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


    April 25, 2007
    Countdown with Keith Olbermann - April 25, 2007

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

    Host: Keith Olbermann

    Topics/Guests:

    • POLITICS: Dana Milbank
    • PROJECT RUDY: Wayne Barrett
    • ROSIE O'DONNEL: Michael Musto

    There were no surprises in the opening spiel; it didn't take a Nostradamus to know that Herr Olbermann was going to launch Project Rudy with a blistering attack on Giuliani for "terrorizing the electorate"; plus more GonzalesGate, another O'Reilly attack, Rosie O'Donnell, and a Special Education Komment on the "morally bankrupt politics of fear" (unless it is being waged by Democrats, in which case it's not even worth mentioning).

    UPDATE: Video & Transcript

    Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly book Culture Warrior

    #5: Damage control for Hillary, lagging in the polls, began with an attack on Giuliani and a plug for the Special Education Komment. Clip of Richard McCain announcing for President--just video, no sound. Poll numbers. Attack on Laura Bush for defending her husband. Dana Milbank, minus mangy mufti, was asked if everything Olby ticked off wasn't really a horribly bad move, destined to boomerang with overwhelming force against the eeevil White House (Rule #1). Much pontificating over Giuliani saying something that he's been saying for months, pretending like it was something new. Olby's theory on Fred Thompson: voters have a fixation with the tv series Law and Order. Watch out, Olby. That's an NBC series. Did you clear that with your bosses? Great thanks.

    The jihad against Giuliani continued as Oralmann claimed New Yorkers mostly hated him as mayor. Professional Rudy-basher Wayne Barrett was brought in to continue the smears. Funny how Keith doesn't just ask Rudy himself to answer his questions. But if he were to do that, all that nausea churning from Krazy Keith's mouth would probably be too much even for The Laughing Stagehand to deal with. Better to leave such unpleasant things as balance and fairness out of the picture, all the better to allow the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann to decry "vitriol", to claim he "broke his candidacy", and--yes--to plus his Special Education Komment yet again.

    Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly book Culture Warrior

    #4: .It's more "scandals" [Ding!]. Gonzales, Rove, you name it! As always, all scandals on OlbyPlanet are Republican scandals. (So don't expect to hear even a word about, say Diane Feinstein.) Slippery Shuster, the textbook example of an unreliable witness, was on hand to turn the spin up to "11". Shuster gave his usual definitive insights: so-and-so thinks, someone else believes, yada yada. KO said it all reminds you of a "cult" and Great Thanksed Slippery.

    Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly book Culture Warrior

    #3: The Bill O'Reilly Olbsession must be fed! The man dared to criticize the "journalism watchdog" website Media Matters, and self-admitted professional liar David Brock will not stand for that. So Private Olbermann carried out Gen Brock's orders, and served up another hit piece. It was almost comical to see an unhinged Olbermann, with an air of sophisticated superiority, "prove" that a quote from Mr Bill was not taken out of context by reading the "full" quote--a "full" quote that started at the exact same point as before! Gee, doesn't "context" usually include what came earlier, so we know the, um, context? Not on OlbyPlanet. And just to make sure that an extra dose of vile venom was included, "Man on Fan" Olbermann included references to falafels and Andrea Mackris. Yeah, Edward R Olbermann never stoops to personal attacks, does he?

    #2: We lost track of how many times KO said "Fox Noise Channel" (because every time he says it, it just gets funnier). But the topic was actually Rosie O'Donnell, with the world's greatest expert on all things repellent, Michael Musto.

    In the Media Matters Minute, it was the usual passel of attacks on The Usual Victims. Glenn Beck (Blue Blog Source: Think Progress), Rush Limbaugh (Blue Blog Source: MyDD), and Dana Rohrbacher (Blue Blog Source: Daily Kos). Keep in mind, Keith in not politically biased.

    Finally, held for the last possible Nielsen minute, the Special Education Komment on Rudy Giuliani (see APPENDIX). It was the usual melange of facial tics, demagoguery, and insinSirs. Suffice it to say that, for all his fulmination over a politician criticizing opposition policies as making America less safe, Rev Olbermann never sermonizes when the Democrats do the exact same thing.

    MisterMeter

    Olbermann's book The book that bears Olbermann's name rocketed to #3,608 at amazon.com, but "Culture Warrior" is #711. (It's that 2-for-$25 sale!) The OlbyTome is unranked at Barnes & Noble; O'Reilly's book is #1,246 there, and is one of the top five books of 2006 per Publishers Weekly. Tonight's MisterMeter reading: 3 [GUARDED]

    Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly book Culture Warrior


    APPENDIX: SPECIAL EDUCATION KOMMENT

    Since some indeterminable hour between the final dousing of the pyre at The World Trade Center, and the breaking of what Sen. Barack Obama has aptly termed "9/11 fever," it has been profoundly and disturbingly evident that we are at the center of one of history's great ironies.

    Only in this America of the early 21st century could it be true that the man who was president during the worst attack on our nation and the man who was the mayor of the city in which that attack principally unfolded would not only be absolved of any and all blame for the unreadiness of their own governments, but, moreover, would thereafter be branded heroes of those attacks.

    And now, that mayor -- whose most profound municipal act in the wake of that nightmare was to suggest the postponement of the election to select his own successor -- has gone even a step beyond these M.C. Escher constructions of history.

    "If any Republican is elected president -- and I think obviously I would be best at this -- we will remain on offense and will anticipate what (the terrorists) will do and try to stop them before they do it."

    Insisting that the election of any Democrat would mean the country was "back ... on defense," Mr. Giuliani continued last night: "But the question is how long will it take and how many casualties will we have. If we are on defense, we will have more losses and it will go on longer."

    He said this with no sense of irony, no sense of any personal shortcomings, no sense whatsoever.

    [Direction: powerful, silent stare]

    And if you somehow missed what he was really saying, somehow didn't hear the none-too-subtle subtext of "vote Democratic and die," Mr. Giuliani then stripped away any barrier of courtesy, telling Roger Simon of politico.com:

    "America will be safer with a Republican president."

    At least that Republican president under which we have not been safer has, even at his worst, maintained some microscopic distance between himself and a campaign platform that blithely threatened the American people with "casualties" if they, next year, elect a Democratic president -- or, inferring from Mr. Giuliani's flights of grandeur in New Hampshire last night -- even if they elect a different Republican.

    [Direction: Head bob; eyebrow raise]

    How ... dare ... you, sir?

    "How many casualties will we have?" -- this is the language of Osama bin Laden.

    Yours, Mr. Giuliani, is the same chilling nonchalance of the madman, of the proselytizer who has moved even from some crude framework of politics and society, into a virtual Roman Colosseum of carnage, and a conceit over your own ability -- and worthiness -- to decide who lives and who dies.

    [Direction: wide-eyed anger]

    Rather than a reasoned discussion -- rather than a political campaign advocating your own causes and extolling your own qualifications -- you have bypassed all the intermediate steps and moved directly to trying to terrorize the electorate into viewing a vote for a Democrat, not as a reasonable alternative and an inalienable right ... but as an act of suicide.

    This is not the mere politicizing of Iraq, nor the vague mumbled epithets about Democratic "softness" from a delusional vice president.

    This is casualties on a partisan basis -- of the naked assertion that Mr. Giuliani's party knows all and will save those who have voted for it -- and to hell with everybody else.

    And that he, with no foreign policy experience whatsoever, is somehow the messiah-of-the-moment.

    Even to grant that that formula -- whether posed by Republican or Democrat -- is somehow not the most base, the most indefensible, the most un-American electioneering in our history -- even if it is somehow acceptable to assign "casualties" to one party and "safety" to the other -- even if we have become so profane in our thinking that it is part of our political vocabulary to view counter-terror as one party's property and the other's liability ... on what imaginary track record does Mr. Giuliani base his boast?

    [Direction: eyebrow raise]

    Which party held the presidency on Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Giuliani?

    Which party held the mayoralty of New York on that date, Mr. Giuliani?

    Which party assured New Yorkers that the air was safe and the remains of the dead recovered and not being used to fill potholes, Mr. Giuliani?

    Which party wanted what the terrorists wanted -- the postponement of elections -- and to whose personal advantage would that have redounded, Mr. Giuliani?

    Which mayor of New York was elected eight months after the first attack on the World Trade Center, yet did not emphasize counter-terror in the same city for the next eight years, Mr. Giuliani?

    Which party had proposed to turn over the Department of Homeland Security to Bernard Kerik, Mr. Giuliani?

    Who wanted to ignore and hide Kerik's organized crime allegations, Mr. Giuliani?

    Who personally argued to the White House that Kerik need not be vetted, Mr. Giuliani?

    Which party rode roughshod over Americans' rights while braying that it was actually protecting them, Mr. Giuliani?

    [Direction: increase decibel level, eyebrow fluctuations, head shakes]

    Which party took this country into the most utterly backwards, utterly counterproductive, utterly ruinous war in our history, Mr. Giuliani?

    Which party has been in office as more Americans were killed in the pointless fields of Iraq than were killed in the consuming nightmare of 9/11, Mr. Giuliani?

    [Direction: scream!]

    Drop this argument, sir. You will lose it.

    "The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us," Mr. Giuliani continued to the Rockingham County Lincoln Day Dinner last night. "Never, ever again will this country be on defense waiting for (terrorists) to attack us, if I have anything to say about it. And make no mistake, the Democrats want to put us back on defense."

    There is no room for this.

    This is terrorism itself, dressed up as counter-terrorism.

    It is not warning, but bullying -- substituted for the political discourse now absolutely essential to this country's survival and the freedom of its people.

    No Democrat has said words like these. None has ever campaigned on the Republicans' flat-footedness of Sept. 11, 2001. None has the requisite, irresponsible, all-consuming ambition. None is willing to say "I accuse," rather than recognize that, to some degree, all of us share responsibility for our collective stupor.

    And if it is somehow insufficient, that this is morally, spiritually, and politically wrong, to screech as Mr. Giuliani has screeched, there is also this: that gaping hole in Mr. Giuliani's argument of "Republicans equal life; Democrats equal death."

    Not only have the Republicans not lived up to their babbling on this subject, but last fall the electorate called them on it.

    As doubtless they would call you on it, Mr. Giuliani.

    [Direction: ramp up eyebrows and decibels again]

    Repeat -- go beyond -- Mr. Bush's rhetorical calamities of 2006.

    Call attention to the casualties on your watch, and your long, waking slumber in the years between the two attacks on the World Trade Center.

    Become the candidate who runs on the Vote-For-Me-Or-Die platform.

    Do a Joe McCarthy, a Lyndon Johnson, a Robespierre.

    Only, if you choose so to do, do not come back surprised nor remorseful if the voters remind you that "terror" is not just a matter of "casualties." It is, just as surely, a matter of the promulgation of fear.

    Claim a difference between the parties on the voters' chances of survival -- and you do bin Laden's work for him.

    [Direction: let it all hang out; volume goes to "11"]

    And we -- Democrats and Republicans alike, and every variation in between -- We Americans! -- are sick to death of you and the other terror-mongers trying to frighten us into submission, into the surrender of our rights and our reason, into this betrayal of that for which this country has always stood.

    Franklin Roosevelt's words ring true again tonight.

    And, clarified and amplified, they are just as current now as they were when first he spoke them, 74 years ago.

    "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" -- and those who would exploit our fear, for power and for their own personal, selfish, cynical, gain.

    Good night, and good luck.

    UPDATE: Video & Transcript

    Read the transcript from Wednesday's show

    Keith Olbermann Special Comment on Rudy Guiliani


    Posted by johnny dollar | Permalink | Comments (281) | | View blog reactions
    user-pic

    281 Comments

    Scathing Special Comment, indeed.

    Isn't it a bit hypocritical to post an image like this:
    http://www.olbermannwatch.com/images/brain.jpg

    On a site completely dedicated to the guy?

    I mean, just a bit, perhaps?

    We admit our obsessions. Olbermann won't admit those or his biases.

    couldnt that VA Tech psycho kid have done society a favor by going to Secacus to shoot Olbermahn in the head rather than innocent students. Seriously, if Cho was depressed and angry about life before, try watching an hour long show of KO, his one sided , Fox and Bill O obsession, combined with puppet guests and lies will make your ears bleed. It's no wonder his ratings suck, quit your gig four eyes and go back to baby sitting Katy!

    Johnny, for the Special Komment, when the volume went to 11, I think he spit.

    Plus he was really restricted being tied to one camera. I bet his neck hurts tonight because he had to fight the impulse to spin his head. Maybe he'll have to soak it in the tub.

    I love Special Komment night - it's sure to be entertaining.

    Keith Olbermann Mixed Bag:

    A) Keith Olbermann will go to any length to portray Bill O' Rielly as a paranoid old fusspot (which he is), but I do not recall seeing Keith Olbermann show Bill's demented little graph that shoots straight to Media Matters.org. Why was that graph not shown/was not an issue? Was it because the graph was correct? If the graph was not correct --- Keith Olbermann is missing out on some real venomous proof that Bill O' Rielly is insane ... yet it was not presented!!!

    B) After having a whole segment based on Media Matters ... it is interesting that Keith Olbermann took from sites that were not Media Matters. Fair to do, I guess.

    C) No mention of American Idol's charity, already in progress during Keith Olbermann's shoot. Do rumors have to circulate, first? Was Melissa Melitto not available? No news urgent enough? No Sanjaya? Must see tommorow.

    D) Week Oddball. A plastic-y looking robot up close and poorly described recycled paper columns.

    No Democrat has said words like these. None has ever campaigned on the Republicans' flat-footedness of Sept. 11, 2001. None has the requisite, irresponsible, all-consuming ambition. None is willing to say "I accuse," rather than recognize that, to some degree, all of us share responsibility for our collective stupor.


    WASHINGTON POST � Friday, April 12, 2002; Page A16

    Democrat Implies Sept. 11 Administration Plot

    By Juliet Eilperin � Washington Post Staff Writer

    Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) is calling for an investigationinto whether President Bush and other government officials had advancenotice of terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 but did nothing to prevent them.She added that "persons close to this administration are poised to makehuge profits off America's new war."
    In a recent interview with a Berkeley, Calif., radiostation, McKinney said: "We know there were numerous warnings of the eventsto come on September 11th. . . . What did this administration know andwhen did it know it, about the events of September 11th? Who else knew,and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlesslymurdered? . . . What do they have to hide?"
    McKinney declined to be interviewed yesterday, but sheissued a statement saying: "I am not aware of any evidence showing thatPresident Bush or members of his administration have personally profitedfrom the attacks of 9-11. A complete investigation might reveal that tobe the case."

    Yeah, I understand Dan...we need ALL the news commentary programs and news networks to become Bush suck ups and all our problems will be solved.

    THEY SHOULD:

    - Scream out all the "good news", even when the news isn't so good. Focus on the "culture war" and all those evil un - American San Francisco liberals.

    - Praise the Republicans to the heavens, and blast those 'weak' Democrats each and every day.

    - Ignore or minimize the 'bad' news when it hurts the Republicans, and scream it out on top of the highest hill when it hurts the Democrats.

    - Blame all of our problems on that 'other' media....you know, the evil 'liberal' media that just refuses to accept the official Republican line and talking points they are fed at face value.

    - Keep telling us how wonderful it is that corporate America is literally running our country and completely lacks accountability and oversight under these new Rebublicans. Keep feeding us the line that whats good for Corporate America is good for all of us.

    - Keep implying we are "making progress" in Iraq, even as it gets worse and worse. Keep implying those that have always believed this disastrous war policy was bad for America, as well as those who have come to understand that to be a fact more recently are actually borderline traitors or enemy sympathizers. At the very least, keep telling us that these people just don't understand the threat we're facing and just can't be trusted with our security.

    Hey, I just described Fox 'News'!...and we already HAVE that in spades, don't we!

    Yeah, I understand Dan...we need ALL the news commentary programs and news networks to become Bush suck ups and all our problems will be solved.

    THEY SHOULD:

    - Scream out all the "good news", even when the news isn't so good. Focus on the "culture war" and all those evil un - American San Francisco liberals.

    - Praise the Republicans to the heavens, and blast those 'weak' Democrats each and every day.

    - Ignore or minimize the 'bad' news when it hurts the Republicans, and scream it out on top of the highest hill when it hurts the Democrats.

    - Blame all of our problems on that 'other' media....you know, the evil 'liberal' media that just refuses to accept the official Republican line and talking points they are fed at face value.

    - Keep telling us how wonderful it is that corporate America is literally running our country and completely lacks accountability and oversight under these new Rebublicans. Keep feeding us the line that whats good for Corporate America is good for all of us.

    - Keep implying we are "making progress" in Iraq, even as it gets worse and worse. Keep implying those that have always believed this disastrous war policy was bad for America, as well as those who have come to understand that to be a fact more recently are actually borderline traitors or enemy sympathizers. At the very least, keep telling us that these people just don't understand the threat we're facing and just can't be trusted with our security.

    Hey, I just described Fox 'News'!...and we already HAVE that in spades, don't we!

    Can you source all of those assertions?

    Mike: Don't try to hide your cowardice of journalistic ethics behind perceived political bias. In news, both sides of the story need presentation, Republicans need praise along with Democrats, and vice versa, bad news is over reported, most cited is the "mainstream" media, corporate America is non partisan, and I can not wait to make progress in Iran.

    Although I must point out how the show recap makes no mention or excuse of Bloomberg being appointed sans election. Shame.

    lil mikey, do you actually expect anyone with half a brain to take your 11:45 post seriously? I sure hope your "wi-fi" was workin and you were typing 80 words a minute because that post is a joke and for the most part totally false.

    I noticed that Keith got the memo from the DNC, "that all presidential candidates must be referred to as Presidential Democratic Candidates---Under not circumstances shall they be referred as Presidential Democrat Candidates."
    I like how much it gets under their skin , when conservatives call them the Democrat Party or Democrat Candidate. That should be our new rule for the upcoming 08 election and primary season.

    "The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us," Mr. Giuliani continued to the Rockingham County Lincoln Day Dinner last night. "Never, ever again will this country be on defense waiting for (terrorists) to attack us, if I have anything to say about it. And make no mistake, the Democrats want to put us back on defense."

    Mister Giuliani's statement is completely correct. Exactly how many times will New York (or anywhere else in the USA) need to be attacked before cowardly liberals respond with force? Liberal thinkers have no plan other than waiting to be killed in the next terrorist attack on US soil.

    Jeff again: "lil mikey, do you actually expect anyone with half a brain to take your 11:45 post seriously?"

    No, but I do expect anyone with a complete brain to take thet post seriously.

    "Liberal thinkers have no plan other than waiting to be killed in the next terrorist attack on US soil."

    Yea, that Republican spawned Iraq 'plan' really has worked out peachy for us, hasn't it?

    Responsibility time:

    Merkle: I doubt that any particular party would leave the nation without any sort of plan. Whether it is too peacenick for your high standards remains to be seen, but give the candidates a chance to lay a plan out before you rip them apart for not replicating what you would do exactly to the letter.

    Mike: Are you in a bad mood? You whooped Brandon the last time you spat with him, pretty well, to. I guess the encounter was not enough for adequate refueling. I am sorry. How much ego does it take for you to get through an intellectual week? Bad mileage-to-whininng ratio before you revert back into a typical lib troll.

    LMAO: Where's LMAO? You were automatic first for quite a while. Slipping? Getting bored?

    Democrats will again wonder why
    When terrorist planes crash from the sky
    Small minds can't instill
    It's us they will kill
    Their plan is wait and see if you die

    LOL!

    YOU Bush Supporters GOTTA BE F-KIDDING!!

    Not only has Rudy taken up the full ensemble of a RINO!

    NOW RUDY WANT'S TO BE A BUSHWIPE!!

    Turic, lines 1 & 2: Because Rudolph Giuliani wasn't elected president.

    McCain said something very interesting on Larry King tonite. If Reid has the audacity to say the war has lost, why doesn't he tell the American people who won?

    Another great write-up Johnny. The graphics are hilarious as well.

    Keep up the good work Robert !

    When is Keith going to do some real reporting??? in the field?

    He's such a wuss.

    stock market record high, but not on olbyplanet

    McCain said something very interesting on Larry King tonite. If Reid has the audacity to say the war has lost, why doesn't he tell the American people who won?

    Posted by: Little Feechie at April 26, 2007 12:37 AM
    Feech, they got nothing! No plans, no answers, no nothing! Just bitterness and hate, raise taxes, put money in the freezer, raise welfare, keep illegals safe and sound, appease the enemy, keep the aclu lined up to defend the enemy. They got nothing that will help America.

    It will be interesting to see if Olby's ratings tonight beat the ratings when he was in his bath tub. How did O'Reilly not make WPITW tonight? I guess after Olby devoted an entire segment to personal attacks on O'Reilly, he decided to take it easy on him. When Olby gets his marching orders from Media Matters, does he give the Hitler salute? With Olby's ratings, he is Kernel Klink of Hitler Soros' little SS squad. Slippery Shuster is Shultz.

    Brilliant KO, Brilliant. And Dan, did I really see you wish that KO was murdered? Please tell me you people here arent that awful.

    Damn O'Reilly hates it when his own statements are used against him. We should let Mark David Chapman out of prison and tell him that he missed John Lennon and give him another chance

    Posted by: Bill O'lielly at April 25, 2007 9:40 PM
    Where does O'Liar fit in your "you people" scenario?

    Keith is pimping Wayne freakin' Barrett? He still thinks New York City was at its peak under the enlightened leadership of David Dinkins and John V. Lindsay, for Christ sakes.

    While it's hard to imagine "Countdown" getting any loopier than it already is, if Rudy gets the nomination, the parade of the "bring back the hookers and the crack hotels" New York City leftists that will be on his show will make for some incredible freak show television (though to be fair to Keith, there are some rabid Giuliani haters on the right that might be dumb enough to accept an invite to his show, though the people they would be trying to persuade won't be watching Keith's show to begin with).

    Wow, just watched Hannity and colmes, and part of Gretta, amazing news. I never knew that the Rosie ordeal was so Earth shattering. My F*CK if I wanted real news like FUX produces, I could watch watch my dog SH!T and get about all the info that I want. Lame a$$ excuse for news. Most people realize Rosie is a loud mouth, but with FUX it is Headline worthy. What a sad society we live, if Rosie is top news worthy.


    Great job, Keith! Keep up the good work, you have the Bush Supporters reaching for more paper, but what would one expect for the few who still think "Dumya" is the best thing since sliced bread!

    Johnny, it's nice of you to show us your personal CT images of your own obsessed brain. But, mostly, what I see is air in your head.

    "No Democrat has said words like these. None has ever campaigned on the Republicans' flat-footedness of Sept. 11, 2001. None has the requisite, irresponsible, all-consuming ambition. None is willing to say 'I accuse,' rather than recognize that, to some degree, all of us share responsibility for our collective stupor."

    Olbermann lies again....

    Olbermann is a democratic party shill. The 2006 campaign was FULL or democratic fear-mongering and accusations against republicans.....like....

    "Democrats are calling for a New Direction. We take very seriously our responsibility to protect the American people. Five years after 9/11, two years after the 9/11 Commission recommendations, and one year after Hurricane Katrina, our first responders, fire and emergency services personnel, still do not have the technology of real-time communication to save lives. Five years after 9/11, we still do not have 100 percent screening at our ports, we still do not have a mandate for chemical and nuclear plants to safeguard them, we still have not brought anywhere near what we need to of fissile material that poses the biggest danger to the safety of the American people. Our ports are not secure, our borders are not secure, and our country is at risk. We could be safer."

    Nancy Pelosi, "Five Years After 9/11, We Are Not As Safe As We Should Be"
    9/6/06

    ###
    If it worked to get Nancy Pelosi elected Speaker, why is it wrong for Rudy to also point out the obvious? It is a matter of opinion on the part of both politicians and fair game.....There was no whinning about Pelosi's use of fear then....and there should be no whinning about Giuliani's use of it now.

    I agree with the criticisms above of last night's "Special Comment". No need to get the vapors when Rudy says something stupid and contrary to the facts - all you need to do is to show how stupid and wrong he is. Having the latitude to blame a partcular set of policies for death and destruction is an essental part of free speech - I do it all the time in regard to the pirates in the WHite House.

    A very disapointing special comment.

    Gee Bush Supporters

    >If it worked to get Nancy Pelosi elected Speaker, why is it wrong for Rudy to also point out the obvious? It is a matter of opinion on the part of both politicians and fair game.....There was no whinning about Pelosi's use of fear then....and there should be no whinning about Giuliani's use of it now.
    Posted by: cee at April 26, 2007 8:01 AM

    Keep using the fear mongering tactics. It speaks volumes on the success of almost 6 years of steady Moronship from Bushwipe in Chief.

    $hiet (that means you, Johnny)!

    Haven't you Bush Supporters given up on the WAR
    OF TERROR?
    To be replaced for that catchy, rolls off the tongue, WAR ON EITHER YOU ARE WITH US OR AGAINST US, YOU MUSLIM APPEASER?


    ANY DAY NOW!!

    THE MUSLIMS AND DEMOCRATS ARE COMING!!
    THE MUSLIMS AND DEMOCRATS ARE COMING!!
    THE MUSLIMS AND DEMOCRATS ARE COMING!!

    Bush Supporters AND WOMEN TO THE FREEDUMS KOOL-AID FIRST!!

    RUSH!!!

    THE MUSLIMS AND DEMOCRATS ARE COMING!!

    It's patently obvious why K.O. is playing Charlie McCarthy to the Jackass Party's Edgar Bergen: The Dems are shaking in their boots over the notion that they might have to confront Candidate Rudy on the topic of national security. Olby's monotonous monologue had nothing whatsoever to do with fearmongering and everything to do with -- in the words of FDR -- fear itself ... over the possibility that his own puppetmaster party might lose yet another presidential election and be denied the power they so desperately crave.

    Imagine, if you can keep a straight face long enough, Hillary trying to duke it out with Rudy on anti-terrorism turf. Olby wants to crack on Giuliani's "no foreign policy experience" ... but ummm, yoohoo, what exactly does the Dems' screechy schoolmarm bring to the table in this area? Foreign policy experience or not, Giuliani led America's largest city back from the brink. Hillary ... errrrr ... was married to a guy who ... errrr ... had bin Laden in his sights in Afghanistan and left him alone. Smack! Pow! You go, girl!

    As for Barack Obama, well ... there's a hefty foreign policy resume, all right! Maybe he can boast that he once vacationed in Cancun or something.

    Ah yes, the Dems' problem is quite transparent. And that's why they wasted no time in sending out their favorite attack Chihuahua, Olby, to nip at Rudy's heels. Yip yip yip ...

    The bottom line is, Rudy just hit the Dems where they live, and no google-eyed Edward R. Murrow wanna-be from an also-ran cable network is going to lay a glove on America's Mayor. His message resonates.

    There was no whinning about Pelosi's use of fear then....and there should be no whinning about Giuliani's use of it now.

    Posted by: cee at April 26, 2007 8:01 AM


    While I agree with cee that Olbermann was dealing in counterproductive demagoguery in regard to Guliani's obtuse statements, cee is conveniently forgetting that for the past five years any criticism of the petulent retard in the White House has been automatically labeled as "siding with the terrorists". Pretending that Pelosi has not been smilarly criticized from the right is simply disingenuous.

    When is this hatemonger going to be off the air? What does MSNBC and NBC have to have done to them to get hate speech off the air?

    Here is what Olberman actually said (tough to refute, kids):

    ...Which party held the presidency on Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Giuliani?

    Which party held the mayoralty of New York on that date, Mr. Giuliani?

    Which party assured New Yorkers that the air was safe and the remains of the dead recovered and not being used to fill potholes, Mr. Giuliani?

    Which party wanted what the terrorists wanted — the postponement of elections — and to whose personal advantage would that have redounded, Mr. Giuliani?

    Which mayor of New York was elected eight months after the first attack on the World Trade Center, yet did not emphasize counter-terror in the same city for the next eight years, Mr. Giuliani?

    Which party had proposed to turn over the Department of Homeland Security to Bernard Kerik, Mr. Giuliani?

    Who wanted to ignore and hide Kerik’s organized crime allegations, Mr. Giuliani?

    Who personally argued to the White House that Kerik need not be vetted, Mr. Giuliani?

    Which party rode roughshod over Americans’ rights while braying that it was actually protecting them, Mr. Giuliani?

    Which party took this country into the most utterly backwards, utterly counterproductive, utterly ruinous war in our history, Mr. Giuliani?

    Which party has been in office as more Americans were killed in the pointless fields of Iraq than were killed in the consuming nightmare of 9/11, Mr. Giuliani?

    Drop this argument, sir.

    You will lose it.

    Stay on topic, Sir Loin of Milquetoast.....

    Olbermann is claiming that the GOP is exclusively using fear in their political rhetoric.....read my quote from his Special Comments.....My argument against Olbermann's mischaracterization of reality does not require I defend how Pelosi's opponents responded to her fear tactics. I only want some objectivity in the analysis and call Olbermann on his emotional tirade that seems absent when democrats motivate their constituents with fear of the eeeeevil neocons or the incompetent Bushies.

    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

    "Lefties: Leave these pathetic drowning rats alone to stew in each other's juices. Get yourselves out in the street and fight this criminal administration in ways that really mean something, and that are noted by more than a handful of keyboard heroes!"
    Sir Loin of Beef

    And to the poster at 10:18 AM.....

    How do any of those questions posed by Mr. Olbermann support his emotional plea against the analysis that Rudy brought to the table that democrats have not and likely will not militarily confront the terrorists and those countries that give support to same? Those questions are valid but have nothing to do with Olbermann's overheated reaction to "the politics of fear." They are great attack points if you are against Rudy becoming president, but they do not bolster the central point of the Special Comment. It is the usual bait and switch rhetoric of the silly Olbermann who tries to be self-rightous but is really only serving as the mouth-piece of the democrats.

    Drop this argument, sir.

    You will lose it.

    Posted by: at April 26, 2007 10:18 AM
    anonyloon/son, who was gettin' hummers and watching basketball while the 9/11 hijackers were planning their hit on America?

    Royalking,

    Clinton stopped more terrorism attacks than Bush. Perhaps you would've wanted him to develop some sort of brain-scan device to read thoughts; however, you girls were so fixated on his dick that it made it impossible for the man to develop one...

    You girls whined when the first WTC attack occurred, less than a month into Clinton's term. Bush owns this one, son...

    Be a big boy and deal with it, child...

    cee,

    Bush was useless after 9/11. He stopped halfway through Afghanistan to attack a country that had nothing to do with the attack on 9/11. The upshot is that he has simply increased the number of Muslim terrorists in the world...

    Another Republican, Reagan, managed to allowed hundreds of Marines to get blown up and flee with his senile tail betwixt his bowed legs...

    Think, girl!


    anonyloon/son, who was gettin' hummers and watching basketball while the 9/11 hijackers were planning their hit on America?

    Posted by: royalking at April 26, 2007 10:49 AM

    Let me guess, George Bush? The same idiot who sat for FIVE MINUTES reading a fairy tale after being told that the country was under attack and then flew off to Nebraska to hide in a bunker to clean the crap out of his pants.

    The lack of a forceful response to those supporting the terrorists of the 1993 WTC attack as well as the Cole attack and Cobar towers sent a message to the enemy that they could attack the US and not expect a reaction of any substance....

    Then 9/11 occurred and finally someone took the battle to those in countries that supported the terrorists or posed a threat based on intelligence at the time (WMD in Iraq). Rudy has a valid argument based on the behavior of the Clinton administration through the 1990's and the rhetoric comming from the major candidates in the democratic party now......It seems to me that the democrats are fearful that the people are being reminded of the truth regarding their lack of resolve when it comes to using force to protect the national security of the Untied States. Too bad. Politics is hard ball.....stop the whinning!

    Poor cee doesn't remember that Clinton caught the planners of the first WTC attack...

    Where's Bin Laden? Oh yeah, Bush said that he didn't think about him very much any more?

    Remember, I said "think" not "parrot ignorance"...

    The lack of a forceful response to those supporting the terrorists of the 1993 WTC attack as well as the Cole attack and Cobar towers sent a message to the enemy that they could attack the US and not expect a reaction of any substance....

    Then 9/11 occurred and finally someone took the battle to those in countries that supported the terrorists or posed a threat based on intelligence at the time (WMD in Iraq). Rudy has a valid argument based on the behavior of the Clinton administration through the 1990's and the rhetoric comming from the major candidates in the democratic party now......It seems to me that the democrats are fearful that the people are being reminded of the truth regarding their lack of resolve when it comes to using force to protect the national security of the Untied States. Too bad. Politics is hard ball.....stop the whinning!

    Posted by: cee at April 26, 2007 11:14 AM

    Yes, the good old republicans with high testosterone and no brains are all too willing to fight as long as other peoples sons and daughters are doing the fighting.

    Yep, blindrat you're right only about one thing.....the 1993 WTC attack was dealt with like a law enforcement problem and NOT as a national security issue....and look at what happened next........The Cole.....9/11.....Clinton's response was really effective!

    It is really getting pathetic when all I ever hear from the left apologists (includuing Olbermann) is.....

    "Stop attacking the pristine/perfect democrats, you mean guy! Don't scare people! The world was perfect before the democrats lost power in 1994 and 2000! There was no terrorism, violence, hunger or teenagers with acne!"

    Nice leadership, blindrat

    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

    "Lefties: Leave these pathetic drowning rats alone to stew in each other's juices. Get yourselves out in the street and fight this criminal administration in ways that really mean something, and that are noted by more than a handful of keyboard heroes!"
    Sir Loin of Beef

    "No Democrat has said words like these. None has ever campaigned on the Republicans' flat-footedness of Sept. 11, 2001. None has the requisite, irresponsible, all-consuming ambition."

    I think that a list of Democrats that campaigneid against Republicans over 9/11 should be put together.

    cee,

    You are funny indeed. Under Bush, more people died due to terrorism AFTER 9/11 than during Clinton's entire term...

    Remember, I said "think", child!

    Think blindrat......please give me an example of a terrorist attack within the borders of the United States of America since 9/11?....In fact....how about an American interest being attacked outside the two war zones since 9/11?

    I would say not acting to stop the domestic terrorism threat is not a very good argument to justify Clinton's "good showing." 3000 dead people in one day in NYC, DC and PA is a pretty poor result of the Clinton Adminstration/democrat policy......try thinking for a change yourself, blindrat....your DNC talking points are fraying!

    I love it, cee. You don't like my point so you restructure the question. Every American that has died violently in Iraq since Iraq surrendered is dead due to terrorism.

    Now, I'm pretty sure that you anti-american neocons don't care about soldiers; however, the rest of us do. Their lives are as important as those within our borders.

    Freedom is not free, liberal.....it never was and it will never be.

    The point of my argument is the security of The United States, blindrat......The security we enjoy as civilians has always been because of the brave and sacrificial actions of soldiers....and those defending freedom in Iraq are no different than those who tried to defend the freedom of The South Vietnamese or those who fought the spread of Communism or Fascism.

    What a joke.....you can't name a domestic or non-war zone American interest attack because the Bush Adminstration and those wonderful Armed Forces you and the democrats use as political pawns have been SUCCESSFUL in maintaining the national security of The United States.

    Think, blindrat....I know its hard for you.

    Let me guess, George Bush? The same idiot who sat for FIVE MINUTES reading a fairy tale after being told that the country was under attack and then flew off to Nebraska to hide in a bunker to clean the crap out of his pants.

    Posted by: at April 26, 2007 11:13 AM
    anonyloon, throw away your micheal moore movie, it's clearly doing permanent damage to your "brain."

    Poor cee!

    She knows that more Americans have died due to terrorism. She knows that there are more terrorists. She knows that the main supporters of terror, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, are Bush's allies.

    She is also aware that the Cole is a military vessel and that our military is receiving plenty of deaths weekly, far outstripping Clinton's entire term, INCLUDING the first WTC attack.

    Here's the give away, though: She doesn't consider military installations "American interests". Neocons don't care about soldiers...as long as they and their children don't have to be them. And, as long as they get the right to trash their services every election year.

    Perhaps you'd like to respond about the deaths? No?

    Well, run along then, child...

    Royalking,

    Actually, it was seven minutes...all on tape...

    3000 dead people in one sunny September day is something to be proud of, blindrat.

    Clinton's inaction just put off the inevitable, and stopping the engagement will also put off the inevitable price a free society pays to be free in a world where people have fanatical beliefs and suicide/terrorism is cherished.

    Claiming I do not hold the American soldier and hir or her sacrfice sacred is a typical Stawman, blindrat....it doesn't help your argument.

    You live in a fantasy world, blindrat, and I hope your views stay right where they are because I do not feel like seeing another domestic attack that results in innocent men, women and children being killed or wounded.

    You may like to equate the actions of our president and his Armed Forces to those of the terrorists, but I see a difference. Warfare by armed and trained people defending innocent Iraqis and Afghanis is noble and if they die the perish for a noble cause.....the cause of freedom. You seem to forget that, blindrat, and it makes your conclusions on who is dying and why a bit scary!

    I could throw numbers of deaths during a president's term around all day long and say FDR was a sadist!.....but I think the context is important....don't you, blindrat? Please try to use your brain for once....or are you so old that senility has set it?

    Again cee shows her ignorance...

    9/11 occurred on Bush's watch. He was the one that ignored the warnings. He was the one that cancelled the FBI's weekly terrorist briefings. And, he was the one who, when the danger became apparant, ran like a rabbit...

    You girls blamed the first 9/11 attack on Clinton. You don't get both. Look to your side. I hardly take comfort in the fact that, after we were attacked, Bush attacked a country that had nothing to do with 9/11...

    "You girls blamed the first 9/11 attack on Clinton"

    Make that WTC attack...

    The reason Ulbermahn is attacking Rudy because the Dems know he will crush them in the genearl. As a Moderate/Conservative Democrat Rudy is the type of Republican I can vote for. He doesn't discuss unimportant issues like Abortion, Gay Marriage and Immigration.
    He stays focused on the threat of Islamic Fascism. The Democratice leadership is allied with the Muslims so they know Rudy doesn't play around. Look what he did in NY. He cleaned it up.
    Also Rudy will go after the Media like no other person will.
    Don't be surprised if Muslims sympathizers like Ulbermahn and George Soros start to "disappear"!
    I can't wait!
    Go Rudy!

    assrat, where will you get your news when rosie leaves the view? Back to the comedy channel, like all the other braindeads? Maybe, bbc?

    royalking,

    What do you need proof of, son?...

    Poor blindrat....someone disagrees with his propaganda and he gets in a tiff.....

    The planning for 9/11 was over a three year period and the escalation of the attacks by Al Queda is a direct result from Clinton's inaction.....especially with the Cole attack.....he did nothing in retaliation.

    I never said the first WTC attack was Clinton's FAULT...I faulted Clinton for not taking stronger military action in response to it.....the terrorists had support from specific countries but it was handled as a law enforcement issue.

    The democrats are simply afraid of the truth....they do not handle national security very well and none of the leading candidates are strong in national security.....like it or not, Rudy is right!

    cee is having trouble with facts. Let me help her out:

    The USS Cole was bombed in October 2000. The investigation was completed January 19, 2001. Then, Bush took the reins, child.

    March of this year, they determined that Sudan was behind the attack. What has Bush done about it? Nothing...

    Of course when the Saudis attacked the WTC, what did Bush do? He black the country's name out of the first 9/11 report...remember?

    Here's a little more for ya, cee. To show you how great Republicans are at fighting terror. From the 9/11 commission:

    "...MR. THOMPSON: The Cole. Why didn't the Bush administration respond to the Cole?

    MS. RICE: I think Secretary Rumsfeld has perhaps said it best. We really thought that the Cole incident was past, that you didn't want to respond tit-for-tat. As I've said, there is strategic response and there's tactical response, and just responding to another attack in an insufficient way, we thought, would actually probably embolden the terrorists; they'd been emboldened by everything else that had been done to them; and that the best course was to look ahead to a more aggressive strategy against them.

    I still believe to this day that the al Qaeda were prepared for a response to the Cole and that, as some of the intelligence suggested, bin Laden was intending to show that he'd yet survived another one, and that it might have been counterproductive..."

    http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing9/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-04-08.htm

    Poor blindrat....Al Queda saw the piss poor response by The Clinton Adminstration to their attacks and finally got a big one in the US on 9/11....

    Preliminary reports connected Al Queda to the attack and all Clinton did was say, "If, as it now appears, this was an act of terrorism, it was a despicable and cowardly act. We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable".

    BTW, the investigation you mention was in to seeing if the crew and captain did anything wrong to allow the attack.....duh....big deal....got anything else?

    Al Queda was behind the attack and Bill Clinton did NOTHING in retaliation.

    Sudan was held responsible by a judge for civil purposes, blindrat.....OBL and Al Queda were the terrorists who hatched the plot.

    Facts are fact, Osama and Al Queda continued their escalation through-out the 90's under Willie's watch.


    Olby hates Rudy=Olbyloons hate Rudy.Olberdork calls the tune and all the Olby sycophants play it with gusto.


    anonyloon, throw away your micheal moore movie, it's clearly doing permanent damage to your "brain."

    Posted by: royalking at April 26, 2007 12:19 PM

    At least, I have a brain and it's not brainwashed like your pea brain. I stand corrected, as Blindrat pointed out, it as 7 MINUTES THAT THE IDIOT SAT ON HIS ASS AFTER BEING TOLD "THE COUNTRY IS UNDER ATTACK."

    Democrats do nothing about islamic terrorism for 9 years and blindrat complains about the first 8 months of republican policy....typical.....

    Oh, and again, no terrorism within the US or on international US interests outside a war-zone since 9/11/01....that's almost 6 years and blindrat still finds fault. Pathetic.

    assrat, who was president when the cole was bombed? Who didn't respond? bj, that's who. Your name fits you, perfectly!

    Rudy has NO chance at being president. Olbermanns comments were right on the issue of who was in charge when 911 happened. Talk about hypocrisy. The Republican party is no longer even in existence. All that is left is the 33 per cent of the hard core brain washed into thinking they are Republicans when they are actually retarded. Nixon or Eisenhower, hell, even Reagen would kick Rudy and the deciders henchmen in the ass. They would be laughing themselves silly until they weeped for us over the idea of Bush leading our country.

    Now cee adds "outside a war zone"...must be really desperate to have to keep building on her original assertion...

    Nice to see that you got my point about the USS Cole and Bush's non-response. It was a lot of fun showing everyone how ignorant you are child...

    Now cee adds "outside a war zone"...must be really desperate to have to keep building on her original assertion...

    Posted by: blindrat at April 26, 2007 1:49 PM


    But almost 2 hours ago.....

    Think blindrat......please give me an example of a terrorist attack within the borders of the United States of America since 9/11?....In fact....how about an American interest being attacked outside the two war zones since 9/11?

    I would say not acting to stop the domestic terrorism threat is not a very good argument to justify Clinton's "good showing." 3000 dead people in one day in NYC, DC and PA is a pretty poor result of the Clinton Adminstration/democrat policy......try thinking for a change yourself, blindrat....your DNC talking points are fraying!

    Posted by: cee at April 26, 2007 11:57 AM

    ###
    Is someone reading the blog for you, blindrat, or are you trying to sound out the words yourself?

    Oh, and again, no terrorism within the US or on international US interests outside a war-zone since 9/11/01....that's almost 6 years and blindrat still finds fault. Pathetic.


    Posted by: cee at April 26, 2007 1:39 PM

    OUTSIDE A WARZONE! Ha ha ha hahahahah he he ha. A war=Good to cee! Ha hahahahaha he hehhehe ha ha ha! 3500 dead servicemen. Billions of taxpayer dollars. Pathetic indeed.

    royalking,

    You've already read my post about Clinton's response and my post about Bush's lack of same.

    Ignoring facts is a neocon vice, son...

    I am glad you can laugh about the brave and serious service of our country's Armed Forces, codas....It seems you fit in well with the democrats who only know how to use these wonderful people as pawns in their political games.

    A war defending freedom against the evil of islamic fundamentalism is the reality we all face as a nation...it's just a shame that your view is simply involving who wins the next election.....a very worthwhile goal, codas.

    Oh, and there still is no answer to my question.....That's too bad because I wonder if the Empire State Building would still be standing if the democrats were in charge?

    Oh, and there still is no answer to my question.....That's too bad because I wonder if the Empire State Building would still be standing if the democrats were in charge?

    Posted by: cee at April 26, 2007 2:03 PM

    I don't know. I wonder if a lot of servicemen would still be alive if a Republican administration wasn't so careless with our blood and treasure.

    cee,

    Well, Bush was in charge for eight months and lost three buildings in New York...

    If there is a democratic president in 2008, I wonder if you'll be blaming Bush for attacks during that person's term...

    codas,
    That's why Rudy is leading your beloved Hillary and Obama in the polls?
    No chance huh?
    Why is the Islamic backed Leftists Soros led attack machine beginning their attacks and promoting Fred Thompson?
    They fear Rudy.
    He neutralizes the Left on social issue and allows Moderate Democrats who are worried about Islami to vote for him.

    A war defending freedom against the evil of islamic fundamentalism is the reality we all face as a nation...it's just a shame that your view is simply involving who wins the next election.....a very worthwhile goal, codas.

    Posted by: cee at April 26, 2007 2:00 PM

    The idea that you think you have a point to make pointing out other people using debating whether the war is working to make political points is pathetic. You are the one who uses fear and death as a way to make your political points constantly. Your points all suck though about it. The point is too many have died for a neocon dream and it's time to wake up cee.

    blindrat,
    Why doesn't Ulbermahn and The Left condemn Iran's new crack down on Women who don't wear the Hijab?
    If a woman is caught without it, they are banished from Teheran for 5 years.
    Why the silnece?

    Joker,

    Give me an example of Bush condemning it...

    blindrat....

    No blaming from me....I just call the facts as I see them....9 years of Clinton's leadership did not make this country safe from the worst attack during peacetime in US history....The democrats are talking the same way they did then and they have no regard for the military or their expertise so I conclude the same as the great former mayor of NY......

    codas....

    Nice way to dodge my question.

    BTW.....Did you know General Petraeus is in DC and giving briefings on the surge and voicing his request to continue the same policy? Oh yeah, Pelosi is skipping the briefings because she knows more about the Iraq War than the guy leading the brave men and women.

    I trust General Petraeus a lot more than Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi with my safety and security.

    cee,

    Pelosi has already been briefed, over the phone. She requested a face to face and was turned down. I'll bet that you knew it...

    Now, as for your convoluted idiocy about terror, you feel that Bush's policy to attacking a country that didn't have Al Qaeda and leaving our borders completely porous and not checking even a percent of incoming cargo is what has kept us from attack, who am I to argue?

    You don't have a leg to stand on, young lady. And, I'll bet that you know it...

    blindrat,
    I'm not a Bush fan or voted for him.
    I voted for Gore in 2000 and abstained in 2004.
    However Bush has condemned the Iranian regime on many occasions. So has various Republicans and Moderate Democrats!
    The story about the Iran crackdown was on FOX and various Republican and Moderate Democrats were condemning this.
    The Soros led Left is silent.
    Not a peep from Ulbermahn, Daily Kos and Mediamatters on this.
    Why?

    I trust General Petraeus a lot more than Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi with my safety and security.

    Posted by: cee at April 26, 2007 2:24 PM

    How many other Generals do you trust? I'll bet only the ones that agree with Bush. I'll say it again. Rudy has NO CHANCE!

    Joker,

    So, your response is that you have no example of Bush's condemnation of this new crackdown...

    Why doesn't Ulbermahn and The Left condemn Iran's new crack down on Women who don't wear the Hijab?
    If a woman is caught without it, they are banished from Teheran for 5 years.
    Why the silnece?

    Posted by: The Joker at April 26, 2007 2:18 PM

    I for one think fundemantalism in ALL it's religious forms is screwed up. I hate to be insensitive to it but that is a religious problem that will have to be solved by moderates in their own country. Would you want Iran or any other country to interject in our religious differences? I am Catholic and I have a problem with born agains. Should Japan bomb my house?

    codas,
    "Rudy has NO CHANCE!"
    Why is he ahead in the polls and the Leftist media has thrown their best punch at him already?
    He leads Hillary and Obama.
    Explain?

    Codas,
    "I am Catholic and I have a problem with born agains. "
    Do you have a problem with Muslims nwho in the 7th Century commited Genocide again Catholics and Greek Orthodox Christians?
    Hmmm?
    I do.
    Born Agains are my brothers in the blood of Christ.
    I'll take them over your Jihad allies anyday!

    blindrat,
    I belive the State Department has condemned this last week. that's more then what you Leftists do.
    Instead you focus on Bush when you defend your Iranian allies.
    Why not move there since you support them?

    Joker,

    Proof?

    "Pelosi has already been briefed, over the phone. She requested a face to face and was turned down. I'll bet that you knew it..."

    Yes, and it was after people pointed out her pursuit of the current funding legislation without any current briefing from the military that Madame Speaker decided on the window dressing and still is still doing whatever she wanted to do anyway.....oh and Harry Reid is surely ready to listen to the men on the ground....

    From CNN Situation Room...

    BASH: But, sir, General Petraeus has not said the war is lost.

    I just want to ask you again...

    REID: General -- General Petraeus has said the war cannot be won militarily. He said that.

    BASH: Is there something to that, an 18- and 19-year-old person in the service in Iraq who is serving, risking their lives, in some cases losing their life, hearing somebody like you back in Washington saying that they're fighting for a lost cause?

    REID: General Petraeus has told them that.

    BASH: How has he said that?

    REID: He said the war can't be won militarily. He said that. I mean he said it. He's the commander on the ground there.

    BASH: But, sir, there's a difference...

    REID: Are they critical of him?

    BASH: ... between that and saying the war is lost, don't you think?

    REID: Well, I -- as I said, maybe it's a choice of words. I mean General Petraeus has said the war cannot be won militarily.

    Doesn't every soldier going there know that he's said that?

    I think so.

    BASH: He also said that General Petraeus is going to come to the Hill and make it clear to you that there is progress going on in Iraq, that the so-called surge is working. Will you believe him when he says that?

    REID: No, I don't believe him, because it's not happening.


    ###
    Wonderful democratic party leaders ready to keep us all safe!

    blindrat,
    Again your being slick. Unlike you Leftist this administration has condemned the Iranian regime.
    As fore the State Department statement, I'll Google it and post it in a little bit.
    You still dodged my question,
    Why don't you Leftist condemn the Iranian crackdown?
    Answer please?

    "Do you have a problem with Muslims nwho in the 7th Century commited Genocide again Catholics and Greek Orthodox Christians?"

    YOU TELL 'EM FIDEL!! LET THE TAINTED MUSLIM BLOOD FLOW!! I AND MY BROTHERS IN THE BLOOD OF CHRIST WILL GLORY IN THE DAY WHEN WE PILE THEIR VILE SKULLS IN A PYRAMID OF GLORY TO OUR LORD! SMASH THEIR HEADS! BURN THEIR CHILDREN. AMEN.

    cee,

    You are funny indeed. Under Bush, more people died due to terrorism AFTER 9/11 than during Clinton's entire term...
    Posted by: blindrat at April 26, 2007 11:46 AM
    Let's count the bodies under Hummerton's leadership there, SON. WTC 1: 9, Bosnia est 250,000, Rwanda: est. 500,000, USS Cole: 17, Kosovo: est. 10,000, "close friends and advisor's": 1 and the number of convicted close friends and advisor's: PRICELESS! Now get back to the basement, SON. I told you you were grounded!!

    cee,

    "Yes" would've been sufficient for the Pelosi remark. Everything after that is pure and stupid speculation...

    As for the Reid remark, what part of "cannot be won militarily" don't you understand?

    More people are dying per attack in Iraq and there is no indication of any success. If there was, McCain wouldn't have had to have lied a few weeks ago...would he?

    blindrat,
    Why are you so obssed with Iraq?
    Does it effect your life?
    You're a one issue loon.
    Iraq isn't the only issue out there.
    Personally I think we should leave so the Jihadis spend their energy killing each other!

    blindrat,
    do you condemn the Iranian crackdown?

    Proof the democrats are only in this fight for political reasons and do NOT care about the troops in harms way.....

    From AP.....

    Democrats said the bill was on track to arrive on the president's desk by Tuesday, the anniversary of Bush's announcement aboard the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln that major combat operations in Iraq had ended.

    "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001, and still goes on," Bush said on May 1, 2003, in front of a huge "Mission Accomplished" banner.

    Bush since has acknowledged that the war has not progressed as he had hoped. After the November elections in which Democrats swept up enough seats to take the majority, he announced a new strategy that involved sending additional forces to Iraq.

    White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said that if Democratic lawmakers timed the sending of the bill to the anniversary of Bush's speech, it would be "a ridiculous P.R. stunt."

    "That is the height of cynicism, and absolutely so unfortunate for the men and women in uniform and their families who are watching the debate," she said Thursday morning.

    ###
    Yep.....great timing....good taste of the part of the democratic leadership.....really classy.

    destroyeroflyingdemonuts,

    Wow! Now Clinton is responsible for Rowanda?

    Here's a tip, son: If you've got nothing to say, say nothing...

    blindrat,
    Do you condemn the Iranian cradckdown?

    Joker,

    Actually, I started with terrorism. You girls steered to to Iraq.

    Do I condemn Iran's crackdown...sure, I condemn it. Did that fix anything, son? No, because "condemning" something is just political posturing.

    Certainly Bush has had no interest in women's rights in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia...

    Hey, SON. Who was the Prez of the most powerful country on Earth, SON? Tip for you Mini, son. Listen to DAD and you might get out of the basement and get some fresh air and not have to listen to the cricket's and thinking they're your intellectual equals, SONNY!

    And it RAWANDA, not ROWANDA. Read the damn dictionary I tossed to the basement, SON.

    cee,

    Wow! The Whitehouse is telling us why the democratic bill is coming on a particular date? And, what was the last one scheduled to coincide with? Buddha's birthday?

    And, proof that the democrats don't care...
    isn't there...

    destroyeroflyingdemonuts,

    I accept your apology, son...

    Poor blindrat's ruling elite couldn't wait to be formally briefed by THE COMMANDER on the ground in Iraq because it would have thrown off the timing of their politically inspired legislation to fully fund our men and women in uniform.....Nice way to run a country, blindrat.....they make you proud!

    Legislation for funding based on anniversaries and sound-bites.....THE DEMOCRAT PARTY WAY!

    Good job....and BTW Clinton is partially responsible for the genocide in Rwanda....HE DID NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE THERE AS WELL! What a kind man, what a leader!

    sorry to all cricket's offended when I implied they were not as smart as my basement dwelling blindrat aka sonny

    cee,

    I stated, and you agreed, that Pelosi was briefed.

    Maybe you are a little retarded. If so, I apologize for my bluntness...

    "Certainly Bush has had no interest in women's rights in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia..."

    Agreed.
    He should condemn it, but he won't.
    He's in the backpocket of Saudi oil money.
    Hell will freeze over before that happens, old fart.
    However,
    The Left time and time again defends the Iranian regime.
    If someone makes an anti-Iran remark, the Left has a hyperfit.
    At least the Right is more honest on this.
    Many on the Right have condemned the Iranians and Saudis.
    Both are despicable nations that shoyuld be wiped out the map!
    Unlike ypou I can discuss various topics.
    You have Iraq Obssesion Syndrome.
    I guess that's what old age and being senile does!

    Sound out the words of the AP article, blindrat (or have someone read it to you)....

    "Democrats said the bill was on track to arrive on the president's desk by Tuesday, the anniversary of Bush's announcement aboard the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln that major combat operations in Iraq had ended."

    blindrat just loves those soundbites!


    cee,

    I stated, and you agreed, that Pelosi was briefed.

    Maybe you are a little retarded. If so, I apologize for my bluntness...

    destroyeroflyingdemonuts,

    I accept your apology, son...

    Posted by: blindrat at April 26, 2007 3:16 PM
    and that would be that Dad raised a idiot blindrat like you? Otherwise study Sonny study. Rawanda, 1990's. the prez was who, Sonny? Now shutup and listen to the cricket's. They are talking to you.

    When was Madam Speaker briefed by the good General Petraeus, blindrat?....

    cee,

    The democrats didn't say that it was the anniversary...the AP did...

    Proof? They change that part from article to article...

    assrat, who was president when the cole was bombed? Who didn't respond? bj, that's who. Your name fits you, perfectly!

    Posted by: royalking at April 26, 2007 1:46 PM
    Ignoring facts is a neocon vice, son...

    Posted by: blindrat at April 26, 2007 1:55 PM
    You mean the facts I posted above? Those facts you refuse to admit being wrong about?

    How long was the briefing, blindrat?

    OMG... Giuliani is running on the platform that Republicans best protect the country from terrorists and that he's the best of the lot for that job. "How dare you, sir...."

    Oh, what a tactic of demagoguery to make the public afraid of losing all its rights to a tyrannical militant regime...huh, Keith....

    That Giuliani also links environmental concerns to national security and feels he's the best pol for that job too, went unobserved by Olbermann. I suppose in a race where a Democratic candidate is bound to suggest that he/she will be the only impediment against Republican abetted planetary meltdown, Olbermann would have to ignore THAT way of inciting public fear.

    Well, that's Keith. It's interesting that for all his pretensions about Edward Murrow and Woodward and Bernstein, Olbermann has knowingly cast himself as Howard Beale. But then Howard Beale was a tool of a network and in that sense, when the worst did happen, Beale's excesses did have that "out".

    "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — the Democrat most credited with leading Congress into this head-to-head confrontation with President Bush — laid low on Wednesday, reports CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. She skipped the meeting with Gen. David Petraeus, opting for a phone briefing instead."

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/25/politics/main2725911.shtml?source=mostpop_story

    Next time, do your own research, please...

    Let me help you Bush Supporters cut short your irrational, paranoid rants:

    NUKE!
    NUKE!
    NUUUUUUUUUUUUUKE!
    IRAN, SYRIA, MECCA, THE PALESTINIANS, CUBA, VENEZUELA, N. KOREA!!

    NUUUUUUUUUUUUUUKE!!

    HELL! MIGHT AS WELL THROW IN THE FROGS TOO!!

    NUUUUUUUUUUUUUUKE!!

    see?
    That's the Bush Supporters's way to spray freedumbs across the world.

    royalking,

    I posted the 9/11 commission excerpt where Rice states that Bush took no action against the Cole bombers, son...

    Clinton investigated for a few months. It was up to Bush to do something with that info...

    Blindrat:

    From ABC

    Last week, House Democratic leaders were criticized by their Republican counterparts when they initially declined an invitation from Petraeus to brief House members on the status of the war due to "scheduling conflicts," as first reported by Roll Call.

    Cee to you: (about the meeting)
    Yes, and it was after people pointed out her pursuit of the current funding legislation without any current briefing from the military that Madame Speaker decided on the window dressing

    It was the timing issue Cee pointed put, not that a meeting never occurred. Who is slow here?

    blindrat,
    The fact is Clinton didn't respond to the Cole and Bush didn't either.
    But let's get to the issue at hand.
    How does Iraq effect your life?

    WOW! 30 mintutes.....Did General Petraeus get to say anything?

    That Speaker gives a nice impression of being informed about the current situation in Iraq, blindrat....According to the ABC story, the democratic leadership scambled for the briefing ONLY after republican criticism....


    "Last week, House Democratic leaders were criticized by their Republican counterparts when they initially declined an invitation from Petraeus to brief House members on the status of the war due to "scheduling conflicts," as first reported by Roll Call.

    "House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, called the decision "irresponsible" and said it constituted a "dereliction of duty." But by the end of the day, Pelosi's office changed course and scheduled a briefing for members of the House for Wednesday, April 25.

    That's nice....a couple of hours before the vote....the dems get their update from the commander....good point, blindrat....good point!

    "blindrat,
    Why are you so obssed with Iraq?
    Does it effect your life?
    You're a one issue loon.
    Iraq isn't the only issue out there.
    Personally I think we should leave so the Jihadis spend their energy killing each other!"

    Yeah, you forgot about the gays Blindrat! They are in a secret pack with the evil blackamoors to reduce the number of White Christian Babies, so Sullaiman's hordes can march in and chop off all our heads in 2029.

    >blindrat,
    >Why are you so obssed with Iraq?
    >Does it effect your life?
    >You're a one issue loon.
    >Iraq isn't the only issue out there.
    >Personally I think we should leave so the >Jihadis spend their energy killing each other!

    >blindrat,
    >do you condemn the Iranian crackdown?
    >Posted by: The Joker at April 26, 2007 3:07 PM

    "blindrat,
    Why are you so obssed with Iraq?
    Does it effect your life?
    You're a one issue loon.
    Iraq isn't the only issue out there.
    Personally I think we should leave so the Jihadis spend their energy killing each other!"

    >Yeah, you forgot about the gays Blindrat! >They are in a secret pack with the evil >blackamoors to reduce the number of White >Christian Babies, so Sullaiman's hordes can >march in and chop off all our heads in 2029.
    >Posted by: VOK at April 26, 2007 4:21 PM


    And let's not forget the PROGRESSIVE SECULARISTS!!

    OUT TO DESTROY X'MAS AND SANTA!!

    SANTA!!
    SANTA!!
    AND THE EASTER BUNNY!!

    NEXT THEY'LL GO AFTER THE LORD'S BOUNTY: HAMBURGERS!!

    DAMN YOU PREEGRRRESSSIVE SSSCULARISTSSS!!

    And that's "the memo".


    Clinton investigated for a few months. It was up to Bush to do something with that info...

    Posted by: blindrat at April 26, 2007 3:44 PM
    Nice apology, assrat.

    VOK,
    "They are in a secret pack with the evil >blackamoors to reduce the number of White >Christian Babies, so Sullaiman's hordes can >march in and chop off all our heads in 2029.
    >Posted by: VOK at April 26, 2007 4:21 PM "

    You ignorant fool. I'm Spanish not White. The Muslims hate panish people and Non Muslim Blacks also.
    Al-Qaeda recently has claimed that Spain must change the Cordoba Cathedral back to a Mosque or they will begin attacks
    Read some history then discuss the Islamic threat.
    It's not racial, It's their world against our world.
    Why do you Leftists ally with them against your own countrymen.
    Please explain?

    Wonderfull news, my glorious Christian Blood-brother! More infidels dead and wounded, their hiddeous muslim body parts blasted apart!! The river of Muslim blood is flowing!!!!! The nightmare of the 7th century is avenged!!!!ULULULUULULLULULULU

    "In fresh violence, a suicide car bomber killed 10 Iraqi soldiers at a checkpoint north of Baghdad. The bomber rammed his car into a checkpoint in the town of Khalis, 80 km (50 miles) from Baghdad, police said. Another 15 people were wounded."

    More glorious revenge!! Let the muslim fingers and toes rain from the sky!! ULULLUULULUULULULLULL

    "At least another six people were killed and 15 wounded in a car bomb blast in the religiously mixed Jadriya district in southern Baghdad on Thursday, police said."

    VOK,
    It is glorious when Muslims kill each other.
    That's why we should leave Iraq.
    Then they really will murder each other.
    There will be hundred of car bombings and The Ilsmic Savages will fight it out!
    I'm glad ypou agree with me.
    That's why you posted the Iraq Bombings since ypou like it!

    royalking,

    You saw the timeline I presented. If you want to pretend(?) to be stupid, go for it, son...

    blindrat,
    Ypou agree that if we leave Iraq and the Jihadists start fighting each other that it would be a good thing, correct.
    That's why I'm for withdrawal, let them go at it.

    Joker,

    Well, they'll do it if we stay ten years and then leave and they'll do it if we leave tomorrow...

    You saw the timeline I presented. If you want to pretend(?) to be stupid, go for it, son...

    Posted by: blindrat at April 26, 2007 5:25 PM
    Your own timeline proved you wrong!

    Joker - How come you don't tell any jokes?

    Make me laugh Joker.

    Don't tell me you put on all that make-up and teased up your hair for nothing.

    You're not being funny, Damnit!

    Tell us a Goddamn Joke for Christsakes.

    "Freedom is not free, liberal.....it never was and it will never be."


    This is sickeningly hillarious. Robert Cox, who posts here variously as "cee" and "Cecelia" sits on his ass without sacrificing anything for this war but the children, siblings, and parents of people he hopes never to meet, now lectures us that "freedom isn't free". In fact, far from making any sacrifice, he is paid by FOX News to shovel this drivel.

    "That's why you posted the Iraq Bombings since ypou like it!"

    That's right you total friggin' nutcake. Can someone please get a cane and drag this fascist lunatic offstage please? Joker, you are an embarrassment to this site, and that is REALLY saying something.

    That's right you total friggin' nutcake. Can someone please get a cane and drag this fascist lunatic offstage please? Joker, you are an embarrassment to this site, and that is REALLY saying something.
    Posted by: VOK at April 26, 2007 6:14 PM

    ROFLMAO!!

    You forgot,

    BovineQueen,
    Brandon,
    and
    Johnny Bu$hwipe.

    Thank you! Bob!

    J$,
    It's amazing. Night after night you do your review, your sheep comment on it, yet facts are rarely refuted. Why don't you provide the context of the O'Reilly quotes? You attack Olbermann for not providing context yet neither do you. That can only be because O'Reilly's comments are indefensible.

    I'm always amused by the attacks on Brock from the right. He admitted to lying about President Clinton and you use that to attack him as a liar. Yet you continue to spew all his lies about President Clinton.

    stock market record high, but not on olbyplanet
    Posted by: Little Feechie at April 26, 2007 12:46 AM

    And the housing industry is almost in panic mode, the war in Iraq continues to rage while NOTHING is being accomplished.( other than deaths mounting) George Tenet reveals that the Bush Administration is "Disingenuous and made me a scapegoat",thousands protest Cheney speech at conservative Brigham Young University,Jessica Lynch and the Tillman family rip the Bushies a new a--hole and reveal more of their lies,the Gonzalez scandal continues to perculate, etc etc
    but all is well in Bush World for the RWer's.

    The blind, partisan wingnuts just ignore reality.

    Oh...and Chimpy had time to embarrass himself...again...with his dancing and bongo playing.

    Proof the democrats are only in this fight for political reasons and do NOT care about the troops in harms way.....
    Posted by: cee at April 26, 2007 3:07 PM

    While Cee's "honorable" president outsourced Walter Reed and our troops suffered.
    Our troops STILL don't have the armor they need in Iraq and Chimpy's stubbornness in Iraq is continuing to raise the carnage in that country.

    The chief right wing blindman ignores reality.
    If there ever was ANYONE who didn't support the troops it's this administration who have played politics from day one with this war and protecting our men and women overseas.

    The dirt on this administration just continues to mount.
    They are THE most dishonorable administration in my lifetime, and I'm in my 50's.

    The lies, scandals and failures are like nothing we've ever seen.

    Yet it's all the democrats fault !
    Idiocy personified !

    From the Daily Show w. Jon Stewart:

    Stewart: John, doesn't the President want us to feel that the people that he hires are competent?

    Oliver: No, no, absolutely not. No, he wants you-and the American people-to leave him the f@%# alone. Now, Jon, legally, Gonzales had to appear before Congress. So his choice was either to expose the administration's political machinations or appear to be a functioning pinhead. He went with pinhead. And if I may say: NAILED IT!


    NEW POLL : THE IRAQ DEADLINE: WHO DO YOU AGREE WITH?

    the poll shows that 56 percent say they agree more with the Democrats in Congress who want to set a deadline for troop withdrawal, versus the 37 percent who say they agree with Bush that there shouldn't be a deadline. What's more, 55 percent believe that victory in Iraq isn't possible. And 49 percent say the situation in Iraq has gotten worse in the last three months since Bush announced his so-called troop surge. Thirty-seven percent say the situation has stayed about the same, and just 12 percent think it has improved.

    According to the poll, only 22 percent believe the country is on the right track. That's the lowest number on this question since October 1992, when Bush father's was running for a second term — and lost.

    nOTICE THE 12% PART OF THE POLL.
    That's who we're dealing with at this site with the braindead right wingers.They are part of 12% of all Americans.

    What a joke !

    A U.S. officer has been accused of aiding the enemy -- a charge that carries the death penalty -- for allegedly providing an unmonitored cell phone to detainees while he commanded an MP detachment at the jail that held Saddam Hussein, the military said Thursday.

    Death to this prick!

    Death to the people who lied about the Pat Tillman scandal too, right Jeffrey?
    That means YOUR GUYS !

    A U.S. officer has been accused of aiding the enemy -- a charge that carries the death penalty -- for allegedly providing an unmonitored cell phone to detainees while he commanded an MP detachment at the jail that held Saddam Hussein, the military said Thursday.

    Army Lt. Col. William H. Steele faces nine charges in all, including fraternizing with a prisoner's daughter, storing and marking classified material, maintaining an inappropriate relationship with an interpreter and possessing pornographic videos.

    This part didn't paste.

    Death to the people who lied about the Pat Tillman scandal too, right Jeffrey?
    That means YOUR GUYS !

    Posted by: at April 26, 2007 7:45 PM
    My guys? You're not an American, I take it?

    If you really want to know who's "aiding the enemy" just direct your view Pennsylanvia Ave.

    Your president has destabilized the Middle East and created more terrorists than any recruitment by Bin Laden ever could.

    BTW, werer't we supposed to get OBL "dead or alive"?

    What's up with that ?

    I'm always amused by the attacks on Brock from the right. He admitted to lying about President Clinton and you use that to attack him as a liar. Yet you continue to spew all his lies about President Clinton.

    Posted by: Colbert at April 26, 2007 6:50 PM
    Calling someone a liar that is a proven liar is "attacking" and "spewing?" Welcome to colberts world, the little world that it is....

    If you really want to know who's "aiding the enemy" just direct your view Pennsylanvia Ave.

    Your president has destabilized the Middle East and created more terrorists than any recruitment by Bin Laden ever could.

    BTW, werer't we supposed to get OBL "dead or alive"?

    What's up with that ?

    Posted by: at April 26, 2007 7:53 PM
    I wouldn't use a name if I was posting crap like this, either. then again, I wouldn't post crap like this. I hear canada calling you, get lost!

    This is sickeningly hillarious. Robert Cox, who posts here variously as "cee" and "Cecelia" sits on his ass without sacrificing anything for this war but the children, siblings, and parents of people he hopes never to meet, now lectures us that "freedom isn't free". In fact, far from making any sacrifice, he is paid by FOX News to shovel this drivel.

    Posted by: at April 26, 2007 6:13 PM
    Any evidence to this "drivel?" That's what I thought....

    I think I just saw lil mikey getting drug out of the debates by security! He was yelling "oh Keefy, oh keefy, I love you keefy!"

    Did somebody just mention my name?

    No, my mistake, it was just a nobody.

    Being debunked over and over by a "nobody" can't be a good thing, can it?

    A U.S. officer has been accused of aiding the enemy -- a charge that carries the death penalty -- for allegedly providing an unmonitored cell phone to detainees while he commanded an MP detachment at the jail that held Saddam Hussein, the military said Thursday.

    Death to this prick!

    Posted by: royalking at April 26, 2007 7:44 PM


    Big talk from desktop chickenhawk. What else is new?

    "being debunked over and over by a nobody by a "nobody" can't be a good thing, can it."

    Beats me? Who got "debunked" by a nobody?

    Big talk from desktop chickenhawk. What else is new?

    Posted by: at April 26, 2007 10:00 PM
    an obvious defender of traitors.

    Jeff: "Death to this prick" & "an obvious defender of traitors."

    What do you not understand about this officer being 'accused' of, and 'allegedly' providing this cell phone? These were words you used in your own post.

    Do you want a public lynching, as you advocated?...Or do you want the rule of law to prevail?

    In other words, do you believe in American principles.....or do believe in tyranny?

    It would be interesting to get into your mind for a short time. It must be one dim, dark little place.

    Death to the people who lied about the Pat Tillman scandal too, right Jeffrey?
    That means YOUR GUYS !

    Posted by: at April 26, 2007 7:45 PM
    My guys? You're not an American, I take it?
    Posted by: royalking at April 26, 2007 7:51 PM

    American ..yes...defender of the lying bastards that tried to cover up how Pat Tillman died...HELL NO.
    That's YOUR job, a--hole.

    Do you want a public lynching, as you advocated?...Or do you want the rule of law to prevail?

    In other words, do you believe in American principles.....or do believe in tyranny?

    But lunch Bush for war crimes when there has been no formal accusations backed up with solid proof of purposefully deceiving the country.

    "But lunch Bush for war crimes"

    We all know Bush is "out to lunch" but I never heard it exactly put that way !

    "but lunch Bush for war crimes."

    Absolutely not! I have no interest in having lunch with Bush.

    lynch, lunch (y next to u) okay?

    No....Bush isn't guilty of war crimes..
    or lying...or bad judgement..or being inflexible...or being inarticulate...or subverting the Constitution....or hiring unqualified incompetents... or increasing terrorism... or attacking a country that didn't attack us...running up the largest debt in US history...or.....

    No...You are out to lunch !

    You'll be out of your misery in 2008.

    You'll be out of your misery in 2008.
    Posted by: at April 27, 2007 12:35 AM

    But the parents and loved ones that have lost sons and daughters due to Bush's failed dirty little war WON'T be out of their misery.

    So when Bush kicks the bucket, you can spit on his grave

    American ..yes...defender of the lying bastards that tried to cover up how Pat Tillman died...HELL NO.
    That's YOUR job, a--hole.

    Posted by: Why Do You Care What My Name is at April 27, 2007 12:11 AM
    Spoken by a TRUE coward! I think giving a cell phone to known terrorists in prison caused many, many deaths. Allegedly covering up a friendly fire incident, more than likely, caused no deaths, Jackass.

    Do you want a public lynching, as you advocated?...Or do you want the rule of law to prevail?

    In other words, do you believe in American principles.....or do believe in tyranny?

    It would be interesting to get into your mind for a short time. It must be one dim, dark little place.

    Posted by: Mike at April 26, 2007 11:27 PM
    Dimwit mikey, lying again. Where did I mention "public lynching?" Nowhere. I AM advocating he be shot after he is convicted, as the law allows. Will you ever make it through a day without lying or putting words in peoples mouths? Can't you read? If you can, you don't show any evidence of it. I hate to throw the word "pathological" around, but, it's starting to look that way.

    Allegedly covering up a friendly fire incident, more than likely, caused no deaths, Jackass.
    Posted by: royalking at April 27, 2007 12:50 AM

    How about invading Iraq, Jeffrey?
    Did that cause any deaths?

    Please explain all that it has accomplished..or shut the f--- up.

    Did the invasion of a country that didn't attack us cause any deaths Royala--hole?

    Did the worst foreign policy blunder in our nation's history even make you think...just a little of the error of your ways and your loyalties?
    Probably not !

    Anon to Jeff: "Please explain all that it has accomplished..or shut the f--- up."

    NO, we don't EVER want Jeff to "shut the f--- up"! He keeps posting, and the laughs keep coming...and that helps make this site so entertaining.

    How can anyone look at that bumbled up logic he used defending himself at 12:58 and not break out laughing?

    How can anyone look at that bumbled up logic he used defending himself at 12:58 and not break out laughing?

    Posted by: Mike at April 27, 2007 1:16 AM


    Would you flesh this out a bit, I'm not sure what you mean.

    How can anyone look at that bumbled up logic he used defending himself at 12:58 and not break out laughing?

    Posted by: Mike at April 27, 2007 1:16 AM
    More desperation. I suppose you think the traitor should get a medal, right?

    Did the worst foreign policy blunder in our nation's history even make you think...just a little of the error of your ways and your loyalties?
    Probably not !

    Posted by: at April 27, 2007 1:10 AM


    Actually, I think slavery, segregation, and how Native Americans were treated are the worst public policy decisions in this country, but then it's your case and your rhetoric....

    How about invading Iraq, Jeffrey?
    Did that cause any deaths?

    Please explain all that it has accomplished..or shut the f--- up.

    Posted by: at April 27, 2007 1:05 AM
    anonyloons diverting from the topic. Shocker. Debunked, just change the subject. Why not?

    Did the worst foreign policy blunder in our nation's history even make you think...just a little of the error of your ways and your loyalties?
    Probably not !

    Posted by: at April 27, 2007 1:10 AM
    His knowledge of history goes ALL the way back to BJ Clinton, amazing you can fit all that information in a pea.

    Would you flesh this out a bit, I'm not sure what you mean.

    Posted by: Cecelia at April 27, 2007 1:25 AM
    Neither does he!

    I appears Cecelia would like me to 'flesh out' Jeff's argument that a man who hasn't been tried yet be 'shot' for a crime he hasn't been convicted of.

    If you want to associate yourself with that kind of thought, fine with me....it really doesn't surprise me any more.

    How can anyone look at that bumbled up logic he used defending himself at 12:58 and not break out laughing?

    Posted by: Mike at April 27, 2007 1:16 AM

    I appears Cecelia would like me to 'flesh out' Jeff's argument that a man who hasn't been tried yet be 'shot' for a crime he hasn't been convicted of.

    If you want to associate yourself with that kind of thought, fine with me....it really doesn't surprise me any more.

    Posted by: Mike at April 27, 2007 2:19 AM
    In other words, he can't back, yet, another one of his posts or his fat, far left trap! This idiot makes micheal moore look like Savage!

    "I appears Cecelia would like me to 'flesh out' Jeff's argument that a man who hasn't been tried yet be 'shot' for a crime he hasn't been convicted of." by Mikey
    More outright, barefaced lies! Twist, spin and putting words in peoples mouths. I didn't say anything close to that.

    Jeff at 7:44 PM: "Death to this prick"

    But then he protests he "didn't say anything close to that."

    ROFLMAO....again!

    I, honestly, do not think I have ever encountered a more ignorant human being, anywhere. Do you wear glasses? If you do, get new ones! "I appears Cecelia would like me to 'flesh out' Jeff's argument that a man who hasn't been tried yet be 'shot' for a crime he hasn't been convicted of" Where did I say this, liar? I didn't. You are one step above a very mentally challenged person. Take that as a compliment!

    ROFLMAO...again!

    appears Cecelia would like me to 'flesh out' Jeff's argument that a man who hasn't been tried yet be 'shot' for a crime he hasn't been convicted of.

    If you want to associate yourself with that kind of thought, fine with me....it really doesn't surprise me any more.

    Posted by: Mike at April 27, 2007 2:19 AM


    Good grief, where's your fundamental honesty here?

    The man just said he didn't mean what you accused him of saying. That he meant executed if convicted. You even called THAT explanation "bumbled up logic".

    Cecelia....your double standard says volumes about you.

    FIRST Jeff said "death to this prick". That was the most offensive remark. He said nothing about 'if' he is convicted in that post.

    Next, when put on the defensive, he said
    "I am advocating he be shot after he is convicted." The word "After" conveys a presumption of guilt, and any trial as a mere formality.

    What difference does it make that Jeff "said he didn't mean what you accused him of saying" after being put on the defensive? He said what he said....and what he actually said speaks volumes about this cowardly false patriot, and anyone who who would defend his kind of rhetoric.

    If Keith Olbermann ever said anything as offensive as "death to this prick" in reference to another American, especially one who has not even been tried, you and your breathren on this site would be screaming bloody murder....and I sure as hell wouldn't be defending him.

    Once again Cecelia, if you want to associate yourself with this kind of rabid thought, have at it. You stopped surprising me weeks ago.




    Cee,

    Why not offer evidence of Clinton's ineptitude against terrorism -- presented by none other than the MSNBC Web site itself. (And what cable network does Olbermann appear on again? Just checking.)

    Follow this link and be enlightened:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/

    To summarize: In the fall of 2000, a Predator spyplane flying over an Al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan had a man believed to be bin Laden in its sights ... IN REAL TIME.

    Clinton's response?

    "Ummm ... what else is on TV tonight?"

    And take note of this: The former CIA station chief in Pakistan says the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him. Nice kid-gloves strategy, Bill.

    Of course, this came two years AFTER Clinton took his potshots at bin Laden with Tomahawk cruise missiles and wound up taking out an aspirin factory. Note that Clinton mentioned bin Laden BY NAME in 1998 ... yet got all weak-kneed in 2000 when he had a clear shot at the terrorist leader.

    http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.02/

    Just think, if BJ'd had his act together in the fall of 2000, there'd have been no bin Laden, and quite possibly no 9/11.

    Again, this was reported by NBC, not Fox News. If you want to hate Bush, then by all means amuse yourself, but don't try to shovel that stuff about Clinton being tough on terrorism. Save it for your garden -- it makes the vegetables grow taller.

    >>>>...public policy decisions in this country, but then it's your case and your rhetoric....>>>>

    The charge was that it was the worst "foreign policy" blundersand you met it specifically with examples of worse "public policy decisions." Your examples are domestic policy items. In other words, you only gave an appearance of disagreeing, but did not actually disagree.

    How do you think Native Americans should have been treated in U.S. public policy?

    If Keith Olbermann ever said anything as offensive as "death to this prick" in reference to another American, especially one who has not even been tried, you and your breathren on this site would be screaming bloody murder....and I sure as hell wouldn't be defending him.

    Once again Cecelia, if you want to associate yourself with this kind of rabid thought, have at it. You stopped surprising me weeks ago.


    Posted by: Mike at April 27, 2007 11:00 AM


    The only rabid thought I'm not associating with is someone who says he's for fundamental honesty but who then refuses to accept a clarification from someone who explicitly states he did not mean to imply that he wanted a guy shot before trial.

    If Royal meant otherwise, why would he deny it now? If he did mean it and then felt ashamed enough to deny his feelings after you had pointed them out, then isn't why wouldn't that be enough you to drop it?

    If I said I had a PhD in English or that I worked for Pelosi or some other overt claim to status that my actions directly contracdicted you could say "I doubt that"....and have just cause. But in this situation what you have is a direct clarification --- an--- I didn't mean to imply that--- and you have an acknowledgement from Royal that if he had meant such a thing, if would have been bad.

    If anyone here kept on after a clarification like this from Olbermann, you'd have a right to criticise THAT individual. What you have here is a REAL not hypothetical situation of someone givng you a clarification of what they meant, and that what you thought they meant would indeed have meant something bad....yet you refuse to accept that.

    The only reason this exchange is meaningful to me at all, is that in the face of your telling us repeatedly that we are dishonest and that you are honest, it's so revealing of just how much "fundamental honesty" you truly have.

    The charge was that it was the worst "foreign policy" blundersand you met it specifically with examples of worse "public policy decisions." Your examples are domestic policy items. In other words, you only gave an appearance of disagreeing, but did not actually disagree.

    How do you think Native Americans should have been treated in U.S. public policy?

    Posted by: VOK at April 27, 2007 11:42 AM


    I did put say "public" policy rather than just policy in an attempt to say, there's things we've done here domestically that in the ontext of history are historical evil and are worse than going into Iraq. But that was confusing sorry.

    I could list foreign policy decision too that I think are more consequential -- but not "evil"-- such as the early patronage of the Soviets after the Russian Revolution or our tardiness in entering WWII.

    However, that Iraq might result in trouble every bit as bad as the trouble that came from these other things is certainly arguable.

    Cecelia, Your continued defense of this cowardly, lying, troll named Jeff does nothing to enhance your own credibility.

    If Jeff had not immediately lied by branding me as a 'liar' in his bombastic so called 'clarification' response (as you called it), I probably would indeed have been more inclined to cut him a little slack...as you suggested I should have done.

    Jeff has made his own bed here in the sewer. He likes it this way. He routinely calls everyone here he disagrees with every damned name in the book, routinely falsely accuses them of anything and everything he can think of...and then people like you then cry 'fowl' when he has his own crap thrown back in his cowardly, lying face.

    I guess it makes sense to you....but once again, I lost all the respect I had for you weeks ago.

    I guess it makes sense to you....but once again, I lost all the respect I had for you weeks ago.

    Posted by: Mike at April 27, 2007 1:10 PM
    Was this before you called her a "sanctimonious bitch" or after? You are truly pathetic.

    Jeff has made his own bed here in the sewer. He likes it this way. He routinely calls everyone here he disagrees with every damned name in the book, routinely falsely accuses them of anything and everything he can think of...and then people like you then cry 'fowl' when he has his own crap thrown back in his cowardly, lying face.

    I guess it makes sense to you....but once again, I lost all the respect I had for you weeks ago.


    Posted by: Mike at April 27, 2007 1:10 PM


    So which do you believe--- that Royal didn't mean to imply what you stated, as he said he had not. Or that he meant to imply it, but then felt ashamed about it after you pointed it out and denied that he meant it in the first place.

    In both those scenarios Royal has known or has been shown that denying due process is bad. You're the man who casts himself as wanting honest exchanges and as giving all people the benefit of the doubt, and you do this in order to daily make the point that your opponents here are not honest and are mean-spirited.

    What does it say for your "credibility" that you refuse to accept "yes" for answer in any form from Royal and refuse to give the benefit of the doubt when confronted with an actual (and not merely hypothetical) opportunity to do what you say you do and to be what you say you are?

    What does it say for your "credibility" that you refuse to accept "yes" for answer in any form from Royal and refuse to give the benefit of the doubt when confronted with an actual (and not merely hypothetical) opportunity to do what you say you do and to be what you say you are?

    Posted by: Cecelia at April 27, 2007 1:53 PM
    It speaks volume! Like we didn't already know...........

    Forget it guys. Talking to Mike is like talking to Charlie Manson. It all makes sense in his own mind.

    Forget it guys. Talking to Mike is like talking to Charlie Manson. It all makes sense in his own mind.

    Posted by: at April 27, 2007 3:22 PM


    OMG.....here's a guy who in the midst of daily calling his opposition hateful, dishonest and unfair..says that Royal would be more credible if Royal hadn't called him a name when responding to Mike's accusation that he wanted to lynch someone!

    Isn't Mike the tool who used to proclaim that he wasn't going to talk to X person anymore after he became fed up with them? Perhaps it's time for everyone here to use the same kind of tactics on him.

    >>>>I did put say "public" policy rather than just policy in an attempt to say...

    Foreign policy was the claim. Foreign. But you do now give two FP examples, so asked and answered. No one ever said anything about "evil" though. That's an odd interjection.

    I don't think any U.S. aid to the soviets had any effect on the outcome there, that would be very speculative. I don't think delaying entry in WWII could be called a strategic mistake either. Maybe a moral one. In realpolitic terms that probably redounded to the good of the U.S. in measurable terms. Less U.S. dead, a stronger military position when we did enter, weaker Soviet Union, and near complete dominance at the end of the war. There could be other considerations...I'd have to think about that.

    But on the face of it, Iraq looks to me like a much more cut and dried blunder. We might as well have been on Iran's payroll. And I supported it.

    Isn't Mike the tool who used to proclaim that he wasn't going to talk to X person anymore after he became fed up with them? Perhaps it's time for everyone here to use the same kind of tactics on him.
    Posted by: He's Over his Head at April 27, 2007 4:47 PM

    With fake quotes from dead people, limmericks from Katie Turic, and petty tit for tat name calling, the only people who are 'over their head' are the people who only come here to have their biases reinforced, and their views parroted back to them.

    I'm sure you know who you are.

    Still Smilin,
    Good to see you using your hero bin Laden's talking points. It must upset you your hero doesn't get his way. His views are the same as your's.

    Let's fact-check some of your lies which you have unthinkingly accepted from the terrorists. I guess you trust bin Laden and the terrorists so much because they hate gays and abortion too.

    The 9/11 Commission stated "We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim," referring to the terrorist states' self-serving contention they offered bin Laden to Clinton.

    "Some of the people who had to carry that out [Clinton's order to kill bin Laden] were part of an agency [C.I.A.] that had been accused of assassinations in Central America not too long before and who had gotten in deep trouble for that," says Republican 9/11 Commissioner Kean. "What [they] wanted [was] all the t's crossed and all the i's dotted." The CIA balked.

    But please find more of your terrorists' talking points. I think you're just upset your hero bin Laden hasn't won.

    With fake quotes from dead people, limmericks from Katie Turic, and petty tit for tat name calling, the only people who are 'over their head' are the people who only come here to have their biases reinforced, and their views parroted back to them.

    I'm sure you know who you are.

    Posted by: at April 27, 2007 5:23 PM

    The quotes from dead people are meant to be funny.

    Katy Turic is brilliant and funny.

    The name calling is tit for tat, but Mike does it while tooting his own horn-- expressly characterizing himself as being honest, caring, and giving people the benefit of the doubt. When he behaves it's justifiable to point it out.

    As for the stuff about having our biases reinforced and our views parroted back, I don't think you're giving yourself and your side enough credit. YOU are here too, to counter those views, invited via a provided opportunity to comment, and uncensored.

    Contrast THAT with the Mr. Olbermann in Olbermann Watch....

    >Contrast THAT with the Mr. Olbermann in Olbermann Watch....
    Posted by: Cecelia at April 27, 2007 5:39 PM

    Great Thanks Cecelia for answering the "You know who you are call..."

    Now that you've essentially admitted to coming here to have your biases reinforced, you can let everyone know what it's like to be in the same class as Olbermann.

    Laughing My Ass Off!

    Now that you've essentially admitted to coming here to have your biases reinforced, you can let everyone know what it's like to be in the same class as Olbermann.

    Laughing My Ass Off!

    Posted by: LMAO at April 27, 2007 5:43 PM

    Yes, I always shy away from those who would dispute my views...

    Again, if that's the amount of credit you give yourself and others on a site where you are invited to wax as persuasive and eloquent as you are able on counter points....then who am I to argue...

    >Again, if that's the amount of credit you give yourself and others on a site where you are invited to wax as persuasive and eloquent as you are able on counter points....then who am I to argue...
    Posted by: Cecelia at April 27, 2007 6:36 PM

    Credit I give myself? WTF are you talking about?

    Are you saying you don't think ANYONE comes here to have their views reinforced?

    Since you've decided that 'nuanced' is the buzz word of the day, perhaps you can find the 'nuance' in yourself to understand people come to OW for different reasons.

    If you're an Obsessed Olbermann Hater, you come here because it's like monther's milk straight from cox's engorged bosom.

    If you're like me, you come here to mock them during their feeding frenzy.

    Is THAT too complex and nuanced for you?

    Laughing My Ass Off at Cecelia for assuming everyone comes here for the same reason.

    >Again, if that's the amount of credit you give yourself and others on a site where you are invited to wax as persuasive and eloquent as you are able on counter points....then who am I to argue...
    Posted by: Cecelia at April 27, 2007 6:36 PM

    And that's why I DON'T hate Bob like you say I do, and like others here do.

    For being so 'open' to other people's viewpoints you sure like to put thoughts in people's heads and words in people's mouths without any evidence.

    Bob is what he is, but I've never said I didn't like him.

    ...And I'm STILL not a liberal woman named Mike. But if you want to keep referring to me as Ms and Miss and Girlfriend, Etc, Have at it.

    I don't take it as an insult, I take it as more evidence of how wrong you are.

    Laughing My Ass Off!

    Are you saying you don't think ANYONE comes here to have their views reinforced?

    Since you've decided that 'nuanced' is the buzz word of the day, perhaps you can find the 'nuance' in yourself to understand people come to OW for different reasons.

    If you're an Obsessed Olbermann Hater, you come here because it's like monther's milk straight from cox's engorged bosom.

    If you're like me, you come here to mock them during their feeding frenzy.

    Is THAT too complex and nuanced for you?

    Posted by: LMAO at April 27, 2007 6:59 PM


    No, merely convoluted and sounding like you're arguing with yourself.

    I believe people do come here for various reasons and have never stated otherwise.

    You didn't ask me if anyone...somebody...came here to have their view reinforced. You said I did. You know...the person who been reading and responding to disputes of her views....

    Again, this is a site where you and a host of others can come and directly dispute ANY view offered up by anyone on the site.

    As with any place, people here can argue or not argue any topic they wish or avoid topics they currently find boring. That hardly makes for a closed salon of like-thinking folks.

    "don't take it as an insult, "


    You'd be correct in not doing that because it's not meant to be an insult.

    "don't take it as an insult, "

    You'd be correct in not doing that because it's not meant to be an insult.
    Posted by: Cecelia at April 27, 2007 7:20 PM

    So what exactly is it 'supposed to be' other than more evidence of you being wrong?

    If you're an Obsessed Olbermann Hater, you come here because it's like monther's milk straight from cox's engorged bosom.

    If you're like me, you come here to mock them during their feeding frenzy.

    Is THAT too complex and nuanced for you?

    Laughing My Ass Off at Cecelia for assuming everyone comes here for the same reason.
    Posted by: LMAO at April 27, 2007 6:59 PM

    ROFLMAO!!

    Step right into it Cecelia!!

    >No, merely convoluted and sounding like you're arguing with yourself.

    Well, debating you Cecelia, IS a lot like arguing with oneself.

    You like to use 5-line run-on sentences, talk in circles, go to great lengths to explain what something isn't, but never what it is.

    In fact, ALL you really do here is DEFEND Olbermann Watch.

    In the end, you are doing exactly what I claim you do. Taking OW WAAAAAAAY too seriously.

    But what else can you do? OW is you. And to not take it seriously would be to not take yourself seriously, and we all know you can't do that.

    If you thought I was insinuating that OW was a 'closed salon of like-thinking folks' you've mistaken a post I've made yet again.

    I was stating that OW exists primarily to reinforce views people not only already hold, but aren't going to let go of anytime soon, even when wrong (like you thinking I'm female for instance).

    ROFLMAO

    "Poor blindrat....Al Queda saw the piss poor response by The Clinton Adminstration to their attacks and finally got a big one in the US on 9/11...."

    Bin Laden was smart enough to know the US had a president who is/was asleep at the wheel . He knew the 9/11 attack would not go down challenged.
    Not with a president more involved in taking vacations than protecting our country.

    Still Smilin,
    Good to see you using your hero bin Laden's talking points. It must upset you your hero doesn't get his way. His views are the same as your's.

    Let's fact-check some of your lies which you have unthinkingly accepted from the terrorists. I guess you trust bin Laden and the terrorists so much because they hate gays and abortion too.

    The 9/11 Commission stated "We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim," referring to the terrorist states' self-serving contention they offered bin Laden to Clinton.

    "Some of the people who had to carry that out [Clinton's order to kill bin Laden] were part of an agency [C.I.A.] that had been accused of assassinations in Central America not too long before and who had gotten in deep trouble for that," says Republican 9/11 Commissioner Kean. "What [they] wanted [was] all the t's crossed and all the i's dotted." The CIA balked.

    But please find more of your terrorists' talking points. I think you're just upset your hero bin Laden hasn't won.

    Posted by: Colbert at April 27, 2007 5:36 PM

    Yo, Colbert ol' buddy,

    So ummm ... whose post are you responding to? What you just described has virtually nothing to do with what I just posted.

    Fact is, I didn't even bring up the claim that Sudan offered bin Laden to Clinton on a silver platter. YOU did.

    (That's not to say I doubt it, since Clinton himself made the comment, "I did not bring him [bin Laden] here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America." If Clinton had no ability to bring bin Laden here, why would it matter whether he considered the terrorist leader guilty of anything ... it would be a moot point.)

    Regardless, let's stick to the main issue (or in your case, let's GET TO the main issue).

    Nothing you just stated contradicts the MSNBC online report that Clinton had a chance to take out bin Laden in 2000 and did nothing about it.

    Should you come up with any evidence to the contrary, then by all means, share it with the class and we'll discuss. In the meantime, my point stands.

    As for gays, abortion, terrorist talking points and any other kitchen sinks you just threw in, I have no idea what any of that has to do with my previous post, so I'll leave you to sort out your own irrelevancies until you return to the orbit of this planet.

    Until then, I'm ...

    Still Smilin'

    I was stating that OW exists primarily to reinforce views people not only already hold, but aren't going to let go of anytime soon, even when wrong (like you thinking I'm female for instance).

    ROFLMAO

    Posted by: LMAO at April 27, 2007 7:34 PM

    Actually, what you said that I responded to was this:

    "Now that you've essentially admitted to coming here to have your biases reinforced, you can let everyone know what it's like to be in the same class as Olbermann."


    You've made a false comparision between people willing to come here and read others views and argue particular views if they wish, with a show that only airs one side and has offers no rebuttal.

    And for some reason you think that I've argued that people don't come here for a variety of reasons and that I shouldn't be defending Olberamann Watch.


    Boy oh Boy, where do I begin?

    Not only did I NOT say you SHOULDN'T be defending Olbermann Watch, I actually spelled out why it makes sense that you do. You've been here since the immaculate inception, why wouldn't you defend it? I just stated the obvious...it's essentially all you do.

    I don't go around telling people what they SHOULD and SHOULDN't do (unless I'm making a joke of course), like you and OW are essentially telling Olbermann what type of show you think he SHOULD do.

    YOU made the false comparison between OW and Countdown here:

    As for the stuff about having our biases reinforced and our views parroted back, I don't think you're giving yourself and your side enough credit. YOU are here too, to counter those views, invited via a provided opportunity to comment, and uncensored.

    Contrast THAT with the Mr. Olbermann in Olbermann Watch....
    Posted by: Cecelia at April 27, 2007 5:39 PM

    Yes, even I think OW is better than Countdown in that regard. OW is more entertaining than Countdown. That's why I am here (way) more often than I watch Countdown.

    Again, people DO come to OW to have their views reinfornced. I'm sure people watch Countdown for the same reason. People pick and choose their media outlets based on that reason a lot.

    I don't.

    Like the folks who chime in after Johnny's posts, 'Yeah Johnny, Spot on Johnny, Way to go Johnny, You're right, Johnny." Do you think if any of those folks disagreed with Johnny, they'd say so?

    Doubt it.

    And all the folks reading this who think Olbermann is a propaganda artist...Here's evidence to the contrary:

    Cecelia is of average intelligence, she watches countdown three nights a week on average, and she hasn't been 'turned liberal' by it yet.

    Maybe it is just a TV show after all.

    I'll give you the last word, I know you want it...

    Cecelia is of average intelligence, she watches countdown three nights a week on average, and she hasn't been 'turned liberal' by it yet.

    Maybe it is just a TV show after all.

    I'll give you the last word, I know you want it...

    Posted by: LMAO at April 27, 2007 8:11 PM
    lmao/iknowwhoyouare, I never watched ulbermahn (more than 3 seconds) until a business acquaintance of mine told me to watch him because his show was so good. He said If I watched it he would "make a liberal out of me in no time." I gave him another watch and after less than 10 minutes I was shocked that this idiot was on tv. I thought cnn was bad! Ulbermahn made cnn look like Fox News. So much for his theory of Ulbermahn making a liberal out of me, he did quite the opposite. In fact, he made me seriously wonder how anyone could believe anything he said or take him even half way serious. So, just because Ulbermahn hasn't made either of us liberals yet, doesn't mean he's not a propagandist. It speaks for ones ability to think for themself, in fact.

    Not with a president more involved in taking vacations than protecting our country.

    Posted by: at April 27, 2007 7:34 PM
    puffington post talking point # 23.

    Whenever anyone mentions FACTS,Little Jeffrey plays the blame a web site game.

    This dude has a pea size brain.

    Fact: Bush is the most vacationed president in recorded history.
    Fact: Bush ( and rice) ignored memoes" Bin Laden to strike in America"
    Fact: Middle Easterners were taking flying lessons..not how to land..only how to fly.
    Did any alarms go off in Bushland in 01?
    Nope.
    Fact:Bush spent most of August 01 on vacation.

    On and On...

    And now with previews of Tenet's book coming out saying the Bush White House DID NOT attempt much of Iraq debate...totally agreeing with Richard Clarke..the damning evidence against this gang of thugs just continues to mount.

    But let's knock John Edwards hair or Olby doing whatever.

    Idiots...one and all !

    Cecelia is of average intelligence, she watches countdown three nights a week on average, and she hasn't been 'turned liberal' by it yet.

    Maybe it is just a TV show after all.

    I'll give you the last word, I know you want it...

    Posted by: LMAO at April 27, 2007 8:11 PM


    Of course I do.

    It would have taken anyone else much less time to say that Countdown won't change anyone's mind.

    Countdown just brings up the harshest and cruelest realities that the wingnuts can't fathom.

    They can't deny reality, so they attack the messenger and pummel him to death..hoping these harsh realities from their ZERO president and party ...just go away.( and hope American doesn't notice.)

    But let's knock John Edwards hair or Olby doing whatever.

    Idiots...one and all !

    Posted by: Why Do You Care What My Name is at April 27, 2007 11:40 PM
    All these facts with no evidence.

    Whenever anyone mentions FACTS,Little Jeffrey plays the blame a web site game.

    This dude has a pea size brain.

    Posted by: at April 27, 2007 11:33 PM
    Care to mention these FACTS?

    I read someone calling John Edwards by the perfect nickname.

    "Silky Pony" :D

    No evidence?

    All documented...all facts.

    Insiders who were there...and experienced the lies are coming out and reporting them...and braindead Jeffrey says no facts.

    Oy Vey !

    SInce little Jeffrey only watches and listens to propaganda. real facts confuse him.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Of all the biggest lies of the Bush Administration, this one could be one of the worst :

    The Bush Administration is NOT including car bombs and explosive devices in when reporting the level of violence in Iraq now.

    THIS is why you hear lies from certain news organizations that the "surge " is working or there is improvement in iraq.

    Care to mention these FACTS?
    Posted by: royalking at April 28, 2007 12:20 AM

    I already did, fool...but since you're special ed...I'll indulge you ..again !

    Fact: Bush is the most vacationed president in recorded history.
    Fact: Bush ( and rice) ignored memoes" Bin Laden to strike in America"
    Fact: Middle Easterners were taking flying lessons..not how to land..only how to fly.
    Did any alarms go off in Bushland in 01?
    Nope.
    Fact:Bush spent most of August 01 on vacation.

    On and On...

    And now with previews of Tenet's book coming out saying the Bush White House DID NOT attempt much of Iraq debate...totally agreeing with Richard Clarke..

    Cecelia sez:

    >I read someone calling John Edwards by the
    >perfect nickname.

    >"Silky Pony" :D
    >Posted by: Cecelia at April 28, 2007 12:23 AM

    DAMN!!

    Finally Cecelia is dropping all pretenses of
    reasoning.

    "If Silky Pony wins, the terrorists will strike again..."

    Cecelia, go sit over there next to BovineQueen, shut up and try, do try to look pretty.

    Oops...there goes many Fox News talking points down the drain !

    Terror attacks up 29%, report says
    By Warren P. Strobel and Jonathan S. Landay

    WASHINGTON - A State Department report on terrorism due out next week will show a nearly 30 percent increase in terrorist attacks worldwide in 2006 to more than 14,000, almost all of the boost due to growing violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. officials said Friday.

    Spin the above news report, wingnuts !

    anonyloon, anyone can make a list and put the word Facts in front of it. Whether anyone will believe them is another story....
    Fact: you're an olbyloon.
    Fact: Dinjee Harry is a traitor.
    Fact: J. Murtha should be shot.
    Fact: Palooza Pelosi is a worthless traitor.
    Fact: Upchuck Schumer is pond scum.
    Fact: Bj Clinton is a total disgrace.
    and on and on and on........

    Royala--hole is hitting the sauce again.

    We know YOU don't believe in facts, Jeffrey...you believe in boycotting TV shows and movies..

    one more thing...defend this :

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_6590000/newsid_6595500/6595517.stm

    WASHINGTON - A State Department report on terrorism due out next week will show a nearly 30 percent increase in terrorist attacks worldwide in 2006 to more than 14,000, almost all of the boost due to growing violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. officials said Friday.

    Posted by: at April 28, 2007 12:36 AM
    And the good ol' democrats want to cut funding, how ironic is that? More violence=cut funding, yea, that makes a lot of sense! Bush will take care of that little waste of time and tax dollars. One stroke of the pen.

    "almost all of the boost due to growing violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. officials said Friday".

    Just how stupid are you Jeff ?

    Bush's Iraq War is causing more terrorism in the world( as proved by Bush's state dept)....and Muttonhead thinks it should go on...and Bush vetoing getting out is a GOOD thing.

    Each and every day, Jeff makes a total fool of himself.

    anonyloon, the key word in your post is "war." The 30% increase is in the areas where the war is going on. Every time a democrat opens their mouth, taking sides with the enemy, they embold the enemy. They make more bombs and celebrate having the democrats on their side while they laugh at ALL of us. Yes, you, too. If they had the chance they would slash your throat or even worse, slash your throat and put it on the internet. Anyone in denial of the face of our enemy wouldn't or doesn't want to hear any of this, though. It's easier just to pick up and come home and act like nothing ever happened.

    Just how stupid are you Jeff ?

    Posted by: at April 28, 2007 1:16 AM
    Smart enough to wait for the actual report and make my own conclusion. And, smart enough not to take the word of an idiot posting left wing propaganda from usa today or the old york times.

    ROFLMAO!!

    "Every time a democrat opens their mouth, taking sides with the enemy, they embold the enemy. They make more bombs and celebrate having the democrats on their side while they laugh at ALL of us. Yes, you, too. If they had the chance they would slash your throat or even worse, slash your throat and put it on the internet."

    Sooooo, Bovine... when is Moron in Chief going to start rounding up Democrats and sending them off to Guantanamo?

    ROFLMAO!!

    Thank you, Bob!

    "Just how stupid are you Jeff ?"

    I can assure you that you are not the first one to ask that question....and you won't be the last!

    I can assure you that you are not the first one to ask that question....and you won't be the last!

    Posted by: Mike at April 28, 2007 2:48 AM
    This coming from a proven liar and hypocrite of the highest order. LMAO!

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_6590000/newsid_6595500/6595517.stm

    Posted by: at April 28, 2007 1:12 AM
    bbc? laughing my ass off at this crap. I would consider reading bbc news torture. No wonder you're so f'd up. This explains your total stupidity.

    Just how stupid are you Jeff:

    You're asking the wrong person. Have you ever known a mentally handicapped person capable of evaluating their own mental limitations?

    "Just how stupid are you Jeff?"

    Stupid enough to self censure his own news...see 2:59 post above.

    "just how stupid are you Jeff?"

    Stupid enough to question someone else's intelligence by calling them an "IMBOCILE".

    "just how stupid are you Jeff?"

    Stupid enough that he once made a post claiming Stephen Colbert is really "a conservative making fun of the liberals."

    "How stupid are you Jeff?"

    Stupid enough to take Michael Savage seriously.

    "How stupid are you Jeff?"

    Stupid enough to actually apologize for a mistake, but then immediately hedge his 'apology' by claiming it "really wasn't a mistake".

    "How stupid are you Jeff?"

    Stupid enough to call former Supreme Allied Commander, General Wesley Clark "Coward Clark"!

    The Powell doctrine is a cowards war. A war in which the radically advantaged American Air Force and air power in general including cruise missiles is used to devastate a completely and publicly demonized enemy population so that the cowards in the Pentagon don't have to risk the kind of casualties that were accrued in the Vietnam War or for that matter past successful U.N. peacekeeping operations. The cowards in the Pentagon and the White House have not wanted to risk a backlash from the American public whose children might die in a full frontal war. But in using the Powell doctrine in Kosovo General Wesley Clark as supreme commander of NATO forces dumped tons of depleted uranium ordinance into Kosovo creating widespread sickness as a result of the contamination caused by the ignition of the ordnance on the impact of its target. Not to mention the so-called collateral damage of civilian deaths that occurred as result of the cowards indiscriminately bombing anything that moved. General Wesley Clark's supporters are already touting Kosovo as a great success with not one American casualty, a testament to both Bill Clinton's and Wesley Clark's genius. And of course, a well orchestrated lie which will produce the desired results thanks to the corporate media and a compliant NPR.
    Here's your hero in action, just one of his blunders.

    "Just how stupid are you Jeff?"

    Stupid enough that having already once been called for plagiarizing someone else's writings by failing to add quotes or to note the source underneath, he just did it again at 3:55 AM.

    "How stupid are you Jeff?"

    Stupid enough to have once posted that I (Mike) was "every other liberal poster on this site", or "maybe there was 'one' other one, and that would be Bob".

    Just how stupid are you Jeff ?

    Posted by: at April 28, 2007 1:16 AM
    Smart enough to wait for the actual report and make my own conclusion

    No..you're stupid enough that when proving wrong you ignore it...and go to another page with your gibberish.

    There have been reports up the ass proving what a failed administration you continue to make excuses for.

    You are a joke !
    A blind partisan joke !

    ( And all publications in this country other than right wing blogs and Fox news are discounted by you.)
    How convenient in never having to actually THINK !

    Anyone ever notice that muttonhead Jeff never mentions the hundreds of lies and mistakes by his boys the past 6 years?...but always find something...anything to blast the Democrats about ?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_6590000/newsid_6595500/6595517.stm

    Posted by: at April 28, 2007 1:12 AM
    bbc? laughing my ass off at this crap. I would consider reading bbc news torture. No wonder you're so f'd up. This explains your total stupidity.

    The link was to a PICTURE,not a story or opinion, YET muttonhead Jeff dismisses it b/c it came from the BBC.
    Each and every day little Jeffrey makes a total fool of himself.

    Go ahead muttonboy, LOOk at the picture, don't be scared.

    You see everyone, the BBC is ALSO on muttonboy's boycott list.

    Isn't it funny how Reagan had his enemies list along with Nixon. ..and Jeffrey with his demented blogs calling for boycotts of TV shows, movies and musical groups.

    Real Americans...preaching AGAINST freedom !

    What a laugh !

    This is the article little Jeffrey is going to "draw his own conclusions ":

    Terror attacks up 29%, report says
    By Warren P. Strobel and Jonathan S. Landay

    WASHINGTON - A State Department report on terrorism due out next week will show a nearly 30 percent increase in terrorist attacks worldwide in 2006 to more than 14,000, almost all of the boost due to growing violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. officials said Friday.


    AS IF IT'S AN OPINION PIECE !

    If the USA or NY Times dares to report what the STATE DEPT SAYS, it's null and void in little jeffrey's look.

    The phrase of the day, "Just how stupid are you , Jeff ?"

    That should read...in little Jeffrey's BOOK.

    Finally Cecelia is dropping all pretenses of
    reasoning.

    "If Silky Pony wins, the terrorists will strike again..."

    Cecelia, go sit over there next to BovineQueen, shut up and try, do try to look pretty.

    Posted by: Average American Patriot at April 28, 2007 12:31 AM


    AAP, since it's YOUR words, in your quotation marks,that you are attributing to me, they would certainly exhibit an abandonment of reason.

    You and reason parted company quite a long time ago... :D

    For a guy who thinks an argument consists of typing bushwipe in all caps, you sure are touchy about me passing along a humorous and dead-on nickname for a pol.


    Terror attacks in a WAR? Whoever heard of such a thing! The Olbyloons seem to think that you can conduct a war without people being killed. What a bunch of idiots.

    No Brandon...it's wingnuts like you who are in denial that we are trying to "win a war" a civil war where there is NO MILITARY SOLUTION.
    as usual, you have it backwards.

    Sooner or later you're going to have to reconcile that this war is lost based on the performance and bad judgements of your president and party.

    But go down with your ship.
    You, afterall , are part of the 28% of the Kool aid drinkers left in this country who still support this montrosity.

    But go down with your ship.
    You, afterall , are part of the 28% of the Kool aid drinkers left in this country who still support this montrosity.

    Posted by: Why Do You Care What My Name is at April 28, 2007 10:48 AM
    Last night it was 20%, what will it be tomorrow?

    Just how stupid are you Jeff ?

    Posted by: at April 28, 2007 1:16 AM
    Smart enough to wait for the actual report and make my own conclusion

    No..you're stupid enough that when proving wrong you ignore it...and go to another page with your gibberish.

    I was proven wrong? Funny, I don't see it anywhere. Nice lie, though. Feel better?

    Stupid enough that having already once been called for plagiarizing someone else's writings by failing to add quotes or to note the source underneath, he just did it again at 3:55 AM.

    Posted by: Mike at April 28, 2007 4:06 AM
    And you matter, how?LMAO

    Just another day in Bush's glorious war :

    Explosion Near Shrine in Iraq Kills 55
    By SAMEER N. YACOUB, Associated Press Writer

    29 minutes ago

    BAGHDAD - A parked car exploded Saturday near one of Shiite Islam's holiest shrines in the city of Karbala as people were headed to the area for evening prayers, killing 55 people and wounding dozens, officials said.

    The explosion took place in a crowded commercial area near the Imam Hussein shrine in Karbala, 50 miles south of Baghdad, officials said. At least 55 people were killed and 70 wounded, said Salim Kazim, the head of the Karbala health department.

    A car bomb exploded in the same area on April 14, killing 47 and wounding 224.

    Saturday's explosion occurred a few hundred meters yards from the Imam Abbas shrine, setting several cars on fire and causing chaos. The explosion took place as the streets were filled with people heading for evening prayers at the Abbas shrine and the adjacent Imam Hussein shrine, two of Iraq's holiest Shiite sites.

    An angry crowd gathered after the explosion, many of them searching frantically for missing relatives. Some threw stones at the police and at the office of the provincial governor, accusing them of failing to protect the people.

    Police fired weapons in the air to disperse the crowds.

    Police fired weapons in the air to disperse the crowds.


    Posted by: at April 28, 2007 2:43 PM
    Wasting good bullets? What a shame.

    Jeff: "Wasting good bullets, What a shame."

    Jeff, do you have ANY redeeming social qualities?

    Jeff: "wasting good bullets, what a shame."

    A better way to phrase the question is; Jeff, do you have ANY redeeming qualities at all?

    Jeff, do you have ANY redeeming social qualities?

    Posted by: Mike at April 28, 2007 6:36 PM
    I would never waste good bullets by shooting them in the air. That qualifies as a redeeming quality. You wouldn't know a redeeming quality if it smacked you upside your face! Is lying and being a hypocrite considered redeeming qualities in your family? Real nice.........

    Since this thread ostensibly pertains to Rudy Giuliani's speech, I think this excerpt in particular is worth noting -- especially for all the Bush haters in the room:

    Said Rudy, in reference to the Democrats: "We're going to try to cut back on the Patriot Act. We're going to cut back on electronic surveillance. We're going to cut back on interrogation. We're going to cut back, cut back, cut back, and we'll be back in our pre-September 11 mentality of being on defense."

    That brings us to the real question: How exactly will these so-called "strategies" of the Democrats -- weakening the Patriot Act, reducing electronic surveillance, getting softer on interrogation of Al Qaeda prisoners -- make this nation safer from terrorism?

    How will knowing LESS about our enemies make us MORE capable of stopping them?

    Please, someone explain.

    And oh yeah, if our boy Olby really wants to convince America that the Democrats won't put the nation back on defense against the terrorists, perhaps he should get over his Giuliani-gasm and have a word with super-candidate Barack Obama.

    Here's the "action" Obama says he would take if two American cities were struck by terrorists' bombs:

    "The first thing we'd have to do is make sure that we've got an effective emergency response."

    Woohoo ... "an effective emergency response!" Yeah, THAT'S gonna strike fear into the heart of bin Laden -- mobilizing the Red Cross and FEMA!

    Way to prove Rudy's point, Obama.

    Still Learnin' to Read,
    Let me repost the quote from the Republican chairman of the 9/11 Commission.
    "Some of the people who had to carry that out [Clinton's order to kill bin Laden] were part of an agency [C.I.A.] that had been accused of assassinations in Central America not too long before and who had gotten in deep trouble for that," says Republican 9/11 Commissioner Kean. "What [they] wanted [was] all the t's crossed and all the i's dotted."

    You blamed Clinton for not killing bin Laden. You claimed he had chances to do so but never acted. That quote, from a Republican, shows Clinton did order the killing of bin Laden and the C.I.A. chose not to act. Thus, according to the head Republican who investigated, it wasn't Clinton's fault.
    Hooked on Phonics can work for you.

    Colby, you ol' Cheese-brain,

    Thanks so much for your entertaining, if irrelevant, response. There's nothing I find funnier than the arrogance of the clueless.

    I see that you've finally calmed down about gays, abortion, terrorist talking points and whatever other inanities you were babbling about in your initial response. Sounds like the anti-psychotic medication is kicking in, and if so, I'm happy for you.

    Now let's go to Step 2 in your continuing quest to learn how to stick to topics.

    For your benefit, we'll go over this again. Stop me if I'm going too fast.

    I cited an example of how Clinton had bin Laden in his sights -- in real time -- in 2000. You countered with some 9/11 Commission quote about Clinton and the CIA. Twice, in fact.

    That's just peachy, but even if the quote portrays the situation accurately (which I don't concede), what exactly does it have to do with Clinton failing to take action against bin Laden in 2000 WHEN HE FREAKIN' KNEW EXACTLY WHERE BIN LADEN WAS STANDING???

    Do have any evidence that your Kean quote refers specifically to the 2000 incident? Do you have any other evidence that Clinton did diddly-squat about the Predator information? If so, please share.

    See, my guess is that if Clinton had seriously intended to send bin Laden to 72 Virgin Street in the year 2000, he'd have contacted someone other than the CIA. Why, I'll bet he'd have sent orders to ... ummm, who are those guys with the guns and planes and missiles and stuff ... oh yeah, THE MILITARY!

    But strangely enough, I can find no evidence that he did anything of the sort in 2000. Can you??

    And if you're still deluded enough to think the Clinton Administration was tough on terrorism, maybe you should learn to read accounts like the following one. Keep in mind that much of the information came from Richard Clarke, who -- maybe you haven't heard -- isn't the biggest fan of George W.

    Yet Clarke told it straight when it came to the Cole incident, and what Clinton's A-Team did (or more accurately, didn't do) in response. Read and be schooled.

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20030901/ai_n12513477

    Gee ... still think William Jefferson & the Gang were tough on terrorism? Time to remove the stars from your eyes, kid. You can't be a babe in the woods all your life.

    Smilin',

    Why pretend that you do not remember that Clinton came closer to killing Bin Laden with a single missile than Bush did with most of the United States military, son?

    Why pretend that you have a decent source on the USS Cole when we both know that your "article" is actually a Novak EDITORIAL...

    Why didn't Clinton march our army into whatever country he felt that Bin Laden was in? I would imagine that the answer is clear even to you now, son...

    Ummm, now I see why your name has "blind" in it. Was that a serious post, or are you practicing your stand-up routine for amateur comedian night?

    Sorry to trouble you with reality, but the only way Clinton came close to killing bin Laden is in his (and your) dreams. He had every chance of whacking Osama when he had the terrorist leader in the Predator drone's sights, but alas, there's no evidence he did anything more than say, "Wow, nice beard."

    What's especially hilarious is that you whine about me posting a link to a Novak column -- which, incidentally, quotes Richard Clarke, a man not exactly known for kissing up to George Bush -- yet you offer no evidence other than three sparse paragraphs drawn from your own fanciful imagination. And I'm supposed to accept THAT as proof???

    Funny how you haven't yet shown me a legitimate news story that says Clinton took ANY action against against bin Laden when the Predator had him in its sights.

    Funny how you haven't yet shown me a legitimate news story that says Clinton took ANY action against bin Laden after the Cole incident.

    Funny how you haven't yet shown me a legitimate news story that says Richard Clarke denied any of the quotes mentioned in the Novak column.

    In fact, your post is just plain funny ... period.

    So good luck at the comedy club, kid. You'll do a lot better there than what you just tried to do -- wage intellectual warfare with a gun that fires blanks.

    Still Smilin', does this feeble attempt by blindrat fall into the category that close only counts in horseshoes?

    Or does my Mom's favorite saying apply more closely here. If you always have a blue dress buried in your head you are going to miss every opportunity that comes your way.

    Time to go. When one starts laughing at ones own feeble jokes it's time to say goodnight Gracie.

    Grammie

    Good one, Grammie ... especially the part about the blue dress.

    In Rat's case, however, I'm not even sure the word "close" applies. Except in expressions like "He scored close to the SAT scores of an average rat."

    I notice he's scampered away into his rathole after ducking my challenge to produce links that prove Clinton took decisive action against bin Laden. Then again, I don't blame Ratboy for running -- his rodent brain is at least capable of perceiving when a debate calls for more than his usual stock of playground-level comebacks and cutesy one-liners.

    Next time, maybe he'll remember to stay out of intellectual gunfights while packing an unarmed brain.

    Take care, Grammie ...

    Still Smilin' (and even more so now)