avoided reporting how Reyes, like many other Dems, was for a troop surge before he was against it. And what about The Great Leak Case? Is Slippery Shuster still waiting outside the courthouse for that Karl Rove indictment? It's coming! Any day now!

    NAME

    Olbermann's book The book that bears Olberman's name has gurgled all the way down to #12,997 at amazon.com, while "Culture Warrior" is #124. The OlbyTome is #2,665 at Barnes & Noble; O'Reilly's book is #222 there, as well as being one of 2006's top ten best sellers. Wednesday's cable news numbers were down, thanks to the eeevil American Idol, and KO just barely edged out Paula Zahn for a close second-place finish, both in total viewers and in the critical, beloved, all-important, coveted "key demo". Tonight's MisterMeter reading: 4 [GUARDED]


    Posted by johnny dollar | Permalink | Comments (441) | | View blog reactions
    user-pic

    441 Comments

    Why has CNBC moved its rerun of Deal or No Deal from 8 p.m. to 9 p.m.? Was it to prevent MSNBC's Meltdown with Odormoronn from finishing fifth out of five shows every night?

    No, it's because they knew that Johnny Dollar & Tom were both Niggars, & losers...

    Keith is 100% correct about Bill O'Reilly... It sure would be nice to see BILL O slit from ear to ear.

    "It sure would be nice to see BILL O slit from ear to ear. "
    - Posted by: Bill O'lielly at January 18, 2007 8:44 PM

    Al-Qaeda agress with you.

    When I saw Keith was going to talk about (read: obsess) O'Reilly again I had to catch it. After laughing my ass off at the O'Reilly/Colbert exchanges, I flipped over just in time to see Keith ask (again) why O'Reilly has a job still. Gee, Keith, if you can't beat him, you want him fired for something he said? What happened to all the freedoms Bush was taking away from Americans...you mean we should be fired for saying things?

    Hey at least you still have the midnight rerun market on the West Coast locked up!

    I get my REAL news from the Comedy Channel!

    Bernie Goldberg is a pile of crap.

    I wonder how Johnny FRAUD is going to spin this one about O'Reilly... One of his worst lies of 2007 for 'lying about O'Reilly's viewpoint on this one?' Or perhaps by saying that'Monkeyman is nothing but a fraud, because he (as in Johnny FRAUD) too supports the view that it would be fun to be kidnapped & raped at 11 years old for four years?

    The hypocrisy of this website ABSOLUTELY belies me...

    Olby's making fun of a another time slot competitor on Fox. I'm shocked, shocked. First it's BOR. Then it's 24. And again, Idol. Anyone sense a trend?

    The #1 story on Olbermann is American Idol!

    Take that Republicans!

    This is real important news.

    Yes, No name, I DO sense a trend... FOX ('news,' or whatever else) is a shitty Network!! Rupert Murdoch is a traitor!! (Not an American, but a traitor to all human beings, nonetheless!) Oh, & By the way, you are an a--hole...

    As a matter of fact, I think that all of my posts from this point on will end with...

    & By the way, NO NAME IS AN a--hole!!

    Yeah, sounds about right...

    NO NAME IS AN a--hole!!

    NO NAME IS AN a--hole!!
    - Posted by: The Return of PROUD to be a LIBERAL at January 18, 2007 8:58 PM

    Did your parents beat you when you were little?

    No, anonymous, they didn't beat me... They didn't molest me either, & I had fun... So, why is your (as in the right's) man O'Reilly so intent on saying that I wouldn't have had a good time if my parents didn't beat & molest me? Was he molested as a child? Was it just a childhood fantasy of his? Or what?

    & By the way, NO NAME IS AN a--hole!!

    "I wouldn't have had a good time if my parents didn't beat & molest me"
    - Posted by: The Return of PROUD to be a LIBERAL at January 18, 2007 9:02 PM

    Um...seek help immediately. It's not too late.

    Every night it's the same angry spew
    From the man with the apricot hue
    Take cheap shots at Fox
    Sniff more sweaty jocks
    With parrot guests that haven't a clue

    Mike, quick, come to this thread. O'liely, PTBAL and some Chicken Bloggers are debating the serious news issues of the day, how bad BOR is and how great KO is.

    Man, this is the most news and vital information I've ever seen in one place.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    For the record, Grannie...

    One of those 'chicken bloggers' is no name, the lier.... For the record...

    & By the way, NO NAME IS AN a--hole!!

    Olbermann was wasting time discussing his Bush-hatred and American Idol when he should have been covering the most important news story of the day: "That O'Reilly didn't talk about the most important news story of the day"

    *liar... excuse me!!

    &, By the way, NO NAME IS AN a--hole!!

    For Krazy Keith the most important long running story in the world is Bill O'Reilly. Otherwise he wouldn't be mentioning him every frickin' night.

    Sometimes...I feel sad.

    Then I look in the mirror and realize how pathetic I am and it makes me even sadder.

    TRofPTBAL or PTBAL, chicken is as chicken does.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    The Factor was great tonight as always. Bill let Colbert rib him a little. Something the arrogant Olbermann would never do. He is too "dignified". Another socialist on this blog lies about what was on The Factor. I guess he got his talking point from the lying Rosie Opiggle. Bill brought up a good point that the lazy media jumped to the conclusion that this boy had the fabled Stockholm syndrome. The media did no research and no work. Typical. They will start to tear down this boy, once the kidnapper gets charge. The mainstream media would never want a child molester to get justice.Watch and learn.

    Sometimes...I feel sad.

    Then I look in the mirror and realize how pathetic I am and it makes me even sadder.

    Posted by: The Return of PROUD to be a LIBERAL at January 18, 2007 9:14 PM


    Hmmm... Now see, that is just what I am talking about...

    This is what No Name did to keep me away from this site for a couple of weeks... & why I've decided to end every post with with '&, by the way, NO NAME IS AN a--hole..." It's kinda like the prayer in anciant Judaism where they said, essentially, that they hopes all traitors among them would die... They knew that the Romans wouldn't say it, because that would perhaps, cause them to die... Thus they picked off all of the traitors in their midsts....

    f---ing moron... lol...

    Oh, yeah, & I almost forgot...

    &, by the way, NO NAME IS AN a--hole

    Thank God some of the Republicans are finally starting to stand up to this rogue president.

    But you sure as hell didn't hear that on O'Reilly tonight!

    "hopes all traitors among them would die... They knew that the Romans wouldn't say it, because that would perhaps, cause them to die... Thus they picked off all of the traitors in their midsts"
    - Posted by: The Return of PROUD to be a LIBERAL at January 18, 2007 9:20 PM

    Say what!?

    Did you forget to take your medication again?

    well, i'm going out... I have a life, unlike certain unnamed people in here... (Well, OK, one: Johnny FRAUD!!) Have a nice night though... Ya'll will know when it is me posting again...

    Be good now, & Peace (well, peace to most of you... The rest of you can f--- off & die, for all I care!!)

    &, by the way, NO NAME IS AN a--hole'

    "you can f--- off & die"
    - Posted by: The Return of PROUD to be a LIBERAL at January 18, 2007 9:25 PM

    Um...ok. Thanks, friend.

    'Factor': "O'Reilly was great tonight, as always"...

    Man, you put right into plain english how incredibly shallow you are! As we speak, the most important debate in many, many years is going on in Congress regarding the current war, and whether or not we are going to attack another country, and create a second one.....and your hero O'Reilly didn't even mention it tonight!

    While child molesters ARE despicable and need to be dealt with harshly, this is NOT national news in these trying times....it is more like 'Star' or "National Enquirer stuff".

    I'm STILL waiting to hear from you about how in the hell you equated 'socialists' with a debate about whether or not an Army weapons system works like it should or not?

    Thanks Mike!

    Again...another person on the Left with criticisms and NO solutions (other than retreat and capitulation).

    Al-Qaeda thanks you for your efforts.

    No wonder Mike is such an Olbermann fan. He's as arrogant and egotistical as Olbermann--he's now decided he needs to dictate what O'Reilly talks about on his show. Hey Mike--get your own damn television show and you talk about what you THINK is the "most important" story of the day.

    Mike,

    Could you please name all the countries that, right now, are at war with us, that are attacking and killing Americans? Or do you say there are none?

    Mike,
    There are other news other than Bush or Iraq.
    Like this weekend, who will win Colts or Patriots?

    Mike, you need a little perspective re your outrage that BOR doesn't do a 'hard' news show that concentrates specifically on the exact points (parrot KO) that KO makes.

    KO doesn't do a news show and spends a lot of time on fluff. What is this double standard based on.

    Public and private life goes on as well as people can manage under the most horrendus of situations.

    Babies were conceived in concentration camps and gulags. People married, celebrated holidays and special events. Entertaiment such as books, radio shows, theatre productions, dances, parties etc. went on as much as possible.

    If BOR tanked tomorrow that would not have any bearing on the worth, or lack of it, re KO. And the opposite is equally true.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Bill O'lielly - "It sure would be nice to see BILL O slit from ear to ear."

    Really? Why is that? Please give specific reasons.

    Now Brandon, you're doing the same thing to me you people say I did to you. If you'll recall, the first question I ever asked on this site was; Why you people don't just change the channel and forget about KO if you don't like him, or his message?

    I was amazed at how many of you took offense at such an innocent and totally American solution to your 'problem'.

    I agree....I sure won't be watching any more O'Reilly after what I saw tonight, nor will I be going to an anti-O'Reilly site to waste my time railing against him.

    Oh it gets better. Go to yesterday's show thread. In that Mike just announced, and I quote, "I now understand that KO's show and O'reilly's has less in common with each other than say....O'Reilly and Nancy Grace, so comparing their ratings is stupid!"

    So Mike thinks that Nielsen should abandon the way they've always done ratings (shows in the same time slot) and instead group them together by "type" in wild desperation that Olbermann might actually not come in second or third or fourth or fifth for a change.

    But Mike, Olbermann's show is a COMEDY so if we go by show TYPE, then he'd be competing with say, The Simpsons! And you thought his ratings were bad now??? LOL. Okay, let's adopt your system and let's see how bad Olbermann's ratings continue to suck.

    Yeah Mike. I get that. It's called IRONY. You're not too bright are you?

    KAF,

    Please stop or Mike's head will explode!

    Mike, most of us *read* this site and J$'s recaps and don't partake of the Olberdork... ever.

    Great point Janet...believe it or not, I agree.

    Now that we all accept the premise that these are two totally different kinds of shows, we can all also accept the premise that comparing KO's show and O'Relly's is a lot like trying to compare apples and oranges, can't we.

    With that established, we're not going to hear any more rhetoric from the anti-Olby crowd stating how much 'better' Bill O's show is - OR - how his rating are so much higher.

    Or are we?

    Here Mike, when you're finished revamping O'Reilly's show format and the Nielsen ratings sytem maybe you can tackle these two issues--

    1-Monkeymann rattled off four generals who were against sending reinforcements, and the gullible viewers might have swallowed that had the General not pointed out that one of those four actually supports the plan. Yes, A-Mess-NBC's own expert catches Keith making up facts, live, on national television. One of the very small pleasures of having to sit through The Hour of Spin.

    and

    2-The #1 story was the Breaking News that American Idol judges can be mean. They've been mean for how many seasons now? Five? Six? Oh wait, isn't American Idol on Fox? Oh, OK. While whining about the "cruelty" of the program, Fat Ass Olbermann played a clip, where Simon told a shrieking singer, "Why don't you get a job down in the port?" Outraged, Olby bellowed, "Did she have to be told that she should go prostitute herself?" His "expert" guest had no clue, but in fact, this is just another small example of how Olbermann lies to his viewers. After Cowell made that statement, Randy asked him what he meant. Simon replied she could get work as a foghorn. Guess what? Edward R Olbermann cut the clip to take that part out, so he could pontificate without having to worry about his diatribe being reality-based. What a tool.

    So basically we have Olbermann LYING in issue number one and in issue number two, using creative editing to support his theory which just so happens to slam a Fox show. A Fox show that airs opposite his own show. Oh no, no ulterior motivation there at all is there?

    So spin away and make up some excuses why it's okay for Olbermann to flat out lie and to on purpose edit a clip to support a flawed theory? I'm waiting.

    Everyone who will win Colts or Patriots?

    I think I have it figured out...Keith talks about 24, American Idol, and Bill all very high rated shows. He is hoping for free publicity hoping these shows will say something about him. After all advertising on his own network wouldn't reach anybody.

    Olbermann come the Goebells school of propaganda!

    But ratings DO matter Mike. The fact that you don't LIKE what the ratings reveal is pointless. And that is a FACT Mike. Nielsen has always compared shows in the same time slot and yes, that would be an apples and oranges comparison but it doesn't make it wrong, no matter how much you don't like it. You have a real sense of entitlement don't you Mike--you think that because you don't like something or someone that they should just change to suit you. You really do need to get out of your parent's basement more and find out how the real world operates.

    Mike you actually think that some half hearted resolution with no teeth, the purpose of which is to help people trying to start their presidential races, is news? You can't be that stupid can you? I guess you can be. On to the socialist question. I called you a socialist because you are one. You are also a coward because you hide behind the label of "Moderate". I am still waiting for you conservative position. You cherry picked some fairy tail from NBC propaganda that had already been debunked by The Factor.

    I think the funniest moment on tonights show was when Keith told Mcgovern thanks for being on the NEWSCAST hahahaha He thinks he has a newscast.

    He also seems to think he's a journalist.

    Yeah Mike--where are your conservative positions--shouldn't you have to post them here so we can all take a vote on whether or not you're really a "moderate" like you claim? Or are you just a "moderate" on certain days of the week?

    Mike,

    After Krazy Keith stops talking about O'Reilly we will then stop comparing the Factor to Meltdown. That's fair, isn't it?

    Oh no, that big bad 'libral' KAF has reared his obsessed and confused little head again....NOW I'm in reeel trouble! LOL!

    There no point in refuting every silly little point you tried to make, such as spinning the "#1 story" as if it was the 'lead' story. It wasn't and you damned well know it.

    I was monitoring BOTH shows as much as is humanly possible tonight and O'Reilly didn't even mentioned the war(s) and the HUGE historically significant Congressional debate going on right now. On the other hand, KO spent about HALF his show on this.

    Suffice to say I disagree with you point by point and we'll just have to agree to disagree, BUT AT LEAST HIS SHOW DEALT WITH REAL ISSUES!

    One one other thing I know, you are no freaking 'Liberal'!

    You do know that O'Reilly's show isn't labeled a news show right? I know how hard it is for you to grasp simple concepts.

    Olbermann's show is billed as a news show yet he spent a significant portion of tonight's show criticizing American Idol and used a doctored video clip to support a totally false claim. Oh yeah, his show is "deep" alright.

    And somehow I knew you wouldn't be able to spend Olbermann's lies about the general or the video clip doctoring so instead you're going to attack me again, without a single shred of evidence, and try and attempt to change the subject, like you usually do, and then you're going to declare you didn't watch the show so you really can't comment on the lies and the video splicing tactics of your hero.

    Yeah, there's a reason I call Keith a fake and a fraud and also a very good reason why I just call you an arrogant, dumb, egotistical, a--hole.

    KAF, I posted some of my conservative (and liberal) positions just a day or two back in response to someone else who asked the question but knew how to show a little more respect than you do. Go back and search the archives and you will surely find that post....and quit wasting my time. There are actually some fairly intelligent conservatives on this site far more worthy of me wasting my time with.

    "Spin" not "spend". Although if spinning were dollars, God knows the Olbyloons would all be billionaires.

    Yet you continue with your apparent obsession with KAF. I realized a long time ago that was just another tactic of yours to get the heat off of Olbermann's lies.

    Come on Olbyloons--where are your excuses for Keith's lie regarding the generals and the selective video editing? You know damn well if anyone on Fox has pulled this you'd be having heart attacks over it. So where's the outrage tonight about Keith's blatant lie and his selective video splicing? The rules should be equal for everyone right?

    No the rules aren't the same for both sides. Remember, a frequent defense posted here on these very pages for Olbermann is that "the conservatives have Fox, Keith should be able to say whatever he wants, just so long as it's pro-lefty." That's why Keith will never dare criticize the left or invite anyone on from the right. He's too afraid of offending his rabid fan base like Mikey.

    Mike, I assume I am one those fairly (understated in my case) intelligent conservatives you mentioned. :)

    You are so impressed with me that you don't object too much that you're WASTING your time with me.

    Hey, don't hurt yourself being condesending.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    KAF spewed: "Yeah, there's a reason I call Keith a fake and a fraud and also a very good reason why I called you an arrogant, dumb, egostistical, a--hole".....

    You should know all about those vile little insults you stooped to once again. As the old saying goes "it takes one to know one".

    When nothing else works, pull out your little book of profanity and personal insults and fire away....a sure sign of a loser (an obsessed loser)!

    Oh that's right Mike, you don't ever engage in personal attacks do you???? Why you'd never question someone's politics based on absolutely nothing or accuse someone of not being a liberal. OH no, you'd never ever insult anyone would you? You're above all of that aren't you Mike? Funny, the archives of this site would reveal something very different. Hell, this thread would reveal something very different. I guess it's do as you say not as you do. That's just so. . . YOU Mike. But thanks for proving my point that you think it's okay to attack me but if anyone does the same to you, you cry like a baby.

    C'mon Janet, not you too!

    I was TRYING to have an on line conversation with you when this loser jumped in with both feet!

    Sorry for the characterization of 'fairly', I certainly don't believe that in your case. Please don't take every word literally.

    This is your on the spot reporter PUCK broadcasting from a field in Ohio.

    Along with my beautiful assistant Woman!!!!!!

    We've taped tonights Olby show onto a VCR tape and brought it out here with a old VCR player and a R.C.A. 32' Console color t.v. circa 1979 brought for $2 from Randy's Used tv's in Grove City

    Now to set things up. We have the tv and the vcr tied to a bike trailer along with a Honda generator.

    Oh I forgot, we also have around twenty sheep here with us in this field and they are around the tv looking at it.

    What we are going to attempt to do is play Olby's show and see if we can get the sheep to follow us around.

    Okay Woman, hit the play button!

    Oh! Oh! The sheep are getting nervous!

    Well let's if the sheep will follow Olby around.

    Oh! Oh! the sheep are turning around! The sheep are heading back to the pen!

    Wow! Olby can't even get sheep to follow him around.

    Even sheep know crappy t.v. when they see it!!!!

    So Mike watchs Olby, sheep don't.

    I guess that would be comparing Wool to Polyester?

    This is Puck broadcasting from a field in Ohio, back to you Johnny Dollar.

    KAF:

    No you 'libral' looser, I DON"T resort to profane personal attacks, except in a few much ealier cases of retaliation....and I admit that I should not have done it even then.

    Mike at 10pm: One one other thing I know, you are no freaking 'Liberal'! and "Oh no, that big bad 'libral' KAF has reared his obsessed and confused little head again....NOW I'm in reeel trouble! LOL!"

    No, Mike would NEVER insult anyone. EVER!

    House Democrats finish '100 hours' agenda by passing oil revenue bill
    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- House Democrats brought their "100-hour" legislative agenda to a successful close Thursday evening with passage of legislation designed to force oil and gas companies to pay more royalties on some offshore leases and end subsidies and tax deductions they have been receiving amid record prices for crude.

    The final vote on the bill -- the sixth of six items Democrats had vowed to pass in 100 hours of legislative action -- was 264 to 163, with 36 Republicans crossing the aisle to support the Democrat-sponsored bill.

    The House finished work on all six measures in about 42 hours of floor time, less than half the limit set on their self-imposed clock.

    The Democrats stood up to the oil companies. Something the GOP NEVER did .
    When you look at the lack of accomplishments of the Do NOthing GOP Congress over the course of 6 years, the six measures that were just passed ( in such a short time) , stands out even more.

    at 10:17 pm, "No you 'libral' looser"

    Why look, it's the self-righteous Mike once again claiming he doesn't hurl personal insults. And yet what do we see on this very thread?

    Puck continues to follow a failed administration and is too embarrassed to admit it, so instead, he's out in the pasture playing with sheep.
    Notice he included that he wants us to think he was with a woman.
    Like we don't know what you're really doing with those sheep, Puck.
    Love is in the air tonite , everyone !

    What do we see? Mike making an ass of himself. As usual.

    Wow, tonight tells me everything!

    I criticized O'Reilly's show while watching it minute by minute and boy did I bring out the anger response!

    And you know what, the only thing I really criticized is that he never touched on ANYTHING significant, and nobody has even refuted that point, but boy are some of them mad at me for saying anything negative about "Papa Bear"!!

    Et tu, Brute just doesn't quite fit the moment, Mike.

    I gave you a happy face along with a jab because you earned both. You really were on a monumental tear over a total irrelavancy.

    I know you are very emotional. But whenever any of us allow our emotions full unfettered rein we usually wind up in an uncomfortable place.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    I don't watch O'Reilly and I didn't watch him tonight. You keep insisting we're all O'Reilly/Fox fans even though several of us have stated we are not. I guess that's another belief of yours that you've declared as one of your "facts".

    Kinda like his idol, Olbermann.

    I did say 'profane' personal insults, something KAF has proven himself very adept at doing, and you won't find any thread in which I started an insult fest, try as you might to spin what I said (or did)!

    I did say 'profane' personal insults, something KAF has proven himself very adept at doing, and you won't find any thread in which I started an insult fest, try as you might to spin what I said (or did)!

    Brandon:

    I've never said or believed all the KO haters on this site were also O'Reilly fans, but some of them are!

    Mike, you've already lost this round. And you know it. You're just making yourself look like an even bigger loser than you already are. We all know who you are, why you're here, and what you're all about. We get it and we get it from your many, many, many posts at this board and the many hours of your life that you spend here defending Olbermann and trying to spin the discussions away from him, and his lies and splicing of video clips like he did tonight and onto what you deem more important subjects. I know you have issues, we all get that you have issues. But trying to portray yourself as a victim and me as your attacker isn't going to work. Remember, we know you far better than you think you know us.

    Jimmy Carter's energy policy didn't fail miserably enough in the late 1970's. Raging inflation, umemployment, double digit interest rates.

    Whoopee, we get to do it again.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Perhaps you should start putting modifiers in your statements when you use the global "you" in your posts Mike. Your statements would certainly seem to lead a reader to believe that you think we're all O'Reilly fans. You know we're not but yet you make those kinds of statements. You know it's not correct yet you say it anyway. That's an Olbermann-style trick at play if ever I saw one. Who says his show isn't educational? See, his loons are learning all the time how to frame statements that shade the truth.

    Shade the truth? How about flat-out lie. As in, Mike claiming he never insults or attacks anyone here with personal insults.

    KAF:

    C'mon son, where's the 'a--hole', or 'dumb', or 'egotistical' personal insults you resorted to while ago while were losing your unwinnable argument, or how about some of the worse pieces of profanity you threw my way the other day.

    Now here you are high fiving yourself as the 'winner' in this exchange. Pardon me if I don't take your word for that.

    The memo must be attack AI. Tucker Carlson was also calling it "mean" on his show today. Is that Dan Abrams new strategy-give Murdoch's shows free publicity? Nice strategy there Danny!

    Mike, you and others state over and over that OW fans are KO HATERS. There are very few public figures I hate. One was hanged a few weeks ago, one brutalizes North Korea, one has taken Khomeini's place in Iran etc.

    I am contemptuous of KO. I don't hate him.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Brandon:

    I brought up O'Reilly for one reason only. So many people on this site, not necessarily you, keep pointing to O'Reilly, and his ratings as if that somehow validated their argument against KO

    Johnny himself keeps suggesting that we watch "The Factor" instead of KO, as if there were some kind of valid comparison that could be made between the two.

    But Mike, we al know what YOUR word is worth. LOL. Just waiting to see how long it is before you decide you're not responding to me again. I give it somewhere around 11pm. Or sooner. That's what you usually do when someone backs you into a corner isn't it? Declare you will no longer respond to them, as if you're a royal personage of some kind. God, the arrogance on you and Olbermann are two for the record books. Oh, was that an insult? Should I send you a baby bottle and blankie you can cry into it like the baby you are?

    Look how Johnny Dollar described war hero George McGovern:
    "The topic stayed on Iraq as KO resuscitated George McGovern, the failed Democrat Presidential candidate."

    The fair minded Johnny Dollar :
    What a joke!

    George McGovern volunteered for the United States Army Air Forces during World War II and served as a B-24 Liberator bomber pilot in the Fifteenth Air Force, flying 35 missions over enemy territory from bases in North Africa and later Italy, often against heavy anti-aircraft artillery. McGovern was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for saving his crew by crash landing his damaged bomber on a small Mediterranean island. McGovern's wartime service is at the center of Stephen Ambrose's book The Wild Blue.

    On return from the war, McGovern eared a divinity degree from Garret Theological seminary in Chicago and briefly tried his hand as a Methodist minister. Dissatisfied, he earned a PhD in history from Northwestern University and became a professor at his alma mater, Dakota Wesleyan University.

    And this is before Mr. McGovern gave hope to millions by becoming a strong vocal critic of the US's military involvement in Vietnam at a time when it wasn't popular to speak out against the war.
    George McGovern has been a man of courage all of his life, yet Johnny Dollar minimizes all of it with his brief negative characterization.

    George McGovern: war hero

    George Bush : war zero

    Johnny Dollar:A freaking joke !

    DALLAS Jan 18, 2007 (AP)— A group of Methodist ministers from across the nation launched an online petition drive Thursday urging Southern Methodist University to stop trying to land George W. Bush's presidential library.

    The petition, on a new Web site, http://www.protectsmu.org, says that "as United Methodists, we believe that the linking of his presidency with a university bearing the Methodist name is utterly inappropriate."

    "Methodists have a long history of social conscience, so questions about the conduct of this president are very concerning," said one of the petition's organizers, the Rev. Andrew J. Weaver of New York, who graduated from SMU's Perkins School of Theology.

    OK janet:

    Lets take your post as an analogy to all the times that people like me get accused of being "Bush haters". I get SO tired of hearing that!

    I an also 'comtemptuous' of Bush, I don't think I hate the man personally, but man do I hate what he has done to my country!

    And as for you, as oppossed to KAF, I don't see where you devote that many of your posts on this site strictly to running down KO. You actually seem to like discussing the issues.

    Another thing that baffles me about people like KAF. He thinks we are not supposed to discuss issues like the war and President Bush, but those are the very things that KO spends a large portion of his time harping about. How in the hell are we supposed to evaluate KO wihout discussing the larger issues he is discussing?

    I get it, we're supposed to talk about his girl friend and his sex life!

    So where are the Olbyloons? Shouldn't they be sweeping in to explain away why Olbermann was caught lying and video splicing tonight? Answers anyone?

    Bob, brief and completely accurate, even though it could have been stated more strongly. He could be characterized as the largest presidential failed candidate in history.

    J$ did cut him some slack.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    KAF:

    Don't delude yourself. YOU are totally incapable of "backing me into a corner"! You might succeed in outlasting me through sheer persistance because it's obvious that arguing with you is a lot like arguing with a wall.

    'Liberal' my ass!

    Bob,
    Who cares! The Colts vs. Patriots that's what people are talking about!

    Olbermann is nothing more than a concentration camp guard wannabe.

    A monkey with a flamethrower would be more beneficial to mankind as well as more entertaining.

    Over at the Libby trial.....
    Q: Do you have feelings or opinions about the Bush Administration or any of its policies or actions, whether positive or negative, that might affect your ability to give a former member of the Bush Administration a fair trial?

    A: You mean, feelings like, it really pisses me off that they broke the law by wiretapping without FISA warrants, and then attacked the reporters who told us about it, and said Democrats were wussy traitors for opposing it, and now Gonzales is flip-flopping because Senate Democrats finally have subpoena power - you mean feelings like that?

    Q: Your honor?

    Judge: The juror is excused.

    Next prospective juror, please.

    Q: Do you have any feelings or opinions about Vice President Cheney, whether positive or negative, that might affect your ability to be fair in this case or that might affect your ability to fairly judge Vice President Cheney's believability?

    A: Lemme see. He said Saddam was in cahoots with Al Qaeda, which he wasn't, and that Iraq was behind 9/11, which it wasn't, and then he said he never said that, which he had, and then he said it again. He said we'd be welcomed as liberators, which we weren't, and that the war wouldn't cost us anything, which it did, and that Halliburton --

    The juror is excused.

    That's how most of America feels!
    Just think, the Olby haters at this site just love these guys !

    Way to prioritize, Red State.

    Oh, why not !

    COLTS !

    > Look how Johnny Dollar described war hero George McGovern:

    Really that was terrible, wasn't it? How would you like it if I said McGovern was delusional? Would that be even worse? You'll have to tell me why you are so upset at my description of McGovern offends you so, but Herr Olbermann can claim John McCain is delusional, and you voice no objections to it whatsoever?

    One of the key themes of this, the #1 Olbermann blog, is that we use against Keith and his parrots the same language he fires at others. In this case, I didn't even do that. I didn't call McGovern delusional, like Olby called McCain. If you find my description of McGovern to be so horrible, while Olbermann calls a war hero like McCain delusional, then you just might be an OlbyLoon.

    Bob, brief and completely accurate, even though it could have been stated more strongly. He could be characterized as the largest presidential failed candidate in history.

    J$ did cut him some slack.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Spoken like a true neo-nut!

    You ARE consistent, Grammie !

    This is getting tedious. I finally don't have to referee whining snilveling kids and get to play with the grownups and some nights all I get here is bigger boys in a pissing contest.

    Please stop! Grammie's head is starting to hurt.

    I have a novel idea. Lets wipe the slate clean and not use all inclusive terms UNLESS we mean them. Come on guys. Its not that hard.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    It goes without saying that some, like Bob, are open season 24/7. :)

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Great logic Johnny.

    McCain is for more death in iraq,and to follow a plan most people think will not work including the division commanders on he ground in Iraq and many of our generals.

    McGovern was for bringing the troops home in Vietnam, and now in Iraq. He'd rather see them live.

    Who's the more delusional one ?

    Janet:

    Which is worse; to "referee whining snilveling kids" of "bigger boys in a pissing contest", and who is who?

    I guess you can make the choice...to referee or not to referree, that is the question!

    I can't help myself.

    YOU ARE BOB.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    OK, the big boys always have a fond place in my heart.

    Now, if I could just think of an appropriate quote from Shakespeare.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Bob,
    I'm Red Wolf, Red State is someone else. Other that that I agree, go Colts!

    Peter King said Baghdad was just like Manhattan and now Ann Coulter screeches that it's just like LA. "Those Sunnis and Shias sure reminded me of the Crips and Bloods too."

    The right sure knows how to disseminate and extrapolate the key points in this war.

    Seriously, Mike I was referring to my sniveling kids. All of us sometimes go overboard including the world of what a few do.

    It was just my attempt to try and get us off that and onto less treacherous ground.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Mike, I raised two very good questions tonight about the way in which Olbermann chose to lie about one story and used editing to back-up a nonstory on tonight's show. Those were show-related topics. You chose to ignore them, insult me, and now are whining about the topics being discussed on Olberamnnwatch and how you think they should all be related to discussing politics because you insist on your belief that's all that Countdown is, convienently ignoring that it is Olbermann himself who trades in gossip on a nightly basis on his show. Gee, I'll stop gossiping about him when he stops gossiping about everyone else!

    Now I get that you only want to talk about politics and nothing else. We all get it. And I know that you bitterly resent any discussion or criticisim of Olbermann in any way, shape, or form. Yet you continue to claim you're not really an Olbermann fan. Yet you found your way to a site called Olbermannwatch. You've never really explained how that happened have you? You're being a little less than honest here about all of that aren't you Mike?

    I've asked this question before but I'll state it yet again, why is it that you think you can come here to a site called Olbermannwatch and dictate what is and isn't discussed? Did someone appoint you admin when I wasn't looking? You also seem to think that you can dictate the terms of how someone posts and what they say in their posts. You also seem to think that you're psychic and can ascertain the political beliefs and motives of a poster when I'm here to tell you that your career as a psychic is a nonstarter. Is your arrogance so great that you think we should come to a board and talk about anything BUT Keith Olbermann when the site is named Olbermannwatch? Or is it that you are so desperate to turn the discussion away from Keith Olbermann that you will try any tactic in the book you can possibly think of to get the heat off of your beloved KO? And for the record, I have participated in discussions regarding policy here more than once despite your lying that I haven't.

    Tonight I asked two very good questions about Olbermann's tactics on tonight's show. You flatly refused to address them. Instead, you resorted to what you usually do, change the subject as often as you possibly can, then attack the other posters here when that doesn't work. Then whine when anyone returns fire because you don't like their tone. You're nothing if not transparent and very predictable Mike.

    Mike and Bob, when is the civil union? Am I invited?

    I've asked this question before but I'll state it yet again, why is it that you think you can come here to a site called Olbermannwatch and dictate what is and isn't discussed?

    I'm not Mike, but I'll gladly answer this question.

    Because it's a free country and the "internets" permits it.

    Wanna start censoring what people post?

    It's funny that a right-winger admits al-Qaeda hates the left and would like us if we only were like the right.

    WASHINGTON - The prosecutor took a more aggressive stance and jury selection slowed so much in the
    CIA leak trial Thursday that the judge postponed opening statements until next Tuesday.


    Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald successfully objected to the way defense lawyers for former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby were questioning prospective jurors. The lawyers had been asking for their opinions of top Bush administration officials and whether the officials lied to push the nation into the
    Iraq war.

    "The jury will not be asked to render a verdict on the war or what they think of the war," Fitzgerald said.

    Fitzgerald also changed his own questioning to put Libby's attorneys, Theodore Wells and William Jeffress, more on the defensive.

    The slow pace elicited a rare display of legal humor when the judge and prosecutors returned before the defense from an afternoon break. Noticing his opponents' absence, Fitzgerald stepped to the podium and joked, "This may go faster, judge."

    Will Olbermann report this disturbing development:

    U.S. official: Chinese test missile obliterates satellite
    http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/01/18/china.missile/index.html

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- China last week successfully used a missile to destroy an orbiting satellite, U.S. government officials told CNN on Thursday, in a test that could undermine relations with the West and pose a threat to satellites important to the U.S. military.

    According to a spokesman for the National Security Council, the ground-based, medium-range ballistic missile knocked an old Chinese weather satellite from its orbit about 537 miles above Earth. The missile carried a "kill vehicle" and destroyed the satellite by ramming it.

    The test took place on January 11. (Watch why the U.S. has protested the missile strike )

    Aviation Week and Space Technology first reported the test: "Details emerging from space sources indicate that the Chinese Feng Yun 1C (FY-1C) polar orbit weather satellite launched in 1999 was attacked by an asat (anti-satellite) system launched from or near the Xichang Space Center."

    A U.S. official, who would not agree to be identified, said the event was the first successful test of the missile after three failures.

    The official said that U.S. "space tracking sensors" confirmed that the satellite is no longer in orbit and that the collision produced "hundreds of pieces of debris," that also are being tracked.

    The United States logged a formal diplomatic protest.

    "We are aware of it and we are concerned, and we made it known," said White House spokesman Tony Snow.

    Several U.S. allies, including Canada and Australia, have also registered protests, and the Japanese government said it was worrisome.

    "Naturally, we are concerned about it from the viewpoint of security as well as peaceful use of space," said Yashuhisa Shiozaki, chief cabinet secretary. He said Japan has asked the Chinese government for an explanation.

    The United States has been able to bring down satellites with missiles since the mid-1980s, according to a history of ASAT programs posted on the Union of Concerned Scientists Web site. In its own test, the U.S. military knocked a satellite out of orbit in 1985.

    Under a space policy authorized by President Bush in August, the United States asserts a right to "freedom of action in space" and says it will "deter others from either impeding those rights or developing capabilities intended to do so."

    The policy includes the right to "deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests."

    Low Earth-orbit satellites have become indispensable for U.S. military communications, GPS navigation for smart bombs and troops, and for real-time surveillance. The Chinese test highlights the satellites' vulnerability.

    "If we, for instance, got into a conflict over Taiwan, one of the first things they'd probably do would be to shoot down all of our lower Earth-orbit spy satellites, putting out our eyes," said John Pike of globalsecurity.org, a Web site that compiles information on worldwide security issues.

    "The thing that is surprising and disturbing is that [the Chinese] have chosen this moment to demonstrate a military capability that can only be aimed at the United States," he said.

    KAF, I love your definition of 'whine'...funny!

    You think I believe I "can dictate what is and isn't discussed". Wierd...you just don't listen (or read) very well, do you?

    Now for the correction; I clearly stated that I (meaning me) will discuss what I (again, meaning me) choose to discuss. Nowhere in my statements will you find that I am trying to dictate what others choose to discuss.

    You are free to discuss whatever you want, and I am free to lampoon you if I choose to do so. That established, I am also free to call attention to your ridiculous obsession with one human male who happens to be on TV, IF I choose to do so. You meanwhile, can continue to make a fool of yourself by dissecting every word out of the mouth of this particular human male, while exclaiming "but I am a liberal" as if to say 'but many of us liberals hate him too!'.

    You, on the other hand, are the one trying to dictate what I (meaning ME again) choose to discuss, and how I go about doing that.

    How did I stumble on this site: Now, thats not really any of your business, is it, nor is it relevant.

    Is anyone concerned of the Chinese threat.
    We have 2 Threats Islam and China!

    Will Olbermann report this disturbing development:

    U.S. official: Chinese test missile obliterates satellite

    Olby should be totally honest and just say:China OWNS the USA. Bush's hands are tied !

    If we're not real nice to the Chinese, they just may collect on all the monoey the USA owns them.

    Thank you Mr. Bush !

    Is anyone concerned of the Chinese threat.
    We have 2 Threats Islam and China!

    We totally lost the Iraq war and see above post on why we can't touch China.

    The legacy of George W. Bush lives on !

    Mike,
    Do you think Olbermann will discuss the new Chinese Military capability? Or will he bury it?

    I agree Red Wolf.

    China is a much bigger potential threat to our future security than Iran, Iraq, or any other Islamic threat.

    Redwolf,
    Is Bush worried about China? He doesn't seem to be.

    Actually Clinton gave China Military technology, that has enabled them to catch up. That being said, Bush has and can't do anything about China. As for Iraq, I agree. He should've demolished that place along with Syria and Iran. Then we should've just left and let them kill each other! That's why I say no more Bush's or Clintons please!

    The Chinese Connection

    Here's what I think will happen if and when China changes its currency policy, and those cheap loans are no longer available. U.S. interest rates will rise; the housing bubble will probably burst; construction employment and consumer spending will both fall; falling home prices may lead to a wave of bankruptcies. And we'll suddenly wonder why anyone thought financing the budget deficit was easy.

    In other words, we've developed an addiction to Chinese dollar purchases, and will suffer painful withdrawal symptoms when they come to an end.

    We ain't doing anything about China's militarism anytime soon.

    Thank you Mr. Bush.

    Redwolf,
    If you think we should leave and let them kill each other why do you support sending more troops?

    Colbert,
    Why does everthing have to be Bush in your mind? If he's not worried that's his problem. I am. China even more so than Islam is a mortal danger to America. Bush is blind because of his corporate buddies, to China'a intentions. Honestly I hope China becomes the dominant power. They'll crush the Muslims better than we can! They don't have Olbermann or the NY Times!

    The smartest post of the night at 11:47 above...by an anon no less!

    Colbert,
    You obviously haven't read what I said. I said send 50,000 troops to crush them. If not then leave. Of course you don't read the whole context. Since all you think about is Bush and us evil Christians!

    Anonymous and Colbert,
    It began under Clinton. Both Clinton ans Bush have sold this country to the Chicoms. Of course since your so one minded, you can't balme both. I do. I blame Clinton and Bush! At least I see both angles. Your one dimensional.

    You know what's sad. Rather vtahn worry about China's military builup all you Lefties do is blame Bush! China has been building up it's military for 12 years now! Under both Clinton and Bush. But instead of worrying about an adversary, you guys just like Olbermann will blame Bush! Never mind China's regime has had this planned before Bush. Hey if China does decide to strile when Hillary is President, will you guys blame here? Probably not. The Left led by Olbermann will rally around the flag when one of their own is President. Your hypocrisy shows!

    And we continue to sell ourselves to China...every timer we buy another cheap plastic thingee we don't need at Wal Mart, and as long as we continue to run a huge deficits in the budget.

    Thanks for bringing this up, although it may be too late to do anything about it!

    Redwolf,
    Why is everything about Bush? The president of the country is a fairly powerful guy. He controls foreign policy for the most part. And he's proven he doesn't care what the Congress or American people think. He's going to do what he wants to do. There is no other president to handle China or anyplace else. If Bush ignores China, China gets ignored.

    this is a bizarre website... it's hilarious that Keith nettles you guys so much.... why not just stay with Fox-Republican if you don't like hearing the other side... although I'd bet on demographics, Jon Stewart has the college age crowd, Keith is next, and the O'reilly/Gibson/Hackity group appeals to the over-60 folks.... why not spend your ample free time trying to explain how the Iraq war is NOT a disaster and the decision to go in there was NOT a huge, entirely predictable blunder (actually even predicted, including by every single moderate Muslim ally the US has.....) we are now regarded with contempt by almost the entire world and you guys are pissed at Keith? if it werent so sad, it would be laughable

    Colbert,
    China's war palns is their government's idea. They are to balme not our government. I bet if a Dem was President, you'd be singing a different tune.

    Mike,
    Us buying goods from China was going on when Clinton was President. In fact he waivered rules to give them access to our markets. He hdeserves some of the blame. But I don't blame him or Bush. They're a Fascist regime bent on Gloabl Domination. Like Hitlers. Our best goal would be to instigate a Chinese-Islamic world. Let China crush Islam and deal with the resulting insurgencies. Of course neither the Dems or Reps think outside the box, so that'll never happened.
    Can you guys for once stop balming eveything on Bush. The China threat is beyond anything America can do anyway!

    Red Wolf:

    The only defense I will do of Clinton is that he did leave Bush a balanced budget, and just look at it now! Someday soon, we're all going to realize just how important this is.

    Everyone this is Mike, Colbert, Bob and anonymous:
    Bush
    Bush
    Bush
    Bush.
    The world doesn't revolve around the man. He's doesn't have magical powers! If you guys think he does, go smoke some weed and relax. That's what Im about to do. Goodnight guys, I know I won't miss anything!
    It'll just be the Olbyloons saying:
    Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush!
    I wish Bush would disappear so these Lefties can talk about something else other than their collective BDS(Bush Derangement Syndrome).
    It's worst than those on the Right in the 90's that talked about: Clinton, Clinton, Clinton.
    I can't stand Bush or Clinton they make me sick!
    Good night and Olbyfans get more original, Bush doesn't control everything, Paranoia isn't good for you guys!

    Red Wolf says: "I can't stand Bush or Clinton, they make me sick".

    See, your doing it too!

    Olbermann is great man! His genious will out live him. His show beats orally 5 to 1! He single handidly won this election for the Democrats. I say make Olbermann our dictator!

    True story on Olbermann,
    a couple of years ago I was walking around Midtown, There was bum there. Olbermann came out and felt bad for hime. I then saw him buy the man new clothes! I was impressed and have been a follower of him since!
    I also heard stories about Olbermann going to visit disable Children in hospitals and buying turkies for poor families for Thanksgiving!
    I don't know why there's a sight that hates him. He's a king loving human that protects us!

    Olbermann is a great man. he stands up for the oppressed masses of America!

    Clinton's presidency was funded by China. His Liebrary was funded by Chinese spies. He gave missile technology to China but Colbert is complaining about Bush. That sounds logical.

    Olbermann is a true hero! He doctors a tape so he can lie about American Idol. He edits the press secretary to leave out news he doesn't want people to know about. He is truthier than any other demagogue on A-Mess-NBC!

    That's a lie. Clinton is innocent, Bush is to blame!

    I see that 'Factor' posted to me at 9:53 PM, saying...."I called you a 'socialist' because you are one"....

    Actually, you called MSNBC 'socialist' for daring to question whether an Army weapons system actually works or not, as if doing that could possibly have anything whatsoever to do with 'socialism'.

    Since you then went on to call me a 'socialist' in response, instead of address the question I asked you, what do you know about me, or 'socialism', for that matter?

    It is incredibly funny how you keep quoting "The Factor" as your source in so many of your posts. You've just GOT to realize just how silly that sounds to anyone with a brain?

    The hatred of Bush goes back to "Bush stole the election" because a group of elderly people in West Palm Beach couldn't read the ballot properly and voted for Buchanon instead of Gore. Then Katherine Harris called a halt to the recount at the appointed hour and the Supreme Court didn't make Al Gore President; they voted for Bush. Then he pushed for a war that was supported by nearly everyone based upon evidence that Saddam was an imminent threat. Then when the Third Infantry Division was delayed in getting to Baghdad because Turkey would not cooperate, the Sunni Triangle did not have those troops to help quell the violence that was caused by Bush. Then, Bush was such a moron that he had to rig the Ohio election so that he could get re-elected. He also somehow communicated with Osama to get a message out just in time to scare people before the election. Bush was responsible for the bombing of the mosque which led to the sectarian violence in play today, not insurgents. If Saddam were there, his strong fisted handling of the Shiites would mean that only the people HE chose to gas, maime, torture, rape, initimdate would have suffered. Everyone was free to go about getting their higher education degrees, at least the ones who weren't half-starved from the lack of oil for food funds stolen from them. But, hey, maybe if a family had a good looking daughter, Saddams' son could be appeased. Saddam was satisfied with the results of the war with Iran and Gulf I and didn't feel a need to further plans for nuclear weapons. He was such a benevolent dictator that the terrorists feared setting foot in his country. He would never look the other way at training camps.

    Yeah, right. Bush made several mistakes during the war, no question. There are people who just hate Bush with a vengence that I don't see applied to the terrorists, insurgents. Some want him to end up with a completely failed presidency.

    And Olbermann is one of those haters who will continue to distort the news, not just concerning Bush, but anyone who doesn't fall into line with him.

    I saw the O'Reilly segment about the Missouri kidnappings and agree that he crossed the line. He strongly suggested that the victim was not really a victim because he had ear piercings and got to stay home and play video games. O'Reilly needs to go back and review that segment and make a statement. He has done so much to expose the weak criminal system regarding child molesters and did damage to his crusade by his insensitive comments.

    I am done now.

    Sharon on Bush: "Some want him to end up with a completely failed presidency"....

    Sharon, Bush ALREADY has a "completely failed presidency". What some of us are hoping is that he doesn't turn his "completely failed presidency" into a conpletely failed nation.

    THAT is what we are worried about!

    Sharon, you speak for me too.

    I hope you're not done now, just checking out till the next chance you get to join us. You have too much to contribute.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Mike,

    You seem like a decent guy and you may be worried about the nation but not all are. They just hate Bush. I don't remember the exact polling numbers but I thought before the speech, the support for a surge was like 12% It's now around 30? I would have to do some research but I know that the numbers have gone up (not enough to claim any sort of victory, but certainly some people were moved).

    I believe in the American spirit. I believe our troops (in general) have a never say uncle attitude. Last year I watched "Blackhawk Down" which according to those who were there, was very well done. A small group of men did amazing things and I wouldn't call their actions a defeat. They wanted to go back and finish the job but were denied. That is how I view our military.

    Somewhere along the way, I read that of all industrialized countries, the U.S. has the highest percentage of the populace who don't believe in evolution. It was presented in a "shocking" way. I think that our strong belief in God is what makes our country so different, a place to where people flock. The strength people showed after 9/11 was inspirational. I want our country to get that back.

    Grammie, my lack of sleep is really getting me down. I could go to safe "Mommy" sites and I do but I really like to visit here. I learn so much. I am just amazed that my 2 year old is now potty trained; if I can just get her to sleep. When she is old enough, I'll have her post. We are constant companions. Rock on, Janet!

    "I saw the O'Reilly segment about the Missouri kidnappings and agree that he crossed the line. He strongly suggested that the victim was not really a victim because he had ear piercings and got to stay home and play video games. O'Reilly needs to go back and review that segment and make a statement. He has done so much to expose the weak criminal system regarding child molesters and did damage to his crusade by his insensitive comments."

    While I disagree with his methods, sharon, I do agree with most of what you are saying. I think it's time for Bill O to do some "walking back" of his comments.

    O'Reilly does have a big ego, a fault to which he admits. Even tonight, he had to make the harsh feedback he received his top story. He wanted someone to back him up but didn't even get support from Bernie (and I can't remember his last name) who usually sides with him. (wrote the book about 100 people who screwed up the country or something). His methods may be obnoxious but he really has done so much with promoting Jessica's Law and putting pressure on Vermonters to get a spine.


    Breaking : al-Sadr's Media Chief Nabbed by Coalition

    Sheik Abdul-Hadi al-Darraji, one of Muqtada al-Sadr's "top aides," just got nabbed by the coalition.

    Looks like Uncle Maliki stopped protecting Mookie's boys.

    Stay tuned.

    courtesy of Mypetjawa. Will you see this on Olbermann?

    Sharon, just checked Fox News. Iraqi forces with some US advisors captured him and detained several others in a raid in a mosque that involved gunfire and damaged some walls in the mosque.

    Fox says two Iraqis, who refused to be identified, claimed that he is the head of some torture and execution squads that have been operating in Bagdad.

    Thanks for the heads up. This is the second time I just checked to see what was going on before going to bed. I'll sleep well tonight. While not earth shaking, this is hopeful news if the Iraqi's keep it up.

    I love blackjack and poker, but putting money on KO to do the right thing is too risky for my taste.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    "His methods may be obnoxious but he really has done so much with promoting Jessica's Law and putting pressure on Vermonters to get a spine."

    I'm not a fan of Jessica's Law simply because "mandatory minimums" are not very effective - any time you try to apply a uniform set of guidelines to crimes that are markedly not uniform will result in dysfunctional results. Also, mandatory minimums make it less likely that a defendant will take a plea bargain. This will create a "backlog" of cases (as it is, 98% of cases are pled out and the system is straining to shoulder the load).

    That being said, I do think Vermont has gotten much tougher on sex crimes - "presumptive minimums" (which require a judge to place his reasoning for not following the guidelines on the record), increased community notifications, and better implementation of the sex offender registry were all part of the last round of legislation passed by the Vermont legislature.

    Not All Sex Offenders are Pedophiles!

    In the spirit of common sense, people should just ignore all the anonymous posts!

    Memo to Olbermann (henceforth to be known as "douchebag")

    If you don't like "24" or "American Idol"...don't watch
    Afterall, I don't watch your trainwreck of a show....

    Krazy Keith is addicted to Fox
    Every night it's the topic he talks
    Those highly-rated shows
    Proves how bad Countdown blows
    I'd sell GE and buy News Corp stocks

    "Not All Sex Offenders are Pedophiles!" so says the sleazy nutjob O'liellly. you speaking from experience O'lielly- I know you like boys you sick f---.

    Simply stated, keith olbermann is a angry Rumpelstiltskin wannabe who, after almost 4 years of competing against The O'Reilly Factor, barely ever hits even SECOND place in his time slot let alone anywhere near O'Reilly.

    The O'Reilly Factor almost always triples olbermann's ratings and often quadruples them. O'Reilly is the single highest rated cable news show. Olbermann isn't even in the top 15. Nor, for that matter, is Chris Mouthews, who can't stop talking long enough for anyone else to say anything.

    Funny how the Republicans in congress work: Yesterday, they started a filibuster on a bill that they claimed was just like one that they'd proposed years ago...

    Fascinating that this Republican "filibuster" isn't mentioned in the news today.

    When partisan BS replaces facts, this is what you get.

    KK- You mean you value only those people that speak what you feel. Olbermann is pandering to you liberal whackiness and you don't even see it. He is fringe as demonstrated by his ratings. By fringe I mean the kind of fringe that can't beat "deal or no deal' reruns. He will always be fringe too because he ahs no credibility when he snips together clips to make fake news that make seals like you clap.

    KeithO belts out-
    "Fox News is bad. Bush is evil."
    Hear the KK Seal-
    "Arrrr-Arrrr-Arrrr"

    KK,
    I disagree with you. There will never be a good war again. If we were to fight North Korea, China will intervene and defeat us! China/N.Korea will win because their Leftist allies will stage protests, The media will decry our aggression and demoralize the public. China's war plans is to inflict enough casualties that America will cry uncle. They're right! The Left will undermine our war effort after 2 week war where we suffer heavy losses in Korea and Taiwan, we will ask for a cease fire.
    America, thanks to Leftist demoralization is done as a world power and will never again fight a war. Instead America will pay it's enemies off through appeasement.

    Right on Kurt. We don't care that Clinton was an admitted draft dodger. We will assume that W. shirked his responsibility and call it a complete lack of meaningful sacrifice. We are able to judge what is meaningful and what isn't. See we are bat shit crazy and we actually think that Olbermann furthers intellectual discussion. We ignore the fact that Olbermann doesn't allow descent and therefore does not allow himself to think or view things from another perspective. Instead we say that he is a maverick because he doesn't repeat the administration's line. I have no idea that O'Reilly doesn't do that either, but I have been told by my fellow loons that O'Reilly is nothing more than a Bush mouthpiece so I will repeat that. We are morons. We have no facts, just inuendo and like flies to a turd we are attracted to media personalities who act like a wise ass. We mistake this for intelligence.

    Fawning over a "voice in the wilderness" while sneeringly disdaining the president makes for great theater. Not for great thought, no matter how long your post is.

    Are you aware what happened to Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos AFTER we did what McGovern was so influential in pushing and left the area? Do you have any idea how many millions died and/or were displaced BECAUSE we did so?

    "herein lies the true value of a media personaility like Mr. Olbermann: The fact that he is not beholden to politicians means he can give us fodder for our serious ingestion and digestion."

    Olbermann is beholden to Democratic politicians. He speaks with Hillary and constantly praises her. He also repeats Democratic talking point. He's a spokemen for the Left.

    The above post was me.

    Ken,

    Why act like a moron? It would've taken a few seconds to look up the facts, son...

    "The WP gives the most detail of the behind-the-scenes action, which could have some interesting repercussions. The ethics bill almost didn't go to vote yesterday because Republicans threatened to filibuster it if an amendment that would give the president a sort of line-item veto authority wasn't included..."

    http://www.slate.com/id/2157920/?nav=fix

    There are many other articles on it. Try Google News and type in "filibuster"...

    You're welcome!

    "That even 30% of Americans still buy into the fallacy and still support the foibles and the folly is shameful."

    Damn those free-thinkers! Liberals know better for you than you know for yourself.

    KK,

    George McGovern is a complete knucklehead. I voted for him, too, and now regret that vote. The only thing I like about him any more is that he dropped bombs on German civilians in World War II. No doubt he personally killed hundreds of them.

    McGovern's disease is the liberal disease. It's called "decadence". People like McGovern no longer believe in anything larger than themselves, no grand idea, no God. Their world view becomes a reflection of their own personal pathologies. McGovern, the former theology major, now hates Christians, conservatives, and Republicans and wants those people to fail at whatever they are doing. The result for McGovern and others like him is that they are Infidels who are not even on the side of the Infidels. They want Bush to loose the War On Terror more than they want their own side to win. I use the term "suicidal leftist dingbats".

    According to the Left, when they're in the Minority, they're allowed to Filibuster. But when the Republicans are they're not allowed. Wow what Stalinist tendency the Left has! What's next, when Chairwomen Hillary is in power Gulags?

    I just want to go on record and call MSNBC a bunch of pussies! After attacking FoxNews for months trying to get a reaction to help their pitiful ratings, FoxNews finally responded with a deserving punch (although they should have known it was the objective of those pussies at NBC). Now all the news is covering the FoxNews response like it is isolated. Like MSNBC did not start the fight.

    And then Carpus gets to throw this bullshit out for the loons to clap at. QUOTE: "I think it's really kind of sad and pathetic, some of the things that he's (OReilley) been lobbing at us these days," Capus told reporters Wednesday. "I don't quite understand it. I assume it's because Keith Olbermann has had such tremendous growth and there's real momentum behind Keith's broadcast."

    MIssion acomplished pussies. Your still the underachieving red headed step child of Fox News. But now people are noticing you. A distant thrid place to a not so distant third place. And the leftie seals clap.

    If you're going to insult me, it will probably work better if you don't change your facts to do it.

    Your comment, the one I reacted to, was that Republicans "started a filibuster". The last time I checked, that would mean it is now in progress.

    You didn't like my pointing out that it was untrue, because it made you look ridiculous. So you engaged in some childish name-calling and condescendingly referred to me as "son".

    But there's still this little matter of my being right in what I said. So you changed your wording to "Republicans threatened to filibuster"
    instead of that they actually started one. And the funniest part is that you might think no one else would notice.

    Thank you for the laugh.

    Ken Berwitz,
    Democrats are allowed to filibuster not Republicans.

    Kenny Boy,

    Don't be embarassed, just admit that you were wrong. They started a filibuster but aborted it after negotiating. You don't start a filibuster on the floor. You plan it with others of your party or it will never succeed.

    Learn more about how our government works. I'll continue to educate you when it is necessary...

    Red Wolf,
    Youo might want to take your own advise and look up filibuster. Where do you filibuster at, in front of the White House? Of course you do it on the floor. Damn are you people on the left really this stupid? Ya you are!

    Red Wolf,

    The point is that the Republicans threatened filibuster of a bill that they claim is IDENTICAL to one that they already proposed. Sorry my point was a little over your head...

    Red wolf on the left ?...ha ha ha ha ha ha

    It's nice to know George McGovern was interviewed by Keith Olbermann last night.....

    Did Olbermann ask him about his quote in NEWSWEEK in 1975 regarding the millions of South Vietnamese refugees abandoned to the tyranny of the leftists from the North...

    "I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam,"

    Professor Honeydew (Bob) loves McGovern so much even though he is largely responsible for the flourishing of the neoconservative movement after his pathetic 1972 Presidential run! WHAT IRONY! The professor, like all radical leftists, HATE neocons....yet forget why these once great dems left the party in the first place....the radicalization of the Democrat Party through the 60's, McGovern's defeat touting the extreme left's ideology, culminating in the defeat in Vietnam.

    I like what Bill Kauffman said about the political influence of McGovern,

    "Even now, 30 and three years after Sen. George McGovern of Mitchell, South Dakota was buried by Richard M. Nixon under an electoral-vote landslide of 520-17-1 (Virginia elector Roger MacBride, heir to the Little House on the Prairie goldmine, bolted Nixon for Libertarian John Hospers), 'McGovernism' remains Beltway shorthand for a parodistic liberalism that is, at once, ineffectual, licentious, and wooly-headed. It stands for 'acid, amnesty, and abortion,' as the Humphrey-Jackson Democrats put it."

    The Democrats see an opportunity here to retrieve many who bolted their party because of radicals like Mr. McGovern. This is why they will not fulfill their promise to stop The Iraq War....and leave the leftist radicals, like the professor, out in the cold.

    It's rather amusing, yet sad, to watch!

    cee
    "I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

    McGovern, the former theology major, now hates Christians, conservatives, and Republicans and wants those people to fail at whatever they are doing. The result for McGovern and others like him is that they are Infidels who are not even on the side of the Infidels. They want Bush to loose the War On Terror more than they want their own side to win. I use the term "suicidal leftist dingbats".

    Posted by: Rico at January 19, 2007 9:48 AM
    .
    So McGovern hates Christians, conservatives and republicans?
    Really!
    And you know this because.....
    Rico is an idiot.
    He has no concept of history or reality.
    George McGovern is an honorable man, always has been.

    "George McGovern is an honorable man, always has been."

    Professor Honeydew, Mr. McGovern is a typical secularist who has no honor, no depth of character and no morality....like you!

    I'll requote The Senator for the 5th time....

    "I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam,"

    And on to another, more important issue that the professor (Bob) will want to ignore....

    FROM AP...

    Casey: 'Surge' Could Go Home by Summer

    TALLIL AIR BASE, Iraq (AP) - Gen. George Casey, the top American commander in Iraq, said Friday that some of the extra troops that President Bush ordered to Baghdad could begin leaving by late summer if conditions allow. "I think it's probably going to be the summer, late summer, before you get to the point where people in Baghdad feel safe in their neighborhoods," Casey told reporters at a news conference with visiting Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

    Asked how long the 21,500 extra U.S. troops are likely to be kept in Iraq, Casey replied, "I believe the projections are, late summer."

    Gates' visit here - his second since replacing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld last month - was not announced in advance. It comes as the Bush administration begins a new phase in the war including a troop buildup that has encountered widespread opposition in Congress, a reshuffling of Mideast commanders and diplomats, and intensified military pressure on Iran.

    Gates immediately went into talks with U.S. commanders and their allied counterparts amid the burgeoning war policy debate in the United States.

    The first group of extra troops - a brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division - has just arrived in Baghdad, and Gates said it was too early to predict how Bush's plan for quelling the sectarian violence in the capital will work. Four other brigades are to be sent to Iraq between now and May, assuming the Iraqis follow through on their commitment to bring three additional Iraqi army brigades into Baghdad and to allow raids against all illegal militias.

    Asked how the Iraqi government was doing to meet its commitments, Casey said, "So far, so good."

    Casey stressed that it was too early to say with confidence how long the U.S. military will have to maintain a higher troop level in Baghdad and western Anbar province. But he sounded an optimistic note.

    "You're going to see some progress gradually over the next 60 to 90 days," he said.

    Casey is being replaced soon by Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, although the timing is uncertain. Casey has been nominated to become the next chief of staff of the Army, but he has not yet been confirmed in that job by the Senate.


    ###
    I am sure this story will be ignored by Olbermann as well!

    cee
    "I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

    I was away from my desk and just saw the response from ____________________ (he/she apparently doesn't want to attach a name to his comments. I can't say I would want to either).

    When you start something you have put it into existence. When you threaten something you have NOT put it into existence.

    If sarcasm and condescension won arguments, you'd put the Harvard forensics club to shame. Too bad most people rely on facts and reality.

    Have a nice day.

    History will treat George McGovern much more kindly than George Bush.
    You can bet on that, Cee.

    "The professor, like all radical leftists, HATE neocons"

    With the Neo-cons responsible for this murderous war in Iraq, and our out of control debt, there is not a single thing to like about the neo-nuts.

    Cee needs to see the movie "Why We Fight".
    I saw it when it first came out in 2006. It's now showing on Starz.
    The documentary starts with Eisenhower's warning about the military industrial complex and then examines how it has affected every president from then on.
    It proves emphatically that we don't fight our wars ( except WWII) for freedom or like the naive Cee thinks, for honor.
    It shows how the weapons industry controls our politicians and foreign policy is not only affected by them but virtually written by them.
    It carefully details how in 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed,Dick Cheney had Paul Wolfowitz draw up a plan for a new world order. They felt that the USA should be the only superpower in the world and that the USA was the new ROME.
    On 9/11/01 , they finally had their opportunity and excuse to put their plan in effect.
    ( This was introduced by a former CIA agent from the 70-90's who had a front row seat for this diabolical scheme.)
    The movie very carefully and methodically shows how the Bush Administration conned and deceived the American public into this War in Iraq.
    Feeding the military industrial complex and the weapons systems companies that control this country, has never been more evident with any president as with the current one.
    The title of this movie came from a series of films in the 40's by that same name,produced by Frank Capra.
    They were propaganda films for the purpose of stirring up war fever.

    Cee's views of history are askewed to say the least.
    It appears that he had some right wing nut as as teacher and no matter what reality tells him, Cee continues to believe the lies of the right.
    Also , Cee, it doesn't appear that you are capable of learning. Your mind is as closed as a steel trap.

    Do yourself a favor and see this movie. It uses politicians from both parties, CIA agents,the weapons industries grunts and heads, the American people etc. and is an extremely detailed and intelligently done movie.
    This movie will change any American who sees this documentary.
    You will learn the REAL reasons WHY WE FIGHT.
    And if you do see this movie , you will feel embarrassed of many of the points you have made on this site, Cee.
    Guaranteed.

    Actually, I was wrong. I understand now that projects are considered "started" in their planning stages. I also understand why you don't put a name next to your remarks.

    Sorry I was so stupid.

    Bob- See "Supersize Me". Its running on a loop on MSNBC and will change the way you see Fat Man Olbermann.

    Folks, the comment just posted that:

    Actually, I was wrong. I understand now that projects are considered "started" in their planning stages. I also understand why you don't put a name next to your remarks.

    Sorry I was so stupid.

    Was not posted by me. That was someone else using my name, most probably the one who posted his erroneous comment in the first place and then lied by changing it after being caught.

    Can these people actually believe they make points by lying in a chatroom - first about facts and then about who they are?

    This is pitiful

    Oh- And don't forget to see "Farneheit 911" That is a great unbiased movie about the terrorist threats that really don't exist.

    "I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden.

    Cee continues to push this one quote by one person.
    All it does is expose how Cee is the most disingenuous person posting at this site.
    Cee has stated he feels this war should go on, even though there is only the smallest chance of succeeding, even though it will cause our casualty rates to further increase.
    He DOES NOT think funding should be cut. That is obvious. Yet he continues to croak that very sentiment each and every day.
    That is the prototypical example of a disingenuous person.
    Cee never spoke of the cowardice of the GOP Congress the past 6 years in holding this president accountable for his failures and for not investigating war profiteering> ( there is no debate over whether this is ocurring)
    Yet he taunts the present COngress to hurry up and "do something"..cut the funds"
    There has never been a more disingenuous, hypocritical poster at this site...and a prime example of the failed views of the far right in this country.

    Bob,
    If the US was planning a global domination plot wouldn't Leftist organizations in America be eliminated? Wouldn't the US Military have to build up to at leasr 20 Million men. Stop beliveing propaganda done by groups funded by Soros, China and Iran!

    Pure opinion from the left... "only the smallest chance of succeeding"

    Oh- And don't forget to see "Farneheit 911"

    Farenheit 911 exposed the Bush family economic ties to the Bin Laden family that is well documented and not debatable.

    You probably didn't even see the movie, idiot.

    Bob,
    How about seeing a documentary of the Islamo-Fascist movement? Of course you'll sympathize with Hizballah, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, The Muslim Brotherhood and the Iranian Ayatollah.

    Pure opinion from the left... "only the smallest chance of succeeding"

    are you just stupid?
    The list of people who don't think this escalation will work includes:
    Division commanders on the ground in Iraq,
    many of our generals,
    Most of our former generals( they can speak freely)
    Congressmen from both parties, and 80% of the American people.
    You really need to learn some facts and get your head out of your ass.

    "Pure opinion from the left"
    What a total moron !

    Kenny Boy,

    Of course the comment was by me, you imbecile, that was my point. I used to post under a name but one of you neocons couldn't handle debate so she started posting under my name until I just quit using it. Now, each post has to be taken as a single entity. If you girls debated fairly, it wouldn't have been an issue.

    In response to the idiot caller:

    Its sad that you would even speculate both aspects. Is that you Michael Moore? No wonder you like Olbermann too. Loser!

    "Gen. George Casey, the top American commander in Iraq, said Friday that some of the extra troops that President Bush ordered to Baghdad could begin leaving by late summer if conditions allow."

    Cee, the key words in that article are "if conditions allow". So MAYBE they'd be home by summer, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it. So much of this plan relies upon the Iraqi army (which is riddled with militias) and the shaky Iraqi government.

    I know most of the imposter posters on the right never like to learn anything, but I challenge you to see the documentary WHY WE FIGHT.
    Most of the commentary in this movie is from military and CIA personel.
    Obviously not a left wing movie.

    Bob- read about the MAKERS of the movie. You might learn something. I saw the movie AND then did the research and found that the makers went out with the intended result. Kind of like how Michael Moore makes movies. BUT I admit, it had some great parts.

    I saw the movie AND then did the research and found that the makers went out with the intended result.

    I agree. They used that flaming liberal Dwight D. Eisenhower as the model and then proved his points how we should be wary of the military industrial complex and how they control our foreign policy.

    I apologize to the room for showing up this person, who was wrong about the filibuster, then lied by changing what he said, then used MY name to pretend I said something I didn't say.

    I obviously encouraged him/her to continue with the mindless, factless, classless insults and ignorance. I won't do it again.

    Sorry

    The maker of WHY WE FIGHT is a frenchie who had just finished directing a movie about Henry Kissinger's crimes (not a great guy). But he is an admitted LIBERAL, not Democrat, admitted Liberal. Who is very anti war, and in essence has been anti US in many inetrviews. This is not Blog material, its fact (IMDB, etc)

    the above post was by me, and Benson which parts weren't great ?
    It was all great!

    The whole movie was an eye openerfor all Americans and more of an eye opener for the right wing Bush supporters.

    BTW, it isn't the left wing against the right wing any longer in this country concerning the Iraq war.
    Much of the right has joined forces with the left in opposing this war.
    It's more like the 95% sane against the 5%insane now.

    11:36 is me sorry for the confusion

    Bob, Yes let's belive a Frenchmen, who's nation is being taken over by Islamo-Fascists!

    Bob, you are slipping. There is conclusive proof that that same power hungry cabal planned and executed 911.

    If only we still had a McGovern and Eagleton to lead us today.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Hey Grannie:

    WASHINGTON - Hickory, dickory dock, the Democrats beat the clock.

    They passed their six-bill, 100-hour agenda with 13 hours to spare.

    The last of "Six for '06" bills that Democrats promised voters in the fall passed shortly after 6 p.m. Thursday, about 87 hours after the 110th Congress opened Jan. 4.

    "This was only the beginning," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said at a news conference hailing her party's accomplishment more than two hours before the final vote, which came on an energy bill.

    I challenge any of you retards on the left to use your brain. The reason why the "clear-thinkers" get so pissed you with you idiots is because you hate Bush for all the wrong reasons and blame him for things that are out of his control.

    Is it his fault that we can't correctly fight a war? He gave unprecedented access to war correspondents and embedded reporters and all that has done is not allow us to return fire toward a mosque or clear out those harboring insurgents or warn the enemy before attacking.

    It is certainly reasonable to attack Bush for not taking into account the reality that we will never actually win a war ever again. The American and World press are too influential on the public which makes the public fickle and unreasonable. It is also reasonable to hate Bush for going to Iraq at all, but know this. It is the liberal in him that did it. This has no basis in conservatism, nor does his immigration policy, or his fiscal policy. I often defend him because you morons are just wrong in your criticism. You say things like "tax cuts for the rich". Wrong!!!!! Or "Fascist War". Wrong!!!!!

    You nut jobs don't even have good reasons to hate. You just hate.

    When you go to war, people die. There is often collateral damage. This is all part of war. The sooner you leftards accept this reality the better. Then maybe we won't have to experience the inevitable catastrophic event that will happen to the western world to wake you morons up. I am just waiting for more riots in France until they awaken their own Nationalistic tendencies and realize that multi-culturalism will be the death of the West.

    The maker of WHY WE FIGHT is a frenchie who had just finished directing a movie about Henry Kissinger's crimes (not a great guy). But he is an admitted LIBERAL....

    See the movie for yourself instead of goggling information about it .
    Some of the people in this movie include :John McCain, Susan Eisenhower, Richard Perle, and Gore Vidal.
    Everything in this movie is accurate.
    Does it matter that the director is an "admitted liberal?"

    Do you only believe views on the right?
    Hey are we winning the war in Iraq as many in the right has stated ?

    That's such a jaded point of view and has been dismisssed by the Ameican people. The AMerican people are leaning more to the left after seeing the lies and failures of the right.

    See the movie , instead of goggling info about it.

    If only we still had a McGovern and Eagleton to lead us today.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at January 19, 2007 11:43 AM

    AS opposed to George Bush and Dick Cheney?

    You are funny Grammie.
    Your boys have disgraced the US and their views have been dismissed by the world and 85% of the American people.
    A little fact you choose to ignore.

    I am awe struck to realize that the great men and visionaries of this world all agree with Bob and KK.

    As these great men succumb to age, we will still be able to look to them. How comforting.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Bob,
    France is a dying nation. The American people aren't leaning Left. They've been demoralized and want to surrender to Islam. We lost Islam won! Let's bring all our troops home and prepare to defend from the coming Islamic storm.

    NeoCons are addicted to Olbermann
    They accuse him of being a dobermann
    They can't stand his success
    So they sit and spin to excess
    It's obvious they're all off their Meds again

    excellent post Kurt Kissel at 11:46

    Then compare the post below by the Crash Test Dummy.

    I said- I saw it THEN googled it.

    YOU should research it Bob- You'd be shocked to read how far left the guy leans. His premise that we nuked the Japanese even though we knew they were going to surrender is the highpoint (or lowpoint) of his movie. If you didn't do research on the movie after seeing that fact you are hopelessly liberal. It painted the US in an extremely poor light Internationally, and the facts behind this HUGE assertion are largely based on conjecture. Look it up!

    Bob,
    France is a dying nation.

    Red Wolf is so easily confused.
    So you think any person of french descent should be dismissed ?

    Amazing !

    "Professor Honeydew, Mr. McGovern is a typical secularist who has no honor, no depth of character and no morality....like you!"

    Cee-

    Some of us don't need the crutch of religion to me 'moral.'

    Some of us don't wear our morality of our sleeve thinking it will protect us from eternal damnation.

    Some of are moral because it's the right thing to do.

    But, if you need religion to keep you on the straight and narrow, be my guest.

    Chicken Blogger, are you referring to this:

    "These three alone have a total of 82 years experience in the House, 36 years in the minority and 46 in the majority. An awesome record to my mind. My contention is that the Dems have enough experience AND pwer to hit the ground running.

    And they did. Look at what they did when they took the reins compared to what their rhetoric was.

    Ain't politics grand?

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at January 18, 2007 1:31 PM"

    I am glad to see that you have finally learned something. Those Dems only took 17 days to solve the most pressing needs of the nation.

    I couldn't eat or sleep worrying about the minimum wage all these years.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Olberwoman needs to get a new act. His current one is getting very old and pretty soon he will be out of another job, AGAIN!!

    "I challenge any of you retards on the left to use your brain. The reason why the "clear-thinkers" get so pissed you with you idiots is because you hate Bush for all the wrong reasons and blame him for things that are out of his control."

    Hey Crash, why don't you enumerate for us retards, all the 'right' reasons to hate Bush.

    I'm waiting.

    No thank you professor. I watched "Why We Fight" once and saw a superficial, biased and poorly researched propaganda piece. You should really try challenging your views instead of only going to sources you know endorce your opinion.

    I continue, and will continue, to remind you, poor deluded Professor Honeydew, of your claim that the new Congress would and should force change regarding Iraq War policy....They are not doing it, dope, and purposely not doing it!

    I want a debate over cutting the funds because it will force people out of their politically contrived positions...ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE!

    Bush is the ONLY one with power who does not have a politically contrived position....unlike Hagel, Snow, Brownback, Clinton, Reid, Pelosi, Obama, Kerry and the rest of the silly politicians who worry more about getting elected then the poor people dying in Iraq!

    You, professor, just want the continuing deaths of troops and Iraqis as a political issue for 2008....That is the definition of being disengenuous.....and cynical.

    Don't you think that if The Congress cut the funds The President would be forced to change policy? This is a constitutional role The Congress is supposed to meet!

    BTW, if you had read my previous posts, Sgt Madden petitioned Congress this week to cut the funding....good for him in standing up for his beliefs!

    cee
    "I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

    "I challenge any of you retards on the left to use your brain. The reason why the "clear-thinkers" get so pissed you with you idiots is because you hate Bush for all the wrong reasons and blame him for things that are out of his control."


    I like how when the Right can't support what their president does, suddenly everything is 'out of his control.'

    So, let's see, everything good that's happened is due to his policies, but everything bad that's happened is 'beyond his control.'


    UUHHHH, Yeah...

    His premise that we nuked the Japanese even though we knew they were going to surrender is the highpoint (or lowpoint) of his movie.

    This point was brought up by Gore Vidal who served in WWII and was corroborated by CIA agents and politicans WHO WERE THERE.

    Man, you are a jaded blind American.


    If you didn't do research on the movie after seeing that fact you are hopelessly liberal. It painted the US in an extremely poor light Internationally,


    and you disagree with this fact?
    The USA DESERVES to be painted in a poor light internationally on merit.

    You need to get into the horse business. Wearing blinders seems to be part of your daily apparel.

    This film is historically accurate.
    But b/c a liberal directs it, or there might be a liberal or two in it, you dismiss it.
    A large % of directors ARE liberals.

    Thanks for showing everyone how small minded you are.

    Too bad Kenny Boy intentionally missed the point of my post: Republicans were threatening a filibuster of a bill that they claimed was exactly like the one that they'd proposed. Ol' Ken did what all spineless neocons do: Go off on a semantic tangent.

    Pretty sad...

    Bob, there you go again:

    "So you think any person of french descent should be dismissed ?

    Amazing !

    Posted by: Bob at January 19, 2007 11:56 AM"

    As a person of French descent I was going to bow to Red Wolf's compelling argument when you restored my pride in my heritage.

    Merci, mon ami.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    "Those Dems only took 17 days to solve the most pressing needs of the nation."

    Grammie, you're numbers are wrong. The new House was sworn in on January 4th. Now, they didn't work on January 6th, 7th or 8th (mostly because freshman legislators got that time to read over the legislation that was to be debated on the 9th) or the 13th, 14th and 15th (MLK weekend).

    That leaves 9 days where the House was actually IN SESSION, not 17. So passing 6 bills in 9 days of work is actually pretty good.

    No thank you professor. I watched "Why We Fight" once and saw a superficial, biased and poorly researched propaganda piece.

    What was inaccurate about it?

    Poorly researched?

    Of course, the truth is just the opposite of what you claim.

    "You, professor, just want the continuing deaths of troops and Iraqis as a political issue for 2008....That is the definition of being disengenuous.....and cynical."

    With that statement of yours ,Cee, speaks volumes of your inability to think rationally.
    The deaths of our troops aren't an issue?
    in 2008 or today?
    My God.
    Your views sicken me.

    "The USA DESERVES to be painted in a poor light internationally on merit"

    Gee thanks Chomsky.

    "Hey Crash, why don't you enumerate for us retards, all the 'right' reasons to hate Bush.

    I'm waiting."

    Like I said before moron. Be mad that he didn't realize that we can't fight a war like we used to or need to. Be mad that he seemed not to understand that these backwards stone-age people live to suffer. There whole existence is around the idea of personal suffering and for that reason they will never accept or fight for a better existence. They will only destroy and like a drunk will self-sabotage themselves.

    Hate him for that. Don't say it was for world domination or Imperialism or only oil. Certainly, oil and the security of oil is part of it, but you are an absolute douchebag if you think that he doesn't actually believe in the spread of democracy.

    Pelosi said 100 hours. Then, when it became clear she couldn't make good on this, instead of saying as much she re-invented time by counting only some hours.

    Using pelosi's logic, the first 100 days in 1995, in which the new Republican house got votes on their ten "contract with America" points, took only about 30 days, not the 93 calendar days that had actually elapsed.

    Did you see any media say they did it in 30-35 days? Me neither.

    BS is BS.

    EE, we are both right. Chicken Blogger made claims to my post that the Dems had over two months from the election results to know they had the majority and its general parameters.

    I also noted that they had a great deal of experience and have had ample time to bring up the Iraq war that we all have been assured was the key reason they won and won big.

    Chicken Blogger defended them by saying they had been in the minority for 14 years and were only back in power for 17 days. You see the tail end of my response.

    I agree that is a lot of bils to pass in such a short time. However, for bills not open to ammendment or the other means the minority normally has to influence legislation and the bills enacted I'd say below average.

    My point then and now is that they are looking for political cover to postpone taking action on funding for the war.

    I know you disagree with me. But politicians are often politicians first and statesmen not even showing in the also ran column.

    And contrary to popular opinion, especially from many here, it crosses party lines.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Bob-
    Almost every unbiased movie critic compared Director Eug to Michael Moore. He slanted the movie against the US at every point. Did they need to show Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam every twenty minutes in the movie? It became overbearing and an obvious slant, which you lapped up. Did you applause each see when you watched it?

    As for Gore Vidale's assertion... beyond the hearsay in the hand-picked interviews- afterwards I could not find any facts to support this was the reason we nuked of Japan.

    See the difference between you and me is that I want to know both sides. I watched this obviously slanted movie to the end, and was shocked by certain assertions. I went and reasearched them and found that the MOST astounding aspects of the movie were pure bunk. I found zero facts on the US's underhanded nuking of Japan.

    I was angered at the US after I saw the movie. (Yes, if true, the US deserves to be painted poorly) I did my research and
    found NOTHING to support it. (Help me, bet you can't either)

    I then turned my ire on people like Eugene and you that prop that movie up as a TRUE analysis of our countrie's motivations for war. Its propaganda at its worst. But I enjoyed it anyways even though it was bunk! I kinda like to watch the left weave a web of lies, and call it news/fact/history.

    No Professor Honeydew, your views of the soldiers and Iraqi civilians being pawns in your political chess match is what is pathological.....

    I have been consistent in my support of Bush in establishing a secure and free Iraq. The "issue" of military and civilian deaths is not a political issue for me....it is a horrible reality of the continuing hatred of radical islamists within Iraq!

    You have been inconsistent by first saying the troops must be home in the next 6 - 12 months and then, when power is attained to make that happen, your representatives CHOOSE not to do it...and you still support their policy! If Bush is solely responisble for killing the troops and civilians, YOUR Democrats have the majority in the House and Senate, and thus the power, to begin stopping Bush by not funding his policy.

    cee
    "I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

    "My point then and now is that they are looking for political cover to postpone taking action on funding for the war."

    Cee and Grammie, here's the problem with cutting off funding - while a majority of Americans do not support the President's escalation plan, a similar majority fears that cutting off funds for the escalation will cut off funds for troops already in the field. (Maybe because Bush will simply "move the money" from allocated areas to fund it anyway?)

    And Ken, if you read the news stories and press releases, it is very clear that Pelosi's agenda was intended to be passed within the first 100 SESSION HOURS. If we were to count EVERY hour from the time the gavel came down on January 4th, we'd have hit 100 hours sometime on January 8th...


    WITH PULPIT APPROVAL GONE, BUSH NO LONGER BULLY, JUST LAME

    -- Maternal Sycophants (Condi, Karen, and Laura) Called Upon To Increase Boy George Wet Nursing --

    WASHINGTON -- President Bush`s about-face on warrantless wiretapping was the latest in a series of White House retreats and reversals. In just two months, Bush has acknowledged making mistakes in Iraq and that the U.S. is not winning the war there, sacked Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon, given up the fight for John Bolton at the United Nations, agreed to increasing the minimum wage, and abruptly retreated from warrantless eavesdropping of calls between the U.S. and overseas. The White House denied that Bush's recent concessions to Congress were a sign of political weakness.



    All Heil Nazi Pelosi

    Cee:You have been inconsistent by first saying the troops must be home in the next 6 - 12 months and then, when power is attained to make that happen, your representatives CHOOSE not to do it...and you still support their policy!

    Cee, Wrong again, as usual.
    I have stated on a number of occassions that my view is to bring the troops home immediately so that not another soldier dies in this criminal war.
    The Iraqis need to practice self determination .
    You want to continue to enable them,with the blood of our troops.
    You , my friend, are a pathetic chickenhawk !

    If the Democrats, DON'T begin to bring them home, then they obviously don't have my support on this issue.
    I don't walk blindly with the democrats like you do the GOP.

    Once for hypothetical and discussion purposes I mentioned 6 months, but I did qualify that..and only used it to show your hypocrisy on never being satisfied, never having enough American blood in your support for this failed Bush doctrine.

    The Sunnis and Shites will only live in peace WHEN THEY CHOOSE TO DO IT.
    To continue to put our troops in the crossfire of this civil war is folly and criminal.

    Benson says :You prop that movie up as a TRUE analysis of our countrie's motivations for war. Its propaganda at its worst.

    No Benson, none of the detailed documented information about how the military industrial complex needs to be fed was accurate.

    How funny is that !

    And we're winning a glorious victory in Iraq too !


    Delusional Benson !

    A good loyal non-thinking member of the disgraced republican party.

    "The Sunnis and Shites will only live in peace WHEN THEY CHOOSE TO DO IT"
    "To continue to put our troops in the crossfire of this civil war is folly and criminal."

    The problem with this approach is that we are on year 1300 of this Hatfield and McCoy feud. That is the same excuse used for Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Serbia. It's just a feud. How about we just turn that whole region to glass and let God sort 'em out.

    RICO on Mcgovern, 9:48 AM: "The only thing I like about him any more is that he dropped bombs on German civilians in WWII, no doubt killing hundreds of them".....

    In reviewing all the comments this morning, this one stood out as EXCEPTIONALLY cold. Rico, is there a conscience lurking somewhere deep down in that body of your's? How could anyone who claims to believe in something bigger than themselves think in such a vile manner?

    I'm pretty sure that this very thing weighs heavily on Mcgovern's conscience to this very day....but he did what he was told to do....and he did what he had to do....and he is a true hero! Sadly, there just arn't very many true heros in this world today.

    Rico, I was just starting to like you a little, but it's damned hard to like anyone who could make a statement like that, even in the unlikely event it was only made in jest!

    Grow up Mikey. Save you sensibilities for WE channel prime time viewing. I am sure there is new movie about a young teenage girl who is forced into the devious world of being a call girl after her daddy called her fat, that you can watch. Save your nonsensical outrage and leave it to the experts like Olbermann and Jesse Jackson.

    The Conservatives on this site are truly self deluded.

    My 'Experiment':

    Over the past week, I've posted under a handful of names. Each time I used my same political view as basis for my post. Each time I was civil and detailed why I felt the way I did.

    The only thing that was 'different' was the name I used.

    Interesting Finding:

    When I used a name that insinuated that I was Liberal, the Conservatives jumped all over every post I made.

    When I used a name that insinuated I was independent or conservative, the Conservatives on this site agreed with me.

    Same ingredients, different label, different response.

    My Conclusion (and I'll be kind):

    You guys let other people's 'preceived' politics define your own politics. You have indeed become caricatured knee-jerk reactions to one another.

    ...And, essentially, that makes any serious debate impossible.

    No wonder Cee and Grammie and others exhibited signs of anxiety when they couldn't tell one blogger from the next. If you can't 'thingify' someone or something (i.e. Secularists, Moonbats, Leftists, etc), you don't even know where you stand on the issues.

    You honestly can't respond to a post unless you know who authored it?

    Doesn't the post stand on it's own merit?

    You really think someone who doesn't identify themselves is 'afraid' of something here?

    Like the names 'Red State' and 'Red Wolf' really tell us who they are.

    This site has taught me a lot about politics, but the lesson was an unintentional one on the part of the 'teachers.'

    Conservatives will attack my findings, and that can be expected. The truth hurts sometimes. Sometimes there's a lot of painful truth out there that we just don't want to hear.

    The knee jerk reaction makes the jerk feel much better. But it doesn't last very long. So they post again and jerk again. Helping to make this site the most 'popular' Olbermann site on the web.

    The problem with this approach is that we are on year 1300 of this Hatfield and McCoy feud. That is the same excuse used for Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Serbia. It's just a feud. How about we just turn that whole region to glass and let God sort 'em out.

    How about we just get our assses out of an impossible situation, and stop dropping American blood over this ancient feud.

    "No wonder Cee and Grammie and others exhibited signs of anxiety when they couldn't tell one blogger from the next. If you can't 'thingify' someone or something (i.e. Secularists, Moonbats, Leftists, etc), you don't even know where you stand on the issues."

    So frigging true !

    EE, of course the Dems are in a bind if POLL RESULTS are their be all and end all. And some Repubs are taking cover in that thicket with them.

    The overriding point I am trying to make is this:

    1. The rhetoric from the Dems and their supporters have accused GWB et al and his supporters of lying and tricking the American people into an unjust war for profit and as an excuse to become a dictator.

    2. Every death in Iraq is a murder laid at the feet of GWB.

    3. Every day the carnage continues is an affront to the American people and world.

    4. Every day GWB is allowed to scare the American people into voluntarily giving up their rights is a day closer to the end of the the greatest nation on earth.

    Even if you take out the overblown paranoic hyberbole you are still left with GWB has led us into an unjust war with carnage ionflicted on both sides. This has led to corruption and this administration taking unprecedented power away from the people through fear.

    If I felt that way, then I would be howling for my guys to do what they promised to do not today but three weeks ago. And you yourself is the only one on this site that I have seen admit that political considerations may be part of the Dem's inaction. I would go farther and say they are absolutely doing it for personal political reasons.

    I don't feel that way. I will be happy for the Dems to cover their asses because it stops them from doing what I disapprove of.

    I am not totally altruistic though. I don't mind making waves about it.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Hell. I post as about ten different people and they are all consistently pointing out the sheer lunacy of the left. Whether you post as anonymous, or "proud to be a liberal", or Mike, or Bob, I attack your lunacy with the same amount of vitriol, because you are all bat shit crazy.

    "Cee and Grammie, here's the problem with cutting off funding - while a majority of Americans do not support the President's escalation plan, a similar majority fears that cutting off funds for the escalation will cut off funds for troops already in the field. (Maybe because Bush will simply "move the money" from allocated areas to fund it anyway?)"

    Fine EE, the POLITICAL influences are there....but my dear hypocritical Professor Honeydew claims the war IS ILLEGAL....this is a loaded and easily defined word...The leftist who wants to call this war "illegal" and "Bush's War" but yet continues to FUND his actions is worse morally because they are not only causing the bloodshed to continue but are trying to avoid any responsibility for the policy!

    The motive for being this disingenuous is clear....they want the violence, death and defeat as an issue for political gamesmanship.

    The professor should just slink away like he has done in the past when I have exposed his utterly pathetic and void intellect and ideology....However, a part of me would like to continue seeing how he tries to wiggle out of this one...."To continue to put our troops in the crossfire of this civil war is folly and criminal."

    Your Speaker has decided to fund the folly criminal activity, professor!

    "The Iraqis need to practice self determination .
    You want to continue to enable them,with the blood of our troops.
    You , my friend, are a pathetic chickenhawk !"

    I'll one better you professor.....

    You want to enable them with funding
    but yet claim you want the war to end!
    You, my friend are simply pathetic.

    cee
    "I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

    Grammie says: EE, of course the Dems are in a bind if POLL RESULTS are their be all and end all. And some Repubs are taking cover in that thicket with them.

    Grammie would never consider that people in both parties that are against the war are doing it b/c they have seen it's not working and are people of honor AND common sense.

    Capus told reporters Wednesday. "I don't quite understand it. I assume it's because Keith Olbermann has had such tremendous growth and there's real momentum behind Keith's broadcast."

    This nonsense about Uberloon's phenomenal ratings growth is laughable. Check the facts. He might be up fractionally... but where else can you from the bottom? Even if Meltdown's viewership were up 300%, he STILL wouldn't beat O'Reilly! He not only gets crushed nightly by Bill O, Krazy Keith gets a nightly bitchslap from Grace and Zahn to boot... what a hoot!

    "How about we just get our assses out of an impossible situation, and stop dropping American blood over this ancient feud."

    Yeah 'cause talkin does soooo much good.

    Cee says:The professor should just slink away like he has done in the past when I have exposed his utterly pathetic and void intellect and ideology..

    This ( not so good ) doctor is totally delusional.

    I have never "slinked away".
    I have always put you in your place with your warmongering ideas and lack of common sense.

    Your "intellect" expouses a belief that this war is winnable, even though commanders on the ground, many generals and most ex-generals plus 80% of the American people disagree.

    That's intellect ?

    No , cee, that's insanity !

    I'll one better you professor.....

    You want to enable them with funding
    but yet claim you want the war to end!
    You, my friend are simply pathetic.

    Have you lost your mind ?

    Enable them?

    I clearly stated I DID NOT support the funding of the war.

    Cee is totally losing it, and based on the overwhelming condemnation of this NEW PLAN by most of the world,we can understand why.

    Cee is getting desperate.

    "Posted by: Political Psychology Today at January 19, 2007 1:09 PM"

    You publish the results of your subjective experiment. How about a few chapter and verses to let us all judge your methods and conclusions.

    Just a few will do. Maybe J$ would agree to verify that your examples actually meet the criteria you claim for them.

    My only requirement would be for you to include two indisputable examples of my addressing one of your posts based on WHO i thought said, not WHAT was said.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Intresting Political Psychology Today....

    I would like to see the examples of what you claim in your conclusions....Please provide the date and time of the exchanges.

    If you posted the same exact political or religious point of view, with the same tone and demeanor, under two different names and I reacted differently....I would really like to see it before I admit my pathology.

    In addition, please remember if you used other poster's names, many of us have a long and tedious history with some and base our responses on those biases. Did you use names like "Colbert," "Kurt Kissel," or "Bob" (I hope not on that last one.....he's crazed!).

    cee
    "I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

    Posted by: cee at January 19, 2007 1:17 PM


    It's hard to take a news network serious that resorts to rerun after run of prison shows. MSNBC is a f---ing sick joke and olberman is the laughingstock of all professional journalists around the world. Notice that he has on the same band of dicksuckers night after night and not one opposing viewpoint? f--- YOU keith. You lying sack of shit.

    "Grammie would never consider that people in both parties that are against the war are doing it b/c they have seen it's not working and are people of honor AND common sense.

    Posted by: at January 19, 2007 1:18 PM"

    Well, Chicken Blogger, do you extend that same open intellectual honestly to those who you think are for the war because they think victory in this is essential for our future.

    Or, do you suscribe to the predominant school of thought from your side that we are either duped sheep or part of the GWB cabal.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Your "intellect" expouses a belief that this war is winnable, even though commanders on the ground, many generals and most ex-generals plus 80% of the American people disagree.

    Of course this war isn't winnable. No war ever fought by the US will ever be winnable ever again. Thanks libs. 80% of the American people think that gay marriage is a bad idea. I am sure that doesn't dissuade you from "espousing" that those who disagree with you are pathetic. Have you ever even thought to ask why the Generals think it is unwinnable? Ever read a history book? There was this thing called the US civil war, most generals disagreed with this guy named Lincoln. No I am not saying W. is Lincoln what I am saying is that you are an idiot. You are an idiot because half the people who think this war is unwinnable is because of people like you.

    Congratulations. You are getting exactly what you wanted. US failure.

    Cee uses inflammatory language to put me down and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.Here, read this , Cee, Grammie and the cabal.
    You think they know more than the generals.
    The generals and much of the Congress are all wrong, and you're right:
    Fools, one and all !

    January 18- A panel of retired generals told a United States Senate committee today that sending 21,500 additional troops to Iraq will do little to solve the underlying political problems in the country.


    "Too little and too late," is the way Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, a former chief of the Central Command, described the effort to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The additional troops are intended to help pacify Baghdad and a restive province, but General Hoar said American leaders had failed to understand the political forces at work in the country. "The solution is political, not military," he said.

    "A fool's errand," was the judgment of Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, who commanded troops in the first Gulf War. He said other countries had concluded that the effort in Iraq was not succeeding, noting that "our allies are leaving us and will be gone by summer."

    Describing the situation in Iraq as "desperate but not terminal," he said Iraqis had to try to make political deals domestically and negotiate for stability with neighboring nations, particularly Syria and Iran.

    The American effort in Iraq has gone badly because the United States did not understand the consequences of deposing Saddam Hussein, said Lt. Gen. William E. Odom, a former director of the National Security Agency. He said the principal beneficiary of the war was Iran and Al Qaeda, not the United States.

    "There is no way to win a war that is not in your interests," he said.

    In statements and in questioning, senators were skeptical about the increased commitment of troops and the likely outcome of the deployment. Senator Richard Lugar, a Republican from Indiana, noted that he had raised questions about the effort in Iraq as long ago as 2003, and said, "Today, I don't have an understanding about how it will work militarily."


    And Ken, if you read the news stories and press releases, it is very clear that Pelosi's agenda was intended to be passed within the first 100 SESSION HOURS. If we were to count EVERY hour from the time the gavel came down on January 4th, we'd have hit 100 hours sometime on January 8th...

    Posted by: Ensign Expendable at January 19, 2007 12:34 PM


    Tell you what: You show me anywhere that she said she meant "session hours" BEFORE the election and I will retract. If you can't, then maybe you should rethink.

    Crash, or whoever the hell you are this time:

    I'm GLAD you think I'm "bat shit crazy", because as the saying goes; "I wouldn't wanna be like you!" It must really free your thinking up when you are not burdened by a conscience!

    It's not so bad that we have deviants running around loose like Crash and Rico, who think the answer is for America to just nuke every nation that disses us, but knowing that these kind of deviant thoughts are even possible in lower level human beings, it does make me fear for what some of the higher level Neocons actually might be thinking themselves these days!

    Say Crash, don't you have a bank to rob or something like that?

    Janet, Sharon, Cee....please carefully read these people's posts....they are on YOUR side, thank God!


    Whether you post as anonymous, or "proud to be a liberal", or Mike, or Bob, I attack your lunacy with the same amount of vitriol, because you are all bat shit crazy.

    ---------

    Look to the following to see who is bat shit crazy:

    NSA
    Iraq
    WMDs
    Abu-Ghraib
    Afghanistan
    New Orleans
    Guantanamo
    Habeas Corpus
    Federal Deficit
    Midterm Elections
    Stem Cell Research
    Social Security `Crisis`
    Baker-Hamilton Report
    GOP indictment blotter
    U.S. diplomatic relations
    Presidential approval rating
    Terri Schiavo's autopsy results

    Just to name a few ...


    Crash Test Dummy:Congratulations. You are getting exactly what you wanted. US failure.

    Yes Dummy, the liberals lost the war.

    Not Bush who went in there not understanding the regional differences and "expousing" that it would be a cakewalk, and we'd be greeted as liberators.

    Crash Test Dummy is a 100% bonified dope !

    "Janet, Sharon, Cee....please carefully read these people's posts....they are on YOUR side, thank God!"

    Hey douchebag. You need to carefully read my posts. I compared the lunacy of doing nothing like Bobby suggested to "turning the place to glass".

    Reading is fundamental. Dumbass.

    Kenny Boy,

    In the real world, when someone asks me for an estimate of hours, I give it to them in man-hours. Only a dope would imagine that we could include weekends, evenings and holidays, son...

    Even though the evidence is there for all to see, Cee and the other wingnuts continue to take the failed position,the position of the lunatics.

    Nice.

    Professor Honeydew:

    Two seperate examples of you slinking away.....

    1) On two occasions....Monday and last Tuesday, I pointedly asked you about JFK's 1954 speech supporting Diem and LBJ's 1965 and 1968 speeches on new policies regarding troop escalations in Vietnam...their obvious parallels in motive and language to Bush......Nothing, crickets.

    2) Two weeks ago I specificically asked you about President's Ford's inability to get the then liberal Democrat Congress to do the humane thing and allow the South Vietnamese refugees to come to The US and your hero's response to him. (McGovern: " I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam,")....crickets

    I could find some more, professor....but I will try to continue to respond to your insanity.

    cee
    "I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

    insults instead of reality. Yawn

    Crash appears to be suffering from too many head injuries.

    CAVEAT EMPTOR: Crash is such a consistent moron, he is likely Puck, and Red Wolf as well.

    Kenny,

    I've given you plenty of reality. Like the rest of the neocons, you have nothing of substance to offer. Or, are you going to tell us that you thought a hundred hours included evenings, weekends and holidays, son?

    I notice that you ran from that pretty readily...

    Crash:

    No, I reread your posts just to be sure....I got it right the first time

    There is no doubt, you are truly a wretch of a human being who is clearly not personally burdened by pesky little things called conscience and remorse.

    Good for you!

    Now begone and assume one of your self admitted 9 OTHER identities so you can swoop back in and pretend there are more of you deviants on here than there actually are.

    Gotta get off for now!

    Bat shit crazy test.....

    You think that Bush is the most dangerous person alive.
    You think that the US is the cause of most of the world's problems.
    You think that the people in the Middle East have been held back by the West.
    You think that Dick Cheney master minded the 9/11 attacks.
    You think that you know better for others than they know for themslves.
    You actually think that Bush knew there weren't WMD in Iraq, but invaded anyway.
    You deny that the rest of the world thought the same.
    You don't realize that we have to balance security with freedom and that no one gives a shit about those people yappin on the phone to those in the middle east.
    You think that we shouldn't profile at airports because profiling is just bad.
    You think that Christian Fundamentalism is as dangerous as Muslim fundamentalism.

    If you agree with any or all of these statements, you are bat shit crazy.

    This is to the rest of the room, not the nameless nimrod (who appears to think he/she is successfully trolling me, when what's actually happening is that I'm using his/her trolling attempts to carve him/her up).

    If you tell someone "I'll have it for you next week", don't expect them to assume you mean in 21 days at 8 hours a day.

    This gets funnier and funnier


    WHO IS THE MORE REPUGNANT REPUBLO-FASCIST: BUSH OR CHENEY?

    -- Faux News Poll: The Chimp "Wins" ... By A Pinocchio Nose --

    WASHINGTON -- A new poll has found that the American people dislike President Bush even more than they dislike Dick Cheney. The poll, by Fox News, finds that President Bush's unfavorable rating is 58%, while Cheney's unpopularity rating is five points lower at 53%. Bush can, however, still take some small solace from the fact that his approval rating is one point higher than Cheney's; the President's is 38%, while the VP's is 37%. Meanwhile, here are a couple of other numbers that are striking for a Fox poll: Only 39% of Americans view the GOP favorably, and 49% view them unfavorably. Meanwhile, a majority of respondents -- 51% -- have a favorable view of Dems, compared to only 35% who have an unfavorable view of what Fox likes to call the "Democrat Party".


    I love it....to the dear professor, it is FACT that we cannot win and only GWB, Grammie Hawkins and me think the escalation is a good idea....

    Well, professor, I reprinted an AP atory earlier quoting General Casey that IF (and life is ALWAYS IF, professor), there continues to be political progress, the surge may be reversed by the end of the summer.

    So how do you justify so easily saying this quest for freedom is not winnable? Have you ever heard of self-fulfilling prophecy?

    And I repeat...if EVERYONE knows it's unwinnable, why does your "EVERYONE" continue funding it?

    cee
    "I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden


    This is what I said....
    ""The Sunnis and Shites will only live in peace WHEN THEY CHOOSE TO DO IT"
    "To continue to put our troops in the crossfire of this civil war is folly and criminal."

    The problem with this approach is that we are on year 1300 of this Hatfield and McCoy feud. That is the same excuse used for Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Serbia. It's just a feud. How about we just turn that whole region to glass and let God sort 'em out."


    Yep Mikey. You re-read it and still didn't understand, but I am sure tying your shoes is a chore as well. How on earth could we expect you to understand sarcasm.

    These are called facts loons. Someone says something stupid, then you get the actual transcript and whalaa you are proven to be a schmuck.

    Cee continues to think I read everyone of his posts.
    What an ego you must have.

    Monday and last Tuesday, I pointedly asked you about JFK's 1954 speech supporting Diem and LBJ's 1965 and 1968 speeches on new policies regarding troop escalations in Vietnam...their obvious parallels in motive and language to Bush....

    They were wrong then, Bush is wrong now.
    Learning from the RESULTS OF history is anathema to you, isn't it Cee ?

    Two weeks ago I specificically asked you about President's Ford's inability to get the then liberal Democrat Congress to do the humane thing and allow the South Vietnamese refugees to come to The US and your hero's response to him. (McGovern: " I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam,".

    Please tell me what federal position Mc Govern held at that time.

    So you wanted the South Vietnamese to flood into the US?
    Do I have that right ?
    Do you approve of the Mexicans flooding into the USA, NOW?

    Cee is the ultimate deluded hypocrite.
    He thinks he's so bright and right...yet history has proven him wrong on most of his points.

    Such as :

    The first arrivals: As Saigon fell to the communists, some 135,000 Vietnamese fled to America. These were mainly ex-military and government officials, Vietnamese who had worked for the U.S. during the war and their families. Initially, they came to four U.S. military bases in California, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Several national voluntary agencies, under contract from the Department of State, resettled these new arrivals in communities throughout the country and arranged "sponsorships" for the refugees. These sponsorships involved the provision of housing and initial support from interested Americans.

    The "boat people": Conditions in the southern portion of the newly reunified Vietnam worsened in the late 1970s, and there also was a drive by the new government to rid the country of its Chinese merchant class. As a result, thousands of Vietnamese and Sino-Vietnamese sought to escape from the country. In addition to the merchant Chinese, these included many Vietnamese farmers and fishermen and their families. No one knows exactly how many thousands of people took to boats, and some estimates are that as many as half of them perished at sea. The successful ones reached refugee camps in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Hong Kong. From those camps, many were admitted to he United States and other "third countries."

    So your claim of the "democrats abandoning all of the South Vietnamese" is just plain false.

    You try to talk a good game, but your lack of knowledge of history is just fool's folly and provides me in particular with much laughterand entertainment.

    Kenny Boy,

    Did she say that she'd have it all done within a hundred hours? No. And, it is pretty obvious to all but the stupid that she didn't state that. Unlike you, I offer proof, son:

    "House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is thinking 100 hours, time enough, she says, to begin to "drain the swamp" after more than a decade of Republican rule.

    As in the first 100 hours the House meets after Democrats in her fondest wish win control in the Nov. 7 midterm elections and Pelosi takes the gavel as the first Madam Speaker in history... "

    http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2534650

    "As in the first 100 hours the house meets..."

    Wow! Could it be plainer?

    Bob

    I'm interested in this parallel you see with Vietnam. Suppose we leave Iraq before the insurgency is either neutralized or controlled. What do you think will happen then?

    Well, professor, I reprinted an AP atory earlier quoting General Casey that IF (and life is ALWAYS IF, professor), there continues to be political progress, the surge may be reversed by the end of the summer.

    Well Cee, that's one.
    And I provided you with a plethora of generals who say the opposite.
    Plus most of the division commanders on the ground in Iraq can't see how it can work, and THEY ARE THE ONES THAT WOULD IMPLEMENT THIS NEW PLAN.

    The "new plan" is not much different from the old plan that EVERYONE has admitted didn't work.
    Hey a few weeks ago you said the old plan was working, so what does that do for your credibility?

    As usual, you lose the debate.

    "I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too."

    ----------

    Oh yes, Iraq is the Dems fault.
    As they did not oppose the war strongly enough
    when presented with the cherry-picked intelligence.

    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!

    Iraq will always be Bush's war.
    A Republican war.
    A fiasco war.
    Period.

    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!

    And, Kenny Boy, here's the words from Pelosi's own mouth:

    "...We will introduce this legislation on the first day of the new Congress, we will pass it within the first 100 legislative hours. This new direction represents the priorities of a unified Democratic Party. This is our pledge to the American people."

    Legislative hours, son! Concede? No...because you are too dumb to know when you are licked, boy...

    The poor professor just can't accept the fact that his party and political faction cursed millions of people to a life of death and despair. And when President Ford asked for OFFICAL action, money and compasion from the people we left behind, the same Democrats in power today refused. Go look up my posts regarding this, professor, I am not going to waste any more time over you lying about abandoning debate beause facts don't match your indoctrination!

    George McGovern was and is a superficial and weak excuse for a leader and should have pursued more fitting intellectual endeavors....like being a professor. I like how you did not directly address his statement....simply dismissed it because he had no official office....Why should Olbermann be interviewing him then today?

    Oh, so JFK was WRONG?....he wasn't lying?...when Diem was overthrown and killed and Kennedy appeared "shocked," we can all assume he was telling the truth and was not pursuing war in Vietnam for hidden reasons....like GWB in Iraq?

    Or LBJ....he gives a beautiful speech about democracy and freedom in South Vietnam and The United States keeping commitments and promises....he was wrong?....he wasn't lying?

    Professor, I would LOVE to know where you teach and secretly sit in and see what lies you inject into your students! Your ideology BLINDS you to truth! McGovern and the majority of the American people were wrong about Vietnam.....and YOU are wrong about Iraq.

    cee
    "I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

    Bob

    I'm interested in this parallel you see with Vietnam. Suppose we leave Iraq before the insurgency is either neutralized or controlled. What do you think will happen then?

    The problem is that the Bush Administration has created a completely untenable situation where this war has been a disaster in waiting from day one and that it will continue to be if we stay or leave.
    It's been proven that our continued presence just fuels the rage of the Middle East.
    If we leave, some say much of that rage could lessen.
    But the bottom line is still , should we continue to enable the Iraqi army with American blood ?
    And if( every poll is correct) a large % of Iraqis want us to leave and consider us "invaders" not "liberators", what right do we have to overrule their wishes ?

    We will never leave Iraq, no matter what your lying president says.
    The proof is in the largest ever American embassy being built in Iraq as we speak.


    The nameless nimrod is trolling again. He/she leaves out the parts that don't fit his/her political model and you're supposed to be ignorant of them.

    Here is a little part of the abc news article he somehow forgot to post:

    Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."

    Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

    Those are days, not hours. Neither of those things happened. She made promises she couldn't keep. All the BS in the world won't change that.

    Like I said, this is funnier and funnier.

    Kenny Boy,

    I suppose a moron will find anything funny: A piece of string, plastic...a gum wrapper. Nice that you are amused.

    Too bad you couldn't refute what Pelosi said was "legislative hours". Must be rough being an imbecile, child...

    Bob

    Angry non-answers and assumptions posing as facts don't cut it.

    First of all, you have not answered the question I asked, which is what would happen if we left before the insurgents were either neutralized or controlled. I would think that if you had an answer you'd have given one.

    Among the other problems with your "answer" is that your belief about our presence there has not been and could not be proven.

    Also, since you called our (not MY but OUR) president a liar, would you please tell me which lies you're referring to? And you better have something more than WMD's up your sleeve.

    Ken- don't even try. The liberals have been saying "Bush lied" for so long they think its a true. They have mush for brains and suck in ALL left propaganda.

    "Well Cee, that's one."

    What an idiot!....General Casey's the one in charge! He's the one who counts! You are such a wacked fool. He is becoming the next chief of staff of the Army after he is confirmed in that job by the Senate. He wants to WIN in Iraq....and BELIEVES we can win....are you saying he is wrong, oh wise Professor Honeydew?

    The people on the ground, making the decisions and living the war count not your Democrat talking points or poll numbers!.....No....YOU lose professor!

    This is becoming surreal...is the professor really a 14yo yanking my chain?

    cee
    "I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden


    Benson,

    Bush lied recently, by his own admission, when he stated that he had no intention of getting rid of Rumsfeld a few days before he got rid of Rumsfeld (with a replacement all ready)...

    From CNN.com:
    "In the run-up to November's midterm election, House Democrats vowed that if they won a majority, they would put the country on a new course by passing six major pieces of legislation addressing Democratic priorities, in just 100 hours of floor time."

    Now, Ken, you said:

    "Here is a little part of the abc news article he somehow forgot to post:

    Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation.""

    Which was done on the evening of Janaury 4th, the FIRST DAY of the legislative session.

    "Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001."

    Okay, so she was off by one day. It passed on the THIRD DAY of the session, January 9th. It still was passed by the House within the first 100 session hours.

    Clear now?

    Professor, I would LOVE to know where you teach and secretly sit in and see what lies you inject into your students.

    I only use facts. And the facts prove you are wrong , as I have demonstrated about Vietnam .
    I never inject my opinions in class, I permit and encourage my students give their opinions though.

    They are a lot smarter than you think, and a whole lot smarter than you.
    They also have heart and know the difference between right and wrong , and what works and what doesn't.
    They put you to shame.

    Their views run about 10-1 against this war and this president.


    Cee continues to try to manipulate and distort the truth about Vietnam and in proxy, Iraq.
    We cannot win a war in a country where they don't want us to be there with ancient differences complicating any chance for success.
    Cee wants to impose his will , with the blood of American soldiers, on a country that we have all but destroyed.
    Cee is despicable in his jaded jingoistic tirades and his ilk (and their views) have been the cause of much death and destruction thruout history.

    Chicken Blogger, the below is a direct quote by Madam Pelosi from her web page www.speaker.gov that she appears to have made prior to the ninth of January.

    "In the first 100 hours of the 110th Congress:

    We will start by cleaning up Congress, breaking the link between lobbyists and legislation and commit to pay-as-you-go, no new deficit spending. Learn more >>.........
    This new direction represents the priorities of unified House Democrats. This is our pledge to the American people".

    The hundred hour term got in the lexicon based on Madam Pelosi's own words. I assume she knew what she was talking about. Do you agree?

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    "General Casey's the one in charge! He's the one who counts! You are such a wacked fool. He is becoming the next chief of staff of the Army after he is confirmed in that job by the Senate."

    If General Casey is right, then why is he be replaced by a Navy Admiral? Why is he being given a "desk job" (no matter how glorified the title, it's still a desk command)?

    And it still hinges on the Iraqis stepping up (which they have not shown the capability of doing) - IF everything goes smoothly, then MAYBE we can start pulling back in the summer.

    My question is - what if things DON'T go smoothly?

    2:32 No name:

    "...By his own admission..."

    Can't wait to hear how you came up with this statement.
    He said he lied? You knew he knew when he said it?

    You losers, name or not, have been calling Bush a liar for years. And then you throw that out. Listen to yourselfs. Pathetic.

    Bush lied. Bush Lied. I think he did.

    What an idiot!....General Casey's the one in charge! He's the one who counts! You are such a wacked fool.

    So I'm the fool. The Division Commanders who have to implement the orders don't think it will work.
    Many OTHER generals don't think it will work.

    Common sense says it won't work.( Did it work before? )

    And I'm whacked ! Funny.

    Notice, Lapdog ignores the opinions of all the ex-generals, ( the ones that don't have to worry about losing their jobs)

    Lapdog doesn't understand the pressure Casey is under to SAY WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR !

    cee is a naive, and braindead idealogue.

    "taking a sentence out of context and ignoring everything else"

    Strange. MediaMatters ran the complete exchange (no lack of context) and O'Reilly's rather pathetic assessment of a child's behaviout is quite clear. Or perhaps you have more information?

    Grammie,

    My quote came from October. If you are wondering if the news outlets "got it", just check. The reason no one is complaining is because she said "legislative hours" which is much the same as the "first n hours of CONGRESS"...

    I provided about 10 of Bush's biggest lies yesterday. There are about 100 of them.

    There are books written on nothing but his lies.

    Yet you morons still don't think he lied.

    You probably also think the GOP won in November, too.

    Funny.

    This is Olbermann Watch, Not OReilley watch. And the consensus here is that OReilley said something stupid when he went after the kidnapped kid so drop it. Both left and right here think it was idiotic. Us Olbermann haters don't defend the undefendable like you Olbyloons.

    OTTAWA -- More than U.S. troops are surging in Iraq. As the international edition of Newsweek magazine reported at year-end, the Iraqi economy is expanding at a rapid rate: "Civil war or not," writer Silvia Spring says, "Iraq has an economy and - mother of all surprises - it's doing remarkably well." Amid anarchy and savage violence, Iraq's construction industry is booming.
    Retail and wholesale trade sectors are thriving. Real estate prices are soaring - up by several hundred per cent in the past couple of years. Iraqi oil production (at two million barrels a day) approaches Venezuelan production (2.4 million barrels a day) and could easily double in the next few years. On average, Iraqis earn 100 per cent more, in real terms, than they did under Saddam Hussein.
    Public opinion surveys indicate that Iraqis are now, in economic expectations, at least, expansively optimistic.
    Newsweek describes Iraq's economic revival as a product of "vibrancy at the grassroots." Three years ago, Iraq had 8,000 registered companies. Last year it had 34,000. Two years ago, Iraqis owned 1.4 million cellphones. Last year, they owned 7.1 million. (Iraqna, the country's leading mobile phone company, reported revenue of $333-million [U.S.] in 2005, $520-million in 2006.) Baghdad now has five times as many cars as it had before the war.
    Global Insight, the economic research company, puts Iraq's GDP growth for 2005 at 17 per cent and for 2006 at 13 per cent. "The U.S. wanted to create the conditions in which small-scale enterprise could blossom," the magazine quotes Jan Randolph, head of sovereign risk at Global Insight's office in London. "In a sense, they've succeeded."
    None of this lessens the horrors of the savage insurgency in the infamous Sunni Triangle. But none of it warrants suppression of Iraq's economic boom, either, yet it remains an "invisible" story, as Newsweek puts it, in most international coverage. Take unemployment as a single example. Are Iraqis underemployed? Inefficiently employed? Dangerously employed? Absolutely. But are 50 per cent of Iraqis unemployed - or indeed, as some reports have it, 70 per cent? Newsweek itself says that Iraq's unemployment rate "runs between 30 per cent and 50 per cent." Yet this kind of guesswork was disproved in mid-2005 when a comprehensive research study, using International Labour Organization definitions and standards, put Iraq's unemployment rate at 10.1 per cent.

    You will never see this on Olbermann's show.

    "The hundred hour term got in the lexicon based on Madam Pelosi's own words. I assume she knew what she was talking about. Do you agree?"

    Here's part of a speech that Pelosi delivered on December 7th (which is available on speaker.gov):

    "In our first 100 legislative hours, we will raise the mininmum wage, make college more accessible, health care more affordable, promote stem cell research, roll back subsidies to big oil, and protect Social Security."

    Bobbo
    Looked yesterday and found no such post.
    LIAR!

    Chicken Blogger, I don't even know how this got started. But Madam Pelosi has used the term herself and promised a hardworking House.

    Most Americans consider a 40 hour work week the norm, not a super human effort in times of crisis. And this House, contrary to oft repeated promises, just isn't doing it.

    If the 'proof' that GWB lied is the Rumsfeld example above, why isn't this 'proof' that Madam Pelosi lied.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Ensign

    Again, that backtrack was AFTER the election.

    I have no doubt she tried to get out of it then.,

    But my point was that UNTIL the election that 100 hours was 100 hours, even if an abc news report (rather than pelosi) gave her an out.

    So when I tell my boss I'll get him that report in 24 hours I really mean 3 business days? No wonder you guys are democrats...

    Bob,

    Do all of the retired Generals, commanders on the ground, etc. who are against the surge believe that Iraq is not militarily winnable and therefore support withdrawal? I am not asking in a combative tone; I don't have the time to research and assume you would know. I ask because I know Ollie North has held the position that there were and are enough troops but he definitely has never conceded military defeat. He half-heartedly supported the surge (at least the snippet I caught) to stand behind the President's decision.

    P.S. including General Abizaid, Casey

    "This point was brought up by Gore Vidal who served in WWII and was corroborated by CIA agents and politicans WHO WERE THERE"

    Wrong again Bobo. Taken from the CIA official web page:

    "About the CIA

    The Central Intelligence Agency was created in 1947 with the signing of the National Security Act by President Harry S. Truman. "

    I know they are sometimes called 'spooks', but I don't think that applies in this case.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Bravo Grannie. But it still must be true, right Bob?

    crickets.....

    "But my point was that UNTIL the election that 100 hours was 100 hours, even if an abc news report (rather than pelosi) gave her an out."

    When you refer to "x hours/days" of Congress, you refer to the HOURS/DAYS THAT THEY MEET only.

    This is why the play was outlined as a "100-hour agenda" AND laid out in a "on Day One, we will do X", etc. Because the ASSUMPTION is that you ONLY count hours that Congress is in session. No one was reasonably going to expect her to cram this legislation into the first 4 1/2 actual days - that's an absurd premise.

    You're being TOO LITERAL - and creating a bizzare standard that NO ONE could meet just to take a shot at Pelosi.

    "Iraq has an economy and - mother of all surprises - it's doing remarkably well."
    You will never see this on Olbermann's show.

    --------

    Yes, on balance, things in Iraq are doing remarkably well.
    That's probably why we don't need more troops there.
    And why only a hundred Iraqi's are dying each day.
    And why Iraqi's are so thrilled to have us there.
    And why they want us to stay.
    And why Bush's approval rating is so high.
    And why republicans won the midterms.

    You losers still trying to peddle the bogus idea
    that there's plenty of good news in Iraq
    it's just not being reported?

    Pretty pathetic.
    Perennial denial.
    Good little ditto head.

    Socialist like Bob have a problem with history. They tend to distort and lie about it to fit their own agenda. Gore Vidal is historical source. Nice try though. Here is a little history fact for you. What religious zealot president actually had the nerve to pray over the radio before an unjust war? Clearly thumbing his nose at the separation of church and state. A hint is his wife had the nerve to wear fur coats everywhere she went. Give up? Franklin Roosevelt.

    Additionally Bob,

    I posted a link a night or two ago of an interview with an Iraqi police officer in Fallujah. His statement was that the Iraqis want the U.S. to leave, but not yet. Michelle Malkin has an interview from her recent trip to Baghdad which includes, in part, a woman who states positive comments about the presence of the soldiers. Of course, it can be said that she is lying, afraid, or not representative of the general view. I think that poll questions can be misleading, depending how they are asked and interpreted. Of course the Iraqis want their country back. They want the U.S. to leave. Do these poll questions ask if they want withdrawal to begin immediately?

    Bush is an evil man. He has killed 200 Millions people. He should be put on trail for crimes against humanity! Bush is to blame for all the worlds ills! In fact did you know Bush invented Cancer!

    Sharon, Your just a brainwashed Bushbot. We lost Iraq. Let's leave! Al-Qaeda whipped us there. I say let's negotiate with Al-Qaeda and have a peace treaty! Peace now!
    Bush is the only thing standing in the way of World peace. solving World Hunger and the cure for Aids!


    FORMER RICE STAFFER: BUMBLING BUSCHO CLUELESS ON MIDDLE EAST HISTORY

    -- Who Needs Nuance? Who Needs Erudition? Who Needs To Know Their Ass From A Hole In The Ground? --

    WASHINGTON -- An ex-State Department speech writer today told the Wall Street Journal that his former boss Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice lacked a clear understanding of modern Middle Eastern history. The article by Neil King, Jr. takes up the tendency of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to analogize current US policy in the Middle East with America's experience during the Cold War. Rice's tendency to apply Cold War lessons to the Middle East has been criticized, even by a former speech writer, as resulting from a "limited frame of reference," according to King. Garfinkle added, "No one in a senior position in this administration seems to have even the vaguest notion of modern Middle Eastern history."


    Welcome back Bob

    Ensign

    That's what she said.

    For the last time, if she had talked about "gavel time" before the election, you'd have a point. But she said it one way before and a very different one after.

    Pelosi is also the one who supported the consummately corrupt john murtha for majority leader (his own fellow democrats couldn't swallow that one) and had to be dissuaded from making alcee hastings the chair of the intelligence committee -- a man pelosi herself voted to impeach and remove from his judgeship.

    I'm not trying to find things about Ms. pelosi, she is piling them up in front of me. And you as well, if you'll look honestly

    Johnny, don't you suppose it's time to come up with an opening sentence that does not contain the words: "bark," "opening," and "spiel" in it?"

    I'm not saying you need to praise Olbermann, or even acknowledge that he is sometimes right.

    No siree, I would; however, happily settle for some minor variations in that writing style of yours.

    Realizing that you are a busy man, I took the liberty of pulling out a thesaurus for you. In the future, you might consider any of the following fine alternatives in your writing.

    Spiel: oration, sermon, talk, lecture, pitch, discussion, stump, spout

    Bark: bay, bellow, growl, grunt, howl, roar, snarl, woof, yap, yip (I would stay away from bellow, you use that one far too much as well.)

    opening: birth, coming out, commencement, curtain-raiser, dawn, inauguration, inception, initiation, kickoff, launch, launching, onset, opener, outset, start

    These are just a few choices to get you started. Remember Johnny, adding sentence variety to prose can give it life and rhythm. Never varying your choice of words can grow monotonous for readers.

    Also, don't limit yourself to just different word choices. Consider approaching the material from a new angle.

    Any of these simple changes, can make major differences in your writing. I hope this has been helpful for you.

    Here I go cutting and pasting:

    And almost literally. The PC rules of engagement imposed on American soldiers have as much to do with the chaotic limbo our troops find themselves in as failed political policies. Closely held, these rules -- burdensome constraints, really -- have become obvious to everyone, including our foes. News reports tell us potential targets in Iraq must be engaged in hostile acts, or show "clear intent," before our men and women can take a shot at them. Mosques where insurgents seek shelter and store arms are no-go zones for American soldiers. We don't even shut down mosque loudspeakers that broadcast incitement against our troops. Marine Maj. Jeffrey O'Neill put it this way to the Christian Science Monitor: "Many would ask, What other war would we allow the enemy to broadcast calls for our defeat for the sake of cultural sensitivity?" The answer is no other war, at least no other war fought to win.

    Townhall.com::How to win the winnable war? Oil::By Diana West

    One of the points I heard from the President's speech concerned the elimination of previous constraints. To me, that seems to be a significant difference this time around. Moqtada Sadr appears to have taken some hits this week.

    One of the points I heard from the President's speech concerned the elimination of previous constraints. To me, that seems to be a significant difference this time around. Moqtada Sadr appears to have taken some hits this week.

    ---------

    Perennial denial.
    Pretty pathetic.
    Good little ditto head.

    Posted by: Political Psychology Today, I requested some examples of your experiment so that we could all judge it. In case you missed it, here it is again:

    ""Posted by: Political Psychology Today at January 19, 2007 1:09 PM"

    You publish the results of your subjective experiment. How about a few chapter and verses to let us all judge your methods and conclusions.

    Just a few will do. Maybe J$ would agree to verify that your examples actually meet the criteria you claim for them.

    My only requirement would be for you to include two indisputable examples of my addressing one of your posts based on WHO i thought said, not WHAT was said.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at January 19, 2007 1:29 PM"

    In other words, put up OR shut up.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    I asked a question before and the person I asked did not answer it. But I would still like an answer from someone who opposes the war in Iraq, that goes beyond insults and sarcasms.

    The question is this: Suppose we leave Iraq before the insurgency is either neutralized or controlled. What do you think will happen then?

    Were did Professor Honeydew (Bob) go?....

    I need more then an "opinion" about Casey's assumed state of mind before I relinquish my point....If a reporter asks Casey a question today with regards to progress and he gives a positive answer, why sould anyone disagree with his assesment unless his answer does not fit with their prediction?

    Almost every post EE or Bob put out today had an IF in it....fine....but then I get...EVERYONE thinks it's unwinnable....Well, an AP article has people talking about progress and trying to win in Iraq....but according to the left they are going through the motions to please their commander-in-chief.

    The answers get sillier and sillier.

    cee
    "I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

    "In other words, put up OR shut up."

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    I requested some examples as well....Still no response from "Political Psychology Today," Grammie?

    cee
    "I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

    Ken, I have been asking the same question with usually the added question what do you propose or would support.

    The answers tend to be all the same. GWB got us there why are you asking someone else for the answer. I don't know what will happen, but whatever it is, it will still be Bush's fault.

    For variety, they will sometimes add that they aren't falling for that trap. No way is GWB going to get off the hook.

    Good luck.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    "I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden"

    This is such a bullshit argument. As long as President mcdumbass is commited to sending more troops to Iraq, we have a responsability to fund them so that they have the best chance of survival. Cutting off the funds doesn't stop the surge. it only hurts the troops.

    Cee your Republican talking point, is the point of someone who wants to make sure there is blame to go around for a failed policy. Meaning "We Republicans know iraq is a cluster f---. The important thing is to make sure the Democrats get blamed for it as well."

    "Perennial denial.
    Pretty pathetic.
    Good little ditto head."
    Posted by: at January 19, 2007 3:41 PM


    Same spiel, Anonymous.

    Same bark.

    Same opening in your head where your brain has fallen out.

    However, the cliches are too large to pass through...

    Johnny, don't you suppose it's time to come up with an opening sentence that does not contain the words: "bark," "opening," and "spiel" in it?"

    I'm not saying you need to praise Olbermann, or even acknowledge that he is sometimes right.

    No siree, I would; however, happily settle for some minor variations in that writing style of yours.

    Realizing that you are a busy man, I took the liberty of pulling out a thesaurus for you. In the future, you might consider any of the following fine alternatives in your writing.

    Spiel: oration, sermon, talk, lecture, pitch, discussion, stump, spout

    Bark: bay, bellow, growl, grunt, howl, roar, snarl, woof, yap, yip (I would stay away from bellow, you use that one far too much as well.)

    opening: birth, coming out, commencement, curtain-raiser, dawn, inauguration, inception, initiation, kickoff, launch, launching, onset, opener, outset, start

    These are just a few choices to get you started. Remember Johnny, adding sentence variety to prose can give it life and rhythm. Never varying your choice of words can grow monotonous for readers.

    Also, don't limit yourself to just different word choices. Consider approaching the material from a new angle.

    Any of these simple changes, can make major differences in your writing. I hope this has been helpful for you.


    cee,
    Bush is an evil man! He's worst than Hitler! He's preventing the cures for Aids and Cancer. He should be put on trail for killing 200 Million people! He does nothing about Dafur! He's evil and must be impeached!


    OLIVER NORTH OPPOSES BUMBLING BUSHCO SURGE

    -- White House Declares Oliver North "Terrorist Organization", Flip-Flopper, Democrat --

    WASHINGTON -- Retired Colonel Oliver North, the hawkish Fox News contributor's new syndicated columnist, has came out against President Bush's reported plan to escalate the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. Said North, "The call for incrementally increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq sounds eerily like Lyndon Johnson's plan to save Vietnam in the mid 1960s." North recalled that on his recent return to Iraq, "Not one of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Guardsmen or Marines I interviewed told me that they wanted more U.S. boots on the ground. In fact, nearly all expressed just the opposite: 'We don't need more American troops, we need more Iraqi troops,' was a common refrain. They are right."


    The following is Col. Jacobs who believes that the surge is actually preparation for withdrawal: (excuse the format)


    You have to come to the conclusion that the forces that are there are going to serve two purposes. They�re first going to do actually three, if you think about the covering the withdrawal.

    First, they�re going to isolate areas where the worst concentrations of bad guys are located, secure those areas, and then be replaced by Iraqi units who are well trained.

    Second, we are going to train more Iraqi units so that when we leave they will be there in order to protect Iraq.

    And third, we�re going to withdraw over time. Unless you think we are going to be there forever, which we are not. CARLSON: Well, and finally, Colonel, you mentioned Iraqi forces. Are there any? I mean, how many specifically do you know? How many Iraqi forces in Iraq right now are capable of fighting the insurgency or quelling the civil war, or battle ready, basically?

    JACOBS: Well, that�s a very good question. There are more than there were before but fewer than there needs to be.

    There are several dozens of first-rate Iraqi units. Many of them actually in control of parts of Iraq by themselves without any American assistance, except for logistical assistance and to provide air strikes when required.

    Lots of Iraqi units, but there are not nearly enough to control all the country, nor nearly enough to control those contested areas like those in Baghdad and Anbar province. The American hope is that over a relatively short period of time more units will be able to be stood up among the Iraqis so that they can replace American units.

    But there are good units in Iraq. There�s just not enough of them.

    And one other thing before we break. That is the police. The weak link in the whole Iraqi operation is...

    CARLSON: Yes.

    JACOBS: ... are the police, and we have got to do a better job of training the police and get them squared away.

    CARLSON: Well, time and again, you read reports of people in police uniforms, possibly actual police officers being involved in kidnapping and murder. And it just�it does kind of shake your faith in the Iraqi police.

    Colonel Jack Jacobs, from headquarters, thanks a lot.

    JACOBS: Good to be with you.

    I don't read that as a completely unwinnable situation now (according to the Colonel) but that it is certain to fail because they won't be ready. I didn't hear him state that it would be an impossible task, just that it is going to fail within the short time frame. Concerning the Iraqi police, I referenced an interview with a policeman from Fallujua that I posted the other night.
    http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/002926.php

    Hey blankman....I have posted time and again....I want a definitive policy on both sides. The political calculations by people like Hagel, Snow and the other Republicans up for re-election in 2008 and The D's going for President would be wiped away if Kennedy's resolution was put forward or when Bush asks for additional funds in February, they are debated.

    Here's a new one.....Try to argue that The Congress is not part of the problem in Iraq if they continue to fund the war?....Like Grammie has pointedly posted....if Iraq and Bush's war of terrorism is eroding liberties, killing thousands and hurting us internationally, shouldn't he be stopped ASAP?

    Constitutionally, The Congress has financial power over the executive in order to be a check/balance on his/her power.....They should use the power if Bush is being despotic, war mongering, etc.

    Answer my question, blankman!

    cee
    "I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

    uh-oh! liberal has posted must fight back. Will post as him--so clever. Must defeat! War of arrtrition. No argument. can't do that. must post more than him. Will post more. Will wear out.

    Wait he wrote something funny. will steal that. use it two posts later. Know one will no.


    It's bad limmerick time. Can write more limmericks. That will prove I'm right.

    must post more. must not give.

    To 4:00 p.m. post,

    I saw Ollie respond and he reiterated that he has never agrred with a troop increase. But he did half-heartedly support the President's position as Commander-in-Chief. He is always on Fox and stated it last week. He never conceded a military defeat.

    Ken said:

    "For the last time, if she had talked about "gavel time" before the election, you'd have a point. But she said it one way before and a very different one after."

    And for the last time, your interpretation leads to an ABSURD conclusion - no REASONABLE person would expect the Congress to meet for 100 hours straight.

    "As in the first 100 hours the House meets after Democrats _ in her fondest wish _ win control in the Nov. 7 midterm elections and Pelosi takes the gavel as the first Madam Speaker in history." - October 6th AP article about Nancy Pelosi

    "...We will introduce this legislation on the first day of the new Congress, we will pass it within the first 100 legislative hours. This new direction represents the priorities of a unified Democratic Party. This is our pledge to the American people." - Statement by Nancy Pelosi November 22nd

    I see no internal inconsistency there - you're reaching.

    "Pelosi is also the one who supported the consummately corrupt john murtha for majority leader (his own fellow democrats couldn't swallow that one)"

    And she paid the price for it.

    "and had to be dissuaded from making alcee hastings the chair of the intelligence committee -- a man pelosi herself voted to impeach and remove from his judgeship."

    Hastings wasn't in line for the chairmanship. The ranking member on the committee at the time was Rep. Jane Harman (D-Cal.) and was next in line for the chairmanship. And Pelosi knew exactly what would happen if she appointed Hastings - she'd get hammered again in the press. It wasn't dissuasion - it was calculation.

    You love setting IMPOSSIBLE standards - Pelosi must be perfect, can't make even the tiniest mistake and when she does she deserves to be de-boned, butterflied and barbecued for it.

    Well, I asked a second time and got no answer again.

    It is a lot easier to criticize and attack than it is to suggest an alternative and actually think about the consequences of that alternative.

    If O'Reilly got fired, no one would watch Olberfag anymore. The only people who watch Meltdown are the Anti-Factorists. What would the ESPN reject ever talk about then?

    "This is such a bullshit argument. As long as President mcdumbass is commited to sending more troops to Iraq, we have a responsability to fund them so that they have the best chance of survival. Cutting off the funds doesn't stop the surge. it only hurts the troops.

    Cee your Republican talking point, is the point of someone who wants to make sure there is blame to go around for a failed policy. Meaning "We Republicans know iraq is a cluster f---. The important thing is to make sure the Democrats get blamed for it as well."'


    Many Democrats seem to want it both ways.

    They argue that they are now in control of the House and Senate because Americans are disillusioned with the war and want change, then they turn around and say, "Don't look at us to make things better. This isn't our problem.".

    Well, that sure leaves their voters high and dry and it's outrageous nonsense coming from legislator in leadership.

    Either there is not a viable idea that they can agree upon among the lot of them or they are cynically hoping that things get worst for '08.

    Someone yesterday posted that KO got his 4 million dollar contract and it made my stomach turn.

    Hey blankman....I have posted time and again....I want a definitive policy on both sides.

    Why to share the blame for the failure. look at it this way. if it goes right. Your commander and chief can claim all the credit. Hell will freeze over first so you are trying to spread the blame for a war your president started.

    "The political calculations by people like Hagel, Snow and the other Republicans up for re-election in 2008 and The D's going for President would be wiped away if Kennedy's resolution was put forward or when Bush asks for additional funds in February, they are debated."


    So what? kennedy is one man. Congress is a whole lotta men. The president doesn't need congree to make war. it is his right, at least according the Cheney.

    Here's a new one.....Try to argue that The Congress is not part of the problem in Iraq if they continue to fund the war?....Like Grammie has pointedly posted....if Iraq and Bush's war of terrorism is eroding liberties, killing thousands and hurting us internationally, shouldn't he be stopped ASAP?

    How? by what authority/ by what power/ the only thing congree controlls is the purse and the troops will still go if they do that. They will just go without the funding. Which doesn't stop the war it just hurts the troops. See if you can come up with a way for congree to actually force Bush's hand that actually worksand i will write it in to my congressman.


    Constitutionally, The Congress has financial power over the executive in order to be a check/balance on his/her power.....They should use the power if Bush is being despotic, war mongering, etc.


    See above on why?

    Answer my question, blankman!


    I did.

    cee
    "I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

    We're going in circles.

    She said 100 hours, just as Republicans said 100 days regarding the contract with America. They didn't then say 100 gavel days, which would be closer to a year, nor did any media say they had that much time nor did any Republican critic I ever saw say "hey, cut them some slack, they didn't mean DAYS when they said days, they meant GAVEL days."

    I'm not reaching anywhere, I'm talking about what was said. Period.

    As far as murtha, that's right, she paid the price. What that has to do with her SUPPORT of him I don't know. I never said it wouldn't cost her.

    As far as hastings, you happen to be correct. Jane Harman is the ranking Democrat on that committee. And she should have been made chair without so much as a second thought. But since pelosi has some kind of infantile political feud with her, she was never considered for the chair. Hastings was considered instead --- a defrocked impeached judge chairing our INTELLIGENCE committee. During a war, no less.

    I'll say it again. I'm not looking for this stuff, Pelosi is providing it. And you need blinders not to see it yourself, since it's right in front of your eyes

    The "Great FDR" committed far more alleged war offenses than Bush... Lefty's need to take a history lesson.

    Cecelia, I second that. I was looking for Bob's nonexistent list of GWB's ten lies and came across this.

    "Was there ever any doubt in anyone's mind that the #1 female warmongering poster at this site would not like one of the best shows ever on the tube: MASH?"

    Now, Bobo has really hurt my feelings.

    I was so sure he would give me the award.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    **** The 4 Million Dollar Man ****

    Anderson Cooper has inked a new multiyear pact with CNN, according to sources inside the all news network. Under the terms of the new deal, the host of the CNN primetime show Anderson Cooper 360 will be able to continue as an occasional contributor to 60 Minutes.

    A CNN spokeswoman declined comment.

    According to industry sources, Cooper?s old deal was worth in the neighborhood of $2 million a year and his new payday is more than double that amount. CNN has also made Cooper the center of an unprecedented multimillion-dollar promotional campaign.

    Last December his newscast was up more than 30% in the key 25-54 news demo.

    Cooper?s new CNN deal comes in the wake of months of speculation that he might make a full-time leap to CBS. The 39-year-old Cooper had been courted by CBS to take over the reins of the network?s ratings-challenged morning newscast The Early Show.

    CBS News brass has wanted to make over The Early Show for some time, but with Cooper now not available, the news division is struggling to come up with what talent to turn to next. For the time being, the show is staying with the co-host trio of Harry Smith, Hannah Storm and Julie Chen, along with news anchor Russ Mitchell. Co-host Rene Syler left last December.

    Grannie, Did you find his list? Was he lying?

    Another bullshit argument.


    They argue that they are now in control of the House and Senate because Americans are disillusioned with the war and want change, then they turn around and say, "Don't look at us to make things better. This isn't our problem.".

    First off they don't say 'it's not our problem" They say the war belongs to Bush. Which it does. The people voted for a democratic congress because it was the best way to try to curb an insane president. if they couldn't have went directly to the source and voted the president out they would have but they couldn't. So they put in a Democratic congress to do what it could to stop the president. Hurting the troops was not on the mandate.

    "Either there is not a viable idea that they can agree upon among the lot of them or they are cynically hoping that things get worst for '08."

    Well gosh I know it is easy for the president to come to consensus of one over at the excutive branch but getting several hundred people to agree can be a little more difficult. not to mention anyhting they agree on they don't have the authority to act upon.

    And for those who think me insincere regarding my opinion on taking action against President Bush's policy....I post the letter written by Sgt. Madden and his collegues:

    We write on behalf of fellow active duty service members to ask you to engage in a world-wide effort to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq and bring our troops home.

    As active duty members of the Navy and Marine Corps, we took an oath to defend our country against all enemies foreign and domestic. Almost four years after the start of the current Iraq War, our country and service-members are in a quagmire which has claimed thousands of American lives, permanently injured and mangled thousands more service-members, has cost our country over 300 billion tax-payer dollars and has diverted much needed resources from home-land security, jobs, education and the American way of life.

    Under the Military Whistle-blower Protection Act (DOD directive 7050.6) all military members have a right to send a protected communication to a member of Congress. Our goal is to organize thousands of active duty members throughout the world to file appeals with supporting Congress-persons. The language of this Appeal for Redress is simple and states:

    As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq. Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for U.S troops to come home.

    These appeals can be sent on-line at www.appealforredress.org. There is information on the web site on mailing the appeals in as well.

    This project is supported by a national task force comprised of veterans peace organizations including Veterans For Peace (VFP), Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) and Military Families Speak Out (MFSO).

    All questions and inquiries on this project can be directed to Opio Sokoni at (360) 241-1414. You can also email him at osokoni@yahoo.com.

    Thanks and we shall overcome one day!

    In solidarity,

    Seaman Jonathan W. Hutto, Sr, United States Navy

    Sergeant Liam Madden, United States Marine Corps

    Dr. David Cortright, United States Army Veteran, President of the Fourth Freedom Forum

    And how can Congress address this request to get the troops home......Cut off the funds that allow Bush to keep them there.

    Congress can stop this war!

    cee
    "I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

    It's not Bush's war, it's America's war.

    Senators are not entitled to distance themselves be disavowing their vote.

    That's BS.

    cee,
    Stop spewing your Reichwing BS. Bush is a loser and failure. He's our worst President. He's allowed AIDS and Cancer to flourish. He also has done nothing about world hunger. He's evil and vile! I'm glad the American people have woken up to this.
    Look at Olbermann's Ratings! At leat 7 Million people watch him a night. Compared to Orally's punt 2.4 million. Olby is on the rise!

    Grammie,

    By "war", Bob meant the war I have declared upon his silly-billy hyperbolic butt.

    In that sense I am the #1 warmongering female poster on this site.

    Back to OlbermannWatch bashing

    A 'Fat Man KeithO' promo just aired and tonight on Countdown you get to see the OReilly/Colbert interview WHILE KeithO and the cast of 'FamilyGuy' critques it. I am not making this up. Loser KO is stooping way too low. Needs a cartoon character to make himself look edgey?

    Can't wait to see the J$ write-up on that abomination tomorrow!

    Cecelia, this is a great outcome. We both get new medals to pin to our jockstraps.

    Bobo, the gift that keeps on giving.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    He posted againn. Must not give. Liberal must be stopped. must outpost. I will outpost. Will accuse of stop aids. fags get aids must not interfere must war. must not sell well spell is for the weak. Right is not weak.

    Poor, poor blankman.....he/she just can't come out and say The Democrats are not willing to control George Bush....so he IS an all powerful dictator, blankman?.....

    Come on, you are so pathetic....

    "The president doesn't need congree [sic]to make war."

    WRONGO!

    Legally, appropriations MUST be spent on what Congress passed them for. If Bush asks for more money in February '07, and the Congress says NO....Bush can continue his policy with the money already allocated....once those funds dry up, he MUST ask Congress for more.....They say, no and Bush must decide to either....

    Circumvent the budget which would be illegal
    or
    Try to use his bully pulpit to get the money...but you all say his low approval ratings would mean he would lose

    No money....no ability to keep the troops there, he would have to bring them home.

    Read Kucinich's plan.....it's great Constitutional stuff...this country needs something like this (or a draft) to make people choose sides!

    cee
    "I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

    "He's allowed AIDS and Cancer to flourish."

    Dude are you f---ing retarded? Bush has spent Billions of dollars in Africa trying to combat AIDS. Bobo you are the dumbest person alive.

    I would still like an answer from someone who opposes the war in Iraq, that goes beyond insults and sarcasms. It is a lot easier to criticize and attack than it is to suggest an alternative and actually think about the consequences of that alternative.

    ----------

    just another vacuous ditto-head talking-point
    saying the Dems have no alternative plan.

    Baker-Hamilton Plan.


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


    Suppose we leave Iraq before the insurgency is either neutralized or controlled. What do you think will happen then?

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

    Civil War.
    All out civil war.
    Their civil war.
    Which every country needs a) once in a while, and b) in order to opt for democracy, should they choose it (Allah willing).

    Now don't go all henny-penny the sky is falling.
    An Iraqi civil war
    would likely do little more to destabilize the region
    than did the Iraq/Iran war
    which lasted nearly a decade
    and killed over one million.


    Can't wait to see the J$ write-up on that abomination tomorrow!


    here I'll write the intro for you. To give a teaser.

    Herr olbermann BARKED out the OPENING SPIEL in usual fashion today.


    Benson, I was shocked. Shocked I tell you.

    There is no list. There are a lot of same-o same-o spread around. Vitriolic assumptions stated as fact to prove Bush lied which has to be true because Bush is a liar.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    "A 'Fat Man KeithO' promo just aired and tonight on Countdown you get to see the OReilly/Colbert interview WHILE KeithO and the cast of 'FamilyGuy' critques it. I am not making this up. Loser KO is stooping way too low. Needs a cartoon character to make himself look edgey?"

    But how will we tell the difference between Keith Olbermann and Peter Griffin?!?!

    cee
    "I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

    Ken:

    Forget it. You have your point of view. I have mine. We're never going to agree, and I have better things to do than ram my head repeatedly against a brick wall.

    As for Harman and Pelosi's "feud" - most Democrats didn't want Harman as Intelligence chair because she was seen as too supportive of Bush's agenda (particularly her support of his domestic surveillance program). It wasn't because of some "catfight" between her and the Speaker - but that makes a better story.

    Peter Griffin will sound smarter

    That's your best shot? Calling me a "ditto head" (I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, by the way. Your stereotype is wrong. Do you also think Black people are lazy, Jews are cheap and Italians are all in the mafia?)

    You have NOT told us what you think will happen or what the consequences will be. That's not a talking point, that's the basis for deciding what to do there. And saying "baker hamilton plan" doesn't mean a thing to me

    What do YOU think will happen if we leave before the insurgency is neutralized or controlled? What will the CONSEQUENCES be if we do?

    When you never have an alternative, just an attack and a sneer, the talking point person is you.

    "Poor, poor blankman.....he/she just can't come out and say The Democrats are not willing to control George Bush....so he IS an all powerful dictator, blankman?....."

    Wow mom look at moron!

    "The president doesn't need congree [sic]to make war."

    "WRONGO!"

    Stupido!

    The appropriations already allocated will last some time. if there is no money he can keep troops there underfunded make them make due. More troops will get killed and he can blame congress for their deaths. Since congress doesn't want to kill marines, they want to stop a war this is a pretty stupid idea.

    try again Cee. You f---ing numbskull.

    `just another vacuous ditto-head talking-point
    saying the Dems have no alternative plan.`

    OLBERMANN: If you have heard president or his functionaries respond to critics of his handling of the war in Iraq, you have heard them say that the critics should present and explain alternative plans of their own. The implication, a false one, being that the many critics have not put forward many plans.

    "He's allowed AIDS and Cancer to flourish."

    Dude are you f---ing retarded? Bush has spent Billions of dollars in Africa trying to combat AIDS. Bobo you are the dumbest person alive.


    that's redstate posing as bobo

    What the deuce?

    LOL

    "Well gosh I know it is easy for the president to come to consensus of one over at the excutive branch but getting several hundred people to agree can be a little more difficult. not to mention anyhting they agree on they don't have the authority to act upon.

    Posted by: at January 19, 2007 4:18 PM"

    You may get a argument from EE about this hundred's of people agreeing. He thinks VP Cheney was arrogant and power grabbing because he told Wallace that the President will not run the war by committee.

    I just couldn't make my case as eloquently as you have for me.

    I do dispute one thing from the above. The Congress has the rights that our Founding Fathers gave them, the power of the purse.

    If you're not happy with the constitutional system we have operated under for over 200 years, your beef is with them.

    The Congress has options. Don't blame their lack of using those options on everyone else.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    You have NOT told us what you think will happen or what the consequences will be. What do YOU think will happen if we leave before the insurgency is neutralized or controlled? What will the CONSEQUENCES be if we do?

    -------

    read on lemming brain. you missed it the first time.

    -------

    Suppose we leave Iraq before the insurgency is either neutralized or controlled. What do you think will happen then?

    Civil War.
    All out civil war.
    Their civil war.
    Which every country needs a) once in a while, and b) in order to opt for democracy, should they choose it (Allah willing).

    Now don't go all henny-penny the sky is falling.
    An Iraqi civil war
    would likely do little more to destabilize the region
    than did the Iraq/Iran war
    which lasted nearly a decade
    and killed over one million.

    "First off they don't say 'it's not our problem" They say the war belongs to Bush. Which it does. The people voted for a democratic congress because it was the best way to try to curb an insane president. if they couldn't have went directly to the source and voted the president out they would have but they couldn't. So they put in a Democratic congress to do what it could to stop the president. Hurting the troops was not on the mandate."


    This is the same circular argument. Go look up the synonyms for "contradictions", then write them all on your t-shirt.

    The military doesn't want troop surge...but not funding troop surge will hurt the troops Bush will send in anyway....

    The American people would have thrown Bush out of office had he been running last Nov.... The public wants the president stopped, but suggesting by that logic, the Dems should then STOP him (defund the war), is merely wanting the Dems blamed for Bush's failures....

    Sheesh!


    "Well gosh I know it is easy for the president to come to consensus of one over at the excutive branch but getting several hundred people to agree can be a little more difficult. not to mention anyhting they agree on they don't have the authority to act upon."

    By your own argument our Democrat leadership was installed in order to "stop" the president--which means to end the war in Iraq. They either make the case to the public why the war should NOT be defunded and come to some sort of consensus among themselves as to how the war would be better run, or they do what you say the public has elected them to do.

    the nameless nimrod forgot that I don't respond to him/her.

    But his/her answer is asinine (like most of what this genius pumps out). There's a teeny weeny extra added attraction to the civil war,and that is the insurgency. These people will kill EVERY side and if they take over all or part of the country they will have a base far more significant than Afghanistan ever could have been.

    But why let that get in the way? After all, if you try to prevent it you might have to acknowledge that Bush had a point about being there.

    Why does everyone hate Reggie Bush?

    The Saints are Awesome!

    One other thing: Leaving the population of Iraq to a horror show of that magnitude is better than staying there? Sure, let's make sure a few million Arabs get killed, who cares?

    This is the brilliant alternative plan of the nameless nimrod

    "OLBERMANN: If you have heard president or his functionaries respond to critics of his handling of the war in Iraq, you have heard them say that the critics should present and explain alternative plans of their own. The implication, a false one, being that the many critics have not put forward many plans."


    So is our Democrat leadership going to come to a consensus on the Kerry or the Murtha (to name two) plan on behalf of their voters or are they going to wait till '08?

    Are their "functionaries" here going to continue to flak for them, while having used the most emotionally-charged rhetoric on this board, when describing the course of the war, the president, and the state of the union in general.

    Ken, that is also the brilliant plan of the Dems in Congress as far as I can tell.

    The two major reasons I supported this from day one are the same reasons you appear to have.

    Iraq is strategic, bordering six nations in the Middle East. A stable modern socity and government there is essential to the region and our interests there.

    The Islamic movement is always trying to gain effective or actual control of nation states because it is essential to their ability to wage their self proclaimed war to change the world to their liking. And nothing is negotiable to them except our complete conversion and capitulation.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Lie: In his October 6th speech on the War on Terror at National Endowment for Democracy, President Bush said”The United States and our partners have disrupted at least ten serious al Qaeda terrorist plots since September the 11th, including three al Qaeda plots to attack inside the United States

    truth:The plots that Bush claimed his administration disrupted actually had already been abandoned by the time they were discovered.

    lie:After the attacks, Ari Fleischer stated that the President had no warnings of an attack and President Bush explained

    fact:Dr. Rice admitted privately to the 9-11 panel that she had “misspoken” when she said there were no prior warnings, but then proceeded to repeat this claim in public.


    lie:BUSH: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. [Bush on Polish TV, 5/29/03]


    fact:Pentagon determined in May 2003 that two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops were not evidence of an Iraqi biological weapons program. The nine-member team “transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003.”

    Despite having authoritative evidence that the biological laboratories claim was false, the administration continued to peddle the myth over the next four months.


    Lie:During his Veteran’s Day 2005 address, Bush charged that “ . . more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. "

    fact: Washington Post extensively analyzed this claim, concluding that: “Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were ependent on the administration to provide the material…Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers

    This was confirmed by a Congressional Research Service report which found that the “President, and a small number of presidentially-designated Cabinet-level officials, including the Vice President (3) - in contrast to Members of Congress (4) - have access to a far greater overall volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information, including information regarding intelligence sources and methods.”


    LIE: Most of the tax cuts went to low and middle income Americans, and now the tax code is more fair, 20 percent of the upper income people pay about 80 percent of the taxes in America today because of how we structured the tax cuts.

    FACTS: The top 1/5th of earners receive 2/3rds of all benefits and the bill excluded extending the child tax credit to 4 million low income families who do not qualify. Middle class earners will receive an average cut of $162 in 2005.

    Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 04.14.04


    The absence of evidence

    Is not evidence of absence!

    Fake Bob---posting here as the real Bob,

    Knock it off.

    A cheap imitation of something bad can be just as annoying as a cheap imitation of something good.

    Frankly, reading you doing Bob is sort of like watching Martha Stewart trying to be Donald Trump.

    There's a lot of BS in that post, but the last one is my favorite.

    If the top 20% pay 80% of the taxes, and the top fifth (that's 20% too, why is it being hidden?) receive 2/3 of all the benefits (that's less than 67%), the rich are getting LESS than their contribution, not more.

    The American people would have thrown Bush out of office had he been running last Nov.... The public wants the president stopped, but suggesting by that logic, the Dems should then STOP him (defund the war), is merely wanting the Dems blamed for Bush's failures....

    Sheesh!

    Which does not stop the war. Bush can then leave underfunded under supplied troops in iraq and complain abouthow the dems are killing our troops. Again a bullshit argument and you know it (I think you do anyway... maybe you really don't.)

    Bush should listen to Baker-Hamilton. We need dialogue with Iran and Al-Qaeda. We also have to sell Israel out and let Iran exterminate them.

    To these sick people, al qaeda isn't the real enemy, Bush is.

    The harder Bush fights terrorism, the harder they fight Bush.

    I wonder if they ever think about what happens if terrorism wins

    BL, I really want to see the proof of that first flight of fancy.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Will not listen to those who say stop. commie, pinko, traitors. Weak. Cecclia tellingg mwe to stopp. who does she think she is? women have no right right to talk out of turn. will post no matter who says stopp. willl outpost alll I will get bob's goat by being bob.

    Which does not stop the war. Bush can then leave underfunded under supplied troops in iraq and complain abouthow the dems are killing our troops. Again a bullshit argument and you know it (I think you do anyway... maybe you really don't.)

    Posted by: at January 19, 2007 5:03 PM'


    So you're saying that the Dems should not do what you have explicitly stated that they were elected to do, because ....what? They might be made to look bad by the president? Look bad to whom? The people who wanted the war stopped and would have thrown Bush out of office if they could have last year?

    Not to mention your implication that the Dems would be unable to expose such a cynical and obvious act on the president's part and unable to take their case right to the American people?

    I've based what I've argued upon the scenario that YOU have painted as to the wishes of the American people. You then come up with a defense based solely on accusing your opposition of wanting the Dems to look bad then call MY argument bullshit!

    Frankly, I'd bet my house any Democrat in power would rather have you CYAing for someone else...


    DEMS: DON'T GIN UP ANOTHER BOTCHED WAR-OF-CHOICE USING FALSE INTEL

    -- Transparent Cheney Despondent, Bummed Public Finally Caught On; Bush Frantically Orders More Emperors New Clothes --

    WASHINGTON -- Democratic leaders in Congress lobbed a warning shot Friday at the White House not to launch an attack against Iran without first seeking approval from lawmakers. "The president does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid told the National Press Club. The administration has accused Iran of meddling in Iraqi affairs and contributing technology and bomb-making materials for insurgents to use against U.S. and Iraqi security forces. President Bush said last week the U.S. will "seek out and destroy" networks providing that support.


    "There's a lot of BS in that post, but the last one is my favorite."

    I know you are a moron, but I will break it down for you.

    The lie was "Most" of the tax cuts went to the poor. in fact just under 67% went to the upper 20%. The upper 20% is not the poor. understand?


    Lie: In his October 6th speech on the War on Terror at National Endowment for Democracy, President Bush said”The United States and our partners have disrupted at least ten serious al Qaeda terrorist plots since September the 11th, including three al Qaeda plots to attack inside the United States

    truth:The plots that Bush claimed his administration disrupted actually had already been abandoned by the time they were discovered.


    How could you possibly be know what he was specifically talking about?

    I know there is no terrorist threat. It is all bullshit. Just fearmongering.

    You are freakin crazy.

    I wonder if they ever think about what happens if terrorism wins

    Posted by: Ken Berwitz at January 19, 2007 5:06 PM

    Well, frankly many of these geniuses would think we are only getting what we deserve, as some of them and their ilk would have argued long before their was a President GW Bush.

    "The lie was "Most" of the tax cuts went to the poor. in fact just under 67% went to the upper 20%. The upper 20% is not the poor. understand?"

    Understand this. Under the tax cuts the tax burden on the Rich (top 20%) went up. That means the percentage of revenue that is taken in by the Rich is higher than it was before. Everyone else's portion of the revenue went down.


    Tax cuts for the Rich!!!!!! Tax Cuts for the Rich!!!!! weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    the nameless nimrod strikes again.

    Bush's comment was meant to indicate that most lower income people recieved the cuts and, numerically there were more who did so than well to do people.

    I don't know how to break this to the nameless nimrod, but if you're talking about a tax CUT, the people who pay the most tax money will INHERENTLY get the lion's share of tax cuts.

    If you give most of it to the people who didn't pay it, it's not a tax cut it is income redistribution

    This is the end of any effort to talk rationally to this guy. What's the point?

    Well, it looks like Olbermann finished second in the ratings last night with an impressive 700,000 viewers. One problem, the first place horse, O'Reilly, had nearly THREE MILLION viewers.

    Hard to believe you can get the silver medal and get beat more than 4-to-1 in the process. I'm sure FOX will heed Olby's call for him to be taken off the air any day now...

    Then again, Mike did say that Olby was going to continue trending up while O'Reilly continued to "plummet" as he put it, so the exact opposite happening must be the only logical result.

    you're saying that the Dems should not do what you have explicitly stated that they were elected to do, because ....what? They might be made to look bad by the president?

    So you are saying that because the american people elected congress to stop the war they should do anyhting to stop it? If that is the case maybe kennedy should get a gun and shoot Bush and Cheney. I mean the american people voted them to stop the war. they need to do it. That is what thye were elected for.

    Your argument makes no sense. The democrats can't stop a surge without hurting the troops. You act as if putting our troops in danger was the reason the democrats were put into congress. They were put there to check bush, but not by any means neccassary, as you seem to suggest.

    "Not to mention your implication that the Dems would be unable to expose such a cynical and obvious act on the president's part and unable to take their case right to the American people?"

    Well, gosh, if that's the case you should be able to expose the democrats cynical plot to do nothing while bush fails so they can win the whitehouse. good luck to you.

    "I've based what I've argued upon the scenario that YOU have painted as to the wishes of the American people. You then come up with a defense based solely on accusing your opposition of wanting the Dems to look bad then call MY argument bullshit!"

    Your argument is bullshit. and my opposition is to hurting the troops to achieve an objective. if the Dems could just pass a resolution telling the president he must get out of iraq. i'd be all for it. the problem is the president would ignore it and argue he had the legal justification to do so.

    Frankly, I'd bet my house any Democrat in power would rather have you CYAing for someone else...

    I'll take that bet. next!

    Crash, I doubt that GWB ever said that most of the tax cuts, used in the sense of AMOUNT, goes to the poor. Remember the Lib complaint that the lowest income people didn't get a tax cut. Of course, they didn't. A cut of 1000% of nothing is still nothing.

    Verifiable chapter and verse, please.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    There's a teeny weeny extra added attraction to the civil war,and that is the insurgency.

    i think you mean the terrorizers, not the insurgency.
    but i know it's difficult forming logical thoughts, let alone logical sentences, when you're an idiot.
    by U.S. military estimates, the al-qaeda terrorizers comprise only 2-3% of the insurgency.

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

    These people will kill EVERY side and if they take over all or part of the country they will have a base far more significant than Afghanistan ever could have been.

    henny penny.
    they'll kill everyone.
    and if we withdraw from fighting them over there,
    they'll follow us back here,
    and kill us in our sleep,
    on accounta they know where we live.
    yeah, right.

    To EE , I had to leave before getting your take on the 4 year old in Vermont. I dont get what your position is ? I posed a few questions to get your take but you only answered others that told me nothing. Am I wrong or do you think O'reilly should have shut up on this and let it go ? EE "About a case that NOBODY had heard of outside of the town before O'Reilly kicked a fit? " Got to go in 45 min. so might have to answer to your repost sometime later.

    Lie:During his Veteran’s Day 2005 address, Bush charged that “ . . more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. "

    fact: Washington Post extensively analyzed this claim, concluding that: “Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were ependent on the administration to provide the material…Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers

    What are the Democrats doing to change this?? Thought the Democrats would put together a bill to make sure they got all the intelligence information to decide if the USA should go to war.

    I have a list

    1st world trade center bombing.
    Clinton did nothing

    Cobar Towers Bombed
    Clinton did nothing.

    US embassy's Bombed
    Clinton did nothing

    USS Cole Bombed
    Clinton did nothing. (wait he bombed an asprin factory)

    US troops killed and dragged through the streets of Somalia
    Clinton withdraws troops.

    Lie:During his Veteran’s Day 2005 address, Bush charged that “ . . more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. "

    fact: Washington Post extensively analyzed this claim, concluding that: “Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were ependent on the administration to provide the material…Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers

    What are the Democrats doing to change this?? Thought the Democrats would put together a bill to make sure they got all the intelligence information to decide if the USA should go to war.


    The challenge was to demonstrate that Bush lied.
    in the above example saying that congress had access to the same information as him was a lie.

    "Am I wrong or do you think O'reilly should have shut up on this and let it go?"

    Yes, because this case had unique circumstances:

    - the crimes occured BEFORE Vermont's new "presumptive sentencing" law took effect. Under this law, the minimum sentence for a sex offense is ten years (unless the judge states FOR THE RECORD the reason why such sentence should not be imposed). Under this law, the prosecution could not have offered the deal they did unless they got judicial approval beforehand AND the judge was willing to articulate his reasoning for ignoring the presumption.

    - the facts presented in the media rely heavily upon hearsay testimony, despite the fact that several recent Supreme Court decisions have made it much more difficult to use hearsay testimony if the victim is available to testify.

    - there are issues of witness competency that need to be taken into account. The victim was 4 (he's now 5). It is difficult to say that he would be considered competent (competency in Vermont requires the witness to know and understand the difference between the truth and a lie).

    Understand this. Under the tax cuts the tax burden on the Rich (top 20%) went up. That means the percentage of revenue that is taken in by the Rich is higher than it was before. Everyone else's portion of the revenue went down.


    Understand this jackass:

    Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush's tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study. The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates

    Tax cuts for the rich! Tax cuts for the rich!

    "I have a list"

    -----------

    no, you have a personality disorder.
    yes, everything is clinton's fault.
    especially the terrorizers.
    on accounta they hate blowjobs, and interns, and nuance.

    "The challenge was to demonstrate that Bush lied.
    in the above example saying that congress had access to the same information as him was a lie.

    Posted by: at January 19, 2007 5:42 PM"

    So, GWB 'lied', but Clinton and Gore were truthful using the exact same rhetoric for years about the exact same things.

    The two highest ranking members of both houses and the Chairmen and Minority ranking members of both houses have access to virtually the same info the President does, source documents.

    I might be wrong, but I think the presidential and vice presidential candidates are given intelligence breifings similar to the sitting Pres and VP.

    I have seen for years members of the select groups, both Dems and Repubs, publicly speaking about the info they have seen and assuring everyone that it is in accord with Admin's statements.

    And all those Dem leaders like Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards etc. were making all those flat out pronouncements with no qualifications because they were lying too. Or because they were being politically expedient. Or because they knew the President would naturally have some special briefings and knowing the system they were confident that they were as well informed as is possible and had essentially the same info.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    So, GWB 'lied', but Clinton and Gore were truthful using the exact same rhetoric for years about the exact same things.


    No idea. I never asserted anything about Clinton or Gore. However, if they did look at much more information that congress and then asserted that congress was looking at the same information as them then that would be a lie, similar to the presidents.

    "So you are saying that because the american people elected congress to stop the war they should do anyhting to stop it? If that is the case maybe kennedy should get a gun and shoot Bush and Cheney. I mean the american people voted them to stop the war. they need to do it. That is what thye were elected for.

    Your argument makes no sense. The democrats can't stop a surge without hurting the troops. You act as if putting our troops in danger was the reason the democrats were put into congress. They were put there to check bush, but not by any means neccassary, as you seem to suggest."


    My argument makes no sense if you're deranged enough to argue that a basic step such defunding the war is tantamount to "any means necessary".

    You act as though that would imply that the troops would be barefoot ala Valley Forge, instead of effecting a necessary draw-down.

    If the president allows the troops to stay in sans what's necessary to support them, then it's up to the Democrats to take that message to the American people who elected them to "put a stop to Bush".

    You've pretty well contradicted yourself trying to cover every angle. If the Dems can't get together on a coherent plan---tough...it's Bush's war anyway, etc.

    How many angles can you cover and still logically make the argument that the American people wanted Bush stopped so badly that they would have thrown him out of office had he been running in '06?

    I must say, in the midst of what has been and still is, some of the most outrageous and hysterical rhetoric about the President, the state of the country, and our furture, the angle that the Dems can't resort to the obvious for fear of political reprisals, is my personal favorite.

    So, let me get this straight, some Republicons think the Dems are holding Resident Bush 'too accountable' for things he's done, while other Republicons think the Dems aren't holding him accountable enough.

    Dem if you do, and Dem if you don't.

    My question was should he shut up and let it go? Not if they could win. If O'reilly and others let the Cashman story go no one would know. They were against him there too saying the Judge had his reasons and that was that. They were flooded with complaints and the Judge had to elaborate his position. Turned out to be lucicrous.Then gave the guy 3 years. And is under fire to retire. You posted earlier that I would be outraged if they went to trial and lost. NO. Take a shot and show the law will come after you. Even if O'reilly cant get this guy locked up you make people aware of what some scum can get away with. Your looking at this like a lawyer. O'reilly's point is this is absurd. He is going to make noise and even if nothing can be done here they better fix it. Is he wrong for that ? If so I disagree. And the point Puck made to start this was not if O'relly could win this but that he was outraged and wanted the public aware because sometimes it can change things. You have to agree probation for this is a joke. Maybe they cant win but I am happy I know and many others also.Got to go.

    My argument makes no sense if you're deranged enough to argue that a basic step such defunding the war is tantamount to "any means necessary".

    Wow you really don't get it do you? I was using hyperbole to make a point. But yes, I believe the ameircan people want the war to end, but not by withdrawing funds and hurting the troops.

    "You act as though that would imply that the troops would be barefoot ala Valley Forge, instead of effecting a necessary draw-down. "

    Well gosh, if taking the funds away won't limit the troop's capacity to fight--thereby exposing the troops to danger. Then limiting their funds won't be real effective will it?


    "If the president allows the troops to stay in sans what's necessary to support them, then it's up to the Democrats to take that message to the American people who elected them to "put a stop to Bush".

    What the hell kind of logic is that? Yeah maybe the Dems can convince the populace to storm the whitehouse.

    "You've pretty well contradicted yourself trying to cover every angle. If the Dems can't get together on a coherent plan---tough...it's Bush's war anyway, etc."

    Well, no I didn't. But anyway, maybe your right. heck the american people haven't united on a war plan either. If they were against this war clearly they would. It's their fault Bush has succeeded in escalating the conflict.

    "How many angles can you cover and still logically make the argument that the American people wanted Bush stopped so badly that they would have thrown him out of office had he been running in '06?"

    let me make sure I'm understaning you. are you saying that Bush would win if he were up for re-election, with that magnifcient approval rating of his? You are right, The people didn't want bush stopped. The people must have voted (in a landslide) based on the winning personality of the Democrats. Not because they dissaproved of the president.

    "I must say, in the midst of what has been and still is, some of the most outrageous and hysterical rhetoric about the President, the state of the country, and our furture, the angle that the Dems can't resort to the obvious for fear of political reprisals, is my personal favorite."

    Well, that is because you are not thinking. That's not my fault.


    My belated response to mike who provided this gem:
    " I am also free to call attention to your ridiculous obsession with one human male who happens to be on TV, IF I choose to do so."

    My obsession with Olbermann huh? What about Olbermann's obsession with O'Reilly? You don't find that "ridiculous?" What about your obsession with Bush? Or your obsession with ME? You spend far more of your time on this forum than I do. I'd say that your obsession with Bush, whom you blame for every single thing up to and including the sun not shining is unhealthy and indicates you have some rage issues you need to work out. He's a screw-up, that much is for certain but he's honestly not to blame for EVERYTHING. Now let's talk about Olbermann's unhealthy fixation with O'Reilly. That is what I call obsession. I mean I know he desperately wants to have the ratings that O'Reilly does but after nearly 4 years on air, the best he can do is half of O'Reilly's demo audience and a quarter of BOR's overall audience. He's never, not once, in nearly four years, come close to beating O'Reilly for even ONE night. And what does he continue to do? Tilt at windmills.

    So when the discredited "journalist" Olbermann gives up his obsession with Bill O'Reilly and all things Fox, when you give up your obsession with me and George W. Bush, then I'll give up my "obsession" as you put it with Keith Olbermann.

    And you know, full well, that Olbermann is NOT a news anchor. You know that he runs an OPINION show. You couldn't and didn't (no one has I see) provided even a single defense or explanation or even remote criticisim of Keith's lying in one story last night and his use of editing to support a non-story in another. You know that would be a hanging offense, Saddam style, if anyone on Fox had done it. Yet the silence here, even from the Olbermann defenders has been most illuminating. You know it's wrong. You know it's nothing a real journalist would ever do. AND You know that if a real journalist had made a mistake, he'd correct it. But because Olbermann Bush bashes, you ALL give him a giant pass. Or ignore him, which is the preferred Olbyloon method in dealing with Olby screw-ups. Why no one ever says a discouraging word about Olbermann lying, shading the truth, not providing opposing viewpoints or as he did last night, editing a story to fit his (false) premise. Why doesn't Media Matters, which has appointed itself a media watch dog write about that? It's as biased as Newsbusters, which is why I don't read either of them. Both of them have as much to do with journalism as Olbermann's show is, which is to say, they all suck. We should demand accountability and truthfulness in both our politicians and in our media. But you only want to provide accountability for Republicans. You only want to bitch about O'Reilly, Fox, etc. And then you turn around, attack me for being upset that Olbermann is an insult to journalism.

    And while I'm here? Let me address this as well. Olbermann uses gossip segments in each and every show he does. So therefore I think it's only fitting that I bring up any gossip item that I happen to read about Olbermann. Again, when Olbermann cans the gossip segments, hey, I'll stop repeating gossip about him. But he won't. You see, those are the highest rated segments of his shows. So deal with it. Your objection has been duly noted.

    "So, let me get this straight, some Republicons think the Dems are holding Resident Bush 'too accountable' for things he's done, while other Republicons think the Dems aren't holding him accountable enough.

    Dem if you do, and Dem if you don't."


    Dim for sure.

    "O'reilly's point is this is absurd. He is going to make noise and even if nothing can be done here they better fix it."

    Which they already did - the reason the law I mentioned in my last post couldn't be applied was because the crime occurred BEFORE the new law came into effect. O'Reilly's arguing a situation that will now be the EXCEPTION, not the RULE.

    O'Reilly didn't mention that Vermont has toughened their laws. He's probably mad that they didn't adopt Jessica's Law (which I disagree with because of it's mandatory minimum provisions) because that's apparently the only way to get off his "bad" list.

    The Conservatives are Red
    The Liberals are Blue
    Both Parties Keep Spinning
    To Support their own point of View

    But on the Sands of a Land
    That Seems So Far Away
    Our Children Keep Dying
    Four more blown up just Today

    Bush says he has a plan
    Of course he's said that before
    Now 80% of us are wondering
    How he won back in 04

    He said he'd protect us
    And Keep us from Terror
    But the most we can hope for-
    2008: The End of an Error

    "'Dem if you do, and Dem if you don't.'"

    "Dim for sure."

    HAHA that's great! A clever pun on Dim and Dem!
    Ok so they are pronounced differently and spelled differently as well, but use your imagination.


    "My argument makes no sense if you're deranged enough to argue that a basic step such defunding the war is tantamount to "'any means necessary.'"

    Wow you really don't get it do you? I was using hyperbole to make a point. But yes, I believe the ameircan people want the war to end, but not by withdrawing funds and hurting the troops.

    "You act as though that would imply that the troops would be barefoot ala Valley Forge, instead of effecting a necessary draw-down. "

    Well gosh, if taking the funds away won't limit the troop's capacity to fight--thereby exposing the troops to danger. Then limiting their funds won't be real effective will it?


    "If the president allows the troops to stay in sans what's necessary to support them, then it's up to the Democrats to take that message to the American people who elected them to "put a stop to Bush".

    What the hell kind of logic is that? Yeah maybe the Dems can convince the populace to storm the whitehouse.

    "You've pretty well contradicted yourself trying to cover every angle. If the Dems can't get together on a coherent plan---tough...it's Bush's war anyway, etc."

    Well, no I didn't. But anyway, maybe your right. heck the american people haven't united on a war plan either. If they were against this war clearly they would. It's their fault Bush has succeeded in escalating the conflict.

    "How many angles can you cover and still logically make the argument that the American people wanted Bush stopped so badly that they would have thrown him out of office had he been running in '06?"

    let me make sure I'm understaning you. are you saying that Bush would win if he were up for re-election, with that magnifcient approval rating of his? You are right, The people didn't want bush stopped. The people must have voted (in a landslide) based on the winning personality of the Democrats. Not because they dissaproved of the president.

    "I must say, in the midst of what has been and still is, some of the most outrageous and hysterical rhetoric about the President, the state of the country, and our furture, the angle that the Dems can't resort to the obvious for fear of political reprisals, is my personal favorite."

    Well, that is because you are not thinking. That's not my fault.

    Bush lied and innocent Muslims died! He's a mass murder! He's killed more people that Hitler ever did.

    Will keep posting as bob. Not smart enought ot argue with he would destroy me but he is wrong i feel it. Damn those lying facts must not let him post last.

    "Wow you really don't get it do you? I was using hyperbole to make a point. But yes, I believe the ameircan people want the war to end, but not by withdrawing funds and hurting the troops.

    Well gosh, if taking the funds away won't limit the troop's capacity to fight--thereby exposing the troops to danger. Then limiting their funds won't be real effective will it?"


    Yeah..yeah...yeah. as though the Democrats can't present a dead-line on when they will no longer fund the war, thus keeping up current defunding but forcing the president to draw-down in order to prepare for the dead-line or personally face the consequences of taking of the troops.

    You act as though the Dems are some housewife who must stay with an abusive husband in order to keep food on the table for the children.


    "let me make sure I'm understaning you. are you saying that Bush would win if he were up for re-election, with that magnifcient approval rating of his? You are right, The people didn't want bush stopped. The people must have voted (in a landslide) based on the winning personality of the Democrats. Not because they dissaproved of the president."

    I'm with you, buddy. I am totally sold and going with this argument of yours. YOU are the one who made this point with your right hand while your left started wringing itself over political fallout.

    Again, I'm pretty the Democrats don't want you spinning for them, but I've certainly enjoyed it.

    HAHA that's great! A clever pun on Dim and Dem!
    Ok so they are pronounced differently and spelled differently as well, but use your imagination.

    Dem's the breaks...


    "Yeah..yeah...yeah. as though the Democrats can't present a dead-line on when they will no longer fund the war, thus keeping up current defunding but forcing the president to draw-down in order to prepare for the dead-line or personally face the consequences of taking of the troops."


    Yeah, yeah, that is how it would play out. sure thing. more stupidity.

    "You act as though the Dems are some housewife who must stay with an abusive husband in order to keep food on the table for the children."

    No i act as though they are constrined by what what that can do without making the situation worse. one day you might get it.


    "let me make sure I'm understaning you. are you saying that Bush would win if he were up for re-election, with that magnifcient approval rating of his? You are right, The people didn't want bush stopped. The people must have voted (in a landslide) based on the winning personality of the Democrats. Not because they dissaproved of the president."

    "I'm with you, buddy. I am totally sold and going with this argument of yours. YOU are the one who made this point with your right hand while your left started wringing itself over political fallout."


    So you do believe the president was reprimanded by the country. I'm glad you agree with me.


    "Again, I'm pretty the Democrats don't want you spinning for them, but I've certainly enjoyed it."

    From the person who makes "storm the castle" arguments to stop the president. Anyway you are dismissed.

    "Dem's the breaks"

    John Cleese's three rules of comedy:

    1) No puns
    2) No puns
    3) No puns.

    Fortunately your political analysis counts as high comedy.

    Bush lied. He is the cause of Global Warming and AIDS in Africa. He is the reason why Muslims haven't invented anything since the compass. It is all his fault. I blame him for my little member and my inadequacies as a human being.

    "Yeah, yeah, that is how it would play out. sure thing. more stupidity."

    As to how you THINK it would "play out", the pressure would be on the president. If he didn't respond to a designated dead-line giving him enough time to draw-down before a defunding, then he be held politically responsible.

    "No i act as though they are constrined by what what that can do without making the situation worse. one day you might get it."

    Here you go again. You conjure up the constraints based on conjecture and act as though they're fact.

    "As to how you THINK it would "play out", the pressure would be on the president. If he didn't respond to a designated dead-line giving him enough time to draw-down before a defunding, then he be held politically responsible"

    Here you go again Cecelia. You conjure up outcomes based on conjecture and act as though it is a fact.

    "Here you go again Cecelia. You conjure up outcomes based on conjecture and act as though it is a fact."


    Well, you're no deep thinker, but surely you can understand that my stating the fact that the president would be under pressure to respond to a deadline set by congress is NOT the same as assuming his response one way or another-- which is what you have done throughout this argument.

    Let me add too, that it's particularly ironic for you to have first made an argument that Republicans want Dems to face political fallout for defunding the war and then to turn around and use an expression "storming the gates" as though political pressure is suddenly an absurd notion when I argue it back at you.

    Well, you're no deep thinker, but surely you can understand that my stating the fact that the president would be under pressure to respond to a deadline set by congress is NOT the same as assuming his response one way or another-- which is what you have done throughout this argument.

    Well clearly I’m thinking far deeper than you, so I should point out that your assertion that the president would be under enormous pressure to respond to a deadline is clearly every bit as much conjecture, as my assumption that cutting the funds would harm the troops. While we are at it is incredibly amusing that you would argue that somehow the president would feel the pressure of a deadline, while a stinging election defea,t and overwhelming disapproval of the job he is doing has not deterred him one bit.
    “Let me add too, that it's particularly ironic for you to have first made an argument that Republicans want Dems to face political fallout for defunding the war and then to turn around and use an expression "storming the gates" as though political pressure is suddenly an absurd notion when I argue it back at you.”
    First off you are flat out wrong or just lying. I never argued the Republicans want anything. I do think they would assign blame to the Democrats if troops starting getting killed because funding for their gear was cut off. But I have no idea what they want. I just see that as the likely outcome. I also think many democrats feel it would put the troops at risk and they can’t in good conscience take that risk of cutting the funds. You; however, seem to think because the people were angry enough at Bush’s handling of the war, to vote against his party in the last election, means somehow that they would be happy if the democrats endangered the troops in order to reprimand the president.
    ‘in regards to “storm the gates” Those 30% approval ratings and lost election, have really stopped the president so far haven’t they?

    "Well, you're no deep thinker, but surely you can understand that my stating the fact that the president would be under pressure to respond to a deadline set by congress is NOT the same as assuming his response one way or another-- which is what you have done throughout this argument."

    Well clearly I’m thinking far deeper than you, so I should point out that your assertion that the president would be under enormous pressure to respond to a deadline is clearly every bit as much conjecture, as my assumption that cutting the funds would harm the troops.

    While we are at it is incredibly amusing that you would argue that somehow the president would feel the pressure of a deadline, while a stinging election defea,t and overwhelming disapproval of the job he is doing has not deterred him one bit.

    “Let me add too, that it's particularly ironic for you to have first made an argument that Republicans want Dems to face political fallout for defunding the war and then to turn around and use an expression "storming the gates' as though political pressure is suddenly an absurd notion when I argue it back at you.”

    First off you are flat out wrong or just lying. I never argued the Republicans want anything. I do think they would assign blame to the Democrats if troops starting getting killed because funding for their gear was cut off. But I have no idea what they want. I just see that as the likely outcome.

    I also think many democrats feel it would put the troops at risk and they can’t in good conscience take that risk of cutting the funds. You; however, seem to think because the people were angry enough at Bush’s handling of the war, to vote against his party in the last election, means somehow that they would be happy if the democrats endangered the troops in order to reprimand the president.

    in regards to “storm the gates” Those 30% approval ratings and lost election, have really stopped the president so far haven’t they?

    Will keep posting as bob. Not smart enought ot argue with he would destroy me but he is wrong i feel it. Damn those lying facts must not let him post last.

    "Well clearly I’m thinking far deeper than you, so I should point out that your assertion that the president would be under enormous pressure to respond to a deadline is clearly every bit as much conjecture, as my assumption that cutting the funds would harm the troops. While we are at it is incredibly amusing that you would argue that somehow the president would feel the pressure of a deadline, while a stinging election defea,t and overwhelming disapproval of the job he is doing has not deterred him one bit."


    You're confusing the FACT that Bush would be under tremendous political and public pressure with a deadline (he would be) with a conjecture on how he would then act. I'm not making any conjectures about that. You are.

    For the purposes of the argument that you have made it doesn't matter. If he showed an intent ignore a deadline there would be no political consequences to the Democrats and tremendous ones for the Republicans in the House and Senate.

    You have said that the public wants out of Iraq. If you're also arguing that Bush would utterly alienate himself from all Republican who must be elected by the public to the determent of his own agenda...that he would allow the troops to continue in poor conditions, no matter the criticism...then you're arguing that the Democrats are in the mode of appeasing a madman.

    That's quite a conjecture and quite an assumption to make in order to justify not following the wishes of the American people, keeping troops in harm's way, doing nothing about a troop surge, and all under the auspices of a man you conjecture is a madman.

    As I said. I doubt the Dems would relish your defending them.


    F"irst off you are flat out wrong or just lying. I never argued the Republicans want anything. I do think they would assign blame to the Democrats if troops starting getting killed because funding for their gear was cut off. But I have no idea what they want. I just see that as the likely outcome."

    Whether you believe Republicans want to do that or not is moot. The fact is you think the threat of this sort of accusation is enough that it should make Dems wary of "bad PR", but when I reference Bush (and elected Republicans)being under tremendous political pressure for letting the troops go without, public pressure suddenly becomes no big deal and the public so ineffectual as to have no recourse but to "storm the gates" like poor villagers.

    "in regards to “storm the gates” Those 30% approval ratings and lost election, have really stopped the president so far haven’t they?"

    So if polls don't stop him, congress shouldn't bother to try? Polls about whether one thinks surge will help and thus be implemented are hard to compare with real outrage that would come from ignoring a defunding deadline that left troops without.

    But then you don't believe that the polls mean what you've been arguing either. Neither does our Democrat leadership.

    No I am a deeper thinker. I know you are but what am I. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!


    "You're confusing the FACT that Bush would be under tremendous political and public pressure with a deadline (he would be) with a conjecture on how he would then act. I'm not making any conjectures about that. You are."


    OK it is starting to become apparent you don't really know what conjecture means. So I am going to include the definition to help you out.

    Conjecture: A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork: (The commentators made various conjectures about the outcome of the next election)

    Now Cecilia, you have certainly not offered up anything that demonstrates President Bush would be under any more political and public pressure than he is now(with a univiersal condemnation of the surge) by the Dems cutting off the funds. That IS Conjecture. So stop pretending you are not doing it.

    Now in regards to what I have claimed, which is, that If troops are in increased harm, from a cutting of the funds, the Republicans will blame the Democrats. I may be surmising on that but given that Politicians by nature almost ALWAYS blame the other side. I feel reasonably comfortable in assuming that Bush and his political allies are not going to stand up and blame themselves for any harm to troops that results from a funding cut.


    "For the purposes of the argument that you have made it doesn't matter. If he showed an intent ignore a deadline there would be no political consequences to the Democrats and tremendous ones for the Republicans in the House and Senate."

    In light of the argument you are making, which is that Public pressure would force the president to withdrawl if funds were cut, it certainly does matter! 70% disapproval of the job he is doing and losing congress for his party have not detered him one bit. I don't see why a disapproval rating of 80% would change anything.

    "You have said that the public wants out of Iraq. If you're also arguing that Bush would utterly alienate himself from all Republican who must be elected by the public to the determent of his own agenda...that he would allow the troops to continue in poor conditions, no matter the criticism...then you're arguing that the Democrats are in the mode of appeasing a madman."

    Well, it is certainly and easy case to make that the administration has a penchant for denying reality. First their was no insurgency( when there was,) Then it was in it's last throes, (it wasn't) Then we were certainly winning in Iraq (Then he finally admits we are not)

    Finally the administration has indicated that they would ignore cutting of funds anyway.

    "You know, Congress has the power of the purse," Snow said, then added: "The President has the ability to exercise his own authority if he thinks Congress has voted the wrong way."


    "That's quite a conjecture and quite an assumption to make in order to justify not following the wishes of the American people, keeping troops in harm's way, doing nothing about a troop surge, and all under the auspices of a man you conjecture is a madman"

    Your words not mine.

    "As I said. I doubt the Dems would re"lish your defending them."

    I don't see why. I have handily defeated you everytime. Unless you are arguing that stronger thinkers from the right might pose a greater challenge. I will entertain that possibility.


    "Whether you believe Republicans want to do that or not is moot. The fact is you think the threat of this sort of accusation is enough that it should make Dems wary of "bad PR", but when I reference Bush (and elected Republicans)being under tremendous political pressure for letting the troops go without, public pressure suddenly becomes no big deal and the public so ineffectual as to have no recourse but to "storm the gates" like poor villagers."

    Well I assumed when we started this discussion that you have had the equivelant of a high school civics class. You see President Bush ( the one the Democrats would have to stop, the commander in chief.) He is not facing re-election (little quirk in the law, can only run twice.) Now Democrats in congress do face re-election. So yes I am assuming that ignoring the will of the people (who want a sensible withdrawl from this quagmire) would have a greater impact on them. Now I am not really making assumptions to in regards to how Bush would act with pressure becase WE HAVE politcal presure--in the present--and it has made NO difference!


    "So if polls don't stop him, congress shouldn't bother to try? Polls about whether one thinks surge will help and thus be implemented are hard to compare with real outrage that would come from ignoring a defunding deadline that left troops without."

    I have argued that congress should do what it can while supporting the troops. I've made my case you have not. Where have you shown anyhting that indicates Bush would suddenly buckle to public pressure in the future when he has not done so now?

    "Well I assumed when we started this discussion that you have had the equivelant of a high school civics class. You see President Bush ( the one the Democrats would have to stop, the commander in chief.) He is not facing re-election (little quirk in the law, can only run twice.) Now Democrats in congress do face re-election. So yes I am assuming that ignoring the will of the people (who want a sensible withdrawl from this quagmire) would have a greater impact on them. Now I am not really making assumptions to in regards to how Bush would act with pressure becase WE HAVE politcal presure--in the present--and it has made NO difference!"


    Public ire based upon polls showing the popularity of the war in Iraq and for surge are likely to be quite different based on the public ire at ignoring a deadline and keeping troops in Iraq with no money. Too, einstein, the Republicans DO have to run again, and unless Bush wants to completely lose House and Senate support, he'd have to respond to that pressure.

    If your argument is that Bush will never cooperate and therefore it logically follows that defunding and saving troop lives now is not an option because Bush will keep troops there to the point of a Valley Forge scenario, then what could possibly be a sensible plan for getting them out? What sensible plan is there that would made Bush cooperation more likely and that would save all the lives that will be lost before Bush is removed in '08?


    "I have argued that congress should do what it can while supporting the troops. I've made my case you have not. Where have you shown anyhting that indicates Bush would suddenly buckle to public pressure in the future when he has not done so now?"

    You've done nothing but speculate on what Bush will do. I've offered a specific plan that will have consequences for Bush whether he cares or not. You continue to throw up roadblocks by saying that it might cause troops to be hurt by low funding as though a great many more won't get hurt a year from now or until '08 when Bush is out, if we don't try and get them out.

    You haven't backed up what you believe at all.

    "Public ire based upon polls showing the popularity of the war in Iraq and for surge are likely to be quite different based on the public ire at ignoring a deadline and keeping troops in Iraq with no money. Too, einstein, the Republicans DO have to run again, and unless Bush wants to completely lose House and Senate support, he'd have to respond to that pressure."


    Uhh, Cecelia, you can't lose something you don't have. And the president, he don't have the support of congress. As for how the public would respond you, given nothing but your own delusional opinion on the matter.

    "If your argument is that Bush will never cooperate and therefore it logically follows that defunding and saving troop lives now is not an option because Bush will keep troops there to the point of a Valley Forge scenario, then what could possibly be a sensible plan for getting them out? What sensible plan is there that would made Bush cooperation more likely and that would save all the lives that will be lost before Bush is removed in '08?"


    Don't think there is one. I think we are stuck there 'till 06. Short of impeaching the president. At somepoint the people might demand that but they don't seem to be there yet.


    "I have argued that congress should do what it can while supporting the troops. I've made my case you have not. Where have you shown anyhting that indicates Bush would suddenly buckle to public pressure in the future when he has not done so now?"

    "You've done nothing but speculate on what Bush will do. I've offered a specific plan that will have consequences for Bush whether he cares or not. You continue to throw up roadblocks by saying that it might cause troops to be hurt by low funding as though a great many more won't get hurt a year from now or until '08 when Bush is out, if we don't try and get them out."

    No I have pointed out what he said we he will do. see the difference? Well, i can't imagine not supporting them is a better way to keep them safe. You have not once demonstrated a reason you think Bush would buckle to the pressure. You have ignored the fact that he has ignored the current pressure. You have ignored statements that indicate Bush would not buckle to any congresional attempt to to regin him in.


    "You haven't backed up what you believe at all."

    Sure I have. Now you try it.

    "Public ire based upon polls showing the popularity of the war in Iraq and for surge are likely to be quite different based on the public ire at ignoring a deadline and keeping troops in Iraq with no money. Too, einstein, the Republicans DO have to run again, and unless Bush wants to completely lose House and Senate support, he'd have to respond to that pressure."

    Uhh, Cecelia, you can't lose something you don't have. And the president, he don't have the support of congress. As for how the public would respond you, have given nothing but your own delusional opinion on the matter.

    "If your argument is that Bush will never cooperate and therefore it logically follows that defunding and saving troop lives now is not an option because Bush will keep troops there to the point of a Valley Forge scenario, then what could possibly be a sensible plan for getting them out? What sensible plan is there that would made Bush cooperation more likely and that would save all the lives that will be lost before Bush is removed in '08?"


    Don't think there is one. I think we are stuck there 'till 08. When we win the presidency then we can begin to fix things. Short of impeaching the president. At some point the people might demand that, but they don't seem to be there yet.


    "I have argued that congress should do what it can while supporting the troops. I've made my case you have not. Where have you shown anyhting that indicates Bush would suddenly buckle to public pressure in the future when he has not done so now?"

    "You've done nothing but speculate on what Bush will do. I've offered a specific plan that will have consequences for Bush whether he cares or not. You continue to throw up roadblocks by saying that it might cause troops to be hurt by low funding as though a great many more won't get hurt a year from now or until '08 when Bush is out, if we don't try and get them out."

    No I have pointed out what he said, he will do. See the difference? I don't think not supporting the troops is a better way to keep them safe.

    You on the other hand, have not once demonstrated a reason you think Bush would buckle to the pressure. You have ignored the fact that he has ignored the current pressure. You have ignored statements that indicate Bush would not buckle to any congresional attempt to to regin him in.


    "You haven't backed up what you believe at all."

    Sure I have. Now you try it.

    "No I have pointed out what he said, he will do. See the difference? I don't think not supporting the troops is a better way to keep them safe.

    You on the other hand, have not once demonstrated a reason you think Bush would buckle to the pressure. You have ignored the fact that he has ignored the current pressure. You have ignored statements that indicate Bush would not buckle to any congresional attempt to to regin him in."

    I am seeing that it's beyond you to understand that because Dems are now the majority in the House and Senate it does not mean that Bush has lost the complete support of every Republican in both chambers with any matter he wishes (and needs their influence and votes to attend) and with every Democrat on any aspect of the war. Those political dynamics are too much for you, agreed.

    I know you don't see the irony in arguing that the Dems got into power to "put a stop to Bush" and then argue that they can only sit back and do..what?.. approve budgets for troop surge?...until '08. By your reasoning, they must. Some troop might be hurt otherwise.

    I know you don't see the irony in arguing that nothing but impeachment can stop Bush short of leaving office in '08, but the public isn't inclined to impeachment now, and THEN take away the thing that would LIKELY incline them to doing that--- Bush keeping in troops without money....

    So let me try this approach. What were the specific questions for these current polls that you have mentioned and have argued are completely compariable to public opinion and the ensuing public pressure that would be applied to Bush were he to ignore a deadline defunding the troops and leave them there without funding?


    "I am seeing that it's beyond you to understand that because Dems are now the majority in the House and Senate it does not mean that Bush has lost the complete support of every Republican in both chambers with any matter he wishes (and needs their influence and votes to attend) and with every Democrat on any aspect of the war. Those political dynamics are too much for you, agreed."

    Well, this brings us back to something you keep refusing to do (other than think that is). Demonstrate that Bush's base would leave him if the democrats put forth a timetable for withdrawl. While it is apparent you don't know know much about politics, I would have asuumed you would realize the Republicans in congress won't desert Bush as long as it is politicaly safe for them to stay with him. Since his base is composed of people like yourself, who will never desert the president (Even if he was caught raping a baby seal). It does not logically follow that their would be an increase in pressure if the dems put forth a timetable. You have not demonstrated that his core base from southern strongholds would start electing democrats right and left. if this were on the table.


    "I know you don't see the irony in arguing that the Dems got into power to "put a stop to Bush" and then argue that they can only sit back and do..what?.. approve budgets for troop surge?...until '08. By your reasoning, they must. Some troop might be hurt otherwise. "

    You are not thinking? Yes, The Dems were put into to power stop Bush. If the people could have voted Bush out instead, they would have, but they couldn't. So, they were left with giving congress back to the Democrats. Now that does not mean the mandate was for congress to stop the war by any means neccasary. For example the people would probably be displeased ( at this point) if impeachment proceedings started.

    "I know you don't see the irony in arguing that nothing but impeachment can stop Bush short of leaving office in '08, but the public isn't inclined to impeachment now, and THEN take away the thing that would LIKELY incline them to doing that--- Bush keeping in troops without money...."

    No, because I am certain dogmatic folks such as yourself wil never ever abonden this president. meaning he has his base and there is not much more public pressure to be had.

    "So let me try this approach. What were the specific questions for these current polls that you have mentioned and have argued are completely compariable to public opinion and the ensuing public pressure that would be applied to Bush were he to ignore a deadline defunding the troops and leave them there without funding?"


    Let me make sure I am understanidng you correctly. You are asking for questions to polls, that I never cited, that demonstrate the president would not face more public pressure, if hypotheticall speaking, funding were cut to the troops and he didn't pull out of the quamire he got us into to?

    Why would I do that? Since it is your assertion that more pressure would occur and would force the president to back down; the burden of proof is on you. So far, you have done nothing that remotly even indicates Bush's base (of which you seem to be a proud part) will desert their president. meaning pressure would not increase. I on the other hand have given a quote from the whitehouse that indicates a willingness to ignore congress 'If they choose the wrong thing."

    Well, it's good to see that you've evolved from arguing that the President "has no support in congress" to seeing that yes there are still some Republicans there who support him and even some Democrats on some issues. That must have been a lightbulb going off over your head...

    We'll continue your education here. It is not the hardcore base that politicians must struggle to please. Now you may see all the politicians with (R) after their names as coming from Mississippi, but there are a few who do not... and with a minority that few becomes very significant. Republicans have already suffered loses in the west, central part of the U.S. and in Florida due to disappointment with the course of the war, and Bush has to count on moderate Republicans and Dems when it comes to other agendas such as keeping the tax cuts, extending "No Child Left Behind", and support for the guest worker program.

    Now I understand that helping you to understand your whole premise about Bush's "core support" of syncophants is not who Bush must appease, is really moot.

    Though you have spent much time arguing wrongly on the subject above, now that you see you're focusing on the wrong congressmen...you'll then turn around and say, "Well you haven't proved the public won't support him (after you have said repeated that the public doesn't support him NOW)
    if he ignores a deadline and allows troops to suffer from a lack of funding in Iraq" or "Bush won't care if he loses all support for any other piece of his agenda."

    So we'd go another round and you'll mention that Bush ignores current polls hating him and that the content of these polls is compariable to the level of outrage there would be were Bush to ignore a deadline...so see I have a real life incident and you don't, but don't ask me to specify the actual questions the public was asked in the polls I have referenced in order for you to analyse whether they give any indication whatsoever that Bush has ignored the sort of outrage that would be compariable to what the public would feel towards Bush if he allowed the troops to stay in place and suffer after a defunding.

    So much for real life incidences...


    So you're arguing that Bush is a madman and will respond to no political pressure. That there is nothing the Democrats can do but to pass his appropriations bills, because if they don't troops will be hurt.. That dems can only wait and hope McCain or Guiliani aren't elected to the presidency and that a Democrat is instead in order to complete what the public has wanted them to do.

    There's no getting to you to understand the inherent contradictions in your argument or what is an obvious desire on your part to reflexively excuse the Democrats from taking any real act of leadership on this issue.

    So I'm done with trying to point it out to you. I'll simply stop here with the immense satisfaction of being ENTIRELY sure that Bush and all war supporters are immensely grateful to you.

    "Well, it's good to see that you've evolved from arguing that the President "has no support in congress" to seeing that yes there are still some Republicans there who support him and even some Democrats on some issues. That must have been a lightbulb going off over your head..."

    Well as usual you are either incapable of reading and thus misquoting, or flat out lying. I said "he don't have the support of congress" Which he doesn't in the sense that majority goes to the democrats. Nice try on the strawman. it might have worked with a 10 year old. But then again I'm sure most relatively bright 10 years old would catch and make a fool of you.

    We'll continue your education here.

    You have to learn about a subject before you can teach it. I have tried to help you with that, but the class has been beyond your capability.

    "It is not the hardcore base that politicians must struggle to please. Now you may see all the politicians with (R) after their names as coming from Mississippi, but there are a few who do not... and with a minority that few becomes very significant." Republicans have already suffered loses in the west, central part of the U.S. and in Florida due to disappointment with the course of the war, and Bush has to count on moderate Republicans and Dems when it comes to other agendas such as keeping the tax cuts, extending "No Child Left Behind", and support for the guest worker program."

    Well it is good of you finally acknoledge that that the public is dissapointed with the course of the war. It's a small step on your part to clear thinking. 10 more years of this and we will have you on par with the average high school student in this country. I will just cross supply my arguments from earlier to the rest of this. You have never successfully argued against them anyway.

    "Now I understand that helping you to understand your whole premise about Bush's "core support" of syncophants is not who Bush must appease, is really moot."

    tch, tch, tch, Given that most of the republicans who have joined with the Democrats in condeming the course of the war are not where Bush's core are, you have once again demonstrated nothing.


    "Though you have spent much time arguing wrongly on the subject above, now that you see you're focusing on the wrong congressmen...you'll then turn around and say, "Well you haven't proved the public won't support him (after you have said repeated that the public doesn't support him NOW)"

    Well I know you are not smart enough to realize you have made my point for me. Gee whiz, lying again. This is the best you can muster in a debate? Delibertly misquote me. I amena I knew I was winning but I thought yu might have a bit more intergirty than that. I have said all but the base has deserted the president and you have not demonstrated that there would be an eroding of support from his base which would be the key to apllying more pressure. maybe it is math you have trouble with? You see if all but the base has deserted the president then to increase pressure you would have to erode from the base.

    "if he ignores a deadline and allows troops to suffer from a lack of funding in Iraq" or "Bush won't care if he loses all support for any other piece of his agenda.""

    What agenda is that? What else does he have support for? That is not a democrat intiative he just hapens to agree with?
    "
    So we'd go another round and you'll mention that Bush ignores current polls hating him and that the content of these polls is compariable to the level of outrage there would be were Bush to ignore a deadline..."


    Well it logically follows, and the best rebuttal you have come with is to say in essance, no it doesn't.

    "so see I have a real life incident and you don't, but don't ask me to specify the actual questions the public was asked in the polls I have referenced in order for you to analyse whether they give any indication whatsoever that Bush has ignored the sort of outrage that would be compariable to what the public would feel towards Bush if he allowed the troops to stay in place and suffer after a defunding."

    that makes no sense at all. you have never given a real life incdent. lying again?

    So much for real life incidences...

    Uhh, youhave to make a rebuttal before you can dismiss something. Give it a try. You might be better than you think.


    S"o you're arguing that Bush is a madman and will respond to no political pressure. That there is nothing the Democrats can do but to pass his appropriations bills, because if they don't troops will be hurt.. That dems can only wait and hope McCain or Guiliani aren't elected to the presidency and that a Democrat is instead in order to complete what the public has wanted them to do."

    His adminstration has said as much are they lying as well?

    "There's no getting to you to understand the inherent contradictions in your argument or what is an obvious desire on your part to reflexively excuse the Democrats from taking any real act of leadership on this issue."

    That's be cause there are no "inherent contradictions" ( notice how when I quote it is an actual quote) in my argument.

    So I'm done with trying to point it out to you. I'll simply stop here with the immense satisfaction of being ENTIRELY sure that Bush and all war supporters are immensely grateful to you.


    I accept your gracious concession, I wish you better luck in future debates. It was a pleasure defeating you.

    liberals are pussys... 'i went to college and learned everything from my supereducated proffessor look at me look at me! down with the middle class!! vote hillary!!

    liberals are pussys... 'i went to college and learned everything from my supereducated proffessor look at me look at me! down with the middle class!! vote hillary!!


    Conservatives are pussys... "(notice the use of the right quotation mark)I can't go to war! I've got other things to do. Give me deferments! Five please? Or a tour in the guard like ole GW got."
    Let's make a war on the middle class!! vote McCain!!

    Conservatives are pussys... "(notice the use of the right quotation mark)I can't go to war! I've got other things to do. Give me deferments! Five please? Or a tour in the guard like ole GW got."
    Let's make a war on the middle class!! vote McCain!!