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


    May 8, 2007
    Countdown with Keith Olbermann - May 8, 2007

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

    Host: Keith Olbermann

    Topics/Guests:

    • IRAQ: Howard Fineman, Newsweek senior Washington correspondent and MSNBC political analyst; Chris Cillizza, washingtonpost.com political reporter
    • WOLFOWITZ AND THE WORLD BANK: John Harwood, Wall Street Journal senior contributing writer and CNBC chief Washington correspondent
    • SUPERNOVA: Derrick Pitts, Franklin Institute chief astronomer
    • MORE TROUBLE FOR PARIS: Michael Musto, Village Voice columnist

    Republicans in revolt. Guiliani gave to Planned Parenthood. Wolfowitz not being supported by the Europeans. A supernova. Pardoning Paris Hilton.

    UPDATE: video & transcript below

    Iraq and Republicans in "revolt". Three weeks after General David Petraeus testified on Capital Hill that he would be able to judge the success of "the surge" in September and Republicans took the position that they would be willing to wait to evaluate the situation at that time Keith is pounding the Democratic talking point that statements made today to this effect somehow represents a shift, that Republicans are "in revolt". This is more of the Nixon analogy at play - that as Jonathon Alter pined for yesterday - when Republicans come to Bush and tell him he has to get out of Iraq the war will end. Howard Fineman seriously jeopardized his chances at getting "great thanksed" after uttering the words "the fact is he's probably right" referring to Bush's assessment of the risk of a quick pullout from Iraq. Whoops! Obviously Keith was not listening to Fineman's answers as he inadvertently "great thanksed" the heretical Fineman.

    #5 2008 Campaign - Presidential Positions. Olbypocrisy Alert - on a given day Olbermann would be celebrating a Republican who had donated to Planned Parenthood but when that Republican is Rudy Guiliani that's bad. More flogging of a Chuck Hagel candidacy with Chris Cilizza advancing the counterintuitive notion that a Hagel run would hurt Democrats more than Republicans. Gore, Thompson and Gingrich.

    Another terror plot thwarted but on OlbyPlanet it is all just a big hoax perpetrated by the FBI and enabled by a "credulous" media. Seems the FBI "claims" it broke up a plot to attack Fort Dix but really the six plotters were just "morons". Didn't we just have some moron, working alone, kill over 30 people with two handguns in Virginia? Wasn't that the way Zacharrias Moussoui was described. Didn't the FBI catch the 1993 World Trade Center bombers because one of the "morons" went back to the truck rental office to get back his deposit? Didn't a border patrol agent catch of the Millennium Plot bomber because the "moron" was caught with a cache of explosives in the trunk of his car, wasn't Richard Reid the "moron" who was unable to light the fuse in the bomb in his shoe? Does Keith have some special knowledge that the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were intellectuals? How about the 7/7 bombers in London? Or Madrid? Or Bali? Apparently on OlbyPlanet to be a "real" terrorist you have to have gotten a 2400 on your SATs.

    Why is that any time a terror attack is successful U.S. Olbermann rushes to portray officials as "morons" but when these same officials prevent an attack its just a scam to "terrorize" Americans cooked by the Bush administration where the plotters always morons and the threats are never "serious". Oh, except when the terror attack is directed AT OLBERMANN. In THAT case, even if the "attack" is laundry detergent shoved into an envelope, a "special" comment is in order.

    #4 Wolfowitz - at the top of the show we heard how the Europeans were so anxious to get rid of Wolfowitz they were willing to allow Mr. Bush to choose his successor. Moments later we hear that there is a "six decade tradition" of allowing the U.S. to pick the head of the World Bank. Well...which is it? Hey! This is OlbyPlanet where two diametrically opposed statements can both be true. Why? Because Keith says so that's why! Of course, Keith never stops to ponder why this "tradition" exists. In fact, it is a bit more than a "tradition" as we will soon learn.

    Thankfully someone with more than a passing familiarity with the term "international monetary system" joined Keith before he made a bigger fool of himself - John Harwood of the Wall Street Journal. Turns out that when the U.S. created the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund they made a deal that the U.S. would pick the head of the Bank and the Europeans would pick the head of the Fund and that undoing one end of the deal would create many complications. This "tradition" might also have something to do with the U.S. being the primary source of funding for the World Bank. I suspect many Americans would be OK with allowing the Europeans to pick the President of the World Bank if they would also switch places with the U.S. on the level of giving to the "bank".

    What we never do get here is an intelligent discussion of why exactly the Europeans want Wolfowitz out in the first place. It is surely not about this nonsense over his girlfriend. And nothing has been said about Wolfowitz supporters at the World Bank - the Africans. Prompted by Olbermann, Harwood offers that the reason viewers might care about the issue is that it is another example of "the rest of the world" not liking Americans. Of course, what he means by that is that SOME European governments are anti-Bush which is hardly news.

    It's not until the very end of the segment that we learn WHY the Europeans are upset with Wolfowitz - that he has made a major push to reduce corruption at the World Bank. And who are the beneficiaries of this corruption? Hmmmm. Maybe the same people who benefited from the UN Oil for Food Scandal, the Olympic Games scandal and so on - the Europeans. All of which explains why the Africans are SUPPORTING Wolfowitz - less corruption means more money going to the people who need it and less of it ending up in numbered accounts in Zurich. Of course, on OlbyPlanet it would never do to report that the white Europeans are attempting to oust Wolfowitz and the black Africans are fighting to keep him as president.

    OddBall - golf, sheep, cows marrying.

    Newsmakers - John Facenda, amateur chemist, drunk driver takes road test.

    Supernova - Derrick Pitts talks about a giant star.

    Irony Watch - at least here in the New York market the segment on Paris Hilton was preceded by...a commercial for Hilton hotels with the tag line "travel should change your perspective/Travel should take you places". Ummm. You mean like prison?

    #2 - Unusual sentences - canned report from Michelle Kosinski on a woman who was sentenced to wear a sign says she stole from Walmart and other unusual punishments.

    Keeping Tabs - Sanjaya, Ty Pennington, George Michael.

    Media Matters Minute (Worst Person in the World) brought to you by Daily Kos and Crooks and Liars - Chris Cox (no relation) of the NRA defending the rights of terrorists to purchase weapons (Daily Kos), Rep. Ted Poe of Texas quotes Nathan Bedford Forrest who was a terrorist (Crooks & Liars), Dick Morris of Fox Noise (it just gets funnier every time you hear it doesn't it?) who said the purpose of the war in Iraq was to make killing Americans more convenient for terrorists (Daily Kos).

    #1 - Paris Hilton with Michael Musto on her pardon request. Creepy led off by gratuitously mocking her physical appearence by comparing her to a Georgia O'Keefe cowskull - apparently unaware or unconcerned that Maria Shriver worked for many years at NBC News. Keith had an odd reaction. I cranked up the volume on my TV pretty loud and was able to distinctly make out Olbermann humming along as Musto was talking. Weird. Musto was stinking up the joint so badly he was reduced to explaining to Keith "these are the jokes". Whoops. It just got worse. Musto went too far even for Keith saying that it would not be good for Paris to watch "The Simple LIfe" at the prison because the other prisoners will want to "melt down her gold fillings, and her dog and her vagina and stuff". Sure sounds like a clip for another "Great Moments" video.

    NAME

    Olbermann's book The book that bears Olbermann's name crash landed at #4,682 at amazon.com, but "Culture Warrior" is #379. (It's that 2-for-$25 sale!) Another scratch for the OlbyTome went continues to be unranked at Barnes & Noble due to NO SALES!; O'Reilly's book is #1,005 there, and is one of the top five books of 2006 per Publishers Weekly. Monday's Hour of Spin eeked out a "win" over Paula Zahn in total viewers but Olby was crushed in Brian Stelter's favorite metric of success - the "coveted" demo. The tally: Zahn 202,000 v. Olbermann 138,000. Of course, both shows were CRUSHED by The O'Reilly Factor which had about four times as many viewers as Olbermann. This after KO was trounced Friday by a guest host (Michelle Malkin). Tonight's MisterMeter reading: 2 [GUARDED]

    UPDATE: video & transcript

    Read the transcript to the Tuesday show


    Posted by Robert Cox | Permalink | Comments (235) | | View blog reactions

    235 Comments

    I channel-surfed over to Fox and CNN and their lead story is the terrorist plot on Fort Dix. Funny, Olby isn't covering that story yet. Hmmm. Maybe he pities those six illegal immigrants. Oh, now Olby mentions it 15 minutes into the show and he completely discredits the plot, the investigation and the coverage by the media. He called the guys "six morons." That Olby: he's a piece of work.

    'He called the guys "six morons."'

    The first time some of these "morons" succeed KO will be all over the Administration for failing to protect us.

    At least THIS Administration. If it's a Clinton Administration, he'll blame Bush for enraging the Islamic community and engendering these types of acts.


    The KO playbook is pretty open by now.

    Ulbermahn is more upset the terror attacks didn't succeed. That way he could've blame Bush.
    Hence their morons.
    It's obvious Ulbermahn is a terror supporter.
    Hence his name: Teheran Keith!

    RK provided this link @ May 7 Countdown to the actual charges files and an overview of the evidence presented (not all of the available evidence) at:


    http://epaper.pressofac.com/images/Duka%20Dritan%20Complaint.pdf


    They are neither morons nor geniuses. They were, however, VERY DANGEROUS men who undetected could have perpetrated the second largest single terrorist attack on the US, and conceivably the largest.

    Over and above the conversations and films that they had already acquired and trained with weapons, one of the informants recorded many conversations about acquiring (the deal was 'done' and waiting to take place) automatic assault weapons. They also discussed acquiring RPGs and explosives.

    There were recorded conversations that they lamented having missed a big opportunity for an attack when the Army-Navy football game in Philadelphia took place. Although they eventually focused on Fort Dix they felt they could survive that and move on to bigger and better things, such as an inter service football game.

    The world according to KO is that George Bush , his administration and the Republican Party are the world's worst terrorists. This group of real life terrorists are just 'morons' that the FBI 'claims" were terrorists and the 'credulous' media is enabling these overblown reports of terrorists plots.

    If memory serves me the only terrorist plot that KO took seriously since 911 was the world wide soap flake fiasco.

    Grammie

    Oh, I forgot to mention that three of them are ILLEGAL ALIENS.

    I am shocked, shocked I tell you.

    What was I thinking? This scurrilous charge must be the result of George Bush's FBI pumping up the charges to instill even more fear in the American public.

    Yep, that has to be it.

    Grammie

    Citizen Keith crushed by Paula in the key demographic. Paula's show is actually watchable.

    The finks in the msnbc sales department can't be happy with KO's demographic funk.

    The bathtub is starting to look good.

    Olby is a one-hit wonder. he will never be able to exceed his year over year ratings when he up against his all time highs.

    people get sick of lopsided reporting, a continuous stream of pundents and Bush haters.

    The worm is turning. Keith will be waiting for the worms.

    Way to go, R.Cox! I am so glad to see that somebody finaly came through for standards and decency. Now do this tomorow. May we neve be put throug E. Schatz's brand of slacking off ever again.

    Why is Ulbermahn referring to the terorrists as 'morons?" Just because they didn't succeed? Is he claiming that they are harmless in his own little enemy defending way? A few 'morons' with a few AK's can still do some serious damage. The only 'moron' is Ulbermahn. The VT killer was a 'moron' and look what he did. This is why I can't watch his 'show.' I read what he says and it infuriates me, let alone actually watching that orange faced puke of a liberal!

    Little Freaky also said Olby would never get his contract renewed, or that the Democrats would never win in Nov.

    Always bet AGAINST Little Freaky !

    Olby "infuriates' Little Jeffrey...the Mad Max of right wing demogogery !

    Good stuff !

    suits at NBC cant be happy with olby ratings........4 more years of this?

    Royalking,
    I wonder how the Olbyloons will defend their hero being upset the terror operation failed?

    WPIW - Chris Cox (no relation) of the NRA defending the rights of terrorists to purchase weapons, Rep. Ted Poe of Texas quotes Nathan Bedford Forrest who was a terrorist, Dick Morris of Fox Noise (it just gets funnier every time you hear it doesn't it?) who said the purpose of the war in Iraq was to make killing Americans more convenient for terrorists.

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

    Ummm, not to complain seeing as how for more than a week we have been in total deleria of incompitance over the absense of a Countdown episode summary ... but ... where are the "Blue Blog Sources" on the Worst Person segments? We need to see some of that.

    Jeff sez: "I watch his show and it infuriates me"

    At least you know exactly how I feel every time I watch Fox 'News'.

    I happen to believe the so called terrorists are morons as well...and no, that doesn't mean I think they are harmless just because they are morons.

    After all, Jeff, any moron with a .44 strapped to his side can be dangerous as well.

    Obama Watch Us Bicker Formerly in Technicolor, don't worry, I'm going to be doing plenty more recaps. I apologize they are not as timely for you as you'd like, but I do my best. I would like to finish the entry sooner as well. Though my attempts at perfectionism get the best of me. I even tried to condense my last recap because I have tendency to make them quite long in an effort to debunk Olbersturmfuhrer's every last word. I would have done tonight too but there was a communication problem. Perhaps I'll be on deck tomorrow.

    E.Schatz: I have evidence on how you are not needed. See below.

    May 8, 2007
    Countdown with Keith Olbermann - May 8, 2007

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

    Host: Keith Olbermann

    Topics/Guests:

    * IRAQ: Howard Fineman, Newsweek senior Washington correspondent and MSNBC political analyst; Chris Cillizza, washingtonpost.com political reporter
    * WOLFOWITZ AND THE WORLD BANK: John Harwood, Wall Street Journal senior contributing writer and CNBC chief Washington correspondent
    * SUPERNOVA: Derrick Pitts, Franklin Institute chief astronomer
    * MORE TROUBLE FOR PARIS: Michael Musto, Village Voice columnist

    Republicans in revolt. Guiliani gave to Planned Parenthood. Wolfowitz not being supported by the Europeans. A supernova. Pardoning Paris Hilton.

    Iraq and Republicans in "revolt". Three weeks after General David Petraeus testified on Capital Hill that he would be able to judge the success of "the surge" in September and Republicans took the position that they would be willing to wait to evaluate the situation at that time Keith is pounding the Democratic talking point that statements made today to this effect somehow represents a shift, that Republicans are "in revolt". This is more of the Nixon analogy at play - that as Jonathon Alter pined for yesterday - when Republicans come to Bush and tell him he has to get out of Iraq the war will end. Howard Fineman seriously jeopardized his chances at getting "great thanksed" after uttering the words "the fact is he's probably right" referring to Bush's assessment of the risk of a quick pullout from Iraq. Whoops! Obviously Keith was not listening to Fineman's answers as he inadvertently "great thanksed" the heretical Fineman.

    #5 2008 Campaign - Presidential Positions. Olbypocrisy Alert - on a given day Olbermann would be celebrating a Republican who had donated to Planned Parenthood but when that Republican is Rudy Guiliani that's bad. More flogging of a Chuck Hagel candidacy with Chris Cilizza advancing the counterintuitive notion that a Hagel run would hurt Democrats more than Republicans. Gore, Thompson and Gingrich.

    Another terror plot thwarted but on OlbyPlanet it is all just a big hoax perpetrated by the FBI and enabled by a "credulous" media. Seems the FBI "claims" it broke up a plot to attack Fort Dix but really the six plotters were just "morons". Didn't we just have some moron, working alone, kill over 30 people with two handguns? Wasn't that the way Zacharrias Moussoui was described. Didn't the FBI catch the 1993 World Trade Center bombers because on the morons went back to the truck rental office to get back his deposit? Why is that anyone time a terror attack is successful than the U.S. officials are "morons" but when they prevent an attack then the plotters are dismissed as morons.

    #4 Wolfowitz - at the top of the show we heard how the Europeans were so anxious to get rid of Wolfowitz they were willing to allow Mr. Bush to choose his successor. Moments later we hear that there is a "six decade tradition" of allowing the U.S. to pick the head of the World Bank. Well...which is it? Hey! This is OlbyPlanet where two diametrically opposed statements can both be true. Why? Because Keith says so that's why! Of course, Keith never stops to ponder why this "tradition" exists.

    Thankfully someone with more than a passing familiarity with the term "international monetary system" joined Keith before he made a bigger fool of himself - John Harwood of the Wall Street Journal. Turns out that when the U.S. created the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund they made a deal that the U.S. would pick the head of the Bank and the Europeans would pick the head of the Fund and that undoing one end of the deal would create many complications. It might also have something to do with the U.S. being the primary source of funding for the World Bank. I suspect many Americans would be OK with allowing the Europeans to pick the President of the World Bank if they would also switch places with the U.S. on the level of giving to the "bank".

    What we never do here is why exactly the Europeans want Wolfowitz out in the first place. It is surely not about this nonsense over his girlfriend. And nothing has been said about Wolfowitz supporters at the World Bank - the Africans. Harwood offers that the reason viewers might care about the issue is that it is another example of "the rest of the world" not liking Americans. Of course, what he means by that is that SOME European governments are anti-Bush which is hardly news.

    It's not until the very end of the segment that we learn WHY the Europeans are upset with Wolfowitz - that he has made a major push to reduce corruption at the World Bank. And who are the beneficiaries of this corruption? Hmmmm. Maybe the same people who benefited from the UN Oil for Food Scandal, the Olympic Games scandal and so on. All of which explains why the Africans are SUPPORTING Wolfowitz - less corruption means more money going to the people who need it and less of it ending up in numbered accounts in Zurich.

    OddBall - golf, sheep, cows marrying.

    Newsmakers - John Facenda, amateur chemist, drunk driver takes road test.

    Supernova - Derrick Pitts talks about a giant star.

    Irony Watch - at least here in the New York market the segment on Paris Hilton was preceded by...a commercial for Hilton hotels with the tag line "travel should change your perspective/Travel should take you places".

    #2 - Unusual sentences - canned report from Michelle Kosinski on a woman who was sentenced to wear a sign says she stole from Walmart and other unusual punishments.

    Keeping Tabs - Sanjaya, Ty Pennington, George Michael.

    WPIW - Chris Cox (no relation) of the NRA defending the rights of terrorists to purchase weapons, Rep. Ted Poe of Texas quotes Nathan Bedford Forrest who was a terrorist, Dick Morris of Fox Noise (it just gets funnier every time you hear it doesn't it?) who said the purpose of the war in Iraq was to make killing Americans more convenient for terrorists.

    #1 - Paris Hilton with Michael Musto on pardon request. Creepy led off by gratuitously mocking her physical appearence by comparing her to a Georgia O'Keefe cowskull - apparently unaware or unconcerned that Maria Shriver worked for many years at NBC News. Keith had an odd reaction. I had the show cranked up pretty loud on my TV and could distinctly make out Olbermann humming along as Musto was talking. Weird. Musto continues to stink up the joint so badly he's reduced to telling Keith "these are the jokes". Whoops. It just got worse.Musto went too far even for Keith saying that it would not be good for Paris to watch "The Simple LIfe" at the prison because the other prisoners will want to "melt down her gold fillings, and her dog and her vagina and stuff". Sure sounds like a clip for another "Great Moments" video.

    NAME

    Olbermann's book The book that bears Olbermann's name crash landed at #4,682 at amazon.com, but "Culture Warrior" is #379. (It's that 2-for-$25 sale!) Another scratch for the OlbyTome went continues to be unranked at Barnes & Noble due to NO SALES!; O'Reilly's book is #1,005 there, and is one of the top five books of 2006 per Publishers Weekly. Monday's Hour of Spin eeked out a "win" over Paula Zahn in total viewers but Olby was crushed in Brian Stelter's favorite metric of success - the "coveted" demo. The tally: Zahn 202,000 v. Olbermann 138,000. Of course, both shows were CRUSHED by The O'Reilly Factor which had about four times as many viewers as Olbermann. This after KO was trounced Friday by a guest host (Michelle Malkin). Tonight's MisterMeter reading: 2 [GUARDED]
    Share This: Technorati [Delicious Tags] digg Reddit StumbleUpon YahooMyWeb Google Netscape Fark Sphere Tailrank Furl Spurl blogmarks blinkbits BlinkList Simpy feedmelinks NewsVine Shadows
    Posted by RCox at May 8, 2007 9:03 PM

    You just hold up the website. If we were a shipping company and you were a freighter we would have lost millions and millions of dollars. R.Cox: Just keep up the good work (literally).

    Obama...you are nuts (literally)!

    Oh brother. I sure wish "Obama Watch Us Bicker Formerly in Technicolor" and "Edward Schatz" would just shut up. OWUBFIT has posted atleast a dozen posts the last couple of days bitching and crying about how slow the recaps are. And Ed keeps giving this "I'm sorry, I'm a perfectionist" crap. OWUBFIT needs to chill out. And Ed needs to realize that writing a long rambling recap that's way longer than it needs to be and is hard to read because there are no separations anywhere is far from perfect.

    Mike: What I meant was that if Olbermann Watch was a shippin firm and E.Schatz was a ship filled with important things and the episode summaries were (are) our primary export we would have lost tons and tons of money in both the dela and in finding the lost cargo. That is what I meant. The "literally" was a jab at how R.Cox was doing the job E.Schatz just makes excuses for.

    Steve: You should have seen me when Olbermann Watch returned to the World Wide Web and R. Cox was being cute and shown a picture of a hurt possum for some reason. I was hysterical. There was no appology from R. Cox for showing a poor hurt animal, and I still doubt that there would be anything now.

    Jeff sez: "I watch his show and it infuriates me"


    I read what he says and it infuriates me, let alone actually watching that orange faced puke of a liberal!

    Posted by: royalking at May 8, 2007 11:09 PM

    This is what I said lil mickey. Learn how to use quotes, please. I am curious, why do think the terrorists are 'morons?' Just because the orange face puke said that?

    I know what you meant Obama, but I've been reading your obsessive complaining about Ed's late 'recaps' for at least a week now, and quite frankly....you sound like you've literally lost your mind!

    I've asked the same from Bob, since this site is his rai·son d'être. Let him carry out the deed.

    Robert Cox
    olby@olbywatch.com

    At least Johnny Bu$hwipe was actually taking care of his own site.

    Unless, of course, Bob finds another useful moron, like Brandon.

    Because Jeff wants to know: "why do you think the terrorists are morons?"

    Because Jeff, I think anybody who is stupid enough to actually believe that by killing himself and taking others with him, there will be 72 virgins waiting for him in some kind of a 'heaven'...would have to be a total moron.

    Mike: The equivalant of saying that you will do something and never show the completed work nor give any indication of progress and when the work is finaly completed late, late in the night finaly give something to the crowd that is not the best quality at all, bringing Olbermann Watch standards down and blame some disease on it?

    Or how about showing the dead carcass of an innocent species of animal and not giving any word on the background of the picture, whether the possum is okay or truly is roadkill after repreated attempts at prying out the information of it?!?!

    No more questions, your honor.

    No more answers, from R. Cox, either.

    Our trolls hard at work diverting the discussion to everything but critiquing KO's stellar shoddy spin of a very important event today.

    Grammie

    Grammie: I would love to discuss Keith Olbermann. Just that R. Cox did such a good job of delivering the episode summary and I am greatfull for him actually doing a timely episode summary but then E. Schatz threatens to stay a commentator and this is not a good thing.

    Also, how is this Countdown an more wrong than previous episodes? Everything Keith Olbermann seems to say is spin spin spin distortion distortion spin ...

    As I said, our trolls hard at work.

    It seems a troll's work is never done.

    Grammie

    How is what you rehighlighted trollism?

    Everything in the bracket does not have to be commented on.

    [You obviously do not see E. Schatz as thee greatest threat to Olbermann Watch since Keith Olbermann's latest contracts. He is not giving us the Countdown episode summaries on time or at all ----- & HE IS FLAUNTING IT, ALSO !]

    Remember: Brackets mean there does not have to be a mean reply.

    I'm not flaunting it. Flaunting would suggest that I am bragging about posting late recaps. It does not appear that I have done so. I have also stated that I wish I could get my entries done in a more timely fashion. If am the greatest threat, I am sure I'll get the boot.

    Because Jeff, I think anybody who is stupid enough to actually believe that by killing himself and taking others with him, there will be 72 virgins waiting for him in some kind of a 'heaven'...would have to be a total moron.

    Posted by: Mike at May 9, 2007 1:32 AM

    And yet, you defend these 'morons' on a daily basis, why is that? Before you spew "I don't defend them" just like you used to say about Ulbermahn before you were "driven to defend him by us". Remember, by defending Ulbermahn, you are defending the terrorists.

    Bicker, get over the possum, please. It was just a road kill, it happens. On any given day, the 5 mile stretch of road between my ranch and the first little town there is no less than 2 deer, a skunk or 2, raccoons, a couple possums, a few turkeys and a few squirrels. Liberals that move up here think they can drive 90 mph like they did where they used to live before they moved up here. Nothing makes me happier than to see a brand new Mercedes or a Jaguar with a smashed front end and a liberal on their cell phone calling their insurance company and a tow truck. The dead deer saddens me, though.

    John Facenda? Don't tell me.

    When he's doing countdown he thinks he's Edward R. Morrow

    Now when he does football will he think he's John Facenda?

    Does Olby have voices inside his head?

    Let's withhold judgment on the so-called terror plot for a bit, perhaps until we have a conviction. The Justice Department's conviction rate in these matters is laughable, perhaps because the Administration is so desparate to appear to be accomplishing something, anything, that it is rushing these matters. Of course, under the able leadership of Gonzales, I may be too cynical.

    Puck, who is John Facenda? I googled his name but the first choices listed didn't look too promising.

    I would appreciate any direction you could give me.

    Grammie

    Chicken Blogger, could you please expand on your criteria for withholding judgment on those charged today in the, shall we call it the Fort Dix case.

    Should we withhold our judgment like KO and The Perfesser did for months and months on end re Habius Corpus and when our our second highest court makes a ruling that blows all their rhetoric out of the water just drop the subject into the abyss to never gurgle to the top again.

    Or, are you leaning more to the model KO used for withholding judgment by completely ignoring a more recent event until a complete resolution was reached. To wit, the boarding and capture of British sailors and Marines by the Iranians in Iraqi waters.

    Or perhaps you have the Don Imus fiasco in mind when KO talked about it on his radio gig with Dan Patrick in very neutral terms and then when the outcome was for Imus to be fired by two major networks THEN KO burst forth with his scathing announcement that he had been quietly working for years for the exact solution that occurred.

    I would really like to have a clarification from you to help gauge my own reaction.

    Grammie

    "Charging document filed in federal court in Camden yesterday portray an ambitious and cold-blooded — but somewhat bungling — cadre who hoped to kill at least 100 soldiers, but also dropped training videos off at a local store to be copied, and spoke openly to a Philadelphia police sergeant about obtaining maps of Fort Dix."
    from the washington post

    thats why olbermann called these men morons, not because they were foiled or whatever you said in your recap... but because, well they were morons. plain and simple

    try not to spend so much time reading between the lines, you might lose your vision

    Scott F, morons just like the nineteen 911 hijackers who only took flying lessons to be able to fly commercial jets, no lessons for take offs and landings.

    Was this current crop more moronic or are some of our citizens more aware because of the very painful lesson we learned?

    If you want to laugh your way to the funerals of any innocents slaughtered by any more morons who succeed, that's your right.

    I, however, will continue to take them and their ilk very seriously. It would be criminally stupid for us to look down our noses at their mistakes and laughingly brush them off as bumblers who never could succeed.

    We owe praise, honor and gratitude to the young man who had the sense and, yes, even the courage to notify the FBI.

    As for this from your post:

    "spoke openly to a Philadelphia police sergeant about obtaining maps of Fort Dix."
    from the washington post"

    RK gave us the url address, so why depend on a WP paraphrase. Go to the end of page 15 and the top of page 16 for the actual description of what (the copy of the charges do not allow a copy and paste) was done, by whom and when. Sedar Tatar went to the Philadelphia police and said he had been approached about obtaining maps of Fort Dix. He did not comply but was afraid it might be terrorist related and was afraid for his familie's safety. The sergeant contacted the FBI in his presence. That was all the details provided.

    At this time the FBI had known about the plot and the plotters for 10 1/2 months and had two informants (the FBI stated they thought it was based on a fear that Tatar thought someone might be an informant) infiltrating the group. Connecting the dots after the fact might reassure some that that alone would have resulted in their apprehension. If so, just think back to Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy and how many times the police were notified, in Dahmer's case with one of his boy victims running from even though he was drugged and half naked on a public street. Or all the dots that were there pre 911. Connecting the dots is very easy when you read the answers in the back of the book.

    Reading between the lines? I guarantee you won't lose your vision if you just read the lines, between the lines be damned.

    Grammie

    Keith Olbermann calls the defendents morons for one reason only.....It is subtle propaganda demeaning the accomplishment of law enforcement to further his own personal ideological agenda. In demeaning the accomplishment of thwarting an attack, the left, along with Olbermann, tries to convice themselves and others that the Bush administration is still a total failure and worse than the threat of radical islamic terrorist activity.

    Keith Olbermann is pathological and is actually all he screams against in his Special Comments. Anyone who feels he serves some higher purpose or is talented in any aspect of journalism should really seek professional help.....including those making the decisions at NBC News.

    So, the NJ terrorist subjects are morons.....My question from yesterday's post still remains unanswered leftists....

    Do they have their due process rights? Has our great President Bush taken away habeus corpus like Keith Olbermann and Turley said he would do?

    Has anyone lost their due process since the famous tomb stone for habeus corpus on COUNTDOWN?

    Demogoguery, hate speech, fear mongering.....The left's tired old calling cards and Keith Olbermann does it all daily.

    I withhold judgment because of the basic Constitutional premise, well beyond your understanding, Grammie, that people are innocent until proven guilty. I realize that Bush/Cheney and the Extreme Right have done all in their power to abrogate that principle, that right, but it still holds true. Also, I see nothing in the current operation of the Justice Department that suggests anything other than an on-going PR campaign to bolster a sagging Administration. Certainly, the requisite competence to actually secure meaningful, reliable convictions upon charge and indictment, is missing. These individuals may well have done that with which they are charged. They probably did. Nothing would please me more that to have foiled a true plot. But, isn't it odd that this unfolds just as Monica Goodling appears poised to knock over Gonzo? A rush to divert attention? It is a Bush Administration watermark. I have respect for the FBI and the US Attorneys. However, I believe nothing, absolutely nothing that comes from the mouths of Bush and his croonies until it is conclusively proven. If you are sharp enough to read this with all its nuance, then you undoubtedly realize the real danger of incompetence in fighting the War on Terror. We reduced our Afghanistan committment before we could complete the task, and the Taliban is resurgent. We have botched Iraq in almost everyway we could. We are limp at convicting terrorists in court. God help us through the next 1 1/2 years because we will surely need God's help.

    As always Leftists defending Islamic radicals.

    Keith apparently believes that under a Democratic administration, the FBI would only expend their energies on smart terrorist cells -- no doubt determined by a blue ribbon panel of experts from both government and the field of higher-learning, like those 88 Duke professors who judged the personalities of their lacrosse team players so well last year. Terrorist groups who are deemed not intelligent enough to carry out all but rudimentary random attacks will be ignored by the federal government and turned over to local law enforcement agencies to handle.

    (Of course, in Keith's universe, any successful terrorist attack under a Democratic administration will still be Bush's fault, even if it happens in 2011 or so.)

    John Facenda was "THE" voice for NFL Films from the late 60's to the early 80's.. He was also a TV News Anchor in Philadelphia...

    Keith is clever when it comes to sports.. However, when it comes to politics he is a hack punk who is obviously trying to compensate for having the endowment of an infant...

    Obama,

    What are you? A five-year old?

    Do we have to explain EVERYTHING to you? Jeez.

    First of all its Opossum not "possum"

    Second, playing dead is a totally natural reaction by opossums to a perceived threat from predators. It is the bases for the phrase "playing possum".

    In the context of Olbermann Watch being off-line, and that we later came back online, it might have been a HINT that perhaps the site was not permanently off-line.

    The image was found here:

    http://www.opossumsocietyus.org/

    Next time we will put up a disclaimer for for you: no oposums were hurt in mocking the OlbyLoons who were prematurely celebrating the demise of Olbermann Watch.

    Does that help?

    Now. Go back to your room. It's past your bed time.

    We are limp at convicting terrorists in court. God help us through the next 1 1/2 years because we will surely need God's help.

    Posted by: at May 9, 2007 9:45 AM
    Be sure to contact the liberal judges put in place by peanut head and bj and thank them for their disservice.

    I'm afraid this has little to do with judges, liberal or otherwise. It has to do with competence, a quality wholly absent in the Bush Administration. A competent Attorney General can secure convictions whatever the political disposition of the judge. You ought not cast dispersions with such a large net. The American political spectrum is very narrow and largely centrist with only a few radical extremists, such as yourself, royalking and the unfortunate Grammie. I dare say absent your kind we would never have been burdened with Bush, we would have an Administration populated with competent people, and we would be able to effectively combat terrorists.

    Olbyonesidedkanoby conveniently failed to mention the 'morons' were all muslims and 3 of them were here illegally, minor details deemed irrelevant to orangy.

    "I'm afraid this has little to do with judges, liberal or otherwise" anonyloon

    anonyloon, you have no knowledge of how the justice system works, I guess, judging by your idiotic statement. When judges throw out relevant evidence in these cases (i.e. confessions!) because a terrorist asked for a lawyer AFTER he confessed, they are not helping the cause. That's just one recent example. You keep thinking "liberal" has nothing to do with it, though.

    Chicken Blogger, based on your response if you were a prospective juror you would be excused because withholding judgment in that venue demands a true neutrality of mind.

    It is not a conviction that anything and everything GWB et al does is de facto a politically motivated wag the dog move by its timing. It is also not an unshakable conviction that any evidence gathered and to be used is so tainted you couldn't and wouldn't accept it. We all understand that that is KO's mindset and also most of his fans here. Bush bad, Bush sucks,

    It also requires an openness to what is presented by GWB et al and the defense and then balance one against the other. The jury should also not be a group of closet vigilantes who prefer the jury box to the bother and risk of storming the courthouse and hanging high in place of a trial.

    You made this statement:

    "I withhold judgment because of the basic Constitutional premise, well beyond your understanding, Grammie, that people are innocent until proven guilty."

    According to you I have obviously been operating unconstitutionally all these many years. I always thought that applied to the judicial system and all the jurors who serve in legal matters, especially criminal cases. Now you tell me that all 300+ million of us have the same obligation until the final verdict is rendered. I would appreciate your ointing me to the part of our Constitution grants those rights to the accused and prohibits all the rest of from having an opinion about it.

    The point you raised was "Let's withhold judgment on the so-called terror plot for a bit, perhaps until we have a conviction.". You did this in the context of KO's dismissive treatment of the story by his unique placement in his show and the key words that the six men are just 'morons' not six men were charged; the FBI 'claims' in place of the charges listed several pages of of the government's evidence; and the 'credulous' media would be the media widely and prominently reported today. Now that, to me, would be a straight news account of the facts with absolutely a total withholding of judgment by KO.

    So I ask again. Which of KO's withholding judgment modes are you talking about? The Habeus Corpus mode, the Iranian piracy against the Brits mode or the Imus mode?

    I am asking for clarification for what you meant.

    Grammie

    PS Exactly how do hold these two thoughts simultaneously in your mind: "...I see nothing in the current operation of the Justice Department that suggests anything other than an on-going PR campaign to bolster a sagging Administration. Certainly, the requisite competence to actually secure meaningful, reliable convictions upon charge and indictment, is missing. And "I have respect for the FBI and the US Attorneys.". You are taking about the same organizations.

    Thanks Mike B.

    Grammie

    Ummm, not to complain seeing as how for more than a week we have been in total deleria of incompitance

    Notice the Left's deence of Ulbermahn's downplaying of the terror arrests!
    He's clearly earn the name Teheran Keith!

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at May 9, 2007 5:32 AM


    they dropped off their training videos at a local video store to be copied.... if thats not moronic i dont know what is.

    im not defending their actions, and im grateful that they were foiled... but come on these aren't the brightest jihadists in the bunch.

    i would expect the citizens in those situations to notify the authorities. that is our duty as Americans...

    why change the subject to jeffery dahmer or john wayne gacy anyways? i dont think they were terrorists... or had anything to do with ft dix

    HAHAHA, according to Olbermann the second amendment was written to defend the right of the government to have a militia. It has nothing to do with private gun ownership. Ugh, what an idiot, he should read the damn amendment some day: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. What the hell escapes his great intellect about the very clear meaning of those words? If the Bush admin can label anyone a suspected terrorist, according to Olbermann, all their rights should be defended, except #2.

    Only the true Olbermann haters will conclude that Olbermann's predictable downplaying of the New Jersey 'terrorists' had anything to do with Bush.

    I like KO, believes Bush is probably the worst president in our history, but I never connected the two issues at all. I'm not convinced Olbermann did either.

    These wannabe'terrorists' were clearly caught by home grown vigilance, not anything Bush did or didn't do. This kind of vigilance would be the natural and expected reaction to a 911 type event, and would included every agency of Law Enforcement, as well as every individual citizen. This kind os ongoing vililance would be expected regardless of which party was in power.

    Bush simply is not part of this story...nor should he be.

    "Only the true Olbermann haters will conclude that Olbermann's predictable downplaying of the New Jersey 'terrorists' had anything to do with Bush."

    Posted by: Mike at May 9, 2007 2:38 PM


    ??????????? Do you pee into the wind, too?

    "These wannabe'terrorists'" At what point does a "terrorist" actually become one Mikey.

    When they actually kill an American. I guess in loon-land a group of people who train, pratice with firearms, make intricate plans of attack are only "wannabs" here in the US.

    Bush is part of the story because we the people hired him to keep us safe, every day, to the best of his ability and he understands this better than anyone else I know of.

    I have no obligation to explain anything to you, Grammie or royalking, and I will not do so. You both envision an America wholly alien to me, an ugly place. Thank God it is not the America we have been given, and thank God there are plenty of Americans who are not knee-knocking cowards hiding in fear who will work to uphold are cherished and valued American principles. You lost your opportunity to turn America into a far right-wing wasteland. True, the page is not turned for 1 1/2 years, but it is pure denouement now. And, the book will go out of print. Again, thank God. I am not surprised the principles you so despise won out, they are far stronger than your hatred and fear. I am simply pleased, beyond words. America will remain America.

    You must live on Sesame street anonyloon. I agree your world looks "wholly alien" from here. (I live a few streets over....and I drink too)

    It is getting really hard to post here. Everything is so oversimplified and so divisive that it is pointless. Today you are castigating someone for calling 6 islamic militants morons, because that is pro-terrorist/anti-Bush. Wha?? And I go out at lunch and what is Limbaugh saying? The exact same line. Anyone who calls them morons is "playing down the threat" and "trying to help the enemy." You guys are going nuts. You really are.

    Day after day, you people constantly become what you profess to abhor, from using nazi and clan imagery to spoof KO's use of Nazi and clan imagery, to filtering every single issue through your pro-Bush prism just as KO filters it through his anti-Bush prism. Your defense? Keith does it. We just do the same thing and get better ratings for it. Wha??

    And you really are even worse. Even if he's a hamfisted blowhard, at least Keith apparently fulfills some of the function for which free speech rights were intended -- a check on government power. You use your free speech to amplify government rhetoric, to emphasize threats, and to support sacrificing freedom for security at every turn. You use it to excuse things like the government "losing" dvd's of "coercive interrogation." "Just coincidence," says the government. "JUST COINCIDENCE" you shout. They fire all the USA's that don't pursue their "enforcement agenda" in time for elections. "Just coincidence. Entirely appropriate." They say. "JUST COINCIDENCE, ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE" you shout.

    In truth, it is so poorly done on both sides, so obviously just designed to create controversy and ratings or clicks, that it really is a waste. It's too bad that this really does affect the political decisions we are able to make in this country, very much limiting our flexibility just when we need it most. It's depressing.

    But I probably just think this way because I love the terrorists.

    Bush simply is not part of this story...nor should he be.
    Posted by: Mike at May 9, 2007 2:38 PM

    Hi Mike, I think what is interesting is that Olbermann IS editorializing this news story and because of his special comments against Bush, perhaps that is why Bush becomes part of the story.

    We all know that editorial choices are made in deciding what news stories are aired and in what order (for any newscast) but what is interesting is that Olbermann decided to "comment" on a news story--calling them "morons" (as well as downplaying it). Through her questions to her guests, Paula Zahn tried to downplay the "intensity of the threat" although her guests would not have any of it. Since Keith did not have a guest related to this particular story and "commented" with name calling, I think shows his bias a bit more sharply.

    I am not saying that Keith is wrong with his comments, but I think you would have to agree; if Cronkite called terrorists "morons" in the middle of reporting the story, it would seem odd.

    Scott F, if you had read my post with any understanding you would not have these questions. So let me address them one by one.


    "they dropped off their training videos at a local video store to be copied.... if thats not moronic i dont know what is.

    I didn't claim intelligence for them. I pointed out that the nineteen 911 hijackers did something moronic too and succeeded. I stated that this group's equivalent mistake to the airplane lessons was caught because our citizens are more alert and more likely to risk embarrassment because we learned from our mistake about 911.


    "i would expect the citizens in those situations to notify the authorities. that is our duty as Americans..."

    And I said different? See my answer above. I didn't say or imply that this young said or did anything way beyond the call of duty. I said he used the increased from 911 to recognize a potential threat.


    "why change the subject to jeffery dahmer or john wayne gacy anyways? i dont think they were terrorists... or had anything to do with ft dix"

    I didn't change the subject or imply that they were terrorists. I provided the link and the actual information from the charge (your WP paraphrase was inaccurate) combined with the experience we had in these two high profile cases of honest policemen making an error when they were confronted with far more evidence than one sergeant who was given false info by one of the terrorists.

    If this doesn't clarify your confusion let me know.

    Grammie

    VOK.....Keith Olbermann claims the mantle of great journalists....I do not....nor does Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck or any other right-leaning partisan Mr. Olbermann has in his sites. He is parading around as someone who is reporting truth/fact.....he is not.....he is reporting opinion....even in a news report about the arrest of people planning to murder American troops. "Morons" implies a "keystone cops" aura in reverse....."these guys were not really a threat."

    All I have to say is that the same Justice Department people like Olbermann claims is incompetent "connected the dots" like they should of and likely stopped a very tragic event. You may have a different opinion, but if they failed to connected the dots prior to 9/11 (BTW there were people just like the store clerk telling law enforcement about suspicious activity of the 9/11 terrorists and nothing was done) and did it this time, calling the alleged terrorists morons suggests something totally different.

    Please stop the holier-than-thou attitude....it takes away from an otherwise thoughtful post.

    Keith Olbermann is a fool....But I just think this way because I believe in God, go to church and feel every college student should bhe packing heat.

    Let's be honest. Have we really even established that the 19 alleged " hijackers" were terrorists? True thinkers such as myself would agree that in a world where George Bush is President of the USA, can anyone else really be a "terrorist"? Good night and good luck.

    Keef, how do I become a terriorest? Or is that beyond my capabilities?

    VOK, you made several comments directed to me on Mr Cox's thread on May 4 requesting regular readers only to comment about some possible changes to OW. I responded to your first comment because there was at least a possibility that you thought the only definition for 'treacle' was exclusively a British English one. I ignored the immediately following second comment to me because it was just inane. Although there was much to correct and critique in your third post I ignored it also because it was definitely out of place for that thread, that your intent all along was to disrupt and would be boring to all.

    You don't need anyone to be a foil for you to bask in the glow of your own wit and brilliance. So have at it. OW can be your very own little vanity press.

    Grammie

    Sorry Grammie!

    I'll just leave you out of it from now on and bask in my own glow. Enjoy your cable news.

    Cee, just so I can sort it all out, which part is thoughtfull and which part is "holier-than-thou?" The plain fact is that cable "news" is designed to increase divisions and both flatter and capitalize on people's existing preconceived categories. That's what Keith does. That's what Fox does. It's in their business plan.

    The fact that you OW guys can see Keith's obvious bias (only a two year old could miss it) but only then apply this standard to one side of the spectrum, and thus use it to further bolster your own bias--this is what is disconcerting. It's like a Taliban watching Playboy channel all day so he can get "insight" into America and know the enemy. Playboy isn't America, and KO isn't the left. Keith channels one small part of the left. Not a demographic, but an impulse. No one person believes in everything that Keith intimates or hints at. He is simply the spirit of constantly raising questions and being as skeptical as possible of the motives of the administration. It's a somewhat usefull function, even if, as I understand it, it mostly dips to the level of buffo performance art.

    You guys are at the same level, only your spirit is never raising questions and being as credulous as possible of this administration. Or to put it more aptly, constantly poo-pooing every question that is raised no matter how valid, simply because of who is raising it. I don't doubt you have sincere beliefs. But apparently you can only talk about them through this prism.

    Why do you need to refer back to Keith? In other words, why do you deliberately simplify the debate and make it more divisive? I understand why the cable channels do this. I understand why Cox does this. They profit from it or hope to. But why must you as an individual do it? The only profit you get by it is a kind of mental security and rhetorical shorthand that impoverishes debate, and makes everyone believe we are more divided than we really are.

    Sorry if this is holier-than-thou, but it's a full time job keep dissembling to people who only want to talk about Keith Olbermann all day.

    Well put, VOK. Good luck getting any answers, though. I've asked all those same questions, and instead of even TRYING to articulate a response, 'they' attack me for being an 'olbyloon.'

    I guess if you spend all your time training to fight 'x', and then 'z' shows up uninvited, you may as well paint an 'x' on 'z' and fight them.

    All I can ask is 'y'?

    Like I've said before, in the marketplace of ideas, this site is the impulse rack at the counter, pandering to people's fear and insecurity.

    It's always good for few laughs, though.

    Especially when Monkey Cee Monkey Do shows up to preach about his fear of 'leftists.'
    Good thing Communism isn't more successful than it is, or Cee would be scared sh-tless.

    It's fortunate that RoyalPain has made his sig a link to the Sewage/Weenie website.

    Makes it easier to scroll past the garbage that he spews. . .

    WORST

    f---ING

    SITE

    ON

    THE

    ENTIRE

    MOTHERf---ING

    INTERNETS!!

    . . .so bad in fact, that even the FReepers won't have anything to do with you clueless retards. . .

    It is getting really hard to post here. Everything is so oversimplified and so divisive that it is pointless. Today you are castigating someone for calling 6 islamic militants morons, because that is pro-terrorist/anti-Bush. Wha?? And I go out at lunch and what is Limbaugh saying? The exact same line. Anyone who calls them morons is "playing down the threat" and "trying to help the enemy." You guys are going nuts. You really are.


    Posted by: VOK at May 9, 2007 3:56 PM


    VOK, Olbermann is being criticised for suggesting that the FBI and the Administration was making more of this plot and of the plotters than was warranted, as a supposed continuation in the Administrattion's history of politicizing terrorism.

    You may label THAT criticism of Olbermann's position as just more politicizing of the issue, but you'd be misjudging our criticism in kind, if not degree.

    Olbermann made certain implications out of the gate when he prefaced his report of the story with this:


    "And one other note today. The ultimate premise of the war in Iraq and the ultimate premise, certainly, of the Republican presidential campaign ahead: counterterrorism.

    The FBI claims it has broken up a plot to attack Fort Dix in New Jersey. The flaw, though, in the breathless reporting of the purported terror cell, the bureau infiltrated the six-person group after its members took video of themselves practicing with assault weapons, brought the tape to a photo store, and had it transferred to a DVD."


    I don't what Limbaugh is saying, but If he's saying what you seem to imply, he's saying something different than what has been said here. I don't know how you could more "oversimplify" the anti-Olbermann point or critique here than to suggest we're saying that it's "anti-Bush" to have insulted potential terrorist as being morons.

    Olbermann is saying something more in his preface to this story. He's saying that morons are being hyped by the Bushies via the FBI in order to instill fear in the populace so as to help Republican candidates. He's saying that this is THE tactic of the Republican Party.

    Again, I don't know what Limbaugh is saying but I can't think of a more oversimplification of the argument here, than that we are only upset that terrorists weren't taken more seriously, rather than also being appalled at Olbermann's "out of the gate" political implications.

    Both of Olbermann's implicatons are partisan oversimplifications. His one about the terror plot and the terrorists flies in the face of what we historically know about the banal and only human face of such plotters as contrasted with some comic book evil genius.

    As to the second implication about the Administration, this may well be an overhyped story and an attempt to politicise terror, but could Olbermann give it more time before drawing on that conclusion?


    It's no good to say, well you guys are partisan Bushophiles and therefore no different in the partisan sense from Olbermann.

    As to your point that Olbermann's speech is more emblematic of what the founders meant about free speech---merely because it criticises the govt, last I heard the media was the fifth estate and also prevalent to the perils of institutional power and therefore something that needs truth spoken to it once in awhile too. The ying and the yang of politics via all ideologies and viewpoints IS THE means of holding the media's feet to fire from both sides.

    Your failure to make some very simple distinctions between private citizens operating in a private capacity with someone who is supposedly a professional and who is supposedly operating in a professional capacity, isn't made any more sensible by your attempt to suggest that you're more removed because you know it's all just ole cable news anyway...

    Well, fine. Then no one should be surprised at your statement that it's getting hard for you to post here. I have told you several times how much I've enjoyed your slumming it here. However, whoever is holding the door shut so that you are unable to leave, should stop it and let you go...

    "No one person believes in everything that Keith intimates or hints at."

    Posted by: VOK at May 9, 2007 7:04 PM

    vokie, you are sadly mistaken, here. There is ample evidence all over this blog that there are loons that hang on his EVERY word and claim Ulbermahn does NO wrong. Haven't I seen you somewhere say you don't watch Ulbermahn? You sure claim to have a lot of insight to his motivations and cable news motivations. Which, by the way, is not to "increase divisions" except in some of the newer shows like meltdown, definately meant to divide and spin.

    "KO isn't the left. Keith channels one small part of the left."

    What views does Keith espouse on his show that you believe most folks on the left would reject?

    "Keith's obvious bias (only a two year old could miss it)"

    Yet Keith insists he is not a liberal and MSLSD calls his show a "news" show rather than a commentary and opinion show. If a two year old would know better (I actually agree with you here), KO seems to think nothing of insulting the intelligence of his viewers.

    "He is simply the spirit of constantly raising questions and being as skeptical as possible"

    Raising the questions is OK, but when Olby provides ready made answers by lining up a roster of ass kissing sycophants that parrot his own views, precluding the possibility that the premises advocated by Olby might be challenged and held up to scrutiny to see if they are accurate, that is a problem.


    "You guys are at the same level, only your spirit is never raising questions and being as credulous as possible of this administration."

    Yeah, I remember how tenaciously the libs were pressing for Clinton to cooperate with the independent counsel, to turn over records they were under a legal obligation to turn over and the outcry for pardoning folks like Marc Rich, etc.

    "Why do you need to refer back to Keith?"

    Anyone who falsely accuses his competitor of supporting Nazis and flashes a Seig Heil salute at a public event earning a reprimand from the ADL (and then laughs it off on Leno) is a low person who should be off the air. There are many more examples of this kind of behavior, but that one alone is enough for me.


    I refer to Keith Olbermann's behavior and VOK and LMAO have nothing more than more silly insults about me even posting here....Well gentlemen, post for post....I will bet you anything you two post more about the OW posters than I have ever posted about Olbermann.....More interesting topics I would be glad to spend my time on (and have).....But doing what you two do....shaking your heads, spending hours reading and commenting about OTHER POSTERS and making your opinions known about total stangers....well who is really spending the time of their day poorly?

    Two points....

    "his fear of 'leftists.' LMAO.....evidence?.....I don't feel fear because I am confident the mainstream American still rejects the stupidity that is the radical left currently. I actually feel sorry those with such a self-centered and fearful world-view and Keith Olbermann actually is the stereotypical leftist.....Oh my, I answered VOK's argument too..

    that being...."KO isn't the left.....Keith channels one small part of the left. He is simply the spirit of constantly raising questions and being as skeptical as possible of the motives of the administration." Please VOK....I challenge you to answer my question about the left's (and Olbermann's) claim that habeus corpus is dead in America....Asking a question is one thing....what Olbermann does (and my questions is just one example) is try to promote fear to advance his political agenda. Word for word, Olbermann mirrors rhetoric of the "progressive" community.....the fringe left, or what I like to call the, "religious left."

    I do not fear Olbermann, he is no better than a snake-oil salesman....I dislike the dishonesty, holier-than-thou attitude and arrogance that is so much him and the religous left. You both seem to like him, that is your right....although the intellectual dishonesty you are willing to put up with tells me quite a lot.

    And your assumption of my support of George Bush making me a blind follower is also typical of your world-view.....OVERSIMPLIFICATION....wow, VOK, you are just so pathetic in projecting your own deficiencies onto others...please try to look in a mirror every now and then. Hubris seems to be a real character flaw for you and LMAO.

    Cee: "I dislike the dishonesty, holier-than-thou attitude and arrogance that is so much him and the religious left."

    Cee, you pretty much just described yourself! While I wouldn't presume to question your honesty, the "holier than thou" attitude fits EXACTLY how you come across on this blog with every post you make.

    Comment at 10:35 really moved the discussion forward...

    Sharm (Sharon?), sorry you don't feel I move the discussion 'forward' as you would like.

    This site sets the tone, if you haven't noticed. Not only do they use this site to constantly attack a TV show host using smears and misrepresentations, they also constantly attack those that like this particular TV host (one they don't even have to watch), with the same venon they regularly attack KO with.

    Your side is the one that actually has an official derogatory term to describe anyone who likes the show (Olbyloon). Your side is the one who puts up special threads specifically designed to demean his so called fans.

    Bob sets the tone...he seems to like it that way, so don't pretend to lecture me!

    Comment 10:54 was an observation; comment 11:09 is a lecture. I guess Captain Ignorant at 7:57 p.m. is on "my" side?

    Great comment Hank from 8:10.

    Cee, you pretty much just described yourself! While I wouldn't presume to question your honesty, the "holier than thou" attitude fits EXACTLY how you come across on this blog with every post you make.

    Posted by: Mike at May 9, 2007 10:35 PM

    This assinine comment coming from a self righteous prick. How bout that hypocrisy.

    Look Jeff, 'Hanoi' Jane Fonda is sitting in 'conservative' (as you described him)Stephen Colbert's lap right now!

    Mike: Just because Stephen Colbert does not have a "talking points memo" or a "stack of stuff" or an "Olbermann Watch" does not make him any less or more Conservative than anyone. In fact, it is safe to say that the turncoat for today is Rudolph Giuliani for not talking straight about his personal views on abortion.

    Colbert makes fun of everyone. He is not clearly a conservative or liberal. Did you see his interviews with Maxine Waters, Robert Wexler, Darlene Hooley? They are classics. He has done the same to conservatives.

    Obama: Jane Colbert talks funny in a wierd kinda way kinda like you do all the time and then when he has talking point memos about how Edward Schatz was late again but not quite as much this time but he forgot the non barking dog about France and we all know how bad that is but maybe not as bad as turncoats like Giulliani cause he's doing curved talk about abortion.

    Mike: I got news for you, if it was not for me the Countdown episode summaries would still be in limbo and there would be nothing for many hours until R.Cox has to scrounge something up in memory of what Keith Olbermann's program was about and we would have a little more than 400 words on why tonight's program was inflammetory.

    Yeah, that's right. I am taking credit for E.Schatz finally waking up and doing something good & decent in the world rather than keeping us in waiting. I read the latest report three times over, and I can honestly say that I blown past the bull that he was giving us about perfectionism.

    I would like a "thank you" post dedicated to me tommorow, if you do not mind.

    Thank you, thank you, thank you Obama!

    It's a tough job but somebody just had to light that fire under Mr. Schatz...and you stepped up to the plate when everyone else showed nothing but apathy.

    Thank you!

    I will accept your personal "thanking", but, the stu that E.Schatz had us in was so thick I think the more appropriate thing to do was to base a whole entire posting dedicated to

    A) Appologizing about upholding this website in the first placee-

    B) Recognize that I had something to do with getting this website in shape-

    C) Making it official that they would never put us through anything like this again.

    Possums everywhere are thanking you as well!

    Exclamation points are thanking you.

    Cee, quite honestly, you make some good points, especially about whether my posting here is a big waste of time. I suspect it is, though I do find it instructive. If nothing else, I do not constantly get my opinions here simply confirmed by mentally fraternizing with the like-minded. Which is by and large the heart of what happens for most people both here, and on cable news.

    But how in god's name can you continue with this line, so emblematic of the problem I am talking about:

    "You both seem to like him [Olbermann], that is your right....although the intellectual dishonesty you are willing to put up with tells me quite a lot."

    Let me be clear. I do not like KO. I do not like him on TV. I do not like dishones-tee. I do not like his greasy hair. I do not like him...do you care?

    I do not like him, sam I am. I will not like him, he's a ham.

    I am hoping this little rhyme will stick with you, because apparently the 119,112 other negative references I have made to KO and cable news has not sunk in.

    "Please VOK....I challenge you to answer my question about the left's (and Olbermann's) claim that habeus corpus is dead in America..."

    The obvious and short defense to a statement that habeus is dead (indefinitely suspended would be better phrasing) is that the combination of the MCA and the unilateral executive power to declare anyone an unlawful enemy combatant seems to mean that the president can indefinitely detain anyone without showing evidence in a judicial proceeding. But I haven't seen your question on this. So what is it?

    The law and The Adminstration has made clear that American citizens accused of war crimes and terrorism-related offenses will continue to be tried through Article III courts or courts-martial. The President's behavior since the law was passed and later upheld supports the intent of the law.....keeping noncitizens who attack the US outside esablished military rules of engagement out of the civilian legal system,

    By you (and Olbermann) saying "anyone" is nothing more than taking an extreme interpretation of the law that NO ONE in the administration has ever supported......The law is clear....US citizens would remain in the civilian system.....however, if one chooses to renounce their US citizenship and participate in terrorist activity I wholeheartedly support ANY PRESIDENT (despite their party or ideology) to deal with that individual with the MCA if he so chooses....as has been done forever previously.

    I am confident that I have my due process rights.....if fact I received a speeding ticket 6 months ago and was afforded my options under the constitution without a hiccup.....I was speeding and the officer said I was a speeder. I wasn't standing still on the street and picked at random and accused of speeding.....That is the whole point about who is an "enemy combatant" not deserving of due process....they are enemy combatants and should be labeled as such.....just as I was labeled a speeder and labeled as such. But a speeder still has rights under the US Constitution.....an enemy combatant does not. He/she has rights under the MCA but they are limited, and have always been!

    Saying, "seems to mean that the president can indefinitely detain anyone without showing evidence in a judicial proceeding." is inacurate and demagogic....wow, just like Olbermann. He can't...The law is clear, he is clear, and his behavior for the past two years has been above board with regards to following the intent of the law.

    It's really funny how even the Republicans are having enough of BUsh , based on their meeting with him.
    They know he's ruining the party. Well everyone knows that except the blind ones like Cee and the other Olbyhaters.

    Also funny how common knowledge is either lost or or not available to the RW'ers at this site.

    Oh, and VOK.....the following are a short list of rights afforded enemy combatants under the MCA and they seem pretty good and in line with Western Civilization fairness since Magna....

    The right to be tried before an impartial military judge and impartial commission

    The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

    The right to counsel, including a JAG defense counsel and retained civilian counsel

    The right to obtain witnesses and evidence, to cross-examine witnesses, and to appropriate discovery

    The right against self-incrimination and the right against double jeopardy

    The right to at least two appeals from any conviction, including to a Federal Article III appellate court.

    Again, these are for ENEMY COMBATANTS!!!!!....in the law....look it up! They seem pretty "habeas corpus"-like to my nonlawyer brain.

    I am pleased you are not concerned with Cee understanding, Sane Person, because he/she/it never will. I think Cee is actually Sean Hannity and has an endless bag of excuses for the President's arrogance, incompetence, dishonesty and complete disregard for the Constitution.

    Grasping at straws, sane person......wanna make a bet Bush will still Veto any funding that has timetables and even with some scared Republicans defecting, the veto will still not be able to be over-ridden?.....

    I will say it again....Contitutionally, the Congress can only do two things.....

    Refuse to fund the operation
    Impeach and remove Bush/Cheney

    Short of these....the political twisting in the wind will continue but Bush still has the ACE in the hole and the congress will remain chicken to take it away from him with those two options. If the Dems get enough Republicans to side with them to cut the funds or impeachment proceedings are initiated, then talk to me.

    Reality hurts, sane....but it is reality....Bush has more honor to support our troops and their mission then to worry about political threats of party destruction, poll numbers/approval ratings or the rants of the left...... and, yes you are right, I do respect that in a leader.

    Where are the left's leaders' results in advancing their agenda to get the troops home, sane?

    --- It's really funny how even the Republicans are having enough of BUsh , based on their meeting with him.
    They know he's ruining the party. Well everyone knows that except the blind ones like Cee and the other Olbyhaters.

    Also funny how common knowledge is either lost or or not available to the RW'ers at this site. ---

    I keep telling these here BUSHWIPE Loyalists;
    as Nov 08 approaches, every smart RW'er becomes a Neo-Raygun Repuglican running away from the stench of Junior, but they still are not saying *how* they will solve Junior's mess.

    "I AM A REAL RAYGUN REPUGLICAN!!"

    Chicken Blogger....just because you are wrong and I am right doesn't mean I am making excuses for anyone.....Give me a good argument and I would be glad to try and understand it and if you are right I will agree with you....But ad hominem attacks and paranoid ideas that I am someone else is useless....and you sound like LMAO (OZ Jr.).

    "The simplest way to understand Olbermann is to realize that he does not tell lies on Countdown. ALL he does on Countdown is tell lies. Every sentence is a carefully woven piece of propaganda that is infested with lies. The entire presentation of information by Keith is one big lie tied to together by lots of little ones with the fig leaf that he is just presenting a "snarky" take on the events of the day."

    Countdown in a "nutshell."

    "Your failure to make some very simple distinctions between private citizens operating in a private capacity with someone who is supposedly a professional and who is supposedly operating in a professional capacity"

    I did and do fail to recognize that the key distinction here is between "private" and "professional." So where does Cox fall on that list? Where do you? Everyone in this debate will want to play the side of the "private man" just wanting to hold the fire to the feet of those who should be held to a higher public standard. Why? So that they themselves can "go public" yet don't have to live up to the higher standard they are demanding. In effect, that is what both OW and KO are doing, OW with ten times the irony and less than half the justification.

    The proper distinction here is not between "professional" and "private," (???) as you have it, but rather between those who can command both the physical and rhetorical force of the state, and those who cannot.

    I have no problem with reasoned defense of government authority against the kinds of questions raised by those like KO that push as hard as they can against that authority. That would be a legitimate role and a good argument. It happens occasionally, to the credit of Cee and Cecelia. But it's pretty rare, and pretty clear that it doesn't happen without an extreme amount of effort to overcome the inevitable "this is Olbermannwatch" objection, that allows the resubstitution of the original strawman.

    My critique is against the idea that the reflexive opposition KO represents itself needs to be continually, reflexively, and offensively opposed, rather than the ideas adressed and defended. Say what you want, most of the content here is characterized by the notion that the messenger is so [immoral, irresponsible, ugly, stupid, gay, unprofessional, mean, dumb, conceited, etc, etc, etc.] that the message can be disregarded and ridiculed.

    It goes without saying that I do not take seriously the idea of the "MSM," as you people like to say, and it's massive power, and our need to police it or "hold it's feet to the fire." We need to "oppose the media" on behalf of the government, because it is the "fifth estate" and that is "speaking truth to power." O.K. Do you see how weird that would sound to the founders?

    There is so much talk about "the media" these days, and it's supposed distortion of the issues, that the issues themselves are burried and forgotten. All anyone talks about is wheather things are being spun the right way or wrong way. That is the heart of this site, what I so frequently object to, and what is so frequently misunderstood, as people invite me to leave-- or worse, to found a "FoxWatch" type site. This is the real flowering of relativism.

    "...The details of the supposed plot don‘t seem to hold together that well either, though that did not stop extensive and entirely credulous coverage on TV, the Internet, in print today. The men supposedly had plans to gain access to the base disguised as pizza delivery guys, then cut the power somehow, they, quote, “hit four, five, or six Humvees and light the whole place, and retreat without any losses.” And take the tape of yourselves practicing and have it copied at PhotoMat. In other words, the FBI has arrested six morons..."

    This is the exact quote. Hard to argue with it unless you intentionally misrepresent it...

    Mmmm.....have you read the US attorney's brief, blindrat......Your quote from Olbermann intentionally misrepresents it and hence....I don't need to argue with your quote because the representation of the details are inherently dishonest....Olbermann actually left out large portions of the known facts.

    "Again, these are for ENEMY COMBATANTS!!!!!....in the law....look it up! They seem pretty "habeas corpus"-like to my nonlawyer brain."

    None of those rights have anything to do with habeas corpus. Can the president declare illegal enemy combattants? yes. Is there any time period under which a CSRT hearing must take place? No there is not. That's a denial of habeas.

    You get your initial hearing if and when they say you do. That's why people sit at Gitmo and Bagram and wherever Padilla was for years and years with no charges or judicial review whatsoever, civilian or military. They are presumed innocent, and sit there. They have a lawyer, and sit there. They have a right against self-incrimination, and they are "coercively interrogated." Day after day and year after year. And there have been cases of people judicaially determined to be not guilty or for which the enemy combattant status was unwarranted being held for years and years.

    So no, sorry, there is no legislative guarantee of habeas corpus. You trust the president not to abuse this power. That's fine. I don't go for trust though, and I don't think there is a strong place for it in our system. I think it's already been badly used and damaged our country.

    cee,

    The usual nothing, my child. If you've got something to refute what I posted, post it...

    >But ad hominem attacks and paranoid ideas that I am someone else is useless....and you sound like LMAO (OZ Jr.).
    Posted by: cee at May 10, 2007 12:42 PM

    Wow talk about a heaping dose of hypocrisy and irony.

    Cee calls someone out for claiming he is someone else, then in the same sentence insinuates that very same person is someone else.

    It just doesn't get any clearer than that...

    Cee: Hypocritical AND paranoid.

    ...And those aren't levers someone is pulling Cee, they're strings...and they're attached to YOU!

    blindrat....I won't waste my time with your pathetic defense of Keith Olbermann's ideologically driven coverage....All I have time to do today is ask you to read the following and try to honestly tell me Keith Olbermann was accurate in your quote....

    http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/usduka50707cmp.pdf

    Especially pages 8-16...I know its a lot for you to read, blindrat....but try to inform yourself about the good work the FBI did in this case....even though Olbermann wants you to think it was so easy a cave man could have done it.

    The world of debate according to Cee:

    "...just because you are wrong and I am right..."

    "...if you are right I will agree with you..."

    Apparently, like the president, Cee is NEVER wrong.

    And Cee comes here preaching about the dangers of hubris?

    Hubris topped with hypocrisy is all you got...

    Again, OZ Jr......I must caution you about your reading comprehension....."sounds like" (my words) and "I think Cee is actually Sean Hannity" (Chicken Blogger) mean different things to even the below average reader. Do you know what a simile is OZ Jr?....

    Poor OZ Jr. (LMAO)....still only able to handle the "Little Golden Books" section at the local library.

    cee,

    You lied, young lady: You did waste your time. All the report did was confirm what Olberman stated...

    Interesting though, why didn't the FBI wait for the men to try to procure the grenade launcher? It might be helpful to see where it would come from...

    "You both seem to like him, that is your right...."

    Proof?

    I've only labeled KO AND Countdown as 'boring' and 'repetitive.' Do I have THAT RIGHT too?

    And, yeah, he's a HAM. And sometimes he's wrong, and sometimes he makes mistakes, and most of the time he is biased.

    I don't see him as a big threat to journalistic integrity as you do. At least not among the 'Cable News' landscape as it exists today.

    It's obvious your fear of KO comes from a deep seated partisanship. And I say that as a fellow conservative.

    And now back to the gratuitous insults!

    Again, OZ Jr......I must caution you about your reading comprehension....."sounds like" (my words) and "I think Cee is actually Sean Hannity" (Chicken Blogger) mean different things to even the below average reader. Do you know what a simile is OZ Jr?....

    Poor OZ Jr. (LMAO)....still only able to handle the "Little Golden Books" section at the local library.
    Posted by: cee at May 10, 2007 2:10 PM

    Perhaps you need to look up the difference between 'claims' and 'insinuates.'

    Poor Cee...Thinks he's 'all that' because he can now read at the 'ranger rick' level.

    Good for you Cee....your mind is still developing. That's nice to cee.

    Oh, for goodness sakes, you have not been "invited to leave". You've simply generated a "do what you gotta go" response to your constant announcements that you should leave or that you find it difficult not to leave.

    Frankly, these beefs just get so damn idiotic. The free speech mavens are always insisting that we must jump one hurdle or another in order to have the moral or logical coinage it takes to simply criticise a news jerk who wouldn't air an alternate opinion on his show if he were being held at gun point. Yet, here they are whining unimpeded on a site that isn't the public airwaves, wondering about what "Mr. Cox" and his motives for his purchased bandwidth and his possible plotted assaults on the fabric of the Bill of Rights...via bashing Keith Olbermann...

    In the meantime, the Founders themselves would have trouble clearing the hurdles they want us to jump in order to prove our legitimacy, all the while declaring that they are defending free speech and Olbermann's right to the airwaves, but not...and let us make this very clear... not.....defending Keith Olbermann, himself. Oh goodness no! They wouldn't do that. In fact to be credible enough to knock Olby... we must not behave like Olby!

    Ya think? And here we thought that fact about Olby was reason enough to criticise him!

    But no, in order to NOT be like Olby... who is not... good... we must also criticise FOX news...(If you don't watch it, you should start now, I suppose...).... We must criticise the Bush Administration in that we must see issues like the one about enemy combatants as Keith sees them...or maybe we can get away with just mouthing something that might sound properly alarmed enough to buy some legitimacy from our free speech champions here. I don't know?....Name that tune!

    Oh, it's not enough that no one is begruding their being here to argue the other side. No, no, no..... in order to have the moral authority to criticise Olbermann about his refusal to air more than one side, conservatives here must be.... reasonable enough... to occasionally side that way and argue for it too!

    If that's not self-referential enough for you, any notion of speaking truth to power to Olbermann and by extention the media power of MSNBC, is tantamout to arguing the side of the govt, rather than holding another sort of institutional power accountable for balance or for TRUTH. Oy! Who knew!.. Certainly not Joe Conason or Frank Rich in 1998!...

    Yeah, it's a shallow cable news...spin cycle world, folks, and our free speech champions are just as sad as they can be that we waste our time here talking about Olbermann and reading stuff written by us and reading stuff written by them, instead of defining our credibility by reading stuff written by them, talking about stuff written by them, and proving that we aren't completely demented righwingers by occasionally being reasonable enought to agree with stuff written by them...

    It's sad I tell you. Utterly and ridiculously sad.

    So let's wipe your eyes, everybody, and then let's get the hell past it.

    ANd typical OZ Jr. lies, again....my complete sentence was....

    "Give me a good argument and I would be glad to try and understand it and if you are right I will agree with you." What does the silly wizard say I said....

    "...just because you are wrong and I am right..."

    "...if you are right I will agree with you..."

    Wow....what a post....and only a few from the original.......OZ Jr. you are LIKE Olbermann (remember....I am using a simile.....I do not actually think you ARE Olbermann).

    I could be wrong, OZ Jr....its just that none of you (especially the great and powerful OZ Jr!) has been able to show me that I have been wrong about anyting....yet.

    "The simplest way to understand Olbermann is to realize that he does not tell lies on Countdown. All he does is tell lies on Countdown. Every sentence is a carefully woven piece of propaganda that is infested with lies. The entire presentation of information by Keith is one big lie tied together by lots of litle ones with the fig leaf that he was just presenting a "snarky" take on the events of the day."

    That statement is an outright lie....which makes the writer of that statement a liar.

    Is Keith biased?....Yes. Does he consistantly ande fairly present both sides of the issue?.....No. Is that unusual in today's world of cable news?...No.

    But presenting a statement like the one quoted above as fact simply because there may be a small shread of truth in there somewhere is in fact a LIE....making it's writer a far bigger liar than Olbermann ever was.

    blindrat is a very good name for you, blindrat....the Olbermann summary is not accurate according to the affidavit and to try to claim it is is silly, even for you.

    cee,

    Usually, when someone makes a statement, like you did, they tend to elaborate...

    Otherwise, you just look like a foolish little girl...

    But presenting a statement like the one quoted above as fact simply because there may be a small shread of truth in there somewhere is in fact a LIE....making it's writer a far bigger liar than Olbermann ever was.

    Posted by: Mike at May 10, 2007 2:40 PM

    So the dishonesty in that writer's statement has to do more with proportion than anything else?

    Could the disproportionality (your opinion) of that statement, in that you say it makes Olbermann less of a liar than that writer, be balanced out by the fact that Olbermann is on the air five nights a week?

    "So the dishonesty in that writer's statement has more to do with proportion than anything else?"

    It simply means that particular writer has long ago forfeited any credibility he may have otherwise had as an objective critic.

    I chose to spend as little time as possible showing all how wrong you were, again, blindrat by simply providing the link....

    ....Like I am doing now.....because the original statement of cooly passing out-of-hand believing Olbermann without any evidence as a valid approach was how this was all started. Blindrat, please, for the sake of your own sanity....take your pissing match somewhere where people enjoy such regalia...I'm not biting.

    cee,

    I accept your surrender...

    Oy....You really try too hard, blindrat....I'll place my nitrogenous watse where it belongs while you continue showing everyone here how self-deluded you are thinking micturition involves any talent or thought.

    cee,

    You can never work too hard to find the truth. You'll learn that when you get older, young lady...

    >>>Oh, for goodness sakes, you have not been "invited to leave".

    Of course I have. Quite a few times. As well as being invited to start an equally moronic "FoxWatch" type site, which tells me that my argument has not been understood.

    "Oh, it's not enough that no one is begruding their being here to argue the other side. No, no, no..... in order to have the moral authority to criticise Olbermann about his refusal to air more than one side, conservatives here must be.... reasonable enough... to occasionally side that way and argue for it too!"

    I can't tell if you are even talking to me here Cecelia, but you are uncharacteristically making no sense at all this time. I don't know what threw you into such a tizzy, but I've of course said nothing of the sort. What I've said, what I will continue to say, is that if you want to defend the administration, do it on the issues. Discuss the issues themselves, not how one-sided the questioners are. Olberman is a prosecuting attourney. You are defense attourneys. But your only defense is to say that the prosecutor is only presenting one side. To quote a wise woman, Ya Think?!!!?!

    Don't take Olbermann's side, take the administration's side, ON EVERY SINGLE ISSUE if you want-- and of course you will want, and that's great. Then we'll have a debate instead of the angry echo chambers that on their own both KO and OW represent.

    What's sad is when people who are above the level of cable news willingly lower themselves to it, as an inevitability. It isn't inevitable. You choose to make it that way and keep the stupid cable straw men front and center. And I choose to try and argue to take the stupid cable straw men out of it. I am comfortable with my choice and have a hard time believing you are comfortable with yours. But then people surprise me all the time.

    >>>In fact to be credible enough to knock Olby... we must not behave like Olby!

    A four year old will tell you that this is a truism, and yet I think you probably are trying to be sarcastic. Otherwise your reconstruction of my argument is so flawed and introduces so many things that I do not endorse that this is as far as I can go in addressing it. At least you didn't violate your rule by putting sentiments you wish I had expressed in quotes. It's got that going for it. I wonder why you didn't just use my actual statements.

    So the dishonesty in that writer's statement has more to do with proportion than anything else?"

    It simply means that particular writer has long ago forfeited any credibility he may have otherwise had as an objective critic.

    Posted by: Mike at May 10, 2007 3:04 PM


    I wasn't talking about the writer's statement, I was talking about how you characterized it as a lie that is so disproportional as to make Keith's lies small by comparision.

    Is that at all balanced out by Keith's airtime?

    Chicken Blogger that was a very long convoluted self serving way to say that you have nothing to back your rant up so you will just do what you usually do, throw out your usual rationale that others are bad evil people trying to destroy your America. You said:

    "I have no obligation to explain anything to you, Grammie or royalking, and I will not do so. You both envision an America wholly alien to me, an ugly place. Thank God it is not the America we have been given, and thank God there are plenty of Americans who are not knee-knocking cowards hiding in fear who will work to uphold are cherished and valued American principles. You lost your opportunity to turn America into a far right-wing wasteland. True, the page is not turned for 1 1/2 years, but it is pure denouement now. And, the book will go out of print. Again, thank God. I am not surprised the principles you so despise won out, they are far stronger than your hatred and fear. I am simply pleased, beyond words. America will remain America.
    Posted by: at May 9, 2007 3:37 PM "

    Of course you have no obligation to respond. And I have no obligation to refrain from asking you to defend, if you can, the points you made.

    So, I will ask again.

    You cited the constitutional premise of innocent til proven guilty as a basis for KO reporting this story as he did and your witholding of judgment.. I asked you to point me to the part of the constitution that I have , by your lights, been violating all these years. I still haven't been able to find anything there that obligates anyone but the judicial system.

    I asked for a fleshing out of what you meant by KO is properly WITHHOLDING JUDGMENT in the context of other recent stories he has covered.

    You must admit the three examples I gave represents a large variance of scenarios available to present withholding judgment coverage.

    Habius Corpus, a day in day out bludgeoning of GWB for months. When the final from the Supremes blows his judgment away, deep dead silence.

    Kidnapped Brits, a bare acknowledgment that the incident occurred, much less any judgment about it. When it was over, he finally spoke to it and included, did the White House blink.

    Imus, he mentions it but not in the context of his show. It's on a sports venue and is a liitle namby pamby. When Imus is taken down KO rejoices and let us in on the courageus, but responsible, way that he had been working for this all along.

    Grammie

    A four year old will tell you that this is a truism, and yet I think you probably are trying to be sarcastic. Otherwise your reconstruction of my argument is so flawed and introduces so many things that I do not endorse that this is as far as I can go in addressing it. At least you didn't violate your rule by putting sentiments you wish I had expressed in quotes. It's got that going for it. I wonder why you didn't just use my actual statements.

    Posted by: VOK at May 10, 2007 3:43 PM

    I've not misrepresented a thing you've said by paraphrasing you. That's something that you've done here in arguments too, by the way.

    You have indeed argued that we are like Olbermann in that we are pro-Bush mouthpieces whereas he is an anti-Bush mouthpiece.

    This proves that it's not about free speech because it's not enough that you are able to argue your views here in a way that Olbermann does not allow on his show. No, you argue that in order for us to have some credibility in criticising Olbermann, we must also AGREE with you occasionally.... more than occasionally?...you tell me...

    You often make the point that you are accused of supporting Olbermann and therefore of having no credibility, partly because you happen to agree with some of his contentions, now you argue that we lose credibility by not agreeing with Olbermann?

    This is almost as self-referential as your statement that we are "worse" than Olbermann (however you'd define that) because at least Olbermann is fulfilling his Constitutional role as part of the free press by criticising 'the man (who happens to be Republican), thus implying that the Founders would have held this as being inherently more valuable than the speech of private everyday joes criticising or championing anything or anyone they wished.

    I wonder how far that statement on behalf of O'Reilly would have gone over during the Clinton years. It's particularly ironic too, since Olbermann left his first MSNBC gig, The Big Show, because he didn't want to talk ins and outs about a congressionally appointed special prosecutor going after the highest govt official in the land...

    The bottom line is that this is a blog about Olbermann. You can come here and go elsewhere too You can talk and chew gum at the same time..... visit other blogs that never mention cable news personalities... I recommend a blog called JustOneMinute.com. Go there and debate without the strawman of Olbermann all you like. You will have to stay on topic there, but then nothing's perfect short of a blog VOK creates himself.

    We're going to talk about Olbermann here. This is, of course, not my blog, I'm a guest here too and my host has asked us to be cordial and civil lest we drive others away. So it's in that spirit that i say that I'm finished arguing that discussion of Olbermann or how Olbermann views curent issues on a blog called Olbermann Watch does not preclude credibility, legitimacy, or logic.

    Your decision to stay in an arena that you view in this way says everything that needs to be said about you and it.

    Cecelia rants:

    --- We're going to talk about Olbermann here. This is, of course, not my blog ---

    Ooooooh Bwooooovine!

    I am sorry to withdraw my nomination of BovineQueen as the site's Official Inquisitor.

    Cecelia ranks first.

    Take comfort, Bovine, you always can do a last minute fill-in!

    :D

    Awwwwww.....AAP. Thanks!

    "I've not misrepresented a thing you've said by paraphrasing you."

    Bwaaaaaaaaaaaahhahahahaha. What have you done with Cecelia? You are either a troll, or have had a stroke. I'll check back when you stabilize or Bob tosses your IP.

    "We're going to talk about Olbermann here."

    No you aren't. You are going to pretend to talk about Olbermann here. Be my guest. Why do you care what I have to say about your little project if it is so patently absurd and self-referential, and just, well, well, oooooooooo....?

    One might parenthetically note that you aren't required to respond to anything I say, nor does it in any way interfere with your own...whatever it is you're doing..."talking about Olbermann" I guess. Go right ahead.

    Hey this is Olbermannwatch, after all.

    One might parenthetically note that you aren't required to respond to anything I say, nor does it in any way interfere with your own...whatever it is you're doing..."talking about Olbermann" I guess. Go right ahead.

    Hey this is Olbermannwatch, after all.

    Posted by: Ipsos at May 10, 2007 5:44 PM


    Great minds think alike...

    But presenting a statement like the one quoted above as fact simply because there may be a small shread of truth in there somewhere is in fact a LIE....making it's writer a far bigger liar than Olbermann ever was.

    Posted by: Mike at May 10, 2007 2:40 PM

    Posted by a seasoned expert.

    "posted by a season expert"

    Not really....but certainly as 'seasoned' as anyone else here.

    " will say it again....Contitutionally, the Congress can only do two things.....

    Refuse to fund the operation
    Impeach and remove Bush/Cheney"

    You truly have a gift for thinking in black and white terms Lenny. It is one of your interesting (from a scientific viewpoint) qualities. Let me bring a few facts into the discussion.

    1) Congress has the support of the people in requesting a timetable for the troops (roughly 60%)

    2) When the topic turns to cutting funding for the troops about 20% SWITCH over to the other side and oppose it. (meaning 60% of the population is against withholding funds to end the war)

    This does create a bit of a congresional dilemna. Now you and I know that congress only has two legal options to immiedtly end the war. However that does not mean the entire population knows this. In fact, last time I meandered by, you posted a few polls demonstrating the Average American ignorance regarding what exactly congress could do to end the war.

    So where does that leave congress? They pass bills that they know the president will veto. Each time they do this, less informed americans might think something like "Hey, I'm for a timetable and he vetoed it. I'm going to wirte my congressman" This in turn puts pressure on Republicans in swing states who are (so far) staying with the president. Each time something like this happens it is going to be harder for them to stay with Bush. Eventually they will have a choice. Save the jobs (barring a dramatic turn around in iraq) or Stick with the president (and the rest of the titantic). Barring a miracle in iraq defecting Republicans should help end this war soon, without.

    1) impeaching Bush
    2) Cutting Funds.
    3) Praying to unicorns.


    See how things can work when you think outside the box?


    "In the meantime, the Founders themselves would have trouble clearing the hurdles they want us to jump in order to prove our legitimacy, all the while declaring that they are defending free speech and Olbermann's right to the airwaves, but not...and let us make this very clear... not.....defending Keith Olbermann, himself. Oh goodness no! They wouldn't do that. In fact to be credible enough to knock Olby... we must not behave like Olby! "

    You know, I think the most common argument conservatives run into on this site is something equivelent to: "What about Fox news!" Or "Bill O'Reilly" or blah, blah, blah.

    I can imagine it gets old, but Do you have any idea how incredbly easy it is to dismiss this site as nothing more than a partisan hatchet job? I mean you have a picture of keith being walked as a dog.

    That is fine if the goal here is carthisis (I get mine from the daily show). If the purpose of this site is just to get conservatives together and have fun ridiculing Olbermann it works fine.

    However, if the goal is to persuade anyone on the fence or leaning to the left, or anyone who already does not intensly dislike Keith Olbermann, you are most likely going to have start reporting in a way that is unlike what you are critisizing. If not everyone (not already convinced) is going to say "come on If Keith somehow did something to save the world these people would attack him."

    So i guess it really depends on what Bob's purpose is.

    Craigs sez:

    ---- So i guess it really depends on what Bob's purpose is.
    Posted by: craigs at May 11, 2007 3:37 AM ---

    Say Bob!

    You tell Craigs that your raison d'être is to hold K.O. accountable to those "high journalistic standards" you've taken upon yourself to defend.

    While at the same time, you get off on your petite guilty pleasures:

    Oh come on...that was funny. I liked how Matthews is smiling the whole time as he sticks the knife in. Priceless.
    Posted by: Robert Cox at April 27, 2007 2:38 PM

    I love the fact that I no longer have to put up comments saying "This is OLBERMANN watch" not "[insert OlbyLoon villain here] watch".

    Thank you loyal readers!
    Posted by: Robert Cox at May 9, 2007 8:44 PM


    olby@olbywatch.com

    Keith comments on stalker on Red Eye...

    "Keith Olbermann is the last person who should comment on someone being stalked," snipes a source inside ESPN. "While [Keith] was at ESPN, he went out with UCONN women’s basketball player Rebecca Lobo a few times, but it didn’t end there."

    According to our insider, Olbermann wouldn't leave Lobo alone once she decided she was no longer interested, and reportedly starting keeping tabs on her by monitoring her calls and persistently writing her notes.

    Says the tipster, "Lobo was close to taking out a restraining order against him, but spared him—and herself—the negative publicity that would have ensued."

    When he was working at MSNBC the first time around, he became fascinated by a producer named Jean who worked there. She was engaged to a lawyer but he called, pestered, and otherwise harassed her to the point that she too wanted to swear out a restraining order on him. He has a real history of this. And the whole sleeping with fans thing? Also not something that only happened once. Wake up fan girls, the real Keith's a creep.

    And I worked with him at MSNBC and Jean was a co-worker of mine and I know, as do plenty of others who I'm sure would be happy to back me up, what happened there with her. And I've since heard similar stories about him from NYC and L.A. And I'll take my first-hand knowledge any day (and that of the owner of this blog who also once worked at MSNBC) over what a fan girl read in a book.


    Sheridan (craigs)...

    You're an idiot.

    The reality is simply that ANY legislation the congress passes that Bush does not like will be vetoed and it will be upheld....Slowly shaving off public support by doing this every month or so takes time....I thought the war was lost? The troops must be brought home NOW? Why must your elite use the slow political process while people DIE? They do not use the effective route FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT.....HA....Your ruling elite have no spine to do what is required and that is just: do not give Bush the money.

    I laugh about you saying I may pray to unicorns (I don't) but at the same time really believe that the democrats are actually thinking of the troops well being in their actions.....they are not. If funding was unavailable, Bush would have to bring them home and they would begin withdrawl this summer....Instead, they lead by reading polls instead of sticking by their convictions (like Bush) and leave those poor troops at the mercy of the bad 'ol Iraqis in a civil war. That is reality, your leaders are not leaders, they are cowards, and Bush will continue to prevail despite the grasping at straws of reports of "meetings with scared congressional republicans."

    You see Sheridan....you think in black and white when it suits your primal prejudices.....there is no God/evolution is fact/those who believe in God are ignorant....ah...but you chastise me when I display the reality of IMPOTENCE of your left's leadership showing incompetence, shelfish political maneuvering and NO RESULTS (currently and for the next 3 months, Bush gets EXACTLY what he wants; more troops continue on to Iraq)....what a silly hypocrite you are, Sheridan.....The political compromise you seek (gray) is really a win for Bush....even benchmarks....because it gives the surge MONEY and time to continue to work....And if the generals feel after this surge it is not working and the Iraqis do not take this last opportunity to achieve self-sufficiency, then Bush will change policy.....His change will never be based on public opinion polls or the cowardly politcal manipulations of the leftist democrat party or the fear of republicans regarding losing their seats.....what a great leader....unlike LB Johnson, Carter, WJ Clinton, Pelosi, Reid and the others who could NEVER take a stand against possible PERSONAL political hurt.....aw, what poor weak little souls!

    Your "leaders" are not leaders but spineless ideologues who just want to maintain their personal politcal position to enact their leftist policies that persoanlly benefit themselves....fine....have at it. Bush believes in freedom, democracy and hope for the Iraqis and will continue to fight for it....if the leftists finally prevail like they did in the Vietnam era, so be it....we know what happened after that defeat and who was responsible......and what political results finally came home to roost.

    Sheridan....your religious faith in men and women who have no political courage even in the face of terrorism and loss of freedom is sad....just like anyone who would pray to a unicorn. Please reconsider where you place your trust.

    Cee,

    Craigs isn't an idiot, as I'm sure you're aware. He's smart as hell and one of the best here.

    That said, I have gotta tell you that this is your finest post. If you can judge people by their supporters, the president certainly has a deep and poignant recommendation in you.

    That hurt, I'm being called an idiot by a man whose favorite pastime is demonstrating his ability to commit logical fallacies.

    "The reality is simply that ANY legislation the congress passes that Bush does not like will be vetoed and it will be upheld...."

    Yes, and more Republicans will drop as the pressure increases.

    "Slowly shaving off public support by doing this every month or so takes time....I thought the war was lost? The troops must be brought home NOW?""

    First off congratulations, this is the first time I have actually seen you demonstrate understanding of the arguments you claim to refute. Shaving off support will take some time. it won't end things right away... and what is your point? Oh right "the war is lost and the troops must be brought home right NOW."

    Never has a statement demonstrated what an idiot you are more than this. Here is a news flash for you lenny. Not every single democrat feels that bringing the troops home right NOW is the thing to do. You act as though we are of a group mind on this matter.

    Some folks prefer a phased re-deployment followed by a gradual withdrawal. Some do feel the war is lost and the troops must be brought home now (you may have noticed these are the ones arguing for cutting the funds NOW). hell some are for not leaving at all (see Lieberman)


    "Why must your elite use the slow political process while people DIE? They do not use the effective route FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT.....HA....Your ruling elite have no spine to do what is required and that is just: do not give Bush the money."

    I love it, the ruling elite. What does that make a Connecticut born ivy league educated man who inherited his wealth from the family fortune? The ruling low-class? (that is an Antonym of elite)

    "I laugh about you saying I may pray to unicorns (I don't) but at the same time really believe that the democrats are actually thinking of the troops well being in their actions....."

    Plenty are thinking of the troops first. Plenty think we should end the war right now! Plenty think the option, your moronic ass ,acts like is the only course, is an unwise course that might have consequences worse than slowly ratcheting up the pressure, and Some are playing politics first.

    If I can link Republican lawmakers switching their opinions as the polls change will you agree that Republicans are not above playing politics first? Hell plenty of Politicians Republican or Democrat given a choice of saving their jobs or doing the right thing will choose saving their jobs. I am not holding Democrats up for sainthood many times I am choosing the lesser of two evils. Oh and you do chase unicorns.


    "they are not. If funding was unavailable, Bush would have to bring them home and they would begin withdrawal this summer...."

    Can we all let out a great big NO sh-t Sherlock. Again plenty of democrats prefer a phased less chaotic end to the war and think it is worth waiting for by ratcheting up the pressure. They think their might be risks to the troops by cutting funding.

    "Instead, they lead by reading polls instead of sticking by their convictions (like Bush) and leave those poor troops at the mercy of the bad 'ol Iraqis in a civil war"

    A) Sticking by your convictions in the face of reality changing makes you stupid as well as consistent.

    B) Politicians in general lead by polls (republicans too) Don't believe me? Watch how far the conservative nominee for president goes to the center once he is out of the primaries. Republicans right now are pandering to the most conservative of voters and their statements reflect that. It will change once the general election starts. (Because to get elected the need independents)

    "That is reality, your leaders are not leaders, they are cowards, and Bush will continue to prevail despite the grasping at straws of reports of "meetings with scared congressional republicans."

    No, if public sentiment changes and the polls show people in favor of cutting the funds watch how many "COURAGEOUS" Republicans jump ship and turn against the president. to vote with Democrats and save their jobs.


    "You see Sheridan....you think in black and white when it suits your primal prejudices.....there is no God/evolution is fact"

    I also think the theory of gravity is a fact. So yeah I guess I do think in black in white at times. I am not open minded to the possibility that space aliens genetically engendered us and put us here on earth, I am not open to the idea that the universe began as a great cosmic egg and so on and so on. I believe in science and the evidence is with me. (show me some evidence that Zeus got his head split with an axe and out jumped Athena and I might be swayed to that position) I am open minded to the evidence and the evidence is that evolution is real.

    "those who believe in God are ignorant...."

    No people who don't believe in evolution are ignorant. It is possible to believe in both.


    "ah...but you chastise me when I display the reality of IMPOTENCE of your left's leadership showing incompetence, shelfish political maneuvering and NO RESULTS"

    You have demonstrated nothing. as usual.

    "The political compromise you seek (gray) is really a win for Bush....even benchmarks....because it gives the surge MONEY and time to
    continue to work...."

    And it ratchets up the pressure, to start getting results. If he doesn't Public support will turn, Republicans will join with democrats and Bush will be force to end the war in their manner of choosing.

    "And if the generals feel after this surge it is not working and the Iraqis do not take this last opportunity to achieve self-sufficiency, then Bush will change policy....."

    What do you base this on? he has never done it yet. In fact he has a history of not Listening to generals and of not changing course when things don't work.

    "His change will never be based on public opinion polls or the cowardly political manipulations of the leftist democrat party or the fear of republicans regarding losing their seats....."

    Or of reality, or of logical considerations or anything of that kind.

    "what a great leader....unlike LB Johnson, Carter, WJ Clinton, Pelosi, Reid and the others who could NEVER take a stand against possible PERSONAL political hurt.....aw, what poor weak little souls!"

    Better than poor stupid souls.

    "Bush believes in freedom, democracy and hope for the Iraqis and will continue to fight for it...."

    That must be why they tried to set the acting government up in exile in power without general elections. Their firm belief in Democracy. I am sure the Iraqis must want us to leave within the year because of the belief in our ability to bring them democracy.


    "if the leftists finally prevail like they did in the Vietnam era, so be it....we know what happened after that defeat and who was responsible......"

    The people who got us involved in the disastrous war without a plan.

    "Sheridan....your religious faith in men and women who have no political courage even in the face of terrorism and loss of freedom is sad...."

    And praying to people who refuse to plan or think is as alarming as your penchant for hunting unicorns.

    "Craigs isn't an idiot, as I'm sure you're aware. He's smart as hell and one of the best here."

    Wow, thanks Cec, I'm really flatterd. Cee and I are just vinegar and oil and we seem to have a penchant for getting under each others skin.

    "Not every single democrat feels that bringing the troops home right NOW is the thing to do."

    Why not, Sheridan?....The war is lost, immoral, based on lies, killing people, making Cheney rich, destryoing our country, etc......all said breathlessly every time!

    Why?....political fear.....Once again you prove my point...This is not leadership, this is not honorable....needing 60% approval from a public more concerned about voting for the next American Idol shows lack of conviction, honor and confidence. Bush does what is right DESPITE the lack of wisdom of those who have grown impatient with a very difficult situation that needs to be concluded correctly.

    Sheridan, your "leaders" want 60% approval to cut the funding, they will never have it. They will not wear Bush down with fear and the few republicans that do decide to try to save their own hides will not total enough to over-ride his veto......

    Not funding the war is still the only way, the couragous way to bring about the change in policy you so desperately say needs to happen.....and they won't do it!.....They want a safe way for themselves and do not care about the troops.

    You have yet to show this is not the case....you instead make excuses for their impotence......the evidence by the way is the simple fact that there are more troops on their way to Iraq, they have a mission to follow and the Iraqi government is requesting they come.....The democrats have done nothing effective to change this reality, Sheridan.

    Your rationalization of cowardly conduct on the part of the democrats is very amusing, Sheridan. And your reply to my last statement (like most of your post),

    "Sheridan....your religious faith in men and women who have no political courage even in the face of terrorism and loss of freedom is sad...."

    ......says it all.....you do not try to show me how I am wrong about your leaders. Instead you use that lovely unicorn image again.....nice retort.

    Oh, and let me remind you.....The democrats in the house just have to do nothing....lack of action on providing the requested funds that would go to the war effort in Iraq would result in forcing Bush to redeploy the troops....and I am sure The Defense Department would be more than capable of doing it quickly, orderly and without difficulty.....Your argument there is stupid.

    They have the power.....they should use it if they really believe it is immoral that we are in Iraq, Sheridan.

    Pull the money....come on now....I thought this was important to you all there on the fringe left!

    That's great Cee! Ignore every point I made, then re-state your original points, with nothing to rebutt any part of my rebuttal, and complain about my retort.

    I'll just assume you are incapable of any kind of a rational debate (since you ignore every point that reflects badly on Republicans) and move on.

    "vinegar and oil"

    That is oil and water. Vinegar and oil go together quite well and are extra yummy on salads.

    Instead, they lead by reading polls instead of sticking by their convictions (like Bush) and leave those poor troops at the mercy of the bad 'ol Iraqis in a civil war. That is reality, your leaders are not leaders, they are cowards, and Bush will continue to prevail despite the grasping at straws of reports of "meetings with scared congressional republicans."
    By Dwiddly Dee Dwindly Cee

    Bush WILL NOT prevail. He's already said he's leaving the ultimate outcome in Iraq to the next president.
    After mistake , after mistake, after mistake all he can do about it is "punt" it over to the other team in 08'.

    As the generals and anyone with a brain knows, there will not be a military solution in iraq. It will have to be a political solution if any.
    Bush keeps going down that same failed tired old road, and stretching our military to the breaking point without anything to show for it , except needless casualities on both sides.

    We WILL eventually leave Iraq.That is a fact ! The people fighting in Iraq (mostly native Iraqis) will never leave. They frigging live there.They are the home team.

    For delusional souls like Bush and Cee and only a handful of others in this great nation of ours, thinking we're going to kill enough Iraqis to settle this civil war is folly.

    Moderate republicans( and the rest of the country) know this war is over and that Bush is bringing down the GOP party with his intractability, rigidity and inability to listen to common sense and reason. Something he has NEVER HAD.
    He continues to earn his "worst president ever" moniker !
    And Cee continues to beat that tired old horse.

    While I certainly think that the accord between the Democrats and George Bush over pending trade accords may be an important landmark, I was astonished that the New York Times made it the lead story this morning. It should have highlighted the far more consequential news that George Bush has finally backed down on the biggest drama of this decade -- namely the Iraq war.
    This president, who has for almost five years waved the bloody shirt of 9/11 at the Democrats to get his way on Iraq, capitulated on the issue of setting benchmarks to measure progress in Iraq. The Democratic Party brought him up short because they handled him the way they should have from the beginning of his administration -- as a bully, who can be beaten by an aggressive posture of pushing back. This they demonstrated most recently in the war funding bill they sent to him with timelines attached for withdrawal from Iraq. The Democrats lost the bill to a veto, but they reflected public opinion and ultimately have now forced our errant leader to retreat. Hopefully this will be the leitmotif for the Democrats for the final twenty months of the Bush era.

    It's amusing that after 6 1/2 years of failures from their president and party, Sharm, Cecilia and Cee haven't learned a single thing and keep backing anything right wing.

    Since they are going down with their ship, I will have my camera waiting to take a picture of their hats floating in the Atlantic !

    Since they are going down with their ship, I will have my camera waiting to take a picture of their hats floating in the Atlantic !

    Posted by: sane at May 11, 2007 6:48 PM


    I'll be in the utmost northern Atlantic Ocean region, so by all means take your camera and wait.

    Bush WILL NOT prevail. He's already said he's leaving the ultimate outcome in Iraq to the next president.
    After mistake , after mistake, after mistake all he can do about it is "punt" it over to the other team in 08'.


    Posted by: insane in the membrain at May 11, 2007 6:27 PM

    Be sure and send a letter of thanks to Kennedy, Murtha, Dinjee Harry, Pelosi, Turbin Durbin and Coward Clark for constantly undermining Bushs efforts to win the war.

    "They have the power.....they should use it if they really believe it is immoral that we are in Iraq, Sheridan."

    Class let us thank lenny for graciously taking the time to demonstrate the logical fallacy of False Dilemma.

    False dilemmas are common in politics. and are often hidden in rhetorical questions, and become akin to the fallacy of many questions, as in:

    Are you with us, or with the forces of racism and oppression?
    Are you a Republican or are you a Democrat?
    Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
    Either you support Gun control or you support murder.
    Either you cut off the funds, Impeach the president or you are not honestly against the war.

    The chooser is forced to decide between absolute commitment or absolute non-commitment. Thus, the possibility of compromise is discounted. Such absolutism is applicable in science and mathematics, in which problems can have one and only one solution, although it is still not necessarily valid (e.g., Do two and two make five or six?). In philosophy, however, there may be fewer absolutes than in other disciplines.

    So everyone take a moment to thank lenny for demonstrating this point. If you are confused and didn't get it don't worry lenny (CEE) will be happy to demonstrate the same fallacy in future posts.

    (In) Sane, that is an absolutely brilliant scoop!

    "Bush WILL NOT prevail. He's already said he's leaving the ultimate outcome in Iraq to the next president.
    After mistake , after mistake, after mistake all he can do about it is "punt" it over to the other team in 08".

    I can almost see the stories now. Bush admits he will step down in 2008 after his failed attempt to become Absolute Grand Wizard (just a little nod to Robert Byrd) Tyrannical Dictator for Eternity.

    Duh, I think that is the normal transition of power in our country from its inception, whether the same party retains, gains or loses any portion of its power.

    Grammie

    Oh, (In) Sane, I'll be at Pat O'Briens slurping oysters off the half shell while having Hurricanes with Grey Goose chasers.

    You are going to have to move fast but I have every confidence that you can do it.

    Grammie

    "Either you cut off the funds, Impeach the president or you are not honestly against the war."

    Finally, Sheridan understands my point about HIS advocates! Desipte all his unrealted blather about my advocate, BUSH, Sheridan finally addresses my point about the DEMOCRATS! Yes, Sheridan, my opinion and CONVICTION is the following.....In life and death/war and peace/these SERIOUS issues facing our country, people should use their resources to bring about what they see as just and moral....this is not an issue like trade, funding schools, social security or whatever....this is about a policy that results in men and women being placed in a combat zone.

    Our Constitution is clear who RUNS the military.....The Constitution is clear who appropriates the money.....working outside the confines of The Constitution through selfish political meanderings is the course of cowards....and the democrats have chosen this path for their own sake. Anyone who chooses to follow them makes the same choice...."my hide over the soldiers'." I don't mind political cover over lesser issues....but this is our foreign policy and it involves peoples' lives....Don't you understand?

    Timetables are going to be vetoed (you even admitted that the democrats know this and are using it as a political tool to wear down public opinion....nice, while people continue to be killed and more are being sent to Iraq)....However, these political machinations ALSO continue to send the wonderful mixed signals that will lead to defeat....This is why Vietnam was lost because over the course of YEARS, political manipulations by the left told the Viet Cong and The North they could win by attrition. You may want to interpret history differently, but this aspect of The Vietnam era is backed up by their very words....

    "The Wall Street Journal (August 3, 1995) published an interview with Bui Tin who served on the General Staff of the North Vietnam Army and received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975. During the interview Mr. Tin was asked if the American antiwar movement was important to Hanoi's victory. Mr. Tin responded 'It was essential to our strategy' referring to the war being fought on two fronts, the Vietnam battlefield and back home in America through the antiwar movement on college campuses and in the city streets. He further stated the North Vietnamese leadership listened to the American evening news broadcasts 'to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement.'"

    And it is now known that the congressional democratic leadership is taking their political orders from anti-war groups in DAILY conference calls....Slowly they try to cut the resolve of the American will to see Iraq to a good conclusion....this manipulation is morally wrong and repugnant...The policy should be clear and decisive....continue as recommended by the military and requested by the ally (The Iraqi government) or pull out as recommended by the democrats and 40-60% of polled Americans.

    I said it befire, the democrats nibbling at the edges of foreign policy is a disaster...the stand should be taken if their commitment to withdrawl is TRUE....stop talking about Bush in your rebuttals, Sheridan...it is a false argument as you try to change the subject. The Democrats, your ruling elite, have the power to get the men and women out of harms way quickly and safely.....and it is The Constitutional way.

    I will continue to repeat my argument because your silly responses attacking me or Bush or bringing up compromise that only serves selfish political ambitions shows how ignorant you are and how superficial your views are regarding life and death (I do like seeing that over and over again, though).

    Life and death decisions deserve serious actions that are intended to SUCCEED...not insure political comfort for a leader. Bush has handled the heat for his convictions, even as you say reality should have him change (a whole other argument)....So I can assume your convictions and those of the democrats are in line with reality so it should be even easier for them to do all they can to have their convictions proven correct.....

    They don't...MORE troops are going to Iraq today despite 5 months of a democrat majority...The democrats have funded this surge and will continue to fund it through September as the adults do the hard work in Iraq and come back to let us all know if progress is being made then.....mmmm, seems like that's what Bush said he wanted all along (Read his 1/10/07 speech....it includes the point that he would be using assessments of progress, aka, benchmarks)

    Poor, poor Sheridan, your convictions are not being defended properly....THE WAR IS GOING TO BE FUNDED....aw, sorry, dude. You may need to rationalize the result away in some kind of cognitive dissonance...I understand, don't feel too badly!

    As if you needed to know this....

    10:39 was my post....

    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

    "There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration?s policies in Iraq. Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back." NYT 1/28/07

    "I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam," George McGovern - NEWSWEEK

    "The chooser is forced to decide between absolute commitment or absolute non-commitment."

    Your words, Sheridan.....yes...Are you commited to the mission in Iraq and having the military pursue their presented strategy?

    I seem to remember anti-war protester's with signs reading....

    "Troops home now"
    "Peace not war"
    "Out of Iraq"

    They seem to be saying they want absolute commitment to an end to the war.....

    So, how does one accomplish the two opposite goals?....

    Bush is effectively arriving at his goal to continue the mission in Iraq.....How about those who oppose him?

    They are being political....just like in 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974 during another WAR.....Wars deserve so much more from leaders and I respect Bush for doing his part.....what about those dems? Commitment to their convictions?

    How about the 20% that you say are shifting between cutting the funds and requiring timetables according to those polls of American Idol watchers?

    Ah yes, "wisdom" that is totally different from eachother....who is succeeding in pursuing their wisdom?.....Bush or the democrats?

    The choice between commitment or non-commitment....your words, Sheridan....I really like your world-view's logic.....I sure would not want you in a foxhole with me as you struggle to choose between "commitment," and "noncommitment."

    I never knew there were degrees of commitment....will someone please explain this concept to me? In my marriage....what are the degrees of commitment to my wife?

    Anyone, anyone? Sheridan, OZ Jr. Mike, Chicken Blogger, sane? Anyone?

    Nice hole you're digging for yorself, Sheridan!

    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

    "There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration?s policies in Iraq. Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back." NYT 1/28/07

    "I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam," George McGovern - NEWSWEEK

    Update From Cee's War:

    Attack Kills 5 Troops in Iraq, 3 Missing
    By THOMAS WAGNER, Associated Press Writer

    2 hours ago

    BAGHDAD - Seven U.S. soldiers and an Iraqi army interpreter came under attack Saturday morning during a patrol in a Sunni insurgent stronghold south of Baghdad, leaving five dead and three missing, the military said.

    Cee, I agree completely with your assessment of the Dems letting their followers down. Not all of them, both the Dem leaders and their supporters, but a lot of them.

    One basis for that opinion is the months of rhetoric, or gleeful predictions, by both Dem supporters and the normal horse race aspect to coverage prior to the election.

    After the election and into the first few months the pages of the blogosphere were oozing with gleeful chortling that Bush and his war were coming down along with all of us stupid and evil Repugs. The MSM did their part with their coverage that emphasized how weak GWB was in the face of the election. The poster child for this view was the much ballyhooed win by antiwar Jim Webb over potential Repub presidential war supporter George Allen, while the comparatively subdued coverage of Joe Lieberman's (sp) victory concentrated on his name recognition and Repub crossover votes.

    I remember you and I had quite a few go rounds with Bobo and his cohorts as we started to point out that the Dems were playing around with everything except anything meaningful (their constitutional sphere of power) to enact their campaign rhetoric.

    Now we are discussing reasons the Dems have to make these promised changes slowly and carefully, which is the CYA of the Dem politicos and some Repub politicos. Exactly the position we took along with the underlying reason (in my mind) that there was no landslide because the shift in power was the result of very small margins of victory for a large number of seats that shifted to the Dems putting them back in power again.

    Grammie

    PS I see Chicken Blogger has designated you the sole author of the war, it is now 'Cee's War'. Gee, how will you ever raise your head again after being exposed for your dastardly role.

    Hey Chicken blogger....

    I am glad to see you are happy to see bad news from Iraq so you may use it as a rhetorical weapon on a blog....I see it all the time on the left's blogs....a macabre tendency to quickly use bad news as another brick in a faulty foundation....No, I am sad these men and women are faced with the challenge of facing terrorists and there are the same Amercans, like you, glad when word comes the terrorists have had success.

    Of course when there are victories in Iraq and here in American against the evil that is terrorism, the left, (example Keith this week with the Ft. Dix story) either ignore it or even disparage the accomplishment.

    Your words speak volumes, Chicken blogger. This conflict is no more than the argument over social security or taxes to you, just like Sheridan....political machinations with no results....No action behind your convictions and more troops continue on to Iraq to help these brave people sworn to protect you. Your democrats have been feeble in stopping the deployment of the very troops you cheer about in death today and you should include them in the first sentence.....

    Update From Cee's War:....

    No....UPDATE FROM AMERICA'S WAR:

    cee

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

    "There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration?s policies in Iraq. Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back." NYT 1/28/07

    "I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam," George McGovern - NEWSWEEK

    Hey Grammie, thanks for the concise reflection back....The people that cheered the '06 election results and cried "mandate" are no longer here to defend their positions.....Bob especially....Oh well. The politicians who direct the appropriations have so much to answer for for the past 5 months....Yet all I keep hearing from their supporters is that Bush is the menace....Well, hello McFly....the troops keep going to Iraq because Bush is doing exactly what he said he would do 5 months ago....And the legislature has chosen to do nothing to reverse the activity.

    If you also remeber, I made note of the small amount of anti-war protesters....Where have they been lately?....Polls are one thing, but the show of strength of conviction by taking time in a protest sure is lacking in this "movement" to end the war....Why has the left been so weak in showing large numbers of protesters so that decisive action would be taken?.....Because it really doesn't exist!

    A broken record....I know...but the attempt to use the slim change of majority in the legislature to turn the country 180 degrees in foreign policy has to be exposed for the FRAUD it is.

    BAGHDAD - Seven U.S. soldiers and an Iraqi army interpreter came under attack Saturday morning during a patrol in a Sunni insurgent stronghold south of Baghdad, leaving five dead and three missing, the military said.

    Posted by: at May 12, 2007 12:26 PM
    Earth to anonyloon, we are at war, this is what happens, believe it or not! Whatever you do, keep your face buried in the ap websites and old york times. Make sure your brain is nice and washed.

    The AP and NY Times tell nothing but lies according to Royala--hole.

    Could this turd be even more stupid ?

    If you also remember, I made note of the small amount of anti-war protesters....Where have they been lately?
    says the insufferable Bush Lapdog, Cee.

    As I pulled into my home town today in Highland Park NJ ( near New Brunswick and Rutgers)to visit my mother, there was a large anti Bush anti- war demonstation.
    All along Rt 27 were simulation of dead bodies incurred from Katrina and the Iraq War, caused by the incompetence and poor management of POTUS, Chimpy !

    There are small to large demonstrations all over this great land of ours plus the wrath of ordinary people over the failures of this president for Katrina and the Iraq War.( that you don't hear about )

    They ARE NOT blaming the Democrats for this war and Katrina b/c they know better.

    Keep dreaming Grammie, Cee and the rest of you delusional Republicans.
    When a Democrat is elected in 08', I can't wait for the excuses and spin that will be flying from your lying mouths.

    A broken record....I know...but the attempt to use the slim change of majority in the legislature to turn the country 180 degrees in foreign policy has to be exposed for the FRAUD it is.
    Posted by: cee at May 12, 2007 2:14 PM

    So a "slim change of majority"is supposed to turn the country "180degrees"?
    You basically answered your own question, oh blind one !
    Moderate Republicans met with Bush this week over their complete frustration with his rigid and failed policies in Iraq.
    They know he's ruining the party with his bunker mentality.
    You have 78% of the country , the democratic party and a chunk of moderate republicans against this Bush policy.
    ( Only the hard right will not budge and engage their empty craniums)
    You would think that an effective and flexable leader would listen to reason.
    Not this president.
    Should the Democrats cut all funds?
    Of course ! !
    If they don't , does that mean this failed Bush policy is on them ?
    That's what you pathetic Bush supporters would like to think, but it ain't going down that way !
    This is and will always be Bush's war until a Democratic president is elected in 08'.

    There will be no military solution in Iraq only a political one. All astute observers of politics know this, except Bush and Cee and the sheep here at this site.
    If a Republican is elected in 08'( slim to no chance) this monstrosity and failed war will continue with the same results: none !
    If a Democrat is elected, there will be a saner policy and a withdrawal from this nightmare.

    To think we're going to stop this civil war as an occupier is ludicrous at best, which is how I characterize the thinking of the OLBY haters at this site.

    Listen to the generals who know what they're talking about :

    General Batiste :
    We'ret coming to grips with the fact that we went to war with a fatally flawed strategy, flawed then in March of 2003, flawed today over four years later. This is all about a president who's relying almost solely on the military component of strategy to accomplish the mission in Iraq.

    Sadly, we're missing the diplomatic, the political, and the economic components that are fundamental and required to be successful. We have an interagency process that has been dysfunctional during this administration. There's no unity of effort between the agencies.

    If we don't get this right, we're going to break our Army and Marine Corps. And at this point in our history, that's the last thing we can do.

    The bottom line is, we have a failed strategy now, and our president has not mobilized this great nation to accomplish the critical work to defeat global terrorism. And until we get these two things right, we're wasting our time.

    As I pulled into my home town today in Highland Park NJ ( near New Brunswick and Rutgers)to visit my mother, there was a large anti Bush anti- war demonstation.
    All along Rt 27 were simulation of dead bodies incurred from Katrina and the Iraq War, caused by the incompetence and poor management of POTUS, Chimpy !

    Posted by: Bob at May 12, 2007 5:40 PM

    That's funny, this crap doesn't go on in my town. Then again, I don't think there are too many people on welfare aroung here.....

    Yeah...The Rutgers campus has a lot of students on welfare .
    ( and mostly Jewish upper middle class Highland Park too )

    Jeffrey, sticking his foot in his mouth ...again !

    Cee, that is Bobo alright. It was all our fault that when we took all his gloating and chortling over the 2006 midterm elections he REALLY MEANT the 2008 Presidential election year.

    Does Bobo have a secret device that buzzes when his name is taken in vain or has he been incognito all along?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

    Grammie

    Class lenny is back to demonstrate logical fallacies for us. If you could give him a round of applause for showing us debate examples for those who misuse logic, it would be much appreciated.

    "'Either you cut off the funds, Impeach the president or you are not honestly against the war.'"

    Finally, Sheridan understands my point about HIS advocates! "

    HAHAHHAAHA this is great! Lenny! I love this!! The above class was an example of the logical fallacy of False Dilemna. Otherwise known as black White thinking.

    I gave this example as an example of the kind of thinking that leads to errors in judgement. Lenny missing this, (after it was pointed out to him) has taken it as an affirmation of his postion and not for the error that it is.

    I also provided:
    "You are either with us or against us as an example" (clearly you can be against more than one group)

    "You are for gun control or murder" (Clearly you can be gainst gun control and murder at the same time"
    as examples.

    Thanks Lenny for emphasising the point.

    Timetables are going to be vetoed (you even admitted that the democrats know this and are using it as a political tool to wear down public opinion....

    I admitted some do. You are not thinking and therefore conclude that it means all do. I also pointed out some Republicans will jump ship when the polls tell them to. You ignored this. Finally you ignore that soe are aginst this war but thing a stopage of funds is more dangerous than waiting.

    "nice, while people continue to be killed and more are being sent to Iraq)....However, these political machinations ALSO continue to send the wonderful mixed signals that will lead to defeat....This is why Vietnam was lost because over the course of YEARS, political manipulations by the left told the Viet Cong and The North they could win by attrition. You may want to interpret history differently, but this aspect of The Vietnam era is backed up by their very words...."


    This is the closest to an actual argument you have made. It has nothing to do with your position that congress should end the war now (Which is as we have covered a complete and total fallacy) However i think it is false. I think Bad planning, De-Bathification, too small an initial force, overconfidence, arrogence and hubris are more likely the culprits in this war being lost. You can disagree I suppose however your leaders hurt your own cause in this by stating the war wold be a cakewalk, then crying about people being upset when it turned out not to be. Bush and company should have talked more about struggle and sacrifice instead of painting a rosey picture. Finally I think the debate is more good than bad to Quote Robert Gates"


    “But I think the debate itself, and I think the strong feelings expressed in the Congress about the timetable … probably has had a positive impact _ at least I hope it has in terms of communicating to the Iraqis that this is not an open-ended commitment,”

    Yeah...The Rutgers campus has a lot of students on welfare .
    ( and mostly Jewish upper middle class Highland Park too )

    Jeffrey, sticking his foot in his mouth ...again !

    Posted by: at May 12, 2007 6:21 PM
    Funny, again. I doubt if there are any Jews out there protesting against the war. Time for your next asinine remark, booby.

    Cee, that is Bobo alright. It was all our fault that when we took all his gloating and chortling over the 2006 midterm elections he REALLY MEANT the 2008 Presidential election year.
    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at May 12, 2007 7:11 PM

    Now you're telling me what I MEANT.
    Funny.
    I laughed at you for being wrong in Nov 06' and I'll laugh again when you will get your heads handed to you in 08'....which will invalidate AGAIN..all of your reactionary right wing views.
    BTW, I've never backtracked on anything I've ever said.
    Nice try, no cigar !

    Posted by: at May 12, 2007 6:21 PM
    Funny, again. I doubt if there are any Jews out there protesting against the war. Time for your next asinine remark, booby.
    Posted by: royalking at May 12, 2007 7:57 PM

    You keep digging yourself a bigger hole. Now you know the ethnic background of all the
    protesters !
    That absurd statement speaks for itself !
    IN a town with a 70% Jewish population, you've laid another egg .

    No Jews protesting the war ....

    Profound, unmitigated ignorance or crippling denial? The author's history would suggest the former.

    BTW, I've never backtracked on anything I've ever said.
    Nice try, no cigar !

    Posted by: Bob at May 12, 2007 7:58 PM
    What do you call posting anonymously to hide your id? Just because you have never backtracked doesn't mean anything except you aren't smart enough to know when you are wrong. Just because a town with a supposedly 70% pop (crock!) of Jews doesn't mean everybody, or anybody protesting is Jewish. The muslims hate Jews, remember, mr. historian?

    booby, 3 minutes of research tell me that there are a FEW liberal Jews that are anti-war loons. So there could have been 10 or 12 protesters in your hood.

    Bobo, two points for you.

    You said:

    "As I pulled into my home town....there was a large anti Bush anti- war demonstation.
    All along Rt 27 were simulation of dead bodies incurred from Katrina and the Iraq War, caused by the incompetence and poor management of POTUS, Chimpy !

    First, as a college 'Perfesser' surely you know that what happens in your minuscule postage stamp corner of the world means nothing unless it is part of a vastly, and I do mean vastly, larger phenomena. Hey, the last party I went absolutely everyone suppots the Battle of Iraq. With either 'proof' and four or five bucks we can both buy a cup of plain Starbucks coffee.

    Second point. Now you claim that:

    "I laughed at you for being wrong in Nov 06' and I'll laugh again when you will get your heads handed to you in 08'....which will invalidate AGAIN..all of your reactionary right wing views."

    Gee, I thought all along that you were laughing because your guys were going to win, which they did. But your most satisfying laughter seemed to be in anticipation of GWB et al being impeached, convicted and all their hideous policies being overturned when the new congress took office in 2007.

    Surely it was you who praised all the unprecedented actions of the new congress. You know, ethic bills, minimum wages and all that important stuff that was everything BUT impeachment and ending the war. And wasn't it you who continually brought up the overwhelming majority won by the Dems that was going to lop off the head of the GOP monster.

    No, Bobo, I think you have a very selective memory.

    Grammie

    Oh joy....Professor Bunsen Honeydew (Bob)is back (or at least identifying himself, now) to make more incorrect predictions.

    Again professor, why do I read that 5,000 more troops arrived in Iraq these last two weeks if the November election was going to stop this madness?....Like you predicted? Oh well, your ruling class on the left just doesn't seem to have the guts to do the right thing and stop funding Bush's madness....Or are you on the more politically practical side along with the deeply committed (sarcasm) Sheridan (craigs), who would rather cover political butts first before saving these young men and women from the crossfire of what you narrowly define as a civil war?

    Oh well....you guys talk to eachother and let me know what you come up with....just like Reid and Pelosi, you seem not to know what you believe or how deeply committed you are to the belief....so you fail to make any impact....Poor Professor Honeydew and Sheridan....I just don't know who will lead your sad little movement?

    Oh, and Sheridan.....you lie......again.....

    "I also pointed out some Republicans will jump ship when the polls tell them to. You ignored this."

    Posted by: craigs at May 12, 2007 7:43 PM

    Mmmm....the following preceeded you post....work on that will you, Sheridan?.....

    "Our Constitution is clear who RUNS the military.....The Constitution is clear who appropriates the money.....working outside the confines of The Constitution through selfish political meanderings is the course of cowards....and the democrats have chosen this path for their own sake. Anyone who chooses to follow them makes the same choice...."my hide over the soldiers'." I don't mind political cover over lesser issues....but this is our foreign policy and it involves peoples' lives....Don't you understand?"

    Posted by cee: at May 12, 2007 10:39 AM

    Obviously, you didn't understand. "Anyone" means...well....anyone....conservative, liberal, repub/dem.....I couldn't care less if The Congress votes unanimously for funding with timetables (in reality, Sheridan, you're not even going to get a veto-proof majority for such garbage law while Bush is in office)....I would bet my house that Bush would still exercise his contitutionally enumerated powers as the executive and defy The Congress' overstepping his authority to command the military....The only way to effect the action of the current executive is to NOT FUND HIS POLICY.....ain't gonna happen, Sheridan and you still do not address it!...The left is CHICKEN to do what their "beliefs" tell them must be done.

    Power, their own power, is more important to them than "saving the lives of the troops in harm's way."

    Even Professor Honeydew's (Bob) post says it all....he's already looking to 2008 for his political win.....What about those poor souls being sent to Iraq, professor?....While your leaders look only towards their own political survival IN OVER ONE YEAR, people are dying?

    You see the narcissistic, selfish and morally bankrupt philosophy that results from the left's world-view?....Nevermind the soldiers going off to war, as long as I can insure my political future, it's ok? I respect Bush's 32% approval rating because he does what he believes is right for this country, our troops and our allies...the Iraqis.....Your leaders do what is only right for themselves....the party....the left. And I will repeat...anyone who puts their political future in front of protecting the interests of The United States (no matter if they are anti-war or support the current policy) is wrong.

    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

    "There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration?s policies in Iraq. Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back." NYT 1/28/07

    "I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam," George McGovern - NEWSWEEK


    cee, bob is also "why do you care what my name is."

    The quote of the night from the deep thinker, humanitarian and loving Professor Honeydew:

    "Should the Democrats cut all funds?
    Of course ! !
    If they don't , does that mean this failed Bush policy is on them ?
    That's what you pathetic Bush supporters would like to think, but it ain't going down that way !
    This is and will always be Bush's war until a Democratic president is elected in 08'."

    Posted by: Bob at May 12, 2007 5:55 PM

    He, he, he....what a bankrupt plan for stopping an immoral war.....good luck with that one professor....your character runs about as deep as Clinton's.

    As the rabid left (the professor is a great example) gets louder and stronger the odds of a McGovernesque candidate running for the Dems in '08 gets better...Then I will be reassurred about who will be running the executive branch for the next 4 years! He, he, he.

    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

    "There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration?s policies in Iraq. Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back." NYT 1/28/07

    "I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam," George McGovern - NEWSWEEK

    booby, 3 minutes of research tell me that there are a FEW liberal Jews that are anti-war loons. So there could have been 10 or 12 protesters in your hood.
    Posted by: royalking at May 12, 2007 10:33 PM

    Stiill laughing at your ignorance and your ...ahem...expert analysis of Highland Park and your understanding of its residents.
    Are you kidding me ?
    You actually speak like you think you know what you're talking about !
    The Highland Park/New Brunswick area is awash with committed antiwar activists.
    A huge number being Jews.
    The limited time I monitor this site, I've never seen anyone so wrong, so often, as you Jeff.

    First, as a college 'Perfesser' surely you know that what happens in your minuscule postage stamp corner of the world means nothing unless it is part of a vastly, and I do mean vastly, larger phenomena.
    - Grammie

    You mean like the 70% of America who is dead set against this war ?
    Is 70% of the country a large enough phenomena for you?
    Your

    I respect Bush's 32% approval rating because he does what he believes is right for this country, our troops and our allies...the Iraqis.
    -The dimwit Cee

    Sure he believes it. And it's proven to be dead wrong !
    When you continue to make the same decisions and stick to your "beliefs" when shown to not be working or even possible, it's just a form of insanity !
    Bush has done what is best for the troops ?
    Just the opposite. He's put them in an untenable, unwinnable situation.
    He's pushed the military to the breaking point in his reckless, fanatical "vision".
    Funny you also say he's doing what's best for our allies, while our allies have abandoned him one by one with his insular singular thinking.

    "(Bob) post says it all....he's already looking to 2008 for his political win.....What about those poor souls being sent to Iraq, professor?....While your leaders look only towards their own political survival IN OVER ONE YEAR, people are dying?"

    What about the poor souls sent to Iraq?
    Now ain't that one of your most hypocritical statements ever ?
    If you cared a whit about our troops you'd be against this war.A civil war that is unwinable.Your political leaders are the masters of war and its proponents who send our troops to die in the Middle East and then wave their flags while the carnage bolsters and keeps alive the weapons merchants,the oil producers, the reconstructive corporations etc.

    As General Batiste has said, "Sadly, we're missing the diplomatic, the political, and the economic components that are fundamental and required to be successful. We have an interagency process that has been dysfunctional during this administration. There's no unity of effort between the agencies.

    If we don't get this right, we're going to break our Army and Marine Corps. And at this point in our history, that's the last thing we can do.

    The bottom line is, we have a failed strategy now, and our president has not mobilized this great nation to accomplish the critical work to defeat global terrorism. And until we get these two things right, we're wasting our time.

    This is not Abbie Hoffman speaking, or Michael Moore or you name your typical liberal punching bag....
    This is one of many life long military people who see the folly of Bush's policy and see how it's plain not working !

    You are a fraud to say you care our our troops' deaths, when it's people like yourself supporting the failures that have caused these deaths.

    You and Grammie's moral high ground is nothing but an anthill being eroded and starting to crumble.
    Your beliefs wouldn't be so pathetic if it weren't helping to cause the deaths over 100,000 people.
    Your cavalier way you wave off their deaths because a madman has "beliefs" is despicable and without honor.

    There is no available information nor previous or current evidence even hinting at a successful outcome of American involvement in Iraq.
    But let's keep sending more troops over to die right, Cee!

    One final word:
    Grammie says,"And wasn't it you who continually brought up the overwhelming majority won by the Dems that was going to lop off the head of the GOP monster.

    The Dems didn't have to. The George Bush did it for them !
    Thank you George. You FINALLY accomplished something !



    booby, the little time I have spent monitoring this site, I have never seen anybody so wrong. See, I can say the same thing about you, too! Ha, Ha! Just because you are supposedly a professor, doesn't mean squat, either. One of my clients is a professor at Stanford U and he is one of the biggest idiots I know,(when it comes to politics) as I have told him. Your ramblings sound a lot like his. Whats funny is you always spew all of these 'stats' with absolutely no proof.

    Jeff is so far out of his league with the Stanford prof and Bob, he's not even smart enough to know it.

    Bob:

    Cee, JH & rk think you're wrong. No better proof that you are correct. This trite troika hasn't be correct about anything since its members finally decided the Edsels they had bought were crap & were sickened that had wasted perfectly good Goldwater stickers on the bumpers.

    This is precisely what I was talking about, more spew, no proof. Thanks for confirming my point, anonyloon!

    No proof the dumb one says.

    Day in and day out people post "proof "( like tonight) and then Jeffrey disappears and instead of having the slightest shread of dignity to admit he's been bested or better yet, just slink away with his tail between his legs,he comes back flailing again.

    He's like that Monty Python warrior who gets his arm cut off, then his leg and then other arm but still insists he winning.

    I know this is all above your head, little one, but the rest of us just laugh at your mental deficiencies.


    Where's this proof, prick? Slink away, ever heard of work? I don't get ssi or welfare like you.

    England has a queen. Spain has a king.The USA has a court jester.
    This site has Ernest T Bass,( hillbilly/buffoon extraodinaire ) otherwise known as the ROYALKING !

    That's what I thought, no proof. Thanks lil coward.

    Oh Jeffrey.....someone on another page just kicked your ass with proof, AGAIN.
    Hurray, go look !

    "The other page" that's what I thought, you just keep lying. You got nothing, as usual. Now run along to media matters or the puffer.

    Check the proof of US torture deaths, moron.
    Don't be afraid to go to the other page.

    Jeff will now slink away, or come back swinging..and of course...missing.

    "There is no available information nor previous or current evidence even hinting at a successful outcome of American involvement in Iraq.
    But let's keep sending more troops over to die right, Cee!"

    This is what your democratic leaders are supporting, Professor Honeydew....By providing funding, your ruling elite support the continued playout of a policy that, according to you has failed, will continue to fail and would fail anyway.... Mmmmm....your opinion on the first part of that statement, but what I post is the FACT. You seem to like to talk about Bush a lot (like Sheridan) instead of the leftist rulers in The House and Senate because you simply can't face the fact that you (and Sheridan) along with the democrats are playing games during a war that deserves decisive action......

    I posted, back in January, the same exact words.....the ONLY way the democrats can successfully stop the deployment of troops in Iraq is to use the tool the founding fathers gave them....cut the funds....I am being proven right. I also said they would not do it because they would be afraid of public perception.....I am being proven right again. You just can't face the fact that no one on your side has taken (or will) take decisive action to end the war. I ASKED that these remedies be taken and I get this blowback from people like you, professor, saying its all Bush......You're lying....the funding must come from Congress and if it continues through 2007 like it did early in Nixon's term for The Vietnam Conflict along with the continued carping from the left..it will have a devastating effect on the war effort.

    You even said it yourself....the funds should be cut......They aren't and your leaders in Congress are responsible for it.

    Poor Professor Honeydew....Being anti-war in a world where your leaders only care about their own political lives must be frustrating? I know it is for me because when the very same people supported the Iraq war I trusted them to see it through....and they turned on their own convictions and try to blame Bush for their own failures.....

    Again, appropriations MUST originate from The House of Representatives....PLEASE STOP THE MADNESS FOR THE PROFESSOR'S SAKE!!

    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

    "There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration?s policies in Iraq. Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back." NYT 1/28/07

    "I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam," George McGovern - NEWSWEEK

    We have to understand that for the feeble-minded "proof" means only those facts and arguments which support Bush's position. Even unassailable physical evidence and classically logical constructs which in any way cast doubt on Bush's moral and intellectual qualities or which fail to unqualifiably support his policy pursuits are the products of some unpatriotic, treasonous left wing cabal against this great and glorious leader. These people live in a very, very small black and white world whose Constitution is this website and whose leader is Falafel the Magnificent. We should be pleased they can all gather here and and bang their feet against the bottoms of their hydrotherapy tubs. That makes the real world safer for all of us.

    Hey, a reference to Fox News (#1) and Bush in one post. More evidence of a 'feeble' mind. Thanks 'anonyloon.'

    The morally challenged Cee continues to not take responsible for supporting a failed policy that sends our troops to die in a unwinnable civil war.
    Another one who can't take a good look in the mirror.
    Blame the Democrats and try to cast attention away from the architects of this war and people like you THAT WANT A FAILED POLICY TO CONTINUE.
    You can run but you can't hide.

    You also continue to ignore General Baptiste and a host of other Joint Chiefs who say the same thing as me.
    This war has only created more terrorists, broken our army and not accomplished anything but unnecessary deaths of our troops and innocent iraqis.

    You also continue to use the faulty point that we're there to help the Iraqis , when they don't want us there.So another totally moot point of yours is shot down again.

    Trying to pin this war on the Democrats is not working in this country, as you probably know, but it won't stop you from having diarrhea of the mouth.

    Keep ignoring reality and the facts, and we'll keep ignoring you.

    "You even said it yourself....the funds should be cut......They aren't and your leaders in Congress are responsible for it."

    Again totally ignoring 99% of the Republican Party and yourself which makes you a considerable hypocrite !

    "The bottom line is, we have a failed strategy now, and our president has not mobilized this great nation to accomplish the critical work to defeat global terrorism. And until we get these two things right, we're wasting our time."

    General Baptiste

    http://defendamerica.mil/

    Read this for some REAL facts, booby.

    yes, our retired generals and our current Joint Chiefs don't have the facts.

    As someone said last night...another (((((swing ))) and a miss by Jeff.

    Welcome back Bob. It's good to have another voice of reason around here.
    Grammie, Cee, Brandon and Royala--hole etc. are still in denial...
    why they lost in November,
    why Bush's poll numbers keep dropping like a stone,
    why the Iraq war keeps losing support,
    why America has lost total credibility in the world etc.

    They are truly the lunatic fringe part of this country, and should be treated as such !

    Cee, I just read your post and got a mental picture of Bobo caught, evocative music and swirling cigarette smoke, in the Twilight Zone of his own making.

    "Even Professor Honeydew's (Bob) post says it all....he's already looking to 2008 for his political win."

    Rod Serling says it is the year 20,008. Bobo (it is my script so I get to pick the name) wished too hard for too many years for the Dems to not only regain power in the NEXT election but to then DESTROY Beowulf (the evil and stupid Repubs). He wished himself right into that eternal political CYA circle known as the Twilight Zone. Evocative music and eternally swirling graphic.

    Grammie:)

    RK, you said Bobo was incognito using Why Do you etc. But I noticed this very stiking similarity to our earlier Bobo from Gopers latest post::

    "Welcome back Bob. It's good to have another voice of reason around here.
    Grammie, Cee, Brandon and Royala--hole etc. are still in denial...
    why they lost in November,
    why Bush's poll numbers keep dropping like a stone,
    why the Iraq war keeps losing support,
    why America has lost total credibility in the world etc.

    They are truly the lunatic fringe part of this country, and should be treated as such !
    Posted by: The GOP is a disease at May 13, 2007 11:54 AM "

    The visual aspect of his posts virtually always looked like someone typing his response on a typewriter using the return key plus using short sentences one after the other with no blank line to set off paragraphs.

    Crafty little devil, isn't he. Has several styles and can use them all fairly well. Maybe that is his ultimate problem. He devotes so much to chicanery he can only perform his one trick over and over.

    Grammie :)

    "According to Gallup's monthly update on job approval of Congress -- in a March 11-14, 2007, national poll -- 28% of Americans approve of the job being done by Congress and 64% disapprove."

    http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26914

    booby, hows that democratic congress holdin up? This is 2 months ago, it's even lower now!


    Janet, that's him, too. Mike likes responding to his own posts as well, can you say 'cuckoo?' Happy Mothers Day, Janet!

    Thanks for the good fight, Bob. Not a chance any member of the Trite Troika will ever admit that they or their puppeteer, Falafel the Magnificent, will ever admit it is possible they have led us over the edge of a cliff, but as we begin to see the strings being pulled, we are all enlightened and enriched.

    I imagine you'll be silenced soon since you don't walk the line, but your voice is refreshing and rings true. Amazing how free speech so firghtens some.

    LMAO! Posting under several different names (fraud,like philby) touting the same thing over and over again is a 'good fight?' Responding to his own posts? Pretty lame, to say the least. Defending the defenseless can't be easy, though.

    Defending the defenseless can't be easy, though.
    ---
    We will all have to take your word on that. You are the unqualified expert of defending the defenseless. And, talking about repetition! You repeat more than Episcopalian after a curry dinner. I suppose you must enjoy the sound of your voice. I'm glad someone does.

    I suppose you must enjoy the sound of your voice. I'm glad someone does.

    Posted by: at May 13, 2007 3:05 PM

    This, coming from someone that responds to his own posts!

    This, coming from someone that responds to his own posts!

    ---

    Your ignorance never fail to amaze me.

    A clue for the clueless: SYNTAX.

    Ignorance tends to be contagious. Just look how it has spread throughout this Administration. As such, I say: Be done with you! Go howl at the moon with the other loons.

    Having only had time to look at this blog 1 time since Friday, I see Jeff (RoyalKing) is STILL accusing me of "responding to my own posts", something I have NEVER done.

    Now, I see he has just accused LMAO of posting "under several different names", as well as "responding to his own posts".

    Jeff, do you EVER get tired of wallowing in your own stupidity?...And showing it off to the world?

    Now, I see he has just accused LMAO of posting "under several different names", as well as "responding to his own posts".


    Wrong, mickey. LMAO means laughing my ass off, LMAO is now referred to as LAMO, in case you haven't noticed. So, to correct you, as I often am forced to do, I didn't accuse Lamo of responding to his own posts. How bout that Olbermahn calling YOU a moron? Gotta love that.............

    The olbyhaters love to dig into these conspiracy theories of anyone having more than one identity.
    They really are a sad pile of sh-t !

    I've seen the Olbylovers throw out the same accusations.

    Coulter cleared: More questionable Republican BS

    Conservative pundit Ann Coulter has been cleared of allegations that she falsified her Palm Beach County voter's registration and voted illegally — this, after a high-level FBI agent made unsolicited phone calls to the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office to vouch for Coulter. The caller wasn't just any G-man. According to PBSO documents, he was Supervisory Special Agent Jim Fitzgerald, of the FBI Academy's Behavioral Analysis Unit in Quantico, Va. — the closest reality gets to the serial-killer catchers on CBS' Criminal Minds.

    Very fishy indeed…

    "Oh well....you guys talk to eachother and let me know what you come up with....just like Reid and Pelosi, you seem not to know what you believe or how deeply committed you are to the belief...."

    Lenny, try to make sense. you may not be aware of this but in the excutive branch if president Bush decides something he has the support of the entire excutive branch.

    Congress works a little differnt Pelosi doesn't just snap her figures and everyhting falls her way. So your point about Democratic disagreement is not very smart. Chuck Hegal and mcCain don't agree on much either.


    "Oh, and Sheridan.....you lie......again....."

    How did i lie, you are implying that EVIIIL Democrats are all doing this. You can't even bring yourself to mention that Republicns do it too. But that is not what bugs me. What bugs me is that you never seem tire of thinking in pure black and white terms. The mere idea that Democrats might take other considerations into account before voting to cut the funds does not register with you. I have to ask are you not getting this arguement?

    "Our Constitution is clear who RUNS the military.....The Constitution is clear who appropriates the money.....working outside the confines of The Constitution through selfish political meanderings is the course of cowards....and the democrats have chosen this path for their own sake. Anyone who chooses to follow them makes the same choice...."my hide over the soldiers'." I don't mind political cover over lesser issues....but this is our foreign policy and it involves peoples' lives....Don't you understand?"

    The constituion also lets congress pass bills and the president has to sign or veto them. Congress is under no obligation to send a bill the president likes. i disagree completly with you position that you have which is to cut the funds or you are not against the war. (However feel free to write to your congressman if you feel that strongly about it) because their are other factors it is honarable to consider. for example: If a someone thinks the war is wrong they might think the best course for getting out is to have a gradual drawdown, if you cut the funds it will stop the war completly this is not a gradual drawdown and could have consequesnes. Why is it that you are incapable of even understanding that their are scenarios in which a person is against the war and against the results of cutting the funds. Why is it that you cannot comprehend that over five hundred congressman are bound to disagree on the best course to achieve a goal?


    This is what draws my ire not the fact that you disagree with the democrats it is that all you can mange to do is attribute evil motivations to them. That is very simplistic thinking lenny.


    Obviously, you didn't understand. "Anyone" means...well....anyone....conservative, liberal, repub/dem.....I couldn't care less if The Congress votes unanimously for funding with timetables (in reality, Sheridan, you're not even going to get a veto-proof majority for such garbage law while Bush is in office)....

    We shall see.

    "I would bet my house that Bush would still exercise his contitutionally enumerated powers as the executive and defy The Congress' overstepping his authority to command the military...."

    The constitution gives congress the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying" out the war power.

    Bush would be breaking the law if he ignored a law passed by congress regarding the conduct of the war and that is certainly grounds for impeachment.


    "The left is CHICKEN to do what their "beliefs" tell them must be done."

    Lenny just for a day try thinking in something less than stark black and white terms. I could for example say "If te right really wants to fight terror they shoudl grow some balls and go into to pakistan and get Bin laden"

    Which is of course pretty simple thinking because I am throwing the entire plitical right into one psotion when there are many others. I have avoided this. Why don't you see if you are capable of it?

    "Power, their own power, is more important to them than "saving the lives of the troops in harm's way."

    So if Republicans are using fear to stay in power by harping on 9-11 every waking minute and starting a war that has nothing to do with the larger war on terror all to win an election then PUTTING the troops in harms way is more important to them than power! (See how fun black and white thinking is!!)

    "Even Professor Honeydew's (Bob) post says it all....he's already looking to 2008 for his political win.....What about those poor souls being sent to Iraq, professor?....While your leaders look only towards their own political survival IN OVER ONE YEAR, people are dying?"

    And again you act as though because someone is against the war they must be for any means neccasary to end it regardless of whatever consequence that particular action causes... Not real smart Lenny.


    "You see the narcissistic, selfish and morally bankrupt philosophy that results from the left's world-view?...."

    Again Pure black and pure white thinking. This is the sign of a personality disorder and you should really see a shrink about it. I could say: You see how the republicsn use fear to seize power, how they put troops in harms way for the selfish motivation of getting power, How they screma we have enemies then denounce those who would play peacemaker as traitoer?" I've avoided all that because while that sort of thing does hapen I think people are a little smarter than that. See if you can manage it lenny.

    "I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam," George McGovern - NEWSWEEK

    "leave the political evolution of Vietnam to the Vietnamese" Henry Kissenger

    "I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam," George McGovern - NEWSWEEK

    "I don't give a damn" (about civilians killed by U.S. bombing.) Richard Nixon

    "I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam," George McGovern - NEWSWEEK


    You're so goddamned concerned about the civilians and I don't give a damn. I don't care." Richard Nixon

    Poor Sheridan....You once again repeat the same inane arguments and then I will repeat my same correct arguments and nothing is accomplished.

    BTW....."Borderline Personality Disorder is what you think you're talking about.....I am about as borderline in my thinking as you are insightful (despite what Cecelia says).

    I will say it one more time, Sheridan.....The policy of President Bush continues forward.....untouched by the democrats WHO PROMISED A DIFFERENT DIRECTION IN IRAQ when they took over as the majority in Congress. R-E-A-L-I-T-Y.

    My simple prediction in January has been proven correct and as time goes on, ineffective political grandstanding will continue to show how pathetic the left is morally, philosophically and intellectually.

    By the way, Sheridan....I know the left is bankrupt based on the history surrounding that very quote from McGovern you seem intellectually feeble in understanding or dealing with.....

    "I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam"

    Do you know the context of the quote, Sheridan?.......Educate yourself:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/29/AR2006122901070.html

    Yes, the American left abandoned millions of people in South Vietnam to their (the American left) pals in the north for years of demicide and "re-education"....Friends and allies abandoned for the sake of political power domestically.

    Will we do the same to the moderate muslims, Christians, Jews, Kurds and millions of others in Iraq?

    Did we do it to the South Koreans?

    Your convictions of friendship, honor and fidelity seem to run just about as deeply as Mr. McGovern's and the rest of his ilk (Professor Honeydew included).

    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

    "There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration?s policies in Iraq. Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back." NYT 1/28/07

    "I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam," George McGovern - NEWSWEEK

    Cee sez: "Do you know the context of the quote, Sheridan?....educate yourself:

    And why Cee, do you keep repeatedly ramming a quote up our noses with incorrect context?

    From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/29/AR2006122901070.html

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

    Where was George McGovern, Sheridan?
    Where was Tip O'Neill, Sheridan?
    Where was Senator Kennedy, Sheridan?
    Where was Senator Byrd, Sheridan?
    Where was Tom Hayden or Jane Fonda, Sheridan?
    Where were any from the left who were so wise about Vietnam since LBJ abandoned his duty to his country in 1968? Why didn't they face those they left behind?

    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

    "There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration?s policies in Iraq. Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back." NYT 1/28/07

    "I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam," George McGovern - NEWSWEEK

    Oh, dear Mike.....McGovern's world-view was the problem then and it is the same problem on the left now.......And that short quote sums up his problem (and your's) nicely!

    Sorry Cee, YOUR worldview is the problem NOW. It is only taking us in farther and farther down the wrong road, getting more and more Americans killed, creating more and more ill will towards us around the world, and raising the potential for terrorism exponentially almost daily....and solving NO problem whatsoever.

    But thanks for proving you are actually capable of making a post without ramming your favorite out of context quotes down everyone's throats in every post.

    Mike....You are deeply mistaken....

    My world-view is a minority one, it has no representative in political power here or anywhere in the world, and I am glad it doesn't. In fact, my world-view has never been embraced by any political leader, civilization or country. And I wouldn't have it any other way. If my world-view was (or had been) actually thought of as wise by any secular politician, I would know I was wrong in my beliefs. (I Corinthians 1:18-25)

    No, I choose between the lesser of two evils and have been doing so since I was able to vote in 1988.

    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

    "There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration?s policies in Iraq. Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back." NYT 1/28/07

    "I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam," George McGovern - NEWSWEEK

    What am I mistaken about Cee???

    It is also very comforting to to see you confirm that your worldview is derived largely from Biblical passages. It does make it much easier to dismiss them.

    I am also well aware that your worldview is not monolithic with most Evangelicals these days. While I am not an evangelical myself, several of my immediate family members are as devoutly Christian as anyone possibly could be....and I am proud to say they do not share your delusional views at all.

    I see you were unable to dispense with the silly and meaningless quotes for long.

    cee, mickey has nothing but Bush hatred bottled up inside him. The only view he sees are Ulbermahns, NPR's, media matters and what ever other left wing hate sites he keeps his face buried in.

    "Poor Sheridan....You once again repeat the same inane arguments and then I will repeat my same correct arguments and nothing is accomplished."

    You mean you post the same logical fallacy and I make fun of you for it.

    "BTW....."Borderline Personality Disorder is what you think you're talking about.....I am about as borderline in my thinking as you are insightful (despite what Cecelia says)."

    I said black and white thinking is the sign of a personality disorder (although not enough to make that diagnosis) Borderline is a personality disorder.

    "I will say it one more time, Sheridan.....The policy of President Bush continues forward.....untouched by the democrats WHO PROMISED A DIFFERENT DIRECTION IN IRAQ"

    better rightthem a strongly worded lenny if you want them to pursue your course of action.

    My simple prediction in January has been "proven correct and as time goes on, ineffective political grandstanding will continue to show how pathetic the left is morally, philosophically and intellectually."

    There you go black and white thinking again. You don't have problems with relationships as well do you?

    "By the way, Sheridan....I know the left is bankrupt based on the history surrounding that very quote from McGovern you seem intellectually feeble in understanding or dealing with....."

    Right i guess nixon's I don't give a damn about civiliian casulities really give you the high ground.

    "The point is, we have to realize that if we lose Vietnam and the summit, there's no way that the election can be saved" -- Richard Nixon

    leave the political evolution of Vietnam to the Vietnamese" Henry Kissenger

    You're so goddamned concerned about the civilians and I don't give a damn. I don't care." Richard Nixon

    "I'd rather use the nuclear bomb," - Nixon

    "Yes, the American left abandoned millions of people in South Vietnam to their (the American left) pals in the north for years of demicide and "re-education"....Friends and allies abandoned for the sake of political power domestically."

    Yes, knowing the war was lost and escalating in an attempt to not be the party to blame was very american of Nixon.

    I see you were unable to dispense with the silly and meaningless quotes for long.

    Posted by: Mike at May 14, 2007 9:23 PM
    Funny how would see cee as quoting one of yours as "silly and meaningless." That quote cee posts on a regular basis speaks volume of the liberal mindset.

    Great....I address someone who actually DOES have a brain (Cee)....and I get answered by someone who doesn't (Jeff).

    "Funny how would see cee as quoting one of yours as 'silly and meaningless.' That quote cee posts on a regular basis speaks volume of the liberal mindset"

    So Jeff does this quote speak volumes about the conservative mindset or is it just you?

    "You're so goddamned concerned about the civilians and I don't give a damn. I don't care." Richard Nixon

    Great....I address someone who actually DOES have a brain (Cee)....and I get answered by someone who doesn't (Jeff).

    Posted by: Mike at May 14, 2007 9:34 PM
    Having your constant lies and hypocrisies pointed out by someone w/no brain can't be good, can it mickey?

    Cee has a brain? Where did he/she/it/they get it? When?