Buy Text-Link-Ads here
Recent Comments

    follow OlbyWatch on Twitter

    In

    John Gibson Welcomes Back the Infamous, Deplorable Keith Olbermann

    Philly wrote: Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. It's not shingles that makes you a ... [more](10)

    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 23, 2007
    Countdown with Keith Olbermann - May 23, 2007

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

    Host: Keith Olbermann

    Topics/Guests:

    • IRAQ WAR SHOWDOWN: EJ Dionne, Washington Post columnist and Brookings Institution senior fellow; Dana Milbank, Washington Post national political reporter and MSNBC political analyst

    This from Newshole: SPECIAL COMMENT TONIGHT: "COMPROMISED"

    Keith Olbermann will deliver a Special Comment tonight on the "compromise" struck between the Democratic leadership and the White House over the latest troop funding bill...

    Here's a preview...
    "The Democratic leadership has, in sum, claimed a compromise with the Administration, in which the only things truly compromised are the trust of the voters, the ethics of the Democrats, and the lives of our brave, and doomed, friends, and family, in Iraq.

    You, the men and women elected with the simplest of directions - Stop The War - have traded your strength, your bargaining position, and the uniform support of those who elected you… for a handful of magic beans."

    SPECIAL COMMENT: "COMPROMISED"

    Official transcript


    5) Keith just can't seem to decide what to believe. During his recent Molly Ivins speech he conceded he was willing to admit there was some terror threat - except when anyone in the U.S. government does something about that threat. Today's example, Bush is "selectively" declassifying intelligence to foster "fear" by "claiming" that al Qaeda wanted to use Iraq as a base of operations for attacks on the U.S. mainland.

    To recap the President's claims it apparently did not occur to Osama bin Laden that Iraq could be used as a safe haven until nearly two years after the Bush administration had paved the way by removing Saddam Hussein and installing chaos, the terrorists cited by Mr. Bush other than Osama bin Laden are all dead or in U.S. custody.

    Ummm. Actually, that's not what he said but not to worry since Keith's Kossacks won't know the difference anyway and it SOUNDS good. It's not WHAT Keith says....it's how he says it that's so SCARY!!!

    E.J. Dionne joins Keith and begins by quoting FDR's "only thing we have to fear" speech completely out of context. In 1933, FDR was talking about financial panic induced by a lack of confidence in the U.S. economy. In that case, FDR's speech made perfect sense. Today, when Bush is talking about the threat of terrorism, he is not talking about "confidence" but the REALITY that there are people hell bent on killing as many people as they possibly can to impose their warped vision on the world.

    See the difference, Keith?

    Hey, Keith slipped in the old "CIA disbanded the bin Laden unit" canard even though his own guests exposed that OlbyLie when it first served. Does Keith even listen to the answers to his own questions?

    To wrap things up with Big Show vet Dionne, Keith slams the President for having too many plans for Iraq. Wasn't it just a few months ago that he was slamming Bush for not having a plan? Not be willing to change direction? Not listening to Baker-Hamilton? Jeez. How many sides does a fence have on OlbyPlanet?

    Surprise, the L.A. Times found a couple troops who said something that sounded like they were not excited about the "surge".

    Dana Milbank delivers the first real howler of the evening:

    ...if they are surprised they shouldn't have been surprised...look even we've been discussing this for a couple of months that this is likely where it's going there were all signs that the Democrats were going to make their point and then cave in which is exactly what they did.

    Really? That's funny but I've been watching Countdown every day for the past couple of months and I don't recall ANY such discussion happening between Keith Olbermann and Dana Milbank or any other guest on the show. Mostly what we've heard is how Bush is up against it, that maybe he is irrelevant, that he is going to have to negotiate, that his own party was turning on him, that maybe it was like when Goldwater went to Nixon. I just don't recall these discussions about how the Democrats were full of it and Bush was going to get what he wanted at the end of the day.

    #4 Gonzo-Gate. Keith kicks things off with a Monica (Goodling) joke much to the delight of the laughing stage hand. I watched some of the Monica Goodling testimony myself and there is nothing good to say about her and the fact that she got the job she held. She is so unqualified for her position that she is convincing even me that Gonzales needs to leave.

    Oddball - Orangoutangs, old Indian wrestler

    Newsmakers - homeless cliff dweller, naked tourist in Germany, Al Gore/Harry Sheaerer hilarity.

    #3 - Canned report from Andrea Mitchell on naval exercises in the Indian Ocean near Iran.


    #2 Rosie v. Hasselback on The View

    Keith too traumatized by childhood to comment on shouting match between Rosie O'Donnell and that other woman.

    Keebing Tabs - TomKat baby news, Dancing with the Stars

    WPIW - executed guy, Devil Ray looney, Virginia (Keith says "the government of" but what he actually means is the "people of" since the people elect the people who make the laws he does not like).

    SPECIAL COMMENT: "COMPROMISED"

    Official transcript

    OW Transcript:

    Few men or women elected in our history executive or legislative, state or national, have been sent into office with a mandate more obvious or instructions more clear "Get us out of Iraq". Yet after six months of preparation and execution half a year gathering the strands of public support translating into action the collective will of the nearly 70% of Americans who reject this war of lies the Democrats have managed only this: the Democratic leadership has surrendered to a President, if not the worst President then easily the most selfish in our history who happily blackmails his own people and uses his own military personnel as hostages to his asinine demand that the Democrats "give the troops their money". The Democratic leadership has agreed to finance the deaths of Americans in a war that has only reduced the security of Americans. The Democratic leadership has given Mr. Bush all that he wanted with the only caveat being not merely meaningless symbolism about benchmarks for the Iraqi government but optional meaningless symbolism about benchmarks for the Iraqi government

    The Democratic leadership has, in sum, claimed a compromise with the Administration, in which the only things truly compromised are the trust of the voters, the ethics of the Democrats, and the lives of our brave, and doomed, friends, and family, in Iraq.

    [turn to Camera 2, inhale slowly, pause then continue]

    You, the men and women elected with the simplest of directions - Stop The War - have traded your strength, your bargaining position, and the uniform support of those who elected you… for a handful of magic beans.

    You may trot out every political cliche from the soft soap inside the beltway dictionary of boilerplate sound bites of how this is the begining of the end of Mr. Bush's carte blanche in Iraq. About how this is a first step. Well Senator Reid, the only end at its beginning is our collective hope that you and your colleagues would do what is right, what is essential, what you were each elected or re-lected to do beacuse this first step is a step right off a cliff.

    And this President. How shamefully would it be to watch an adult hold his breath and threaten to continue to do so until he turned blue but how horrifying it is to watch a President hold his breath and threaten to continue to do so until innoncent and patriotic Americans in harm's way are bled white. You lead this country, sir? You claim to defend it? And yet when faced with someone calling on your stubborness, your stubborness which has cost 3,431 Americans their lives and thousands more their limbs you Mr. Bush imply that if Democrats don't give you the money and give it to you entirely on your terms the troops in Iraq will be stranded? Or forced to serve longer? Or what, have to throw bullets at the enemy with their bare hands? It is moronic.

    We have defunded wars before sir and this isn't even close to a true definding. No harm has come to our troops/ How transcendently, how historically pathetic. Any other President, from any other moment in the panorama of our history would have, at the outset of this tawdry game of political chicken declared that no matter what the other political side did he would ensure personally first, last and always that the troops would not suffer. A President, Mr. Bush, uses the carte blanche he already has not to manipulate and overlap arriving and departing brigades into a second surge but to say in unequivocal terms that if it takes every last dime of the monies already allocated if it takes reneging on government contracts with Halliburton, he will make sure the troops are safe even if the only safety to be found is in getting them the hell out of there. Well, any true President would have done that sir. You instead used our troops as political pawns, then blamed the Democrats when you did so.

    Not that these Democrats who had this country support and sympathy up until 48 hours ago have not earned all the blame they can carry home. We seem to be very near the bleak choice between war and shame Winston Churchill wrote to Lord Moyne in the days after the British signed the Munich Accords with Germany in 1938, "My feeling is that we shall choose shame and then have war thrown in a little later."

    That's what this is for the Democrats, isn't it? Their Neville Chamberlain moment before the Second World War. All that's missing is the landing at the airport with the blinkered leader waving a piece of paper which he naively thought would guarantee "peace in our time" but which his opponent would ignore with deceit. The Democrats have merely streamlined the process. Their piece of paper already says Mr. Bush can ignore it with impunity.

    And where are the Democratic presidential hopefuls this evening? See they not that to which the House and Senate leadership has blinded itself? Judging these candidates based on how they voted on the original Iraq authorization or waiting for apologies for those votes, that is ancient history now. The Democratic nomination is likely to be decided tomorrow. The talk of practical politics, the buying into the President's dishonest contruction "fund the troops or they will be in jeopardy". The promise of tougher action in September is falling not on deaf ears but rather falling on Americans who already told you what to do and now perceive your ears as deaf as closed to practical politics.

    Those who seek the Democratic nomination need to for their own political futures and with a thousand times more solemnity and importance for the individual futures of our troops denounce this betrayal vote against it and if need be unseat Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi if they continue down this path of guilty fatal acquisensce to the tragically misguided will of a monomaniacal president.

    [turn, look left into camera 3]

    For ultimately at this hour the entire government has failed us Mr. Reid, Mr. Hoyer and the other Democrats have failed us. They negotiated away that which they did not own but had only been entrusted
    by us to protect our collective will as the citizens of this country that this brazen war of lies be ended as rapidly and safely as possible. Mr. Bush and his government have failed us they have behaved venemously without dignity of course, that is all at which Mr. Bush is gifted. We are the ones providing surprise or shock here. With the exception of Senator Dodd and Senator Edwards, the Democratic presidential candidates have, at least so far, failed us. They must now speak and make plain how they view what has been given away to Mr. Bush and what is yet to be given away tomorrow and in the thousands of tomorrows still to come because for the next 14 months the Democratic nominating process, indeed the whole of our political discourse until further notice has with the stroke of a cursed pen become about one thing and one thing alone. The electorate figured this out six months ago
    the President and the Republicans have not, doubtless will not. The Democrats will figure it out during the Memorial Day recess when they go home and many of those who elected them will politely suggest that they stay there and permanently because on the subject of Iraq the people have been ahead of the media, ahead of the government, ahead of the politicians for the last year or two years or maybe three. Our politics is now about the answer to a briefly worded question. Mr. Bush has failed. Mr. Warner has failed. Mr. Reid has failed.

    So, who among us will stop this war? This war of lies. To he or she fall the figurative keys to the nation. To all the others Presidents and Majority Leaders and candidates and rank and file Congressman and Senators of either party-there is only blame… for this shameful, and bi-partisan, betrayal.


    Posted by Robert Cox | Permalink | Comments (419) | | View blog reactions
    user-pic

    419 Comments

    American forces also disclosed nine more deaths, raising to 20 the number of U.S. troops killed in four days.

    The spike in American deaths and the discovery of the bodies come at a difficult moment for Washington, where the Bush administration and Congress are struggling to agree on funding for the unpopular war. The search for the captured soldiers has also taken thousands of troops out of the pool of forces for the Baghdad security crackdown.

    I'm sure millions of viewers will bypass the American Idol finale to watch Olby give his blistering (cough) Speshul Komment about the useless Dem Congress.

    Do you think he will use the words "Sir" to refer to Harry and "Ma'am" to address Nancy P? I can hear it now, "How could you, Ma'am?" Oh wait - this one is about uberlefty Dems. Never mind.

    R. Cox: Are you going to be recapping the Special Comment verbatim, or are you going to just brush it aside?

    Obama,

    If you like to become a contributor to Olbermann Watch just say so. You are more than welcome to join the team.

    Naw. I just want to know, given the recent cut-backs in this website, what you will be doing. The Mat 18th Countdown episode summation was just to get back at E. Schatz and yesterday's summary was just incase E. Schatz was commenting & you commented ... but you did a terribly fast job. So I put up mine. Then some little brat got all in my face for something ... but that is about it ... just wondering, today ---

    Olby is preaching to his loony left audience again. The liberals are in an uproar over their leaders' desertion of the very issues that won them control of the House & Senate. Check out Daily Kos or Democratic Underground and the like. They are ready to hang some fellow-Dems over this. I'd like to see Olby have the balls to disagree on an issue that 99.9% of his audience DID NOT agree with. That's the day I'll believe he's not just doing this to goose is ratings.

    If you think the Left is Olbermann's draw, you are a bit of a nitwit, Brandon. As a proud-to-be, card-carrying, new jerk Left Winger of the ACLU, Amnesty International. NAACP, Green Peace sort, I can assure you Olbermann is considered a mere amusement, a bofoonish charlatan, someone to pause on as one is surfing. It would take an Extreme Right Wing lunatic to believe otherwise with no discernible or credible proof. Extreme Righties just think any disagreement is a threat and have to blame someone or something. What a shame for all of you the Eastern Empire imploded and you can no loonger hope to find a Commie under your bed.

    "... traded your strength, your bargaining position, and the uniform support of those who elected you for a handful of magic beans."

    But, Keith, if the beans are really magic... just think of the possibilities!

    One can only hope Keith is as calm and reasoned tonight as Rosie O'Donnell was on "The View" this morning while debating Elizabeth Hasselback (or course, Rosie's actually on a show with opposing points of view):

    http://newsbusters.org/node/12956

    Love this site but Johnny dollar MUST be brought back! Hell, I'll chip in a few bucks if needed. The recaps that last few weeks have been pathetic!

    Olby's going to blame all of the Dems' failings on George Bush and company, as usual. They were duped by a Rovian plot. Yeah, that's the ticket.

    Clucker, you made some very strong statements with absolutely no backup.

    If I am to accept the premise that I am an "I can assure you Olbermann is considered....a bofoonish (sic) charlatan, It would take an Extreme Right Wing lunatic to believe otherwise with no discernible or credible proof. Extreme Righties just think any disagreement is a threat and have to blame someone or something." who hopes in vain " to find a Commie under your bed." I have to invoke Ronald Reagan to "trust but verify".

    Based on your statement there has to be 'discernible or credible proof' of your position that we "Extreme Righties just think any disagreement is a threat". And obviously, according to you, KO is immaterial to anything and everything.

    Although I completely agree with you that KO is a nonentity, I would like to know who you consider to be material and give us some examples of their reasoning and philosophy. Surely a man of your caliber and character would not expect others to argue against ghosts when you alone obviously know who these others are.

    Grammie

    Clucker: " I can assure you Olbermann is considered a mere amusement, a bofoonish charlatan, someone to pause on as one is surfing. It would take an Extreme Right Wing lunatic to believe otherwise with no discernible or credible proof."

    Ya, we shouldn't fling unproven assumptions and opinions around! Good point!

    Clucker: "Righties just think any disagreement is a threat and have to blame someone or something."

    Oops.

    wow! Tuesday's numbers:

    The O’Reilly (Malkin) Factor – 1,502,000 viewers (400,000)

    Countdown w/ Olbermann – 517,000 viewers (139,000)

    3-1 margin with a guest host = special comment time! yippy!!!!!!!!!

    Olby's numbers were also beaten in total and slaughtered in demo by 2 doc block episodes that aired later Tuesday.

    So all of the troops in Iraq are now "doomed," Olby? Way to support our fighting forces, you dolt.

    The "Rosie vs that other girl segment was hilarious." I can't believe he tried to defend her, he probably sympathizes with her 911 conspiracy views. I also thought it was hilarious that he said "Fox noise" are the only people saying Rosie was calling the US armed forces terrorists, apparently he missed Hardball where Chris Matthews said the same thing and attacked the fat lesbian vampire bat.

    Special comment time - I thought this was about the Dems - but no, he's off on "Mr Bush, sir" - another ratings ploy - the numbers are down

    Duck - he's starting to spit

    You knew Olby couldn't spit out this Speshul Komment "condemning" the Dems without a healthy dose of Bush-bashing.

    Bush=Hitler
    Dems=Neville Chamberlain at Munich for caving in to Bush.

    Ho hum, more boilerplate (I was half-expecting Keith to either announce his own candidacy for president, or to add a blast at Mike Mussina for that pitching performance against Boston last night).

    What about Mrs. Pelosi? Didn't she fail as well, Olby?

    The deplorable one, "Our troops are doomed." I wonder how a soldier packing his bag getting ready to go to Iraq would feel if they heard him say that. What an idiot, to say the least.

    Yep, it's all so simple.

    We pull out of Iraq and the war is over.

    Everyone will go home. Iran, Syria, al-Qaeda.

    The former Baathists will lay down their guns and live in peaceful bliss with their Shi'a brothers.

    And we all live happily ever after.

    "As a proud-to-be, card-carrying, new jerk Left Winger of the ACLU, Amnesty International. NAACP, Green Peace sort, I can assure you Olbermann is considered a mere amusement, a bofoonish charlatan"

    Bullshit. I call false-flag operation. This is a conservative ripping on KO.

    "Bullshit. I call false-flag operation. This is a conservative ripping on KO."

    Gee, you think so?

    You should be working for Scotland Yard, my friend.

    Posting on blogs is just not using your great detective skills properly.

    Where are all the commentors who predicted KO would never go after the democrats? How about the ones who said he wouldn't rag on Hillary, his favorite?

    Its the WAR dummy!

    While no one will say with certainty the Surge will work (in fact, the Administration seems to be acting as if it knows it will not during the last couple of days), we can say, without any doubt, that our unending presence in the a civil war zone will mean:

    (1) Dozens, scores, perhaps hundreds of additional American troops will die.
    (2) Hundreds, perhaps thousands of additional American troops will sustain serious injuries.
    (3) Hundreds, perhaps thousands of American families will be torn apart.
    (4) Billions and billions of dollars will be borrowed to finance a debacle which our children and grandchildren will struggle to repay all their lives.

    Thank you Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Gonzales, McConnel and Republicans in Congress. Your have served us honorably and wisely.

    Thank you (some) Democrats for enabling these folks.

    Who knows? The way the Administration was back-tracking today (except, of course, the Blusterer blowing at the Coast Guard Academcy), maybe they didn't want this. Maybe they want wanted an excuse not to have to continue. Perhaps, wishful thinking, but we're seriously talking about Baker II and the UN. If that had been done timely, we would still have a couple of hundred of America's best with us. Of course, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Gonzales, McConnel, et al, don't give a damn. As long as they can continue with the lights and mirrors.

    Where are all the commentors who predicted KO would never go after the democrats?

    Which commentator said that?

    Every commentator predicted that his criticism of the Democrats would be from the left. That is, they weren't challenging Bush enough or going after him enough or being leftist enough.

    KO would never criticize the Dems for being too harsh on Bush. Only of not being obstructionist enough.

    "Thank you (some) Democrats for enabling these folks."

    And you think if we leave, the war will be over?

    Iran and Syria and al-Qaeda will just pack up and leave.

    No more war, no more bloodshed in Iraq.

    Whatever happens there will have no effect or consequence to the US and pro-democracy forces in the region.

    Going after the democrats? Go to DU. He's parroting everything that's said there and at Kos. He's just rallying his base which strayed from him for a week or two and the numbers are down.

    Now that Keith is going after the democrats, all his critics who said he would never do that...what do they do? Why all they say now are things like he's just "parroting DU".

    For Keith, it's been about the war from the beginning....and it continues to be about the war....'liberalism' has little or nothing to do with it.

    And you think if we leave, the war will be over?

    ---

    I've yet to come across anyone who says that or believes that to me the best policy. Remaining is wrenching, and possibly pointless, but leaving cold-turkey is not possible. We have been put into a tragic, dangerous, untenable situation by an Administration which lied to get us into a war of choice and then bungles the exeuction of the war. Still, we are in one of those adult situations: someone discerning the least objectionable policy and seeing it through. What a weak hand has been dealt us by this Administration! Maybe when it finally and thankfully ends we can begin to pull out of the sloggy waste. We can pray.

    banty rooster, thanks for bringing all of your daily kos/puffington post/fringe far left talking points to olbermann watch. That's the 9 millionth time we've heard everything you posted. Great thanksed......

    "which lied to get us into a war of choice and then bungles the exeuction of the war. "

    Okay, I'll bite.

    Give me one statement by Bush before the war regarding Iraq that he knew was false?

    Just one. That was a demonstrable, provable falsehood?

    Clucker, I have yet to see any proof that our staying will maintain more stability than our leaving. Thats what they keep saying, but I don't necessarily believe it.

    Yes, tt's even possible that our leaving might create MORE stability than there is now with out presense. We just can't prove otherwise.

    Those that keep saying we are 'Stuck' there are probably just as wrong as the idiots who led the charge to take us in there in the first place.

    "For Keith, it's been about the war from the beginning....and it continues to be about the war....'liberalism' has little or nothing to do with it."


    Huh, the war in Iraq only? You watch the same Olbermann I do?

    How about his views on the threat from radical Islamists?

    And the treatment of enemy detainees?

    Habeas corpus?

    Access to civilian courts for terrorists?

    His nonsense about the recount in Ohio?

    I'll stop here.

    "Give me one statement by Bush before the war regarding Iraq that he knew was false?"

    It's the "incompetence is OK" defense again....I love that one!

    Just one. That was a demonstrable, provable falsehood ....

    ---

    For the love of all the Marys, the RODS. That's only the most obvious, the most readily proven lie. Complete, total fabrication. The full list would take us all night, and you know all the lies.

    Support the Occupation and our involvement in the Civil War if you must, but don't act like Bush didn't lie repeatedly. The True Believers are few indeed these days, and I don't think Barney can use a keyboard or voice recognition.

    "I have yet to see any proof that our staying will maintain more stability than our leaving. "

    You think if we leave now, there will be GREATER stability in Iraq?

    Iran and Syria will cease disrupting things? They'll just leave and won't continue - unchecked - their support for surrogate forces?

    And al-Qaeda will just pick up and leave as well?

    And exactly what history of the behavior of radical, anti-western Islamists supports your view?

    Funny, Mr. 'changeyournamewitheverypost', I have the same views as KO does on just about everything you just mentioned, and just about all of it has a direct connection with "the war".

    Yes, tt's even possible that our leaving might create MORE stability than there is now with out presense. We just can't prove otherwise.
    ---
    More than likely, you are correct. I just can't be certain.

    I am just so sickened by the carnage that I may not be thinking as clearly as I ought, and I don't think even one (1) more American life lost is worth it. Remember, "Paris is worth a Mass." Well, "Iraq is not worth a lost American life."

    Those in the Administration, the Congress and on the site who treat American life so cheaply stun and amaze me. How did our nation end up with such people? When did we become kamikazi worshippers?

    "For the love of all the Marys, the RODS."

    Bush knew that the aluminum tubes weren't designed for the nuclear program?

    Bush HIMSELF was told that they were for conventional weapons?

    There is absolutely no friggin evidence that Bush knew the aluminum tubes were for conventional weapons and lied about it.

    The debate about the tubes took place within the intelligence community. Some said it was for a nuclear program; others said it wasn't.

    But Bush - like any president - cannot ascertain what the tubes were for.

    Just like Kennedy with the Cuban Missile Crisis, a President only gets to see the finished intelligence product.

    Try again.

    Anon 10:43, "exactly what history of the behavior of radical, anti-western Islamists supports YOUR view?"

    The people predicting regional kaos if we leave are the very SAME people who thought going in there was such a great idea. Doesn't THAT make you think a little?

    and just about all of it has a direct connection with "the war".

    Moving the goal posts, are we?

    First, you said that for KO the entire dispute was about the Iraq war.

    Now, it's "just about all of it".

    Which is it.

    I change my name as often as you change your apologies for Olbermann.

    Since everything that GWB et al said about Iraq was said long before by Clinton/Gore et al (includes intelligence networks from diverse countries around the world) and long after by virtually every high ranking official here and abroad at what point did it all become a lie?

    Anyone?

    Grammie

    There is absolutely no friggin evidence that Bush knew the aluminum tubes were for conventional weapons and lied about it.

    ---

    How wonderfully naive you are. Such a simple life must be a joy. Would that I not have to spend so much time reading, analysing, making informed judgments! How much better to be on a tube in the river with a beer in hand belching out snap decisions. I envy you.

    Olbermann is indeed parroting the views of his liberal looney base. The liberal websites/blogs are livid at their Democratic "leaders" at the moment. When Olbermann actually expresses an opinion that is contrary to his fan base and what is being said at Kos, DU, Talking Points memo, etc, then I'll believe he's a "fair" "journalist" (yes quotations on both), and that he's "blasting" the Democrats. He's not. He's just repeating what they're pulling off the liberal looney leftist websites. Same ole' same ole' for Olby who has quite the history (like nightly) of lifting from the blue blogs for his show material. I'm sure right now he's being praised to the Heavens for his "brave" commentary at the same liberal blogs/websites. If he had real bravery, he'd express an unpopular opinion but that's not what Olby does--he preachers to the choir in yet blatant attempt to bolster his sagging ratings.

    "The people predicting regional kaos if we leave are the very SAME people who thought going in there was such a great idea. "

    Oh, please.

    Like Michael Ware of CNN?

    He was against the war - he's said so - and he predicts that a precipitous withdrawal will be disastrous.

    What is the history of the actions of radical Islamists when they view their enemy as retreating?

    Do they stop too? They just give up?

    Please, you're making remarkably ahistorical arguments.

    Anon 10:49: I don't 'apologize' for Olbermann...I AGREE with him about 95% of the time....BIG difference!

    Once again, thse were not all separate issues you mentioned...to me they pretty much all tie together, and obviously they do to KO as well.

    at what point did it all become a lie?
    ---
    When it was used to justify the invasion and the occupation. When any brittle, insignificant piece of information, when any hypothesis was duct-taped together, when any supposition could be magically turned into evidence, then the lie. Incorrect information is not a lie, its malicious or reckless use is.

    Sorry, JH, I know you worship Bush, as is your absolute right, but he lied, and his lies have cost us dearly. That really has been established not only with clear and convincing evidence, but beyond any reasonable doubt.

    How wonderfully naive you are.

    You didn't - and can't - respond to my post.

    The president does not have the time or capability to delve into ther internal disputes within the intelligence community on intelligence disputes.

    The is no evidence - absolutely none - that Bush knew about the dispute within the various agencies about the aluminum tubes.

    How could he? He's not an expert - and neither am I or I bet you - about the military capabilities of aluminum tubes.

    These are very technical issues. No president that has ever served in office has the background or knowledge to settle such an issue.

    The president receives the FINISHED INTELLIGENCE PRODUCT after it goes through the process.

    Again, there is NO EVIDENCE that Bush knew beforehand that the tubes were intended for conventional use and lied about it.

    None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

    You call it naivete. I call if making things up.

    You know the Freepers are grasping at straws when they extol CNN.

    What happened today? Why is the Administration suddenly running for cover? Is the jig up? Has November 2008 been moved up? Why wasn't I told?

    "You know the Freepers are grasping at straws when they extol CNN"

    Extol CNN?

    I cited one source.

    If that's extolling the entire network then you need to get a dictionary.

    You're not very good at these online discussions, are you?

    Janet, since you are in a snit and not talking to me for some reason, I won't expect an answer, but you did say 'anyone':)

    I find it hard to understand why your side continues to find incompetence so excusable compared to outright lies. Both are a trait we can ill afford to have in a chief executive.

    As for lies, I don't know what it would take for someone like you to acknowledge an actual lie by Bush? I suspect YOU would need a "beyond any reasonable doubt" burden of proof...I don't know. However, for many of us, we see enough "preponderance of evidence" that he has lied many times.

    Lets take how Bush has conducted the war. As just a single example, he kept repeatedly claiming he was "listening to his commanders on the ground" and "acting on their advice"....Does anyone REALLY believe THAT anymore, with all the evidence to the contrary?

    That is just one example.

    FINISHED INTELLIGENCE PRODUCT

    A very odd matter to bring up in support of this Administration in light of the FIP describing terrorists and planes shortly after Bush was appointed and ascended. Seems to me the value of the FIP was strongly contradicted by Rice.

    Things are deparate on the Far Right, aren't they? Again, what changed today?

    "As just a single example, he kept repeatedly claiming he was "listening to his commanders on the ground" and "acting on their advice"....Does anyone REALLY believe THAT anymore, with all the evidence to the contrary?"

    What evidence? You make these claims and never buttress them with any documentation or sources.

    Read Thomas Rick's book on the war. Very blistering criticism.

    No evidence that Bush ignored the commanders.

    However, Ricks excoriates the commanders for their terrible decisions.

    Buck stops with Bush, of course.

    I know it's difficult for you Bush hater to understand, but sometimes the people around a president deserve some criticism too.

    Lincoln was poorly served by his generals. So was FDR to a lesser extend. LBJ.

    Very complicated issue.

    But if you want to wallow in your Bush fanatical hatred, go for it.

    In the battle of the left and right, it's rather obvious that the right doesn't even have a prayer.
    The left have facts and historical data when discussing the Iraq war.
    The right keeps wishing on a star that things will get better, while our troops are dying .
    This is no contest. Out of Iraq. Today !

    So, Clucker, your contention is that virtually the entire upper echelons of our government and most governments and intelligence agencies both before GWB and then 9/11 and after were doing what? Blowing smoke or smoking something.

    So they lied and continued to lie for years but that is OK because why? They have gained a political advantage while keeping their hands clean?

    Or did they believe what they said and after 9/11 not only pumped up their rhetoric but gave GWB the authority he sought because the world had changed and they were acting on their own convictions.

    Or is there an explanation that hasn't ocurred to me.

    Grammie

    My final draft of the Special Comment is now up. My Tivo ended just as we got to the last lines. If anyone has those lines let me know and I will add them.

    Can someone do a Word count and see how much of the Special Comment was about the Dems and how much about Bush?

    You're not very good at these online discussions, are you?

    ---

    Probably not. I am more a man of action. I'll leave the chatter to those more suited to such things. And, it would seem you are certainly a man of many words you are more than willing to share. As such, chatter forth. This man of action has to arise hours before the sun and spend almost endless hours flying to a God-forsaken corner of the world. No, it's not Oklahoma. So, in a fortnight or so ....

    "A very odd matter to bring up in support of this Administration in light of the FIP "

    I'm still waiting for your proof that Bush lied about pre-war intelligence.

    Well.................?

    No evidence anywhere - even in the far left quarters that you apparently get your information - that Bush stated anything about Iraq WMD that he KNEW was false.

    The President of the United States has neither the time or ability to delve into the matters of how intelligence information is vetted.

    JFK was shown the photos of the missile sites in Cuba. He didn't know what they were. He had to rely on analysts and experts to tell him what they were.

    Clinton was told that the pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan was a biochemical plant.

    He didn't know. He had to rely on experts.

    Bush was told the tubes were for a nuclear program.

    He didn't know. He had to rely on experts.

    Again, you have no evidence that Bush knew the tubes were for conventional weapons.

    Because Bush had no knowledge that they were.

    Couldn't get the last few lines? Olby lasted longer than expected - that's a first

    I know - cheap tawdry joke - live with it

    "What evidence?" he asks?

    He wants absolute irrefutable proof...nothing short of that will work for anon 11:09.

    The statements and testimony of numerous former commanders, including one who stated accurately BEFORE the invasion that we were going to need many more troops. For that he was relieved and disgraced publicly, even though he was RIGHT!

    None of that is 'proof' enough for you. You'll just go on apologizing forever for what at best was gross incompetence, and at worst....outright lies. The truth obviously lies somewhere in between the two.

    You may find my 'hatred' of Bush incomprehensible...but I find your willingness to apologize for a 'leader' who has created so much havoc incomprehensible, because it was done through sheer incompetence, if not 100% 'provable' lies.

    "And, it would seem you are certainly a man of many words you are more than willing to share. "

    Well, when someone claims that the president of the US lied us into a war - a charge with which there is none more serious - I like to ask for proof of that.

    Since you have offered none, I guess you can indeed just fly out into the sunset.

    Good luck.

    Can someone do a Word count and see how much of the Special Comment was about the Dems and how much about Bush?
    Posted by: Robert Cox at May 23, 2007 11:11 PM

    Could it be possible that the Iraq War IS about George Bush?
    Olby finally put you all to shame . YOU are the partisan hacks with Cox at the top of the heap !
    You are pathetic !

    The last few lines went out against Chris Dodd and John Edwards. You did not miss anything, R. Cox.

    Robert, your colors are showing again!

    Shouldn't the story be that he is finally criticizing the Democrats?

    But now I see what you really want to do is 'sniggle' with a word count.

    "The statements and testimony of numerous former commanders, including one who stated accurately BEFORE the invasion that we were going to need many more troops. "

    And Bush was told by Rumsfeld and the Joint Chiefs of Staff that there were enough troops.

    According to Woodward's book (Bush at War), the DoD and other top commanders told him there were enough troops.

    He based his decision on that advice.

    Yes, the buck stops with him. But to state that he ignored the advice of his military advisers is wrong.

    He can be accused of listening to the wrong ones. But not that he didn't listen.

    Hell, Lincoln was told bad information too. So was FDR. So was every president.

    Except for some reason, the standards for this president is different.

    Mike: Keith Olbermann did not criticize anyone direclty that was Liberal/Democrat. Not for any specific reason.

    Hope springs eternal that I will get an answer from someones point of when the stated beliefs of virtually the entire free world's governments became a GWB lie even though all the others continued, and some still do, in their same rhetoric for years.

    Grammie

    "I find your willingness to apologize for a 'leader' who has created so much havoc "

    The problem is that your criticism is so over-the-top, so ahistorical, so overreaching that if someone tries to rein in your excesses you think that that person is apologizing for Bush.

    I don't think Bush is a monster.

    You do.

    I don't think Bush is the cause of all of this "havoc".

    I think al-Qaeda and radical Islamists are.

    You think otherwise.

    I think the terrorists are to blame for the bloodshed in Iraq.

    You think otherwise.

    And so because I don't think Bush is the cause of every sparrow that falls from the sky you think I'm an apologist for him.

    As they said in downtown Tehran, "Oy!"

    You know, on thee point that I pointed out that noname had a crush on Paul Rieckhoff, noname stopped bringing up Paul Rieckhoff. Coincidence?!? I think not!

    "And Bush was told by Rumsfeld": WHO picked Rumsfeld?

    "Except for some reason, the standards for this president is different.":

    1) - Could it be that 'this' president created a quagmire with his well documented hastiness to start an elective unwinnable war that MANY people much smarter than him were desperately TRYING to warn him against doing, apparently including his own father.

    2) - Could it be his well documented penchant for surrounding himself with 'yes' men and avoiding contrary opinions like the plaque? he got the advise he wanted to get that way, didn't he?

    3) - Could it have something to do with a campagne promise that he "was against nation building"...one that he broke when he entered Iraq?

    4) - Could it have something to do with a group of highly learned, respected, and experienced statesmen called the "Iraq Study Group" that was specifically commisioned to find a solution...but when that solution was offered...he threw it out like an unwanted puppy? How many lives is that decision going to cost alone?

    Yes, I believe he has lied many times....you say I have to 'prove' it.....I say the 'proof' is in the sordid history of the last 5 years....you say that's not enough for you....I say incompetence is almost as bad as lying when it is used to start an elective war that later proves to be a monumental mistake.

    Finally, I say why do you have such a problem with accountability?

    Olbermann showed us tonight why he sits at the left hand of Michael Moore.

    I have no doubt Dan Abrams orchestrated a Special Comment, so his sorry ass could be waiting at 9:00pm to eat all the red meat that Olbermann tossed out.

    And NBC news...et tu Brutus? The enabler of Abrams and Olbermann, worshipping at the alter of advertiser greed.

    A modern day Bud Abbott and Lou Costello running the American version of Al Jazeera.

    Is it any wonder why NBC is Al Jazeera @ 30 Rock?

    Olbermann, the extra-deplorable one.

    Chicken Blogger, some good points about the dependence of any President on the condensed distilled information he gets from others. And that dependence on the good will and competency of those under every step of the echelon is unavoidable.

    Presidents that delve down to micromanage usually do so with disastrous results such as Jimmy Carter and LBJ, who reportedly planned day to day bombing runs during Vietnam.

    As much as I disliked President Clinton I can't imagine anyone saying in GOOD FAITH that the Chinese Embassy was bombed by us because Clinton really wanted to and just used the old outdated map coordinate ploy to cover up his lies.

    Grammie

    The deplorable one, "Our troops are doomed." I wonder how a soldier packing his bag getting ready to go to Iraq would feel if they heard him say that. What an idiot, to say the least.

    Posted by: royalking at May 23, 2007 9:56 PM

    RK, I wonder how the soldiers packing thier bags after a shortened stay home, a longer tour of duty, no added pay, no armor, and poor hospitals feel. The least of their worries is Olbermann

    HereWeGoAgain, Here YOU Go,

    The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. [Bush’s Letter to Congress, 3/21/03]
    LIE!

    Vice President Cheney said in a speech on Monday that Saddam Hussein "had long-established ties with al Qaeda.
    LIE!

    Members of 9/11 commission found "no credible evidence" that Iraq was involved in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks carried out by al Qaeda hijackers, and they concluded that there was "no collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Osama bin Laden, the network's leader, according to details of its findings disclosed Wednesday at a public hearing.

    Members of 9/11 commission found "no credible evidence" that Iraq was involved in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks carried out by al Qaeda hijackers, and they concluded that there was "no collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Osama bin Laden, the network's leader, according to details of its findings disclosed Wednesday at a public hearing.

    Members of 9/11 commission found "no credible evidence" that Iraq was involved in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks carried out by al Qaeda hijackers, and they concluded that there was "no collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Osama bin Laden, the network's leader, according to details of its findings disclosed Wednesday at a public hearing.

    Members of 9/11 commission found "no credible evidence" that Iraq was involved in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks carried out by al Qaeda hijackers, and they concluded that there was "no collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Osama bin Laden, the network's leader, according to details of its findings disclosed Wednesday at a public hearing.

    Members of 9/11 commission found "no credible evidence" that Iraq was involved in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks carried out by al Qaeda hijackers, and they concluded that there was "no collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Osama bin Laden, the network's leader, according to details of its findings disclosed Wednesday at a public hearing.
    -http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/18/cheney.iraq.al.qaeda/

    Is that good enough for you?

    Olbermann is indeed parroting the views of his liberal looney base. The liberal websites/blogs are livid at their Democratic "leaders" at the moment. When Olbermann actually expresses an opinion that is contrary to his fan base and what is being said at Kos, DU, Talking Points memo, etc, then I'll believe he's a "fair" "journalist" (yes quotations on both), and that he's "blasting" the Democrats. He's not. He's just repeating what they're pulling off the liberal looney leftist websites. Same ole' same ole' for Olby who has quite the history (like nightly) of lifting from the blue blogs for his show material. I'm sure right now he's being praised to the Heavens for his "brave" commentary at the same liberal blogs/websites. If he had real bravery, he'd express an unpopular opinion but that's not what Olby does--he preachers to the choir in yet blatant attempt to bolster his sagging ratings.

    Posted by: Brandon at May 23, 2007 10:51 PM

    Whats that really crazy guy, the one that recites every Right-wingers talking points and calls his guest a name about every 5 minutes or so. Oh yeah, Bill O'Reilly. And are you really dogging on him for agreeing with the general public? He expresses his opinion on the matter and just because its in line with a few websites thats wrong. Well, then everything Fox Noise says is wrong because it parrots everything said at RedState and LittleGreenFootballs? Try again

    Grammie:
    "Hope springs eternal that I will get an answer from someones point of when the stated beliefs of virtually the entire free world's governments became a GWB lie"

    They have no evidence.

    All they do is cite information about the various disputes within the intelligence community about Iraqi WMDs.

    For example, there was a dispute over the aluminum tubes that Saddam has purchased. Some in the intelligence community thought they could be used for a nuclear program. Others said they could only be used for conventional rockets.

    One party said "A", another party said "Not A".

    How was Bush to know who was right? He's no expert on aluminum tubes.

    So, he gets the finished product that says that they were capable of being used in the nuclear program.

    That's what he said.

    To the Bush haters, because some in the intelligence departments thought that the tubes couldn't be used for a nuclear program, that automatically means Bush lied.

    Incredible, isn't it?

    There is no evidence that Bush knew that the tubes couldn't be used for nuclear weapons.

    But they say he lied.

    All logic, all common sense, goes out the window.

    Bush lied.

    It's called BDS.

    oops, didnt mean to post that one thing like 5 times, it never showed up in the comment box, sorry about that, haha

    The deplorable one does not want America to win the war. He's Tehran Keith.

    Clucker wants out of Iraq now because...

    (1) Dozens, scores, perhaps hundreds of additional American troops will die.
    (2) Hundreds, perhaps thousands of additional American troops will sustain serious injuries.
    (3) Hundreds, perhaps thousands of American families will be torn apart.
    (4) Billions and billions of dollars will be borrowed to finance a debacle which our children and grandchildren will struggle to repay all their lives.

    Like many on the anti-war left, he believe that people will die or be disabled, that families will suffer, that the financial cost will be high are reasons NOT to go to war in Iraq or, having gone in, reasons to withdraw.

    These folks never seem to understand that these things are ALWAYS the case in war. By their logic we should have simply let the southern states form their own country and avoided the Civil War, we should have never rebelled against England or fought them in 1812. We should not have fought any of the conflicts of the 20th century.

    Or we hear that they were FOR the war in afghanistan. But aren't people dying their too?

    Don't try to understand the logic of an OlbyLoon, just sit back and watch them run around like a chicken with their heads cut off. Hmmm. Maybe "clucker" is the right name for you.

    Special Comment in Arabic soon...NBC News would whore it to Al Jazeera in a heartbeat if approached.

    For some reason, the lefties who post here who show that a statement made by Bush was not true means that his statement was a lie.

    Bush's statements that Iraq and al-Qaeda had a relationship was, of course, based on the intelligence that was given him.

    The Clinton Administration made similar claims (check, for example, the indictment issued against Bin Laden for the embassy bombings).

    The fact - and I acknowledge it - that those claims based on intelligence were wrong does NOT mean that at the time he made them they were lies.

    The Bush hating lefties have to show that Bush was told "A" when he said "B".

    There is no evidence that any statement by Bush regarding Iraqi WMDS or the relationship between al-Qaeda and Iraq was not based on intelligence information provided him by the intelligence community.

    Clinton was told by the intelligence community that Sudan was building a biochemical weapons facility.

    He ordered it bombed and told us it WAS a weapons plant.

    It was not a biochemical weapons plant.

    By the standards of the loony left, he lied.

    But of course he didn't. He made his statement based on what his experts and intelligence advisers told him.

    Bush Derangement Syndrome. The condition where facts and logical and even time itself don't matter.

    "I Certainly, Like Many Here, Have Never Doubted Whether Iraq Possessed Weapons Of Mass Destruction At All, And I Think The Evidence You [Colin Powell] Presented [To The United Nations] Was Done In A Very Effective And Systematic Way." (Sen. Chris Dodd, Senator Dodd's Remarks At Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing, Washington, D.C., 2/6/03)

    Fucking A.

    The Ducks. The Ducks! Beating the Red Wings to earn a trip to the finals.

    Oh yeah, that Iraq thing is bad too, but the fucking Ducks!

    God Bless the Red Wings in their post Yzerman future.

    Fucking A.

    The Ducks. The Ducks! Beating the Red Wings to earn a trip to the finals.

    Oh yeah, that Iraq thing is bad too, but the fucking Ducks!

    God Bless the Red Wings in their post Yzerman future.

    Robert,

    I missed Countdown. Did he mention at all that the body of one the missing soldiers may have been found? I doubt that if he did mention it, he reported the signs of torture. Maybe I am wrong.

    Chicken Blogger, I have to admit that all the irrefutably cogent arguments are starting to sway me.:)

    I'll have to ease myself into accepting their BS so I am going to start by announcing that I am certain that FDR knew exactly when and how Pearl Harbor was to take place and deliberately allowed it in a stroke of sheer genius to allow him to waken the sleeping giant in defense of the worldwide war mongering Jewish cabal of bankers. Damn, that should make any conspiracy nut smile knowingly.

    And it makes about as much sense as a lot of the drivel that is touted here as revelations from the Almighty if they believed in any such pap, that is.

    Grammie :)

    "

    But the left doesn't want those irresponsible elected officials removed from office, do they?

    They all lied, all of them.

    But the only criticism is against Bush.

    Yes, yes, he led us into war.

    But he did so with a vote from the likes of Dodd et al.

    Did they all lie too? If so, should they leave office?

    "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources--something that is not that difficult in the current world. We should also remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction….He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East."
    From a speech Rockefeller made on the Senate floor in October 2002.
    The new chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Democrat . One of the voices that convinced me, as an American, to support our efforts in Iraq.

    Jay Rockefeller

    Sharon: No, but he did give the figures of how many people watch The View. (3 & a half million.)

    "From a speech Rockefeller made on the Senate floor in October 2002"

    Rockefeller made his decision based on the intelligence he was told about.

    Jay Rockefeller doesn't know how to determine whether a country is building nuclear weapons.

    He has to rely on others to tell him.

    No President or Senator or Congressman has the ability to determine such complicated issues.

    None that have ever lived.

    Like Bush, Rockefeller relied on analysts and experts who told him this.

    Except Bush was supposed to have the ability to psychically determine that Saddam didn't have WMDS. Bush was supposed to ignore all the intelligence given him (like here: http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html) and say otherwise.

    Crazy.

    Sharon, he did in fact mention that the soldier's body had been found....in fact I think he mentioned that two had been found.

    And Obame, "The View" ratings comment was in conjunction with the 'Rosie' story, which everybody was doing (even Hardball!!). However, many shows were making that their lead story, which Olbermann, to his credit, did NOT do.

    "Bush was supposed to ignor all the intellignce given him"

    Not really, all Bush was supposed to do was not invade and occupy a country 6000 miles away that did not attack, or even threaten us in any meaningful way.

    Mike,

    Only one was confirmed as found; two others were rumored to have been found but no confirmation.

    "However, many shows were making that their lead story, which Olbermann, to his credit, did NOT do."

    Did he do this because he was fearful that it would make the Left look bad? Fairly or not?

    It seems to me that when rightwing crazies say stupid things, he highlights those. Which is fair.

    But I'd wager a small fortune that had Rosie been a rightwinger saying indefensible things that KO would at least name her a worst person.


    Actually, there was not confirmation of the identity until DNA tests but the family of one was notified that an officer physically identified him as Pfc. Joseph Anzack Jr.

    Mike,

    It is a different point to argue whether or not Bush should have waged war (even if intelligence correct, bad decision) than to say he lied. (made up facts.)

    I bookmarked this from some of Sharon's posts a few months ago because I was impressed that she took the time and trouble to simply present unvarnished quotes from some key players

    "In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

    If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

    President Clinton
    Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
    February 17, 1998
    http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

    I tried to post them all and got one of the messages that Pats and Rats complained was censoring them. So I will try to break it down and see what hapens.

    Grammie

    "Not really, all Bush was supposed to do was not invade and occupy a country 6000 miles away that did not attack, or even threaten us in any meaningful way"

    But you said he lied about all the claims he made.

    The issue on the table is whether Bush KNEW that what he was saying was FALSE.

    There is documentation that everything controversial he said about Iraq had intelligence behind it.

    Of course if we knew back then what we know NOW, we shouldn't have gone in.

    If we knew about Hitler in 1935, we could have stopped WWII (as Churchill called it, "an unnecessary war").

    This is what gets me about Bush critics.

    Yes, there is legitimate criticism about his decisions.

    He made a terrible blunder.

    But the blunder was based on information that he was told.

    FDR made terrible blunders. So did Lincoln. So did Wilson. So did Buchanan.

    Yes, he bears ultimate responsibility.

    But not all of it. If we think the problems we face will go away simply by changing presidents, we'll be in for a big surprise in two years.

    Y

    "In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

    If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

    President Clinton
    Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
    February 17, 1998
    http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/
    Posted by: Sharon at April 8, 2007 2:28 PM

    Grammie

    Grammie:
    Good one.

    It'll be ignored; but it's a good one.

    For some reason, all of those statements by Clinton and Gore and Albright and Berger about the threat from Saddam have disappeared.

    Down the memory hole they go.

    But I guess we can just say, Clinton lied!

    Mike: Keith Olbermann does not have enough brownie points to goof off. He has lied, he has mouthed off to good people, he has dedigrated others. Keith Olbermann, if this were school, needs to make up alot of time doing good things and proving himself to others.

    Wesley Clark, 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, discusses Saddam's WMD:

    WESLEY CLARK: He does have weapons of mass destruction.

    MILES O'BRIEN: And you could say that categorically?

    WESLEY CLARK: Absolutely.

    MILES O'BRIEN: All right, well, where are, where is, they've been there a long time and thus far we've got 12 empty casings. Where are all these weapons?

    WESLEY CLARK: There's a lot of stuff hidden in a lot of different places, Miles, and I'm not sure that we know where it all is. People in Iraq do. The scientists know some of it. Some of the military, the low ranking military; some of Saddam Hussein's security organizations. There's a big organization in place to cover and deceive and prevent anyone from knowing about this.

    Wesley Clark, Democratic Presidential Candidate
    During an interview on CNN
    January 18, 2003
    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/18/smn.05.html
    Still more to come.
    Posted by: Sharon at April 8, 2007 2:31 PM

    Grammie

    "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

    Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
    Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
    December 16, 1998
    Posted by: Sharon at April 8, 2007 2:34 PM

    Grammie

    Robert: By the logic you used in your 11:55 "all wars" post, you seem imply that there should not be a minimum threshold before going to war. It either is or it isn't in your view.

    We would never have survived the cold war with someone like Bush in office.

    There were many other times that we COULD have gone to war, but wisely, we didn't. Some of them were mistakes, and some of them had to be fought. Iraq is NOT one of those that had to be fought.... kind of like Vietnam.

    Robert: "we hear they were for the war in afghanistan, but arn't people dying their too?"

    Robert, does that statement REALLY make sense to you? Is it REALLY necessary to explain why one would have been for the invasion of Afghanistan, and not Iraq? Hint: Who actually attacked us...and who didn't?

    So no, Robert, it's not just about whether people are being killed or not.


    BILL MOYERS: President Bush's recent speech to the American Enterprise Institute, he said, let me quote it to you. "The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away." You agree with that?

    JOE WILSON: I agree with that. Sure.

    BILL MOYERS: "The danger must be confronted." You agree with that? "We would hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat." You agree with that?

    JOE WILSON: I agree with that. Sure. The President goes on to say in that speech, as he did in the State of the Union Address, is we will liberate Iraq from a brutal dictator. All of which is true.

    Joseph Wilson, Advisor to John Kerry 2004 Presidential Campaign
    During an interview with Bill Moyers
    February 28, 2003
    Posted by: Sharon at April 8, 2007 2:34 PM

    Grammie

    Clinton was thee worst president in thee history of U.S. A. Please do not remind me that this was his war.

    "There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him. And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that."

    Joseph Wilson, Advisor to John Kerry 2004 Presidential Campaign
    In a Los Angeles Times editorial: "A 'Big Cat' With Nothing to Lose"
    February 6, 2003; Page B17

    http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/
    opinion/la-oe-wilson6feb06,1,194637.story

    http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/
    access/283963011.html?dids=283963011:283963011&FMT=ABS
    &FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Feb+6%2C+2003&pub=Los+Angeles+Times
    Posted by: Sharon at April 8, 2007 2:35 PM

    Grammie

    Grammie,

    You just saved me some work in digging through the archives. We must be on the same wave length tonight. Now that I have the date, I'll have to go back and review the response(s), if any.

    Robert, does that statement REALLY make sense to you? Is it REALLY necessary to explain why one would have been for the invasion of Afghanistan

    But after 9/11, Bush emphatically stated that we would go after all terrorists and all terrorist supporting nations.

    He didn't limit it to al-Qaeda.

    Now, in the afterglow of 9/11, he shouldn't have made that statement.

    But we were all united (or nearly all) about going after terrorists. Not just those who perpetrated 9/11.

    During the Clinton Administration, he and his advisers included Saddam in the list of terror supporting nations that threatened us and our allied.

    Look, one of the major obstacles in getting out of Iraq is that al-Qaeda is fomenting sectarian violence and trying to use the anarchy to position themselves strategically in the Middle East.

    I'm not saying that Iraq would have been a walk in the park but without al-Qaeda stirring things up, we'd have a much much easier problem to deal with.

    TO all those who think that bringing up all the Democrats who stated that Saddam was a threat before the war, I don't understand your arguments at all, and never have.

    After you have finished listing all the politicians who were 'guilty' of saying such a thing, ask yourself this: How many of THEM do you think would have actually invaded and occupied Iraq if they had been president?....I think if you are really honest, your answer will have to be zero!

    The deplorable one, "Our troops are doomed." I wonder how a soldier packing his bag getting ready to go to Iraq would feel if they heard him say that. What an idiot, to say the least.
    Posted by: royalking at May 23, 2007 9:56 PM

    Probably the same thing he felt when he heard one of his buddies was fished out of the Euphrates.

    "TO all those who think that bringing up all the Democrats who stated that Saddam was a threat before the war, I don't understand your arguments at all, and never have."

    The point is that Bush alone didn't make up the claims.

    They were made by lots of other people.

    The critics of Bush keep saying that he and only he falsely claimed that Saddam was a threat.

    By citing these other sources, it should put to rest the smear that Bush lied about the danger from Iraq.

    Correct?

    The next time someone here said that Bush made up the threat from Iraq, you'll refute them by showing that lots of other people thought so too?

    BTW, if someone believed that Saddam WAS a threat, that he did have WMDS, why shouldn't he be removed?

    was not invade and occupy a country 6000 miles away that did not attack, or even threaten us in any meaningful way.

    Posted by: Mike at May 24, 2007 12:19 AM


    Well, looks like mickey has aligned himself with Rosie. She says the same thing every day. (ding!)

    Mike,

    I don't understand how you could believe that those who voted to give Bush authorization for war did not really believe that Bush was going to use that power in pretty short order. As I recall events, Bush gave Saddam a date certain to surrender (I think it was 3 days). I don't recall any members frantically taking steps to debate further when it was clear we were headed for war.

    Liberals get us in all of these horrible wars. They should be ashamed of themselves.

    Ohboy, the thanks go to Sharon. I am just copying and pasting the fruits of her labor. There are more but I'll hold them for now.

    That Bush is a tricky devil. The Lib Dem icons spoke only the truth but every time GWB said the same things he was lying through his teeth. Or was GWB telling the truth and the Lib Dems were lying?

    Or maybe they all thought they telling the truth. Nah, couldn't be. Or could it.

    And that brings us to the point that if everyone believed what they were saying at what point in a post 9/11 world would it have been irresponsible to have ignored the virtually universally accepted truths?

    Grammie

    "I don't understand how you could believe that those who voted to give Bush authorization for war did not really believe that Bush was going to use that power "

    And if Bush didn't use the power and an attack with WMD had been traced back to Iraq, they would have strung Bush up from a tree.

    And some of the posters here who blast Bush would have been in that lynch mob.

    Damned if he did and double damned if he didn't.

    Another example of why you have to be crazy to be president.

    >Just one. That was a demonstrable, provable falsehood ....

    Falsehoods aren't always overt. Sometimes they are subtle.

    In fact, sometimes they can be as transient as a 'Mushroom Cloud.'

    When people are afraid, they believe just about any lie you tell them.

    Which is why most FOX viewers believe Saddam Hussein had 'something to do with' 911.

    Maybe one of the hi-jackers middle names was 'hussein.'

    There, see, it's not a lie!

    You right wing idiots are pricele$$.

    "And that brings us to the point that if everyone believed what they were saying at what point in a post 9/11 world would it have been irresponsible to have ignored the virtually universally accepted truths? "

    Brilliant.

    That was the situation that we faced after 9/11.

    Bush chose to take action.

    It was a wrong action.

    But it wasn't a lie. It wasn't done to serve Halliburton or big oil or the Jews or the neocons or the Christian Right or whatever big monster the left conjures up.

    It was based on the evidence given him in a post 9/11 world.

    Clinton could wait. He could accuse Saddam of being a threat but not take action.

    Because he was operating in a 9/10 world that appeared to be safer.

    Bush blundered terribly. History will likely show that (Iraq and the history of radical Islam is still to be written).

    But it was an innocent blunder, if you will. Not a malicious one.

    The Bush haters will not accept this. No matter how much evidence we show to the contrary.

    For Keith, it's been about the war from the beginning....and it continues to be about the war....'liberalism' has little or nothing to do with it. "I don't defend Olbermann!"
    "I was driven to defend him by you guys!"

    Posted by: Mike at May 23, 2007 10:26 PM

    mickey wins for the biggest apology of the night! It's pretty much a flat out lie, but, I won't stoop to his level.

    "Which is why most FOX viewers believe Saddam Hussein had 'something to do with' 911."

    And most Democrats think Bush knew or probably knew about 9/11 ahead of time.

    You lefties and your conspiracy theories.

    No conspiracy involving Republicans is too far fetched.

    But any conspiracy involving radical Muslims is just a bunch of losers messing around.

    You guys are traveling clown show.

    ****
    The deplorable one, "Our troops are doomed." I wonder how a soldier packing his bag getting ready to go to Iraq would feel if they heard him say that. What an idiot, to say the least.
    Posted by: royalking at May 23, 2007 9:56 PM

    Probably the same thing he felt when he heard one of his buddies was fished out of the Euphrates.
    Posted by: at May 24, 2007 12:45 AM
    *****

    Here is what they are feeling:

    At Fort Drum, soldiers were carrying out their training and other operations with a "business as usual" attitude as news of the body's recovery quickly made it around the post, said Sgt. Kevin Stewart, 25, a six-year veteran from San Antonio.

    "We're focused on training, but I think everyone is concerned and hoping for a positive outcome," Stewart said, while standing in a shopping center parking lot off post. "As soldiers, we can all relate, and we can all imagine what it's like for the families."

    Chicken Blogger, I'm glad to see that you are not one sided. I also thought that LBJ's daisy picking mushroom cloud definitely fell into the big lie arena.

    Grammie

    "Give me one statement by Bush before the war regarding Iraq that he knew was false?"

    It's the "incompetence is OK" defense again....I love that one!

    Posted by: Mike at May 23, 2007 10:40 PM

    Translation: He's got nothing....

    mike is gifted with perfect 20/20 hindsight. good for him. I , however, had to rely on the vast number of voices including many high ranking democrats about the threat posed by iraq. I wish mike could build me a hindsight machine like the one he uses, but until that happens I can only determine that our intelligence was WRONG WRONG WRONG.

    video and official transcript added above

    Grammie: The daisy add would have worked against any challenger to an incumbant.

    I change my name as often as you change your apologies for Olbermann.

    Posted by: at May 23, 2007 10:49 PM

    Oh crap, you better get one of those books with baby names in it, you're going to need a slew of 'em!


    Do you think he will use the words "Sir" to refer to Harry and "Ma'am" to address Nancy P? I can hear it now, "How could you, Ma'am?"

    Our politics... is now about the answer to one briefly-worded question.
    Mr. Bush has failed.
    Mr. Warner has failed.
    Mr. Reid has failed.
    So.
    Who among us will stop this war—this War of Lies?

    >How could he? He's not an expert - and neither am I or I bet you - about the military capabilities of aluminum tubes.

    These are very technical issues. No president that has ever served in office has the background or knowledge to settle such an issue.

    The president receives the FINISHED INTELLIGENCE PRODUCT after it goes through the process.


    ________________________________________

    Bush isn't an Expert? Wow, isn't that the understatement of the night.

    He WAS supposed to be an expert Executive, though, right?

    You know, the kind of guy that can surround himself with people who will tell him THE TRUTH and not just what HE WANTS TO HEAR.

    You act like the president makes decisions in a vacuum after an 800 page expose is sat on his desk by some anonymous guy in a suit from the CIA.

    Is that really how you think these things work?

    The president did what he wanted based on what he wanted to believe.

    What he got, was what he didn't expect.

    And that should scare the Left and the Right.

    Naive Indeed!

    Ohboy,

    You made some excellent points in your 12:55 comment. What I would like to add is that it is so clear now what I never knew existed: radical Islamists (use whatever catch phrase you choose). This war probably mobilized them even sooner than they expected. But it is clear (at least to me) what a serious threat they remain not only to us, but to the world. Bush did not create them but gave them a platform. I agree with Cee on this point: if the Iraqis want us to leave and/or General Petreus calls it quits, then it is over. It will be the beginning of a terrible end (in my opinion). I'll copy what I said on another thread about our military:

    I began to question whether a bunch of kidnappings with videos was worth the objectives of to use the controversial phrase "staying the course." Then I followed the events since and how relentless our military has been in finding those men. . . . The terrorists have been hounded day and night. Men lost an average of 10-12 pounds from their search efforts in the brutal heat. I don't think they (the terrorists) expected that kind of resolve.

    ObserverDan, I'm not one of the one's you can lay that "20/20 hindsight" label on.

    No one in America was more depressed than I was as I watched those tanks roll into the Iraqi desert in early 2003. I had hoped against hope that cooler heads would prevail right up until that day.

    I saw the run up to the war, I read and heard all the arguments...and I sure wasn't convinced that a case for pre-emptive war had been made. Having watched the entire Powell UN speech being covered on Fox 'News', no less, I felt like he had not made an effective case at all. What intelligence that was actually available to the media seemed awful weak to me...and many others.

    You can say I'm blowing my own horn, but there were many more like myself, and we all sure hoped we were wrong, considered the enormous stakes.

    So don't try to lay that "20/20 hindsight" on ME...cause it don't stick!

    Hillary Clinton?....Well, she's another story altogether!

    The main part of Keith's angst, and others on the left, about the Senate Democrats' cave-in on the timetable, is their belief that the 2006 midterm election was a signal that the country wanted radical change. It's not an uncommon thing for politicians to read more into election returns than is actually there -- Gingrich did that to some extent after the 2004 midterms.

    The difference right now may be that, whatever rhetoric Democratic leaders were uttering before Monday, what they're seeing in the polling date may be telling them something else -- or at the very least, that the public isn't looking for the sort of radical change Olbermann, the Kos kids or the MoveOn crowd wants. And none of those people are either up for election in 2008, or face a loss of power if they push for changes that the swing voters who gave the Democrats their margins of victory last November don't want:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/654giaeq.asp

    The data may not satisfy Keith, who wants his leaders to take no prisoners. But the leadership apparently isn't ready for force something down the throats of the American people they're not prepared for just to satisfy a cable TV newsreader and a bunch of angry typing guys and gals on some websites.

    But Keith really should tone down his direct Bush=Hitler references. While it's old school on the websites he has in his bookmarks, it's still pretty far out there for a TV show host on a major network not named Rosie O'Donnell to utter, and there's a chance stuff like that could be thrown back in his face at an inopportune time (like in the middle of the NBC Sunday Night Football pregame show this fall).


    Ohboy: "And most Democrats believe Bush knew or probably knew about 9/11 ahead of time"

    Source please?

    Ohboy, I think given what we knew at the time the big mistake was not going into Iraq but that initially we didn't go in using a WW II mentality and mode. And we have compounded our original mistake by still using the current Rules of Engagement.

    And I shudder to think what the consequences will be if we precipitously leave. We will have absolutely no strategic base to operate from because Iraq is the geographically strategic country in the Middle East. We will also give carte blanche to Iran to dominate the area that the entire world depends on for a good portion of the real staff of life, energy in the form of oil. And the terrorists (Islamofascists) get what they so desperately need and want, legitimate recognized nation states to operate from.

    I see the potential for us to look back on these days with wistful nostalgia. I truly hope not but I am not hopeful about the future.

    Grammie

    Clarification:

    I knew that terrorists existed and that westerners weren't 100% safe in Muslim countries, but not to this extreme.

    In the late 80's, a friend of my fiancee (now husband) and myself tried to talk us into living in Saudi Arabia. He made lots of money there tax free which enabled him and his family to travel abroad frequently. He said that we would have to be married, even though we would live on the American compound. The Americans used to brew their own White Lightening and the Saudi authorities would look the other way, as long as it was kept inside and private. I still have the book of how to brew with masking tape over it that he brought back. His wife got a speeding ticket which went against her husband's driving record. I really didn't want to get married back then so we never went....

    The thing I find interesting about the right wingers who are so blatantly stricken with the 'America Can Do No Wrong' disease, is that the 'bitter pill' of incompetence just slides right down their throats.


    Ohboy, I think given what we knew at the time the big mistake was not going into Iraq but that initially we didn't go in using a WW II mentality and mode. And we have compounded our original mistake by still using the current Rules of Engagement.
    Grammie
    ******
    Watch for VOK to appear, Grammie.

    MIke,

    You say:
    I saw the run up to the war, I read and heard all the arguments...and I sure wasn't convinced that a case for pre-emptive war had been made.

    Those who voted to give authorization for the war saw the run up also. And they knew the date that Bush was going to order the Shock and Awe. Where were they, if they did not vote for war but only as a last resort somewhere down the road?

    The thing I find interesting about the right wingers who are so blatantly stricken with the 'America Can Do No Wrong' disease, is that the 'bitter pill' of incompetence just slides right down their throats.
    -LMAO

    Bush blundered terribly.
    Ohboy 12:55 comment.

    I guess you don't consider Ohboy a right winger?

    Sharon, regarding your 12:46 post, you seem to be arguing against a point I don't recall making? Not recently anyway.

    Or was that in response to my "if they had been president at the time" comment?

    I consider voting to go along with something on a far different plane than actually coming up with, pushing, and executing the idea.

    My guess is that VERY few of the politicians who simply voted to go along with Bush's Iraq invasion....would have actually done it themselves had they been the president at the time.

    >And most Democrats think Bush knew or probably knew about 9/11 ahead of time.

    He did, it was in a PDB entitled

    'Bin Laden Determined to Attack the United States Using Airplanes.'

    He did read that, didn't he?

    If you as a representative of the people vote for a war (and allow it to happen) but you would not have followed through yourself, what does that say?

    Sharon, we haven't seen or heard from VOK or Goper for the last week or so. Well, one must be thankful for small favors. :)

    Grammie

    RCox, you're using flawed logic. Yes, death and injury is part of war. But SOME wars are worth it. Civil War, yes. WWII, yes. Iraq, HELL NO. Afghanistan, They were harboring him, the man that attacked us. "Make no difference between the terrorists and those who harbor them" Last time I checked Iraq wasnt cooperating with Al-Qaeda til we got there.

    And saying that "Bush didnt know" doesnt cut it. He should have known. He should have done all the research on the issue at hand. Gotten all the opinions. Not just the opinions of A. Tell the families of the 3292 Soldiers that have fallen SINCE Bush called "Mission Accomplished" of the other 200 that died before that. Tell the 25,000 men and women that have been wounded that its cool because ya know, Bush didnt know. What we do know is that what he said was false.

    The people on the right wing amaze me. Absolutely amaze me. You were screaming impeachment, ripped a, at least, decent president from office for not wanting the world to know he got a blow job. But here you are, defending one of the incompetant presidents that we've ever had. He was on vacation when Katrina hit...I looked at a radar for 30 seconds and I knew it was gonna be huge. Did he not expect to have to do any work from it? He endorses torture. He completely defiled the Geneva Convention, the UN Charter, Habeus Corpus, the Constitution all because Saddam was "the man who tried to kill [his] father" Why else would he have done it? To find the non-existant WMD's, to bring Democracy to Iraq, to give him a place to erect the biggest and safest embassy in the world while showing his true thoughts on Iraq by completely fumbling a good deal of the re-building projects.

    You people disgust me, what happened to America?

    "Those who give up a essential liberty for temporary safety do not deserve either liberty or safety."
    -Ben Franklin

    "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism"
    -Howard Zine

    "I like your Christ
    I do not like your Christians
    They are so unlike your Christ"
    -Ghandi

    "And then God would tell me,George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'"
    -George Bush

    I think you just jinxed us : )

    >I guess you don't consider Ohboy a right winger?
    Posted by: Sharon at May 24, 2007 1:36 AM

    Well, I don't know Sharon...

    'Blundered' sort of puts it in a distant past-tense, now doesn't it? How about 'is blundering.' Or 'Continues to Blunder?' Too harsh for you? Too truthful for you?

    Sure he 'blundered terribly.' You want me to give credit to Ohboy for stating the irrefutably obvious truth? Okay, Good for Ohboy! Perhaps the other 99.9% of the right wingers can follow his shining example.

    Last time I checked Iraq wasnt cooperating with Al-Qaeda til we got there.
    *Nick*

    In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...


    Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
    Addressing the US Senate
    October 10, 2002
    http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

    Sharon: "If you as a representative of the people vote for a war (and allow it to happen) but you would not have followed through yourself, what does that say?"

    It says we had a Congress caught up in the patriotic ferver of the time that obviously clouded the better judgement of too many in Congress. But it is the president who sets the agenda that everyone else either chooses to follow or not follow. I think the mood of the country at the time made it politically difficult for many, who might have otherwise done so, to vote against the resolution.

    Many probably felt it would be political suicide to vote against it, and many were simply fence sitters who had to vote one way or the other.

    I don't 'defend' them so much as decry their weakness at a critical time in our history. and thats why I don't want to see anyone who voted yes as our next president.

    I wish Russ Feingold was still in the race!

    >And I shudder to think what the consequences will be if we precipitously leave. We will have absolutely no strategic base to operate from because Iraq is the geographically strategic country in the Middle East. We will also give carte blanche to Iran to dominate the area that the entire world depends on for a good portion of the real staff of life, energy in the form of oil. And the terrorists (Islamofascists) get what they so desperately need and want, legitimate recognized nation states to operate from.


    Wasn't all of this the case even before we invaded? Did you always suppose we would stay in Iraq 'forever?' Even if everything went according to plan, all of these 'scenarios' you paint after a withdrawal could take place after a 'victory' or a 'defeat' in Iraq.

    Saddam, for all his Evil, WAS a stabilizing force in the Middle East, keeping Islamofacists AND Iran at bay.

    Our buddy in Pakistan got where he is by coup, if you recall. Remember how frightened we all were when Pakistan got WMD's? Now they are in the Nuclear club. They are a Muslim nation filled with Radicals. Does anyone care? Musharaff is filling the same role in his country that Saddam filled in his. A secular strong-arm dictator that keeps the religious fanatics in check.

    Grammie, Sharon, Ohboy, Etc....

    Just let all of us crazy loons know when the time comes that you would trade Iraq circa 2007 for Iraq 1997.

    The day is coming....You know it is...

    **He was on vacation when Katrina hit...I looked at a radar for 30 seconds and I knew it was gonna be huge.

    The problem was not being on vacation. The problem was someone not telling him that people were televised with signs asking for food and water. I don't expect any president to watch cable news by the hour but there was just no excuse for that.

    **He completely defiled the Geneva Convention

    The Geneva Convention does not apply to the detainees. Why should the U.S. even be a signatory? What country that has been at war with us has followed it? I can understand the argument about no torture but not in light of the Geneva Convention. You don't torture because you believe it is wrong, not because a document tells you not to. I think you are exaggerating the extent of the abuse.

    **Tell the families of the 3292 Soldiers that have fallen SINCE Bush called "Mission Accomplished" of the other 200 that died before that.

    Some families of lost soldiers are extremely angry at Bush, some are not, at least when I read the paper and watch documentaries. Yet enlistment continues to this day.

    **'Continues to Blunder?' Too harsh for you?

    By the surge?

    Anon at 1:59,

    I guess I know not to believe Bill or Hillary Clinton, Wesley Clark, Nancy Pelosi (as quoted above) in the future when they claim that someone is a danger.

    Someone asked earlier for a citation for a statement made that most (?) Dems believe GWB knew about 9/11 beforehand. From a Rassmussen Poll:

    22% Believe Bush Knew About 9/11 Attacks in Advance
    Friday, May 04, 2007
    Advertisment

    Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure.

    Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1 margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 18% believe the President knew and 57% take the opposite view.

    Overall, 22% of all voters believe the President knew about the attacks in advance. A slightly larger number, 29%, believe the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. White Americans are less likely than others to believe that either the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. Young Americans are more likely than their elders to believe the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance.

    Grammie

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Sharon. I dont care who said it, its not true. And what I said, is true. I never said anything about the Geneva convention and torture, I jsut said he defiled it. Actually what I was referring to was his targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm. Yeah, of course enlistment continues, we need military men, for some its a family affair despite war-time, peace-time whatever. There are some people who have wanted to serve in the military for a lifetime, just want to be in a war. So they go, because they can.

    You're so cute Sharon, trying to make an argument out of nothing.

    And if I may comment on that torture thing as well. Yeah, thats illegal by international law. Maybe they'll try him for his crime since our worthless leaders wont kick his incompetant administration with 400 graduates from a tier-3 college ran by Pat Robertson. Jesus, this is too easy

    Grammie, just because the public doesnt believe it doesnt mean it didnt happen. We've seen the memo that HE Saw. He read it in July of 01. He knew that Bin Laden had already attacked once. Maybe even the owner of the twin towers knew...he upped his insurance policy quite a bit about 2 months before the attack...wouldnt that put him adding that in about...July of 01. Just making connections...who knows if its actually true or not, im not saying it is...its just interesting

    Grammie, just because the public doesnt believe it doesnt mean it didnt happen. We've seen the memo that HE Saw. He read it in July of 01. He knew that Bin Laden had already attacked once. Maybe even the owner of the twin towers knew...he upped his insurance policy quite a bit about 2 months before the attack...wouldnt that put him adding that in about...July of 01. Just making connections...who knows if its actually true or not, im not saying it is...its just interesting

    Sharon. I dont care who said it, its not true. And what I said, is true.

    What the heck are you referring to?

    In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...


    Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
    Addressing the US Senate
    October 10, 2002
    http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

    Posted by: Sharon at May 24, 2007 1:52 AM

    I dont care if Jesus said it, it wasnt true. Bin Ladin TRIED to create ties with Iraq in 1996, but Iraq refused. Al-Qaeda and Iraq talked periodically, but Iraq did not aide Al-Qaeda.

    You're as bad as RK about missing the point. You are pathetic, defending George Bush and this war. Pathetic

    Yep, it sure was the case before we invaded Iraq with the additional belief that one more madman was going to join the mad men's nuclear club.

    When we go back to 1997 do we get to assure that the USS Cole, our two US African embassies and 9/11 and all that that entails would never happen. In that case I would like to go back to a more peaceful and secure world. But since they did happen and influenced subsequent events I don't take you seriously in your question.

    The three things I mentioned were part of my belief at the time that the invasion of Iraq was the proper course. Iran has scared me ever since Jimmy Carter destabilized the entire region by allowing Shah Pavi's government to fall and be replaced with Khomeine's (sp) mad regime. I think that laid the groundwork for so much that has come after and so affected us all. Like supporting Iraq against Iran so the region would not collapse into total chaos.

    We were playing with fire and getting burned once in a while. I don't think that we would have skated by forever. After 9/11 I believe and believed we were and are living in a different world with different rules.

    Grammie

    Uh...Janet...What did Iraq have to do with 9/11 exactly...Or the USS Cole bombing...Of the Embassy bombings? Just wondering. Im pretty sure not much, 9/11 and the Embassy Bombings, Al-Qaeda, USS Cole, Sudan(that place where the genocide is happening, can you imagine how quickly that would stop if we put the same resources to that as we have Iraq?) You're being very irresponsible in trying to claim those with Iraq. Id still take the 1997 Iraq. Then after all that happened, we should have...ya know, gotten even with the people that did them. Instead we let Bush dupe us into his war.

    Huff Post:

    Goodling's involvement in Attorneygate is not the only aspect of her role in the Bush administration that bears examination. Her membership in a cadre of 150 graduates of Pat Robertson's Regent University currently serving in the administration is another, equally revealing component of the White House's political program.

    I guess for you 150, 400 who really cares about facts? Just as you don't get the point about the reason for quoting Hillary. It was the rhetoric that got us into war, of which she was a part. My question is, if she, Wes Clark or others make such claims in the future, should I believe them?

    ANd who knows if what you say about the owner of the Twin Towers upping insurance is true? Maybe yes or maybe no. If yes, maybe it isn't sinister, maybe it is. I thought you were into the Constitution, you know, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?

    That in the criminal court of law. Civil...not to stringent. I figured you would know that, since you're all knowing. And on the Pat Robertson thing. I do apologize, that was a mistake, I hadnt checked the number in a while and I swore i read 400 somewhere. But none the less, I think 150 is a bit too many...especially if one of them, Monica Goodling, who graduated college in 95, just got her Doctorate in 99, and by 2000 was on her track to become the Director of Public Affairs for the DOJ. At just 34, I dont want to say it was undeserved...But im pretty sure there was someone else out there who deserved it. Like someone who DiDNT get her doctorate from Pat Robertson's tier-3 school

    YOu would be willing to believe that the owner of the towers would be in cahoots to commit grave evil but we (the majority of the country) are idiots for believing that, in the climate of 2003 when almost all of the representatives of our country voted yes, with some of those claiming knowledge of intelligence reports to verify their fears, Saddam had WMD and was therefore a danger?

    I love how you jumped right on that 400 thing but didnt mention that Regent is actually a tier 4 school, right down there with the likes of Florida Coastal School of Law and Mississippi College. Real prestigious.

    I don't even know if I believe The Huff Post. I don't care where she graduated from. I don't know anything about Pat Robertson U, but if everyone has to graduate Ivy League, who could aspire to an influential position except for the rich and powerful? Is it wrong to hire for political gain? Yes. Do people get great positions who don't deserve them? All the time. Maybe she was an exceptional student, although Robert Cox doesn't think so, according to his recap. Maybe a future president can come from a tier 3 school. Your friend Bush came from a top school and look what you think of him.

    Excuse me, tierr 4 school. (I told you, I know nothing about the school; I just looked at Huff's number)

    That wasnt a question. And I believe that insider information is wrong.

    Nick, speak for yourself but please don't put words in MY mouth. I mentioned the totality of certain, and not all events that could have applied, events spread over decades in answering a question posed to me. And the totality includes various times and places. I did not say, nor have I ever said, that Iraq was directly involved with any of the Al Qaeda terrorist attacks because they weren't as far we know. They had some dealings and goals in common and to some degree terrorism is a fungible commodity. Big difference.

    But history is not composed of one isolated event in a vacuum after another isolated event. If only it were that simple. The reality is more like many rocks thrown into a pool spreading concentric ripples that act and interact together.

    If you think that various events in the world have no repercussions anywhere else that it your right. I don't view history, past or present, that way.

    Grammie

    "When we go back to 1997 do we get to assure that the USS Cole, our two US African embassies and 9/11 and all that that entails would never happen. In that case I would like to go back to a more peaceful and secure world. But since they did happen and influenced subsequent events I don't take you seriously in your question.

    The three things I mentioned were part of my belief at the time that the invasion of Iraq was the proper course"

    Would you explain how those three cases lead you to believe that attacking Iraq(who had nothing to do with any of those events) was the "proper course"? I put no words in your mouth, I only demand responsibility when you post.

    Yes, history is composed of many events, that intertwine and mangle, and come out the other side. Its no secret that things affect eachother. Im just wondering how on earth those things you mentioned affected our decision to attack Iraq as opposed to the people who actually were behind said attacks.

    Thank you, come again

    bring back johnny$!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Your friend Bush got into Harvard and graduated as a C-student because of his affluence and who he was. A Bush. http://www.regent.edu/general/about_us/facts.cfm read that, Will you believe the school website that 150 people from their school have served in the Bush administration? Maybe she was an exceptional student. And yes people get jobs they dont deserve all the time. But this is my government. Our government. And I dont like incompetant morans running it, excuse me if Im a little upset about that

    Will you believe the school website that 150 people from their school have served in the Bush administration?

    I believe I gave you that number. Everything about Bush's background was well known prior to his election. He appealed to the common man. No one had 9/11 in mind. Then, in 2004, he appealed to a country that had just received another bin Laden communication. Would he be re-elected now? No.

    Yes, you "Gave me that number", it was right, im impressed, a right-winger dealing with facts. Proof of it is on the Regent Website. What does his "appealing to the common man" have to do with my original argument that he should be impeached? Yes, he appealed to the common man, think about how smart the common man is. No, noone did have 9/11 in mind then, but why was it a stepping stone to Iraq after it happened? Cheney, apart of PNAC, said before they took office that PNAC "needed an attack of Pearl Harbor proprtions" in order to advance their agenda. And hell no he wouldnt be re-elected, but that doesnt cut it, he should be removed from office, forcibly.

    If you can construe what I said to reflect a belief on my part that Iraq was responsible for those three terrorist attacks you deliberately want to misunderstand, especially in light of my additional remarks.

    The point that I made was that those events had an impact on how we treated many things subsequent to them, not only the specific people and groups that were responsible for them. Whether you agree or disagree that that was and is the right course is completely different from failing to recognize the changes in the attitudes of governments, leaders and individuals because you chosse see them as discrete events that fell in their own little pools.

    Grammie

    "And then God would tell me,George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'"
    -George Bush

    I reapeat myself.

    DIRECT QUOTE:
    "When we go back to 1997 do we get to assure that the USS Cole, our two US African embassies and 9/11 and all that that entails would never happen. In that case I would like to go back to a more peaceful and secure world. But since they did happen and influenced subsequent events I don't take you seriously in your question.

    The three things I mentioned were part of my belief at the time that the invasion of Iraq was the proper course"

    Now, what did those 3 things have to do with us attacking Iraq?

    Since you dont like how I worded that, What were the actions that led to the invasion of Iraq being "proper course"?

    Like shooting fish in a barrell

    Nick, I'd be careful shooting anywhere. You are far more likely to shoot yourself in a fin.

    Grammie

    Dr. Fill,

    Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"

    Quote was recorded
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml
    http://www.japantoday.com/us/quote/137

    Type the words "God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq" into google and tell me how many results you get. For something that King George "never said" it sure does have alot of coverage and alot of places saying that it happened...

    Try fact-checking. Hmm...hows that for a thought?

    Grammie...I believe that I asked you a question, if you didnt catch it, let me repeat it.

    What were the actions that led to the invasion of Iraq being "proper course"?

    If I see you post again without answering it I will assume that you're ignorant, dont have any answer to it, and refuse to believe the truth that we should NOT be in Iraq and that this whole war was a mistake.

    You're in a pretty sticky situation for a right-winger...answer a straight-forward question or be perceived a flip-flopper.

    Oh what will Janet do????

    Excuse me, I spoke too early. Now its like shooting fish in a barrell.

    Excuse me, I spoke too early. Now its like shooting fish in a barrell.

    Posted by: Nick at May 24, 2007 4:02 AM

    If references in google make for "facts" I suppose you would your simple brush-offs in that manner.

    Just for a lark, try googling "al gore invented the internet" and see the results...

    Cecilia, im not sure if you caught my references that actually ran the quote as a story or "quote of the day" the BBC, and Japan Today. The reference for google was just to show how easily he could have found out on his own and not have been made to look stupid by saying he didnt say it

    Come, Nick, you wear self righteous indignation like a very ill fitting sleazy suit.

    I perceived, like many others both important and unimportant, that the prior terrorist attacks going back to the 1980s had a cumulative effect of 9/11 as a seminal event in our history. The facts that I mentioned about Iraq were true in Jimmy Carter's day all the way up and including today. And that will be the same after today.

    Iraq is a strategic country, it is especially so in light of Iran and its desire for a monolithic Middle East and anything that allows the Islamofascists to acquire the power of legitimate nation states would allow the entire overall movement to get what they need most to be a world player with far more danger to us all then they are now.

    The danger was there before 9/11. The difference was that as the danger grew we didn't realize the true scope of it and 9/11 was the wakeup call that we could no longer afford to sit back and let events overtake us. That is my perception.

    I have laid it out several times. You obviously disagree. So why don't you quit playing games. We both know that that is what you are doing. So think and say what you will. Whatever I say is not relevant to what you pretend to interpret my words as other than as a game of oneupmanship.

    Have fun.

    Grammie

    Janet, what exactly am I doing? Since you obviously know, why dont you tell me? And you did not answer the question, Your exact quote was "those three things lead to my belief at the time that the invasion of Iraq was the proper course?" So i asked you what those "three things" had to do with making invading Iraq "proper course". You said "If you can construe what I said to reflect a belief on my part that Iraq was responsible for those three terrorist attacks you deliberately want to misunderstand, especially in light of my additional remarks." Now, lets try this again. Since you didnt like those three events(despite your original remark), Why did we attack Iraq? What led you to "believe" attacking Iraq at that time was "proper course"? Why did we try to link Iraq to the 9/11 attacks? Why did we attack there and undermine the effort in Afghanistan(where the people that had actually attacked us were residing)? And you're quoting things that happened in the 80's then suddenly popped back up after 9/11, despite Iraq having nothing to do with it. Why didnt we do soemthing about Iraq in the 80's? Why did we wait till 2003?

    I'll wear my ill-fitting suit until you can strip it from me.

    Its funny, I used to be a conservative, believe it or not. Then I realized that Bush wasnt the best president, so I decided to do a little research into the whole subject, and here I am, a bleeding liberal. Bush did this to me single handedly. I grew up thinking this was a democracy. King George has proven us all wrong. The will of the people want out of this war. Bush doesnt care, he'll veto whatever he wants. What a dick.

    And Cecilia, go here http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp Al Gore NEVER claimed to invent the internet. So please drop it.

    And Cecilia, go here http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp Al Gore NEVER claimed to invent the internet. So please drop it.

    Posted by: Nick at May 24, 2007 4:41 AM


    ummm...that's the point...

    No one ever tried to direct quote him. There are DIRECT quotes from George Bush in what I would call fairly reliable sources. Like the BBC, the independent.co.uk, guardian.co.uk, and Japan Today

    Its funny, I used to be a conservative, believe it or not. Then I realized that Bush wasnt the best president, so I decided to do a little research into the whole subject, and here I am, a bleeding liberal. Bush did this to me single handedly. I grew up thinking this was a democracy. King George has proven us all wrong. The will of the people want out of this war. Bush doesnt care, he'll veto whatever he wants. What a dick.

    Posted by: Nick at May 24, 2007 4:41 AM

    Well, since the Democrats have voted to continue to fund it without impediments, against the supposed "will of the people", I suppose you'll have to go Green...

    they had no choice. President Shit-For-Brains uses the troops are hostages to get his way. Theres no way that we could possibly get a bill for withdrawl at this point, Bush would veto every single one of them, and, as a large amount of the population watches fox, congress would be smeared for hating the troops and not funding them and allowing them to die. It sucks that this is the way it is. But until we get a grownup in the whitehouse, its life. And it IS the will of the people to get outta here, http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-06-26-iraq-poll_x.htm. Think before you type.

    And if anything I would just leave this country and move somewhere without so much corruption.

    No one ever tried to direct quote him. There are DIRECT quotes from George Bush in what I would call fairly reliable sources. Like the BBC, the independent.co.uk, guardian.co.uk, and Japan Today

    Posted by: Nick at May 24, 2007 4:46 AM


    So you are using google as a means of fact-testing, afterall...

    Those publications are referencing the alledged quote, they are not authenticating it.

    Gore claims to have been misquoted. Bush denies he stated this PERIOD.

    Well, I think the BBC or Japan Today, are fairly reliable sources on something. And OF COURSE Bush denies it, anyone in their right mind would. And like Im going to trust Bush denying something happened. This is the same man that swore up and down that Saddam had WMD's and that he was going to use them on us, and if we didnt attack first we would get it.

    they had no choice. President Shit-For-Brains uses the troops are hostages to get his way. Theres no way that we could possibly get a bill for withdrawl at this point, Bush would veto every single one of them, and, as a large amount of the population watches fox, congress would be smeared for hating the troops and not funding them and allowing them to die. It sucks that this is the way it is. But until we get a grownup in the whitehouse, its life. And it IS the will of the people to get outta here, http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-06-26-iraq-poll_x.htm. Think before you type.

    Posted by: Nick at May 24, 2007 4:54 AM


    You can't simultaneously argue that it is the people's will that the troops leave Iraq and then excuse the Democrats for not acting on that, by saying that it would be unpopular.

    You can't argue policy on moral grounds and then reference political expediency as an excuse when the moral grounds are jettisoned by your boys and girls.

    You're arguing two opposing things at the same time and that's made even more laughable by a reference to the popularity of Fox News...

    Well, I think the BBC or Japan Today, are fairly reliable sources on something. And OF COURSE Bush denies it, anyone in their right mind would. And like Im going to trust Bush denying something happened. This is the same man that swore up and down that Saddam had WMD's and that he was going to use them on us, and if we didnt attack first we would get it.

    Posted by: Nick at May 24, 2007 5:04 AM

    Yes, Palestinian leaders are much more trustworthy...

    I am arguing about the Right-wing smear machine. The same one that ruined Gore. Mr. Recount. The one that Bush used to destroy McCain when running for office. You know as well as I do that it is very strong, and very moving. And either way, take that out of the argument and the point is still made, people would have died had we not done something, Bush was not going to let up, it was gonna be veto veto veto. We're workign for the future, to work ona bill for the future to get us out. One that wont leave the lives of our troops in the balance while King George held his breath and kicked his feet to get his way.

    This is the same man that swore up and down that Saddam had WMD's and that he was going to use them on us, and if we didnt attack first we would get it.

    Posted by: Nick at May 24, 2007 5:04 AM


    Actually, that was a belief widely held among western leaders, including a former one by the name of Bill Clinton.

    This is the same man that swore up and down that Saddam had WMD's and that he was going to use them on us, and if we didnt attack first we would get it.

    Posted by: Nick at May 24, 2007 5:04 AM


    Actually, that was a belief widely held among western leaders, including a former one by the name of Bill Clinton.


    *** the existence of WMD in Iraq, that is.

    Yeah, because they wouldnt let us in to see what they had. When they did let us in, we found nothing outta the ordinary. Plus, you didnt hear Bill Clinton screaming, "They're gonna kill us!" "They have unmanned aircrafts that will fly over-head and drop mustard gas and anthrax" Theres a difference between a held belief and screaming it to a scared, scarred society in the aftermath of 9/11.

    I am arguing about the Right-wing smear machine. The same one that ruined Gore. Mr. Recount. The one that Bush used to destroy McCain when running for office. You know as well as I do that it is very strong, and very moving. And either way, take that out of the argument and the point is still made, people would have died had we not done something, Bush was not going to let up, it was gonna be veto veto veto. We're workign for the future, to work ona bill for the future to get us out. One that wont leave the lives of our troops in the balance while King George held his breath and kicked his feet to get his way.

    Posted by: Nick at May 24, 2007 5:10 AM


    So Bush sticks to what he was elected to do in '04 and what he believes, despite current political polls, and the Democrats do the opposite on all counts, and they're ...excused...?

    You can't simultaneously argue that the public demands withdrawal and this is the moral thing to do, while also arguing that the moral thing is not worth any risk whatsoever....

    For you to have made such a case about the injustice and the unpopularity of the war, to then conjure the "Rightwing Attack Machine" as some sort of political impediment is amazing.

    Yeah, because they wouldnt let us in to see what they had. When they did let us in, we found nothing outta the ordinary. Plus, you didnt hear Bill Clinton screaming, "They're gonna kill us!" "They have unmanned aircrafts that will fly over-head and drop mustard gas and anthrax" Theres a difference between a held belief and screaming it to a scared, scarred society in the aftermath of 9/11.

    Posted by: Nick at May 24, 2007 5:14 AM


    Perhaps, you might ask yourself, why, since Bill Clinton did believe that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was on the path to nukes, did he NOT take Iraq more seriously. One answer might be that 9/11 had not happened.

    You might ask yourself too, why Hillary Clinton, whose husband had been privy to every bit of intelligence info available, DID vote to go into Iraq, after 9/11.

    Did you guys see how Keith kept going on and on about how the troops didn't need to be funded? He was making it sound like the troops would be just fine without any money. So I guess Keith believes that the troops' guns, ammo, armor, equipment, food, and supplies will just appear via "magic beans".

    In another example of Keith Olbermann hypocrisy, he did not blast ABC for revealing secret classified information about our government doing covert opts on our enemies. Putting many people at risk. I guess it's only when information about Bush hating liberals like Joe Wilson and his wife are revealed that Keith will put his foot down. When the entire security of the country is put at risk thanks to ABC and The New York Times, Keith could care less.

    Keith "I'm Not Liberal, I'm Just Right" Olbermann and his friend Rosie "Fire Can Not Melt Steel" O'Donnell like to repeat the lie that 655,000 Iraqi Civilians have been killed in Iraq since March 2003. Even if you were to multiply the United Nations highest monthy Iraqi civilian casulty count with every month since March 2003, it would still be six times less than the bogus number Keith and Rosie are peddling.

    These folks never seem to understand that these things are ALWAYS the case in war. By their logic we should have simply let the southern states form their own country and avoided the Civil War, we should have never rebelled against England or fought them in 1812. We should not have fought any of the conflicts of the 20th century.

    Or we hear that they were FOR the war in afghanistan. But aren't people dying their too?

    Don't try to understand the logic of an OlbyLoon, just sit back and watch them run around like a chicken with their heads cut off. Hmmm. Maybe "clucker" is the right name for you.

    ---

    A surprisingly superficial and flawed analysis coming from you .... A cheap shot far more characteristic of some of your ignorant and vitriolic readers/participants ....

    Isn't my entire point that wars of choice ought to be entered into advisedly? Losses in "Just Wars", wars of strategic importance are regrettable, but acceptable. Losses in Iraq are just tragic wastes. I suspect you actually understand and believe this, or you would not have come across with a smug, flippant, flawed attack. That this is so uncharacteristic of you it simply reenforces my belief that something significant has occurred. That the rivets holding together this shoddy and tired fuselage are straining and giving. I almost feel as if I need to add 23-24 May to some reminder date in Outlook. In 20 years, what was it that caused the more perceptive and articulate Right Wingers to withdraw, metaphorically, from Iraq? The answer will be fascinating. And, of course, there are those ignorant and vitriolic participants who will be left behind blindly supporting a dishonest, arrogant and incompetent President and Administration. The site of the rubbing their heads and scratching their asses will be wondrous.

    Power down .... Off to the Flughaven.

    Clucker,

    My point is that your "argument" assumes the conclusion. You believe the war to be "unjust" or a "war of choice" and then lay out a series of points that are ALWAYS the case in any war as if these points PROVE something.

    If you want to make a case as to WHY the war is "unjust" or a "war of choice" then make it. Saying that people have died or been seriously injured in the Iraq War does not make it "unjust" or a "war of choice".

    All that you "prove" is that you think the Iraq War is "unjust" but other wars the U.S. have fought are "just". In other words, you "argument" is just your opinion that you do not approve of the Iraq War. You've said previously that you supported the war in Afghanistan but not Iraq. So, you were ALWAYS against the war and you now seem to think that the death toll in Iraq proves you were right.

    The underlying conceit of your "argument" is that people who favored going into Iraq did not realize that people would die or be injured or that the financial cost would be high. I am not sure which strawman you think you've created here but it is more than pedantic for you to adopt as a premise that those who supported the war - and a muscular foreign policy in general - do not understand their costs in lives and money. That's not the question that the country faced on the eve of the Iraq War. The question was "is the cost of doing nothing greater than the cost of doing something". People of good will can disagree on that question. The way you have framed the question is whether we should causes our soldiers to be killed or injured or not. Duh! If that's the question then the answer is simple. It's so simple to answer THAT question that even Keith Olbermann can answer it. Even an OlbyLoon can answer it.

    But as you leave OlbyPlanet and come back down to Planet Earth you will find that these types of simplistic formulations only work in the comment threads over at Daily Kos and Democratic Underground.

    If you care to go back and study the history of the run up to the Civil War you will find that the U.S. had a very weak argument for going to war with the Confederacy. You will also find that many in the North had their doubts about the wisdom of the war. The Emancipation Proclamation was announced THREE YEARS after 1860 and even then did not end slavery - it "freed" slaves in the CONFEDERATE STATES but left slavery in tact in border states (because Lincoln did not want to see them leave the Union as well). At the time of the EP, the North was LOSING the war.

    You can say NOW that the Civil War was a "just" war because of the RESULTS but at the time it was NOT perceived that way by a LARGE MAJORITY of the people.

    Keep in mind how small a proportion of the vote Lincoln actually got in 1860.

    Lincoln Republican 1,865,908 39.8%
    Breckinridge Southern Democratic 848,019 18.1%
    Bell Whig 590,901 12.6%
    Douglas Northern Democratic 1,380,202 29.5%

    Before Lincoln even took office the Confederacy had been established so that he had minority support in a fraction of the states that voted in 1860.

    How was WWI a "just" war? The U.S. was not attacked or directly threatened. What difference would it have made to us if Kaiser Wilhelm won the war. You can make the argument that NO WAR is just. At least that is a consistent position. But you don't do that. You said you supported the Afghanistan War yet all the same points you raised about Iraq are true there too.

    I have little respect for people like you and Olbermann who want to argue that the War in Iraq must be ended unilaterally because people are dying By that token you would have argued that we end the Civil War after the First Battle of Bull Run, never gone to Europe in WWI, stopped fighting after Sicily or Normandy in WWII.

    You want to make a case against the war in Iraq then make it but don't come here spouting the obvious (people die in war) and try to pass that off as "insight".

    Robert,

    Expect the Bush lied doctrine. No matter how much you logically debunk that argument, it makes no difference. Don't you know that Bush hid evidence? He also hyped intelligence but no one had a responsibility to find out if that were true at the time?

    Cox,

    The Iraq war is "unjust" because we attacked the country under false pretenses. Do you get it? You attack another nation for a reason. The reasons that Bush gave were false...

    The fact that there was plenty of contradictory data shows that this was a "war of choice"...

    The Special Comment, was once again, a waste of time.

    It is interesting that Keith Olbermann does NOT articulate the way his representatives are to meet the demands of the "American people" to stop the war. Once again....a safe position with NO risk.....

    How do the democrats stop the war, Mr. Olbermann?

    George Bush continues his tough and risky policy and we continue with SAFE from his opposition.....

    The use of polls to fashion a response leads one to "safe" positions....As has been discussed previously......The democrats in the congressional leadership seek political cover and refuse to take responsibility and hold funding because recent polls show less than 50% approval for this course of action.....I have made it clear that I believe it will be the only effective way, currently, to force a drastic change in The President's plans.

    Keith Olbermann simply whines about the poor result yet proposes NO solution....just like all of his Special Comments. Just like his apologists on this site.

    Implying Bush is Hitler and the democrats are placating him may have some degree of accuracy in the mind of a total ideologue, but he still avoids the tough issue.....How do you stop Hitler?

    My goodness, this is the best the left can give our country as their spokesman?.....Keith Olbermann and his "magic beans."

    What a joke!

    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

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

    Mr Olbermann claimed....

    "on the subject of Iraq the people have been ahead of the media, ahead of the government, ahead of the politicians for the last year or two years or maybe three."

    Can someone who supports this tripe expalin this idea to me?....Is there an American people plan for a resolution to this impasse that I amnot aware of?

    Sharon,

    Saying "Bush Lied" is not an argument just as "Blood for Oil" is not an argument. There are left-wing slogans that make "sense" over at DU or Kos but carry no weight here. Try again. Next time come back with an ARGUMENT against the Iraq War.

    blindrat,

    Again, the "Bush lied" mantra. Still "no sale". What works on OlbyPlanet does not work here in Earth. But thanks for playing.

    If people here want to use the term "war of choice" they are going to need to define it because as far as I can tell ALL wars are a "war of choice". After you define the term please provide examples of wars fought by the U.S. that were NOT wars of choice - and let me anticipate those who will say WWII. We had a choice then too. We could have opted to allow Japan to take control in Korea and China, not cut off their flow of oil and accepted Japanese hegemony in Asia; likewise for German hegemony in Europe. We chose not to accept that but it was still a "choice".

    Cox,

    What part of Downing Street Memo don't you understand. What part of "ignoring Joe Wilson" escapes you? What part of lying about aluminum tubes do you have a problem with?...

    The democrat party's flaw is, in my mind, summed up in one sentence of an AP report today....

    "Democratic candidates are vying for the anti-war vote, but at the same time do not want to appear as though they are turning their backs on the military."

    What the? More superficial political garbage I thought was going to be thrown out along with the republicans in '06.....

    Professor Honeydew? Mike? OZ Jr. (LMAO)?

    blindrat,

    More anti-war left slogans? Let's see how your argument stacks up so far...

    The Iraq War is an "unjust" "war of choice" because "Downing Street Memo", "Joe Wilson","aluminum tubes".

    Wow! That IS compelling. Not.

    Again, make an actual argument against the war and stop providing OlbyLoon shorthand for why you hate George Bush.

    What's the matter blindrat? Cat got your tounge :-)

    you keep baiting blindrat and he is going to call you a name...

    The fact that there was plenty of contradictory data shows that this was a "war of choice"...

    Posted by: blindrat at May 24, 2007 9:37

    Speaking of "contradictory data," have you found those missing 17,000 muslims?

    Cox,

    You write like someone who has never actually read the Downing Street Memos. You know that it is best not to argue out of ignorance...

    The argument against the war is that it is unnecessary. Actually, the burden of proof should be FOR the war. Why is the war necessary?

    Cat got your tongue?

    Blind Rat- just a question:
    Please, put aside for a moment that the eeeeeeeevil BUSH/ROVE/CHENEY/HALIBURTON "lied" to us and got us into this "illegal" war. Fine.

    Before the war, we kept hearing how the Dems want to fight al qaeda - not go into Iraq, who didn't attack us.

    Well, NOW al qaeda IS in Iraq. They want us out. So do the Dems.

    My question: Do the members of the Democratic Party want to fight al qaeda or not?

    I know, I know- Bush is evil. I get it. But al qaeda attacked us on 9-11. They are in Iraq. THEY are demanding we leave. YOU argree with them.

    Help me out.

    BLINDRAT

    SYSTEM MANAGERS DO EMPLOY MONITORING TOOLS TO DETECT IMPROPER USE. ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS MAY BE DISCLOSED WITHIN AN AGENCY OR DEPARTMENT TO EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE A NEED TO KNOW IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES. AGENCY OFFICIALS, SUCH AS SYSTEM MANAGERS AND SUPERVISORS, MAY ACCESS ANY ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS.

    Like the BBC, the independent.co.uk, guardian.co.uk, and Japan Today

    Posted by: Nick at May 24, 2007 4:46 AM


    Wow, this explains why he is so uninformed and twisted....

    obama,

    Most of Al Qaeda is NOT in Iraq, son. Most of them are in Pakistan or Afghanistan. Funny thing is that Pakistan is Bush's bestest buddy...even after selling nukes to the highest bidder...

    To put it into terms that you understand, child: Fighting Al Qaeda will involve going after nations that Bush does business with. Or, didn't you know that they are bankrolled by the Saudis...?

    Blind (and Dumb) Rat-
    #1) I'm not your son- despite your condesenting tone.

    #2) ANSWER the question- DO Dems want to fight Al Qaeda or not?

    I realize that Dem "heroes" like Silky Pony Jonh Edwards once said they support the Global War on Terror, now say that its not real, but if the MSM daily tells us of al qaeda attacks in Iraq - why should we turn tail and run?

    (pssst... again- TRY to actually ANSWER the question)

    Blindrat,
    So you agree we should've let Kaiser Germany to control Europe.
    It doesn't affect us it was a war of choice.
    Also we should've no embargoed oil to Japan and let them rule asia.
    You have no logic.
    All wars are a choice.

    You'll never figure out Iraq until you all come to a concensus on whether King Phillip's War was justified.

    There is no point in looking forward until the past is completely agreed upon and settled. Forget about leaving Iraq and make no committment to staying.

    Take no action to improve the situation for the Iraqis. Our troops should be given orders to just stand there until we all agree on why we went to Iraq.

    Now that's a solution.

    And Cecilia, go here http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp Al Gore NEVER claimed to invent the internet. So please drop it.

    Posted by: Nick at May 24, 2007 4:41 AM


    ummm...that's the point...

    Posted by: Cecelia at May 24, 2007 4:44 AM


    How many "fish" did you get with this shot, einstein? Looks like you got the Cecelia slap down. Hows that suit fittin?

    obama,

    Well, son...the dems haven't complained about the Al Qaeda portion of Bush's war and neither have I. We were all for attacking Afghanistan (where Al Qaeda was in the first place). You know this, child, so why do you ask the question when you know the answer?

    The dems were also the first to complain when Bush tried to farm out port security to the UAE...

    Snap, Blindrat called Obama-Rama "child"!

    Take that!

    Just a short list of people who are ON RECORD demanding the US out of Iraq:

    Osama Bin Laden
    Nancy Pelosi
    Muqtada Al Sadr
    John Murtha
    Zacharias Musawi
    John Kerry
    Ayman al-Zawahiri
    John Edward
    Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
    Dennis Kucinich
    Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
    Blind Rat

    (See a pattern here?)

    How does that explain my being "uninformed"? Cuz, im pretty damned sure I kicked your ass the other day debating the issues. All you could say was "certain death" like you were a god damned parrot. Im going to say it again, RK. Dont talk unless you have a coherent, worthwhile argument. Thanks

    Ceceelia: Perhaps, you might ask yourself, why, since Bill Clinton did believe that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was on the path to nukes, did he NOT take Iraq more seriously. One answer might be that 9/11 had not happened.

    I'll bite. Grannie already tried this.
    So what EXACTLY did Iraq have to do with 9/11?
    Why should we attack someone for purely having weapons? Just because they have them doesnt mean they'll use them. Treat others as you would want to be treated, we want to the right to bear arms, they should have it too.

    R Cox, I laid out arguments of a couple things that Bush said that turned out to be false. So, took care of that for you. And also, dont even try to play the "he didnt know" card, Incompetance has already been established. As fort he War in Iraq. We went there on false pretenses, and you know it. Everyone that was said leading up to the war was false(whether knowningly or not). Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, the war has hindered needed rescue efforts in America (katrina, Greensburg). Iraq has hindered efforts on the war on terror. Did you know that attacking Iraq has actually made MORE terrorists? Man, it looks like Bush knows exactly what hes doing when it comes to war and taking down terrorism.

    Obama: Do the members of the Democratic Party want to fight al qaeda or not?

    Of course we do, but obviously Bush doesnt, hes the one that is know outsourcing the search for Osama(since he couldnt handle it), He PERSONALLY gave the order to back down after we had Osama completely surrounded, and hes all the one that said, "I dont know where he is, i dont spend much time on it".

    Does BUSH want to fight Al-Qaeda, or is he just looking for more oil profits. the price of crude oil has doubled since Bush took office, and almost all of it has gone to profits, can you explain how this has happened?

    Ive said it once, ILl say it again. The right wing is pathetic, defending bush's war while condemning Clintons BJ. What idiots.

    Oh, Oh, "child" again!

    Oy, the humiliation. Its like a verbal beatdown from Lincoln and Douglas!

    RK. you're an idiot. When you can rebut what We were talking about the other day, then you're allowed to address me, until then, go learn something.

    Joker, all wars are a choice, but Bush said, "war is the last thing I want" and obviously he had other choices he could have taken.

    Nick,

    Get over yourself. You don't know my pain. You don't know nothing about nobody. Talk to the hand.

    Nick, I think you just got schooled.

    Maybe its time to start your own site:

    The Nick knows everything so you can't talk to me about nothing because I am so wicked smart and can write all good and stuff.com

    Twice my name has been hijacked. Means that I'm getting to the neocons...

    obama,

    Your list contains two Vietnam vets, folks that know war. "Blindrat" has no space between the words, child...

    Funny how you didn't respond to my answer. You simply applied the fallacy of association...

    Better luck next time, son...

    One more thing, you all are very war war war, go to war, stay at war, win win win. Well, i have a question, How do we win the War in Iraq, the current tactics sure as hell arent working?

    And the grand doozy that all right wingers avoid(as Janet proved last night), WHY THE HELL DID WE GO TO WAR WITH THEM TO BEGIN WITH? All the informatoin leading to it was faulty, they had no WMD"s, they were not planning attacks on us, they were not harboring Al-Qaeda, they had nothign to do with 9/11.

    Why are we not pursuing the real war on terror a little better?

    Ouch.

    I was just pointing out blind/dumb/deaf-rat that you (and your vietnam 'heroes') are in great company.

    We all know whose side you are on, son.

    Nick, I think you just got schooled.

    Maybe its time to start your own site:

    The Nick knows everything so you can't talk to me about nothing because I am so wicked smart and can write all good and stuff.com

    Posted by: Zinger at May 24, 2007 11:41 AM

    I got schooled? Please let me know where. Cuz i didnt catch that one.

    Uh oh, Child and son in the same post.

    Now you all must quiver at my biting invectives.

    Nick,

    Get over yourself. You don't know my pain. You don't know nothing about nobody. Talk to the hand.

    Posted by: Heavyset Black Woman at May 24, 2007 11:38 AM

    That's a taskin'

    Nick,

    Get over yourself. You don't know my pain. You don't know nothing about nobody. Talk to the hand.

    Posted by: Heavyset Black Woman at May 24, 2007 11:38 AM

    What is your pain? Are you getting used to the fact that this president is office doesnt care about your race?

    Nick knows this.

    Nobody and I mean nobody is smarter than Nick.

    Got it?

    Blindrat is smarter than Nick. Got it...child.

    Haha, Blindrat, they're doing it to me too, posting with my name. The only thing anyone has said against what I've said on the posts on this board is that thier point was that Al Gore never invented the internet and a misquoted number(that i retracted on as soon as I realized what I'd said) So, until someone else can prove me wrong on something substantial, i stand by everythign I said.

    I know son...These people have no class like us. Want to get together? I am in DC.

    obama,

    You obviously don't read well, son. I stated (and you couldn't challenge) that most of Al Qaeda isn't IN Iraq. Most of the violence is between factions of Islam. So...wanting to get our forces out of there would be the first step to putting them where they COULD effectively fight Al Qaeda...

    I don't mind explaining things once, child; but, if you can't understand simple English, perhaps you should attend an ESL class or two...

    Oh, and welcome to America!

    Blindrat, Ive come to learn something, the right-wingers say whatever they want to make a point, but facts and stories, those dont matter. As long as they can say you're wrong, they think you are.

    Yeah, Nick- you're right! Those EEEEVIIIL republicans sure don't like black folks!

    Why, they voted AGAINST the 1964 Civil Rights Act. (oh, wait- that was DEMOCRATS, including Al Gore's dad!)

    And they have a KKK Leader in the Senate (oh, wait- that's the Democrats too!)

    At least a Democratic President signed Affrimative Action into law (oh, wait- that was a Republican!)

    Damn... I guess its really the Dems who treat blacks poorly. My bad

    Hey buddy, i didnt say party. I said man, Geoge Fucking Bush. The man hates liberals, blacks, hispanics, Muslims, and Soldiers. He knows no bounds! haha, try again. Now seriously, doesnt anyone have an argument against a substantial thing ive said. LIke defending why you're defending president shit-for-brains on Iraq and his incompetance but you, the same people, got all over clintons nuts about his BJ. Or maybe explaining why were in Iraq at all, instead of mis-interpreting what I say.

    RetardedRat said: "most of Al Qaeda isn't IN Iraq"

    No shit.

    Most of the US Armed Forces isn't in Iraq either, dumbass... my question (for the 3rd time) is- DO DEMOCRATS WANT TO FIGHT Al Qaeda or not?

    Its very simple. Al Qaeda IS in Iraq. Al Qaeda and Dems (and you) want us out.

    DO DEMOCRATS WANT TO FIGHT AL QAEDA OR NOT? We know that the current democrat candidates for president can't even stand up to Britt Hume (NO FOX DEBATES! WAAAAAAHHH!) so how in the world could they stand up to terrorists?

    Got a smart answer for that, son? How 'bout it, child? Lets see some more of that superior, liberal bullshit you pass off as intellect.

    Nick, I really like the cut of your jib son... I think I could be your Daddy...child. Think of where you could be in a few years under my guidance.

    Rhymes with DICK said: "doesnt anyone have an argument against a substantial thing ive said"

    You said George Bush hates black people. Hates liberals. Hates puppies. How can I introduce an argument against something so "substantial"?

    You are suffering from severe Bush Derangement Syndrome. Get help fast.

    Nick,

    I like your pre-occupation with Clintons BJ's son...

    What do think of getting together...child?

    Whoa,

    Is everyone catching the sparks between blindrat and Nick?

    Verbotene Liebe

    obama,

    Poor thing...you are dense, aren't you, boy? Let me give you an analogy: Let's say that you were a cop and you wanted to arrest drug pushers, so you set up a sting operation across the street from the Whitehouse, where no sane pusher would hang out...

    ...you'd catch very few, wouldn't you, son? The same with Al Qaeda and Iraq. If Al Qaeda feels that they are losing too much, they'll simply stay in their country of origin. Hardly effective. More effective would've been to stay in Afghanistan until the job was done...

    As I mentioned before, the dems were all for the Afghani war. Ergo, they were for fighting terrorism...not wasting time and refereeing a civil war...

    I hope that I explained it simply enough, child...

    Thanks (again) for NOT answering a very simple question, blinddouche.

    I think that (like most spineless-cowards) you would rather hear your own voice than face the very real fact that Islamist SAVAGES want to kill you.

    That's right YOU. And those same SAVAGES want to kill the most high-profile, liberal hollywood elite FIRST.

    You think Mohamed is keen of gays or lesbians? Tell that to Rosie.

    Are there many jews in turbans? Doesn't bother Katzenburg, Geffen, or Soros.

    Have yourself measured for your burka, little girl- because when the next attack comes (and it will come) it will be because the LIBERALS (note- not all dems are yellow-bellied weasels) have said to the world, WE ARE NOT STRONG ENOUGH to stop you.

    Sleep well, son. You just helped weaken the country today.

    obama,

    You sound like Bush's scare tactics have gotten to you, child. Change your pants. The ammonia smell is disturbing your classmates...

    I answered your question, boy. You just don't like the facts. And, since you aren't typing your messages from Iraq and are calling another person a coward, I must conclude that you aren't particulary sharp either...

    Blindrat,
    Why do Leftists like you view the Islamists as allies?
    Thay hate you too.
    They're using you to undermine the West.
    Thanks God France is now Anti-Muslim!
    They woke up!

    Honestly blindrat,

    Do you have nothing better to do than waste taxpayer money posting here? That computer is for government business.

    Cee, I think I can explain it Mr Olbermann claimed....

    "on the subject of Iraq the people have been ahead of the media, ahead of the government, ahead of the politicians for the last year or two years or maybe three."

    Can someone who supports this tripe expalin this idea to me?....Is there an American people plan for a resolution to this impasse that I amnot aware of?
    Posted by: cee at May 24, 2007 10:03 AM "

    The American 'people' have been so far ahead that the group they elected and now hold the majority are afraid to enact the will of the American 'people because it would be unpopular with the American 'people'. Or Fox News or somebody.

    On second thought I don't think anyone can.I think I'll stick to my Rubic cube. It is not nearly as taxing as making sense out of that argument.

    Grammie

    RatFink- your head is so lodged up your ass its pathetic.

    Liberal Canard #1) "Since you aren't typing your messages from Iraq..." Somehow meaning that if I'm not (currently) in the military- then I can not comment on military events/affairs.

    I guess since I'm not teaching 7th grade math- I can't comment on my local school board's performance. You are an ass.

    Liberal Canard #2) "Bush's scare tactics..."
    I don't need Bush to scare me. The memories of terror attacks under Clinton are enough:

    After the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

    After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five US military personnel, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

    After the 1996 al-Khobar towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 US military personnel, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

    After the 1998 bombing of US embassies in Africa, which killed 257 and injured 5,000, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

    After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured three US sailors, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

    Maybe if Mr Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 7,000 more people would be alive today.

    So, continue to stick your head in the sand, son. Keep hating Bush, child. But know this- negotiating or compromising with evil only benefits evil.

    Obama-Rama,
    Don't bother with Blindrat.
    His name says it all.
    He's blind to the Islamic threat!

    Rat, are you talking about this Joe Wilson or another one?

    BILL MOYERS: President Bush's recent speech to the American Enterprise Institute, he said, let me quote it to you. "The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away." You agree with that?

    JOE WILSON: I agree with that. Sure.

    BILL MOYERS: "The danger must be confronted." You agree with that? "We would hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat." You agree with that?

    JOE WILSON: I agree with that. Sure. The President goes on to say in that speech, as he did in the State of the Union Address, is we will liberate Iraq from a brutal dictator. All of which is true.

    Joseph Wilson, Advisor to John Kerry 2004 Presidential Campaign
    During an interview with Bill Moyers
    February 28, 2003
    Posted by: Sharon at April 8, 2007 2:34 PM

    Grammie
    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at May 24, 2007 12:34 AM

    Grammie

    obama,

    YOU used the word "spineless", child; I simply put you in perspective, my cowardly friend. I simply assumed that you were in middle-school when you used the term "blind douche". Apparently, some folks never grow up. Sorry for my confusion...

    As for the idiocy you posted afterwards, I'll leave it to snopes Urban Legends site to handle that. Long since debunked, child:

    http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm

    my money says blindrat is on his lunch break now and will post again in 70 minutes or so.

    remember this when you are paying your taxes. you are directly funding blindrat's hobby.

    Hey, Obama, i answered the question for you. Or is that not a valid answer. are you trying to prove that he doesnt know it, or do you just want an answer? we've obviously shown your intentions, you want to attack Blindrat. You have an answer on the Al-Qaeda thing, drop it.\

    12:28, they are anti-muslim just like we are anti-mexican. Its not the religion, they're immigrating to their country in mass numbers because we're causing them to leave Iraq...derrrrr...

    Janet, we went over this last night. Explain yourself of forfeit that the War in Iraq was needless and is lost.

    Obama, punishment isnt always military action, dont forget that.

    "I think that (like most spineless-cowards) you would rather hear your own voice than face the very real fact that Islamist SAVAGES want to kill you."

    Obama, how old are you?

    Did you live through the Cold War? Do you know what the stakes are when facing a REAL enemy?....one that actually IS capable of killing us all?

    In other words, do you know what a REAL threat is?

    Have you tried taking a break from calling other Americans 'cowards' long enough from the safety and comfort of your living couch for it to occur to you how shrill, ridiculous, and absurd you sound?

    When you call someone else a "yellow bellied weasel" because their views on how best to make America safe differs from yours, how brave do you think that makes you? Are YOU one of the fine young Americans currently risking everything for us in the Middle East?

    Alarmists like you seem to think that you just haven't got it through our heads yet that those RADICAL ISLAMISTS WANT TO KILL US!!!! Thats right...yell it a little louder!...It just hasn't sunk in to our thick 'liberal' skulls yet!

    We know it Obama!....We DO know they want to kill us....Obama!....We probably understand the actual threat far better than you do! More to the point, we understand better than you do how to best counter the threat....and guess what....Doing what we are currently doing in Iraq AIN'T the answer!

    We also understand that every day our military weakens and depletes itself further by kicking down doors in Baghdad, is a day closer to the day in which we can no longer counter a REAL threat to America. We also understand that people like you....the ones all for keeping our finest bogged down and dying in the streets of Baghdad are helping "to weaken the country" every day that they blindly continue support of an innane policy that is doing NOTHING to enhance the security anf future of America!...Quite the opposite.

    So if you can't see the light...at least try to cool it with the shrill "coward and traitor" talk....because it does nothing but make you sound more like the guy on a street corner yelling "the end is near", than someone who actually has a sane solution to America's problems.

    OOOO, I just learned something really interesting. For all of you out there who think that Bush ISNT all about Oil and Oil revenues, check this article out. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-6655665,00.html

    The House is setting up a commitee to sue and severely punish those found of price gouging. President Veto already has his pen ready.

    Thank you Grammie....I thought I was being dense....Politicians, and some people on this board, frequently use this "backing of the American people" canard as a means of giving their own OPINION authority when poll after "1000 people surveyed" poll shows flux and/or indifference.....let alonethese polls never discuss a complicated, coordinated and thought-out foreign policy. If that was done the pollster would be on the phone with each person for about 2 hours!

    Craigs (I affectionetly call him Sheridan) even admitted that although 60-70% of polled Americans express a desire to see a date certain for troop withdrawl, the number goes down to 40% when "defunding the troops" is mentioned as a solution. While I do not agree that the Congress should cut off funding, reality is proving that Reid-Feingold or something along those lines is required if troop withdrawl is the goal.....I guess the dems' polls show some public angst about that option.

    Our dear Olbermann never gets specific on solutions/alternatives to the rancorous, bilious and overheated complaints he has about administration policy in his editorials.

    In a word, coward.

    Olbermann's job isnt a lawmaker. He is an informer, a newsmaker, albeit a biased one. His job is to bring issues to the forefront of the minds of the American people, and let us hash it out. If he were to start telling us what to do...well, thats not in the job description of a reporter. Thats meant for the editorial page of the newspaper.

    Let me guess, everyone here also thinks this man, http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/24/75237/1184 , is a coward and a traitor for saying we should leave Iraq...oh wait, he's a soldier, pesky details.

    Nick, there are two freudian slips in your 1:02pm post:

    "[Olbermann] is.....a newsmaker....."

    Oh, I am sure you are right that Olbermann believes he truly is a newsmaker.

    "If he were to start telling us what to do...well, thats not in the job description of a reporter. Thats meant for the editorial page of the newspaper."

    Ummm, I think it is safe to say SPECIAL COMMENT is Olbernmannese for "editorial."

    >The deplorable one, "Our troops are doomed." I wonder how a soldier packing his bag getting ready to go to Iraq would feel if they heard him say that. What an idiot, to say the least.
    Posted by: royalking at May 23, 2007 9:56 PM

    >Probably the same thing he felt when he heard one of his buddies was fished out of the Euphrates.
    Posted by: at May 24, 2007 12:45 AM


    >Here is what they are feeling:

    At Fort Drum, soldiers were carrying out their training and other operations with a "business as usual" attitude as news of the body's recovery quickly made it around the post, said Sgt. Kevin Stewart, 25, a six-year veteran from San Antonio.

    "We're focused on training, but I think everyone is concerned and hoping for a positive outcome," Stewart said, while standing in a shopping center parking lot off post. "As soldiers, we can all relate, and we can all imagine what it's like for the families."
    Posted by: Sharon at May 24, 2007 1:00 AM

    Sharon-

    Are you willfully this naive and ignorant or do you have no choice in the matter?

    Do you really think our brave military are actually speaking their minds when someone puts a microphone in front of their face.

    Perhaps you are unaware, the FIRST thing you learn in the military is to NOT speak your mind. Speaking one's mind and sharing one's feelings while actively serving overseas in a combat zone is not such a good idea.

    I've noticed you are quick to quote a soldier when they parrot your point of view. How politically convenient of you.

    In my local paper there is a story about a unit being called up to go to Iraq. That is actually the scenario that royalfraud was painting- someone packing their bags to go to Iraq and what they might think and feel after watching Olby's Special Comment.

    Here's a quote from that article:

    "I'm going to turn my fear into something positive to make sure I do a good job, even though I don't agree with this war."

    Staff Sgt. Russell Bassett, 32 of Molalla

    Sure, you can find quotes from soldiers to support your point of view. If that makes you feel better about what your president has put our military through, be my guest.

    But don't deprive them of their humanity. They are trained killers. Trained to protect this country from foreign threats. Not trained to invade and occupy a country.

    The death toll may be staggering, but the real toll will be calculated when our brave men and women come home and try to reassilimate themselves into society.

    I imagine therapists nationwide will be have some of the best job security ever known.

    One last note:

    With a very large percentage of our nation's fighting force in Iraq fighting a war of choice, did you ever think of the dangers of putting that much of our military that close to hostile nuclear weapons? What if a rogue force in Pakistan decides to decimate our military with a push of a button?

    I would be feeling a little less secure on the homefront. How about you?

    What else would Olbermann be other than a newsmaker? He has a news show on a news program where he talks about the top stories of the day...so what would you describe him as?

    Yes, it is an editorial of sorts, but it is not his place to tell us what to do, it is his place to bring us the news.

    Hey Nick,
    Any comments on the Left's idol Ahmadinejad statement below:

    Iran to Israel: Don't Attack Lebanon

    May 24 10:56 AM US/Eastern


    TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's hard-line president warned Israel on Thursday that other nations in the region would "uproot" the Jewish state if it attacked Lebanon in the summer.
    "If you think that by bombing and assassinating Palestinian leaders you are preparing ground for new attacks on Lebanon in the summer, I am telling you that you are seriously wrong," President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told a rally in the city of Isfahan.

    "If this year you repeat the same mistake of the last year, the ocean of nations of the region will get angry and will uproot the Zionist regime."


    It's pretty sad when all Cee has on the Dems is that they are giving in to his president.

    Cake and eat it too?

    I wish repubs would learn to clean up their own messes.

    Some day...

    blindrat,

    Wit is not repeating someone else's wit as a retort. Try and come up with some original comeback next time.

    My comments were to a particular point - that simply stating that people die or are injured in war or that wars are expensive are not "arguments" against the war in Iraq because those same things are true for all wars and, in Clucker's case, he is not opposed to all war only "unjust" wars or "wars of choice".

    In your case, you are rattling off the usual anti-war left mantra that passed for intelligent dialog on sites like Kos and DU. The problem with OlbyLoons is that they operate in a bubble where they talk in this kind of shorthand - Downing Street Memo, Joe Wilson, etc. - and actually believe they are having an informed discussion about the war. I live in New York and hear the same type of tripe at cocktails parties, from other parents on the sidelines during a soccer game or at some school event.

    Saying "Downing Street Memo" over and over again is not an ARGUMENT. You can scream "Halliburton!" "Dick Cheney!" and "Bush is Hitler" all day long and you are not going to convince anyone who supported the invasion of Iraq and still supports the President. Since you must have some functioning braincells in order to operate a computer, then you know this and your coming on to this site and making such absurd statements is not to advance anyone's understanding or clarify issues or convince anyone who does not already share your beliefs then your presence on this board is just a form of puerile attention-getting best left to small children and furry pets.

    Here's what people like you don't seem to get. What George Bush and his administration said or did prior to the war in order to convince Americans of the need to go to war has absolutely no bearing on whether waging war on Iraq was the right thing to do. It either was or was not. The same for staying in Iraq or leaving.

    The majority of the American people are, as you prove daily, basically idiots who know virtually nothing about the world around them. The number of voting age people who actually vote in this country is a distinct minority and many of those who do vote are functionally illiterate when it comes to geopolitical issues. I could give not give a damn what my neighbor thinks about the war in Iraq because my neighbor is more preoccupied with trimming his hedges or washing his car or getting a good deal on a high-def TV. I do not care what the dope who bags my groceries or takes my money at a toll booth or cuts my grass thinks about anything other than double-bagging my gallon of milk, giving me correct change or pushing the mower in a straight line. So, you can just imagine how little I care about the results of a survey in which 1,000 such numbnuts are asked whether they think the surge in Iraq is working or whether al Qaeda or Iraqi insurgents are responsible for the violence in Iraq or whether Iran should be held accountable for supplying IEDs to Iraqi militants.

    Citing popularity contests or man-on-the-street interviews is not argument. Saying Bush tricked people into supporting his decision to go to war is not an argument. Name calling is not an argument.

    For sure, taking us back five years to your views on what SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED in the run-up to the Iraq War is not an argument for why you believe it is in the best interests of the United States to withdraw from Iraq forthwith.

    The British called those who fought to free Ireland from colonial rule "terrorists". As an Irish citizen, I would certainly agree that "terrorism" is a phony word - a label attached to the acts of an enemy regardless of the merits of that enemies cause. It is another form of shorthand to say that we are fighting "terrorists" in a "war on terror". My view is that we are fighting people who have either been drawn to an ideology ("Wahibism") or drawn to the violent actions of those who have been drawn to that ideology. The nihilist nature of this ideology attracts the hopeless. The only way to fight this ideology is to offer hope. Give people a reason to believe in the future and they will not be so interested in blowing themselves up.

    I believe the least worst path towards creating hope for those who might otherwise be attracted to violent fundamentalist Muslim ideology is to foster the twin goods of Democratic freedom and economic opportunity. There is no way to make this omelet without breaking a few eggs. If this end is ultimately attained we will look back and see this period for what it is - a necessary transition away from the oligarchic totalitarian control of the Middle East towards a freer, more open society where young men can find work, get married and raise a family. Give young Muslims this kind of a future and they will turn away from the Jihadi ideology on their own.

    Given my beliefs, I feel we have to do whatever is necessary to restructure the power dynamic in ALL the Middle East countries. Each case will be different. In Iraq, waging war made sense. In Iran, the government may well collapse from within. In Jordan or Saudi Arabia, our allies, we will have to take a longer-term approach. I have always believed that Syria, like Libya, could eventually be turned and getting Syria out of Lebanon was a good first step.

    So, my argument for staying in Iraq is that we must do whatever we can to create a functioning, prosperous democracy in the heart of the Middle East and use that success to knock down the rest of the dominoes. If we can succeed in this, the so-called "war on terror" will resolve itself as potential supporters of militant Islam see a better future elsewhere.

    .

    Cox,

    How, in the name of God, did making war in Iraq make sense? You've been avoiding responding to that very question...

    RCox, for one, You have kids? that scares me. Two, No we can not discuss what SHOULD HAVE BEEN SAID, but what we can discuss what was said, and what was said was false. This war was based on false pretenses from the very beginning. There was no reason to attack. No reason to lose 3400 men. No reason to still be there. We have literally emboldened the enemy by being there as long as we have. The number of terrorists and terrorist attacks in the region has SKYROCKETED since we got there. So much for shutting down terrorism.

    "Given my beliefs, I feel we have to do whatever is necessary to restructure the power dynamic in ALL the Middle East countries"

    Have you heard of ethnocentrism? Its a term that describes when one society puts their set ideals up against anothers and calls the other side wrong because they dont agree with another culture. We dont know the culture of the Middle East as well as they do. They've been there for 3000 years, we've been here for 300. Let them deal with their own problems. We have MORE THAN ENOUGH to take care of here.

    and Anon 1:19. I try not to get myself mixed up in the politics of OTHER countries. Just this one.

    Anyone else think Olbermann was kinda HOT when he delivered that 8 minute special comment? He stumbled over his words only once this time. Screw the war, screw the corruption...he had the most dreamy shirt & tie combo...and don't get me started on his spittle...Oh to be spanked with a rolled up special comment script....yum!

    Nick, you don't understand Islam.

    Toss out a word like "ethnocentrism" and use it against us (we think we're better than them) but forgetting it is exactly the other way around as well (they think they're better than us).

    Now, let's just think about common sense and give points to the better nation:

    Freedom of religion:

    US OR THEM? I give a point to US.

    Honor Killing?

    US OR THEM? If you agree with honor killing, the point goes to islamic nations. If you disagree, that point should go to america.

    Suicide bombers?

    US Or them? blah blah blah

    The fact is, Islamic nations are no different than their 7th century past.

    By the way, they haven't been there "3000 years". Islam has been around for much less time than that, and Islam destroyed most of the pre-Islamic culture of those people.

    Ethnocentric or not, I'm going to go out on a limb and put freedom and a secular government above a harsh muslim theocracy.

    Senate report: US intel warned that Iran, al-Qaida could gain with Iraq invasion
    Wednesday, May 23, 2007
    By KATHERINE SHRADER
    Associated Press Writer

    WASHINGTON (AP) U.S. intelligence agencies warned senior members of the Bush administration in early 2003 that invading Iraq could create instability that would give Iran and al-Qaida new opportunities to expand their influence, according to an upcoming Senate report.

    Officials familiar with the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation also say analysts warned against U.S. domination in the region, which could increase extremist recruiting. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the report's declassification is not finished. It could be made public as soon as this week.

    The committee also found that the warnings predicting what would happen after the U.S.-led invasion were circulated widely in government, including to the Pentagon and the Office of the Vice President. It wasn't clear whether President Bush was briefed.

    A National Security Council spokesman could not immediately be reached for comment Wednesday evening.

    The report comes as the administration is facing renewed criticism for failing to execute adequate post-invasion plans to stabilize Iraq after Saddam Hussein was toppled. Meanwhile, the White House has been trying to make the case that Iraq cannot be abandoned.

    The committee's findings are the latest chapter in its four-year investigation into the prewar intelligence assessments on Iraq. An earlier volume, completed and released in 2004, was highly critical of the intelligence community and then-CIA Director George Tenet.

    That 511-page document found widespread problems throughout U.S. spy agencies and said the intelligence community engaged in ``group think'' by failing to challenge the assumption that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Senators also found that analysts failed to explain their uncertainties to policymakers.

    Yet, in predicting the effects of the U.S. invasion, the committee now finds that U.S. analysts appear to have largely been on the mark.

    A former intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the decision to go to war had been made months before the 2003 papers were drafted and analysts had no delusions that they were going to head off military action. Rather, the official said, they hoped their warnings would be considered in the planning.

    Since the release of his memoir several weeks ago, Tenet has been criticized anew for not doing more to warn Bush about the shaky Iraq intelligence and the consequences of invading.

    Yet his book provided a glimpse of some of the prewar warnings about the consequences of invading Iraq.

    For instance, he discusses a paper prepared for a Camp David meeting with the president in September 2002 entitled, ``The Perfect Storm: The Negative Consequences for Invading Iraq.'' Tenet called the paper a list of ``worst-case scenarios,'' which included anarchy and territorial breakup of Iraq and a surge of global terrorism against U.S. interests, fueled by deepening Islamic antipathy toward the United States.

    He also notes that, in an early 2003 intelligence paper, analysts warned that ``a post-Saddam authority would face a deeply divided society with a significant chance that domestic groups would engage in violent conflict with each other, unless an occupying force prevented them from doing so.''

    The paper, which is believed to figure in the Senate investigation, also noted that Iraq's long history of foreign occupation means that it has a deep dislike of occupying forces.

    Since 2003, the Senate committee led by Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., and now Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va. has been trudging through its investigation of what went wrong, frequently slowed by politics.

    Last fall, the committee released new chapters on what was learned after the invasion about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and its links to terrorism and how information from an advocacy group, the Iraqi National Congress, crept into U.S. intelligence reporting.

    While the first phase of its report was supported unanimously just before the 2004 presidential elections, the newer findings on the intelligence community's predictions about postwar Iraq have drawn dissent from Republicans. Details on the committee's vote have not yet been released.

    http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/7661

    VOTE ALERT: Dick Cheney Dems Plan to Hide Votes On Iraq TODAY
    by David Sirota | May 24 2007 - 9:34am |

    Today is the day House Democrats are expected to vote on Iraq - except, news out of Washington this morning says the leadership has come up with a nifty little trick to try to prevent the public from seeing who voted for giving Bush a blank check, and who voted against it. If you thought Democrats were behaving like cowards by caving into a President at a three-decade low in presidential polling and giving him the very blank check they explicitly promised not to give him during the 2006 election, you ain't seen nothing yet. We are watching the rise of the Dick Cheney Democrats - that is, the rise of Democrats who endorse governing in secret and hiding the public's business from the public itself.

    Here's how it is expected to work today in a process only Dick Cheney could love (though you never know - it could change). Every bill comes to the House floor with what is known as a "rule" that sets the terms of the debate over the legislation in question. House members first vote to approve this parliamentary rule, and then vote on the legislation. Today, however, Democrats are planning to include the Iraq Blank check bill IN the rule itself, meaning when the public goes to look for a vote on the Iraq supplemental bill, the public won't find that. All we will find is a complex parliamentary procedure vote. Lawmakers, of course, will then tell their angry constituents they really are using all of their power to end the war, and this vote on the rule - which was the real vote for war - wasn't really a vote on the war. It is a devious, deliberately confusing cherry on top of the manure sundae being served up to the American public, which voted Democrats into office on the premise that they would use their congressional majority to end the war.

    All of this is happening at the time top Republican leaders are making ever more sociopathic statements at odds with mainstream public opinion. Today, as just one example, House Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam (R-FL) cheered on the blank check, telling Roll Call that "You drop Murtha [troop readiness standards], you drop withdrawal, the troops win." He doesn't explain how popular proposals to better equip and train American soldiers for combat and force the Bush administration to come up with a plan for redeploying troops out of harms way means "troops win."

    If this secretive behavior seems familiar, it should. You may recall that in the past two weeks, the same Democratic leadership that is now trying to hide its votes on Iraq negotiated a secret free trade deal with the White House, steamrolling its other key Election 2006 pledge to stop lobbyist-written trade policy. The legislative texts of the trade pacts in question remain concealed from the public, though K Street lobbyists have told reporters they have received "assurances" that any of the much-touted provisions that purport to protect labor and the environment will be written to be unenforceable.

    Not surprisingly, Democrats are reacting to questions about why they are trying to secretly defy the will of the public and disrespecting their Election 2006 campaign in the same way they always do: Like wailing infants. Last week, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) took to PBS to lace into critics of the secret trade deal he negotiated, saying he should have "ignored" his own Democratic colleagues raising questions because they are "wasting my time."

    On the war, same thing. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL), for instance, today criticized Moveon.org in Roll Call newspaper for asking Democrats to vote down the blank check proposal, saying "I would urge MoveOn and others to recognize that the person who is extending this war is George Bush." This is the same Artur Davis who whined to reporters that it was "unfortunate" he was exposed for taking thousands of dollars of credit card industry cash in exchange for his support for the credit card-industry written Bankruptcy Bill in 2005.

    But, then, Davis is trying to pull the same kind of rhetorical trick that so many other Democrats pull: Attempting to make us believe they are merely innocent bystanders, and that there isn't that document known as the "Constitution" that gives Congress the power of the purse over George Bush. We're all just supposed to be totally psyched that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) says she is unhappy that this is all happening, even though Pelosi is simultaneously using her power to schedule this vote, and set it up in a way so as to hide it from the public. She would have us believe that September will be "really the moment of truth for this war," as Congressional Quarterly quotes her saying - as if it's no big deal that more troops will die because she and her colleagues are willing to drag their feet from the comfortable guarded confines of the U.S. Capitol. We're all just supposed to wildly applaud when Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) goes on national television to say that the bill they are pushing is "the beginning of the end of the president's policy in Iraq" - we're not supposed to know that he and his colleagues stripped out the timelines for withdrawal and even stripped out waivable troop readiness standards.

    The good news is that the public is getting smart, and the traditional media's monopoly on news - which often means we don't actually get the real news - is ending. Today, it is more difficult than ever for politicians to go the Dick Cheney Energy Task Force route by trying to hide their shenanigans from public view. Democratic leaders, try as they might to negotiate secret NAFTA-style trade deals and use parliamentary pirouettes to hide votes on the Iraq War, aren't fooling anyone. And come 2008, they will be held to account.

    I'll do an update on the Iraq vote over later today when/if it happens. If you are watching C-SPAN, make sure to carefully watch the vote on the rule. All the Republicans will likely vote no - they want an open debate because they somehow think reiterating to America their steadfast support for the Iraq War is good politics. The Democrats voting yes on the rule are the ones who are casting their vote to give President Bush a blank check. The question after that will be which U.S. Senator is going to answer the "where's the beef?" question by putting their antiwar rhetoric into action by pulling an old-school, read-the-phonebook filibuster? Sens. Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Bernie Sanders and Russ Feingold seem to be girding for a big fight, while the Associated Press reports both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama "declined" to take a position. Will we see a real filibuster, or will we see capitulation in the upper chamber? Stay tuned.

    "I wish repubs would learn to clean up their own messes."

    Spoken like a true partisan....Chicken Blogger....

    Well, I guess I am sorry that I still believe a country at war benefits from a united will to accomplish the objective....That I do not think it is helpful, patriotic, right or brave to cut the legs out from under our duly elected executive, who is charged by constitutional law to protect the American people, not with outright, decisive action but bit-by-bit....by millions of tiny pricks over years......That I call the political cowardice of the opposition for what it is and that their childish behavior of whining and complaining is more damaging to our country's reputation and power to be a good inlfuence in our world than ANYTHING George Bush or the republican party has ever done.

    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

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

    I didnt say Islam had been there for 3000 years. Muhammad wasnt even born till the 500's CE. Im not an idiot. There have been cultures in that area for somewhere around 7000 years actually, starting with Mesopotamia. And yeah, they dont agree with those things, but THEY dont, we do. We shouldnt be forcing our ideals on them just because we're trying to globalize the world into one huge nation. Let them be, they do what they do, we do what we do.

    As a side note, i consider it a badge of honor that someone is making a name against me, you're sweet. It means I'm getting to you.

    Cee is a traveling Clown Show without the make-up and wheels (or sense of purpose).

    Cee quotes people out of context as a 'signature' to his posts.

    Cee makes up pet names for his 'opponents' like Sheridan and Oz.

    Cee disengeniously acts like he wants the Dems to stop the funding of a war he is FOR.

    Cee, if you actually had a non-shifting position that wasn't dictated by what the 'opposition' is doing, you'd be applauding the Dems for caving in to your war and your president.

    When you stand at the pearly gates to face YOUR maker, don't be surprised if IT asks you where your conscience is.

    And you'd better hope he is a big fan of muslim-hating war-mongering chicken hawks like yourself. He probably is, since you've made your God in Your image.

    Oh, and I lied about the make-up...

    Every morning Cee puts on a little of his wife's rouge to keep a rosy appearance in the face of adversity.

    No, Cee, the whole country isn't in opposition to your position quite yet, but I think it's safe to say 'Cee Island' is rapidly losing real estate to the tide of public opinion.

    And no, it's NOT a popularity contest. But do remember, public opinion WAS on your side. So, they've seen it from both sides and have come to the conclusion that YOUR position is a DEAD-ENDER.

    Cheers!

    "Well, I guess I am sorry..."

    Yes, you are right.

    You ARE sorry.

    Apology NOT accepted.

    Cee,

    you're saying it wasnt George Bush, but millions of tiny pricks that have subverted the constitution.

    Was it the millions of Tiny Pricks that wrote and passed the Military Commisions Act of 2006, No that was Bush and the Republicans.

    Was it the millions of Tiny Pricks that passed the law giving Bush complete control over all three branches of Government any time that "Catastrophic Emergency" occurs, this means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;

    Damned tiny pricks.

    Cee calling someone a Partisan.

    Now that's FUNNY!

    Cee = Tiny Prick

    Nick,

    What's your purpose here?

    You're are exactly like George Bush:

    You showed up here uninvited and with a mandate to change our way of life.

    Nothing you do makes any difference here.

    All your actions seemingly makes the situation worse.

    You seem to stick around because of your greed for the high you get in provoking others.

    And your only response to a lack of success is to throw out more and more posts to die on this blog.

    Nick - Stop this meaningless war of words.

    GO HOME!

    That was a lot of effort spent on an idiot. There were many reasons to land somewhere in the middle east. At this time Iraq was the most obvious. The US will have a presents there for many years into the future. Securing the oil fields for the world. The military will already be there when Iran steps out of line as their leader proclaims almost on a daily bases. Look at the history of Israel and the many attacks they have endured. It's hard for some people to reason this out or accept the fact that WMD in Iraq was part of but possibly the least of our worries then AND in the future. But to try and explain it to an idiot or the uninformed is a task of monumental proportions if not impossible.

    A tear wells up in my eye after the anonymous post.....you got me pegged dead to rights.....

    There is now no longer any point to even go on....all is lost, lost.

    Don't leave because of a childish taut.

    Some peopleeven think you are a tremendous prick!

    Don't leave because of a childish taut.

    Some people even think you are a tremendous prick!

    Robert,

    though I frequently disagree with your views in general, I find you are always an interesting read. Your post is well argued but there are a few points I 'd like to offer a rebuttal to, and I'd be curious to hear your reply to them if you have the time.

    "Here's what people like you don't seem to get. What George Bush and his administration said or did prior to the war in order to convince Americans of the need to go to war has absolutely no bearing on whether waging war on Iraq was the right thing to do. It either was or was not. The same for staying in Iraq or leaving."

    I understand the point you are making here, which is that basically the need to stay or go is independent of the rhetoric coming from our government. However I would argue that when the left claims Bush lied they are doing so for three reasons.

    1) independent of Iraq, if Bush lied he has undermined the Republic in doing so. Regardless of whether Iraq succeeds and becomes a beacon in the middle east or not. if we are to function as a democratic society, our people must be involved in the process. Certainly is he lied to congress that is extremely dangerous to our Republic because right or wrong you can't have a functioning Democracy if the president behaves in way that exceeds his power. If we are to be a self governing people then we must demand honesty from the president (at least on matters this important). Notice I used the word if While I personally believe the president has been less than truthful I will concede there is at least debate on this point (I feel the evidence is pretty conclusive but I by no means expect you to accept that).

    2) It becomes an issue of credibility. If Bush says "the surge is working!" One certainly has reason to doubt the truthfulness of someone who has lied in the past. I believe this is a point you have made repeatedly in regards to Keith Olbermann. So when the left yells "Downing street memo!" We are saying here is evidence of a lie. How can you continue to believe someone who has shown the capacity to do this, on a matter so important.

    3) If the reason for going to war was untrue then why are we there? Meaning what makes the invasion right. If we are not there to prevent a Nuclear attack why are we there? it seems to me you can argue that the reason for staying has no bearing on what was said before, but the reason for initially going is extremely dependent on what was said. if there was no threat then something else is going to have to make the initial invasion justified because we did not protect ourselves from a WMD threat. At least not an imminent one.


    "I believe the least worst path towards creating hope for those who might otherwise be attracted to violent fundamentalist Muslim ideology is to foster the twin goods of Democratic freedom and economic opportunity. There is no way to make this omelet without breaking a few eggs. If this end is ultimately attained we will look back and see this period for what it is - a necessary transition away from the oligarchic totalitarian control of the Middle East towards a freer, more open society where young men can find work, get married and raise a family. Give young Muslims this kind of a future and they will turn away from the Jihadi ideology on their own."

    This is a noble sentiment Robert and I don't doubt your sincerity. However, it seems to me that Democracy is not doing well under the barrel of a gun. It seems to me that usually the movement must come from within. Like in the case of South Korea where over a very long period of industrialization, a middle class emerged that demanded democratic reforms..

    In any case if we ever had a chance to create a functioning democracy in Iraq I think it is gone. De-bathification and the disbanding of the Iraqi army have left hundreds of thousands of Sunni's without employment (and armed) has left the Sunni feeling singled out (making reconciliation almost impossible) and has led many to believe that the current govemrent is not legitimate. (without which no government can succeed)
    Finally the most powerful force in Iraq right now seems to be a fundamentalist minded Muslim cleric. To me this is not going forward in creating a democratic and free Iraq. I think we will be beyond lucky if we can stop genocide much less create an example of hope in the middle east.

    "Well, I guess I am sorry that I still believe a country at war benefits from a united will to accomplish the objective....That I do not think it is helpful, patriotic, right or brave to cut the legs out from under our duly elected executive, who is charged by constitutional law to protect the American people, not with outright, decisive action but bit-by-bit....by millions of tiny pricks over years......That I call the political cowardice of the opposition for what it is and that their childish behavior of whining and complaining is more damaging to our country's reputation and power to be a good inlfuence in our world than ANYTHING George Bush or the republican party has ever done."


    If the president wanted sacrifice he should not have told the american people that the war would pay for itself, that it would only be a few billion dollars to the tax payer. Then he should have avoided caaling for an end to major combat operations well before we were at that point. Collectve will can accomplish much, but dissent can help avoid compunding a mistake.

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

    The only place where you and I disagree ... is with regard to the bombing, You're so goddamned concerned about the civilians and I don't give a damn. I don't care." - Nixon

    "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." -Nixon

    "We know where they [WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east" - Rumsfield

    There were many reasons to land somewhere in the middle east. At this time Iraq was the most obvious. The US will have a presents there for many years into the future. Securing the oil fields for the world. The military will already be there when Iran steps out of line as their leader proclaims almost on a daily bases. Look at the history of Israel and the many attacks they have endured. It's hard for some people to reason this out or accept the fact that WMD in Iraq was part of but possibly the least of our worries then AND in the future.

    So Keith and Slippery bellow for months and months that the Prez is going to fold on Iraq and the Dems are going to "Stand up to him". How did that turn out Keith? Now that Keith's house of cards a fallen apart, he re-writes history. Apparently Keith and Slippery were talking for months about how the dems would give in to the President. I guess this debate took place in bizzaro world. Looks like Keith is now trying to top Rosie with his deranged ravings. I guess he thinks if he steals Bill Maher's material he can grab more attention than the Rose. Sorry Keith, Maher is considered funny to some people.

    Major Craigs, I am not interjecting myself between you and R Cox. I asked this early last night and in two separate posts and didn't get any, that I remember, much less a valid response. And since part of your response touches on several points you made I'll lay them out.


    "Since everything that GWB et al said about Iraq was said long before by Clinton/Gore et al (includes intelligence networks from diverse countries around the world) and long after by virtually every high ranking official here and abroad at what point did it all become a lie?"


    "That Bush is a tricky devil. The Lib Dem icons spoke only the truth but every time GWB said the same things he was lying through his teeth. Or was GWB telling the truth and the Lib Dems were lying?

    Or maybe they all thought they telling the truth. Nah, couldn't be. Or could it.

    And that brings us to the point that if everyone believed what they were saying at what point in a post 9/11 world would it have been irresponsible to have ignored the virtually universally accepted truths?"


    "So, Clucker, your contention is that virtually the entire upper echelons of our government and most governments and intelligence agencies both before GWB and then 9/11 and after were doing what? Blowing smoke or smoking something.

    So they lied and continued to lie for years but that is OK because why? They have gained a political advantage while keeping their hands clean?

    Or did they believe what they said and after 9/11 not only pumped up their rhetoric but gave GWB the authority he sought because the world had changed and they were acting on their own convictions.

    Or is there an explanation that hasn't ocurred to me. "


    "Hope springs eternal that I will get an answer from someones point of when the stated beliefs of virtually the entire free world's governments became a GWB lie even though all the others continued, and some still do, in their same rhetoric for years."

    I confess that I don't see how such mutually exclusive beliefs can exist in any rational basis. In a religious tenet faith based way, it would be possible.

    What is your analysis of it and what legitimate function does it serve?

    Grammie

    Grammie, I promise i will give you a reply.

    I Just had a bunch of work come down the chute though so it may be a few hours.

    Robert Cox said: "in Iraq, waging war made sense".

    That is an mind boggling and incomprehensible statement..... especially when you add the 20/20 vision of hindsight that disproves it completely.

    The fact that the owner of this very site would make such an absurd statement speaks volumns about his REAL reason for his rabid opposition to Keith Olbermann.

    Robert, when I showed my wife another quote you made from that same post;........"So, my argument for staying in Iraq is that we must do whatever we can to create a functioning, prosperous democracy in the heart of the Middle East".....she couldn't do anything but shake her head in wonderment and mutter "what world are you living in?".

    Robert, you seem to be even more "out there" than the administration is these days......Even THEY have stopped giving us that ridiculous, rosy, pie-in-the-sky "we're creating a democracy to transform the Middle East" argument anymore.

    Yet here you are, still preaching that inane Neocon dream about how it is up to us (as in America) to transform the world into our own image.

    Robert, I repeat the question my wife asked: What world ARE you living in?

    Thanks, Major. I'll check back later.

    Grammie

    Sniff, sniff...ok...I have composed myself after that wuthering attack.....

    Oh, by the way leftists.....there is democrat other than the great Senator from Connecticut I do agree with.....Bob Kerrey...

    "Let me restate the case for this Iraq war from the U.S. point of view. The U.S. led an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein because Iraq was rightly seen as a threat following Sept. 11, 2001. For two decades we had suffered attacks by radical Islamic groups but were lulled into a false sense of complacency because all previous attacks were "over there." It was our nation and our people who had been identified by Osama bin Laden as the "head of the snake." But suddenly Middle Eastern radicals had demonstrated extraordinary capacity to reach our shores.

    "As for Saddam, he had refused to comply with numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions outlining specific requirements related to disclosure of his weapons programs. He could have complied with the Security Council resolutions with the greatest of ease. He chose not to because he was stealing and extorting billions of dollars from the U.N. Oil for Food program.

    "No matter how incompetent the Bush administration and no matter how poorly they chose their words to describe themselves and their political opponents, Iraq was a larger national security risk after Sept. 11 than it was before. And no matter how much we might want to turn the clock back and either avoid the invasion itself or the blunders that followed, we cannot. The war to overthrow Saddam Hussein is over. What remains is a war to overthrow the government of Iraq.

    ####
    So true Mr. Kerrey....could you convince our dear Nick and blindrat of this reality?


    "Some who have been critical of this effort from the beginning have consistently based their opposition on their preference for a dictator we can control or contain at a much lower cost. From the start they said the price tag for creating an environment where democracy could take root in Iraq would be high. Those critics can go to sleep at night knowing they were right.

    "The critics who bother me the most are those who ordinarily would not be on the side of supporting dictatorships, who are arguing today that only military intervention can prevent the genocide of Darfur, or who argued yesterday for military intervention in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda to ease the sectarian violence that was tearing those places apart.

    "American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it. Al Qaeda in particular has targeted for abduction and murder those who are essential to a functioning democracy: school teachers, aid workers, private contractors working to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, police officers and anyone who cooperates with the Iraqi government. Much of Iraq's middle class has fled the country in fear."

    ###
    Oh but the brainiacs on OW just don't care about these fine people trying to make Iraq a working society. "Pull out and screw 'em!"


    "With these facts on the scales, what does your conscience tell you to do? If the answer is nothing, that it is not our responsibility or that this is all about oil, then no wonder today we Democrats are not trusted with the reins of power. ***AMEN! American lawmakers who are watching public opinion tell them to move away from Iraq as quickly as possible should remember this: Concessions will not work with either al Qaeda or other foreign fighters who will not rest until they have killed or driven into exile the last remaining Iraqi who favors democracy.

    "This does not mean that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11; he was not. Nor does it mean that the war to overthrow him was justified--though I believe it was. It only means that a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq would hand Osama bin Laden a substantial psychological victory.

    "Those who argue that radical Islamic terrorism has arrived in Iraq because of the U.S.-led invasion are right. But they are right because radical Islam opposes democracy in Iraq. If our purpose had been to substitute a dictator who was more cooperative and supportive of the West, these groups wouldn't have lasted a week.

    "Finally, Jim Webb said something during his campaign for the Senate that should be emblazoned on the desks of all 535 members of Congress: You do not have to occupy a country in order to fight the terrorists who are inside it.

    "Upon that truth I believe it is possible to build what doesn't exist today in Washington: a bipartisan strategy to deal with the long-term threat of terrorism.

    "The American people will need that consensus regardless of when, and under what circumstances, we withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq. We must not allow terrorist sanctuaries to develop any place on earth. Whether these fighters are finding refuge in Syria, Iran, Pakistan or elsewhere, we cannot afford diplomatic or political excuses to prevent us from using military force to eliminate them."

    A little more constructive than "Stop the war." The basic argument in Olbermann's Special Comment.

    Well "Mike", since a pseudonymous commenter's wife does not agree with me I guess that settles it, huh?

    I always love how the OlbyLoons imagine that their opinion, offered anonymously on a comment thread on a blog, trumps actually making a case for or against something. Mike and his wife have provided an excellent example of life in the far-left bubble. Not only does Mike not share my view but his WIFE doesn't either. Wow! That is sure some argument for your position on the war.

    I've posted the same question repeatedly here and still can't find an OlbyLoon that is prepared to MAKE A CASE for leaving Iraq other than points that are ALWAYS true in any war. Keep in mind that it is not a fact that the war in Iraq is not a "just war" or was a "war of choice". Those are your opinions and therefore cannot be cited as facts to make a case. Doesn't anyone here ready Foreign Affairs or the Economist or are all these OlbyLoons just dolts who can do no better than copy and paste posts from Think Progress.

    Robert, I've been making case, after case, after case for leaving Iraq. I strongly believe that WE are THE major catalyst for the violence, and I don't have any reason whatsoever to accept as 'fact' the doomsday scenarios that folks such as yourself keep putting forth as 'fact'...(without proof). I also reject the theory that Al Qeada is going to "take over" if we leave. There is no reason to believe the Shia majority would allow that to happen.

    The fact that you Neocons have been WRONG consistantly with your predictions somehow doesn't stop you from making more, nor does it stop you from continuing to try to control a disaster of your own making....and you wonder why sane people roll their eyes at your same tired old arguments these days.

    I find it interesting now you that you have identified yourself as a classic Neocon...Why, William Crystal could have just as easily made that post as you.

    The FACT that Iraq is a 'war of choice" is NOT just "my opinion" either...it is reality, and you can't possibly make a coherent argument to the contrary.

    You call me "far left", but how do you know I'm not a conservaive in the Pat Buchanon mold? Is HE "far left" too? How does that explain my vote for GWB in 2000? That was the year he ran in opposition to nation building, if you will recall.

    It is fascinating how you Neocons continue to comfort yourself with the FALLACY that it is just the "far left" that opposes this lunacy called Iraq. I know SO many examples of otherwise staunch conservatives who oppose the war that it can't possibly be an anomaly.

    Also, I keep wondering what your statement that the majority of Americans are "basically idiots" says about you? That was a pretty arrogant statement. We can add to that your unfortunate tendency to label anyone who disagrees with you as 'dolts. The American People, including what you call 'Olbyloons', are not nearly as dumb as you think, Mr. Cox!....unfortunately, they are often preoccupied with other things, but they are anything but "basically idiots".

    They finally proved that last November.

    Craig,

    You said you believe "the left" pushes the "Bush Lied" slogan for three reasons but by my count you only provided two: (1) if Bush lied he undermined the Republic and we cannot trust what we says going forward. You then ask a question - if we are not there for the reasons offered by Bush in 2002-03 then why are we there?

    I've already explained why I believe that a forward-leaning foreign policy that seeks to advance democracy and economic opportunity in the Middle East is good. I do not believe that Bush "lied" about Iraq's WMD program or their desire to acquire nuclear weapons. I cannot imagine how anyone could dispute that Saddam Hussein was not a destabilizing influence on Middle Eastern politics being that he committed various acts of aggression including military action and outright war with all of his neighbors save Syria and Turkey. Since I do not believe he lied I do not share any concerns about undermining the Republic or not trusting what he says in the future.

    You wrote "It seems to me that Democracy is not doing well under the barrel of a gun. It seems to me that usually the movement must come from within. Like in the case of South Korea where over a very long period of industrialization, a middle class emerged that demanded democratic reforms"

    Your kidding, right?

    I guess you missed that part about the Korean Conflict which cost us more than 50,000 American lives. Oh, and by the way we have had tens of thousands of troops stationed there since the armistice in 1953. It is ironic that you provide probably the best example of just how Democracy CAN flourish under the barrel of a gun.

    I cannot really argue with "if we ever had a chance to create a functioning democracy in Iraq I think it is gone" because it is pure opinion. It might be meaningful in some way if you were a recognized authority on Iraq or the Middle East or anything for that matter but you are just an anonymous commenter on a blog. Given that your statement that "de-Baathificaiton" was a mistake and has caused Sunni's to feel singled out is just as meaningless. Have you ever been to Iraq? Ever spoke with an Iraqi Sunni? Or are you just parroting what you read in the MSM or on blue blogs?

    When you say "many "believe that the current govemrent is not legitimate I wonder what you mean by "many"? Do you mean the majority who voted? Or the few who are engaged in violence against the government. I mean come on, Saddam did not believe the government was "legitimate" before he was hanged. Is that the kind of "many" you have in mind? And are there MANY MORE who do support the government?

    When you say "the most powerful force in Iraq right now seems to be a fundamentalist minded Muslim cleric" you leave out a few things such as...hmmmm...the U.S. military. And you are obviously excluding both the Kurdish north and the Shia south as well as Anbar province. And last I heard al Sadr, if that's who you mean, was hiding in Iran.

    You write "this is not going forward in creating a democratic and free Iraq. I think we will be beyond lucky if we can stop genocide much less create an example of hope in the middle east." I am sorry you are such a pessimist about the future of mankind. What great accomplishment in the world has been achieved without sacrifice. Where do you think our own country would be if people thought like you instead of people like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln or Franklin Roosevelt. I'd be blogging in German if Churchchill was not such a cockeyed optimist. North America would have five or even six countries on it instead of three.

    If you do not believe that economic, political and religious freedom are not shared values, the most fundamental of human rights, then I feel sorry for you and your world of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

    Mike: Don't you get it yet? We need to win in Iraq so that the terrorists do not think we are soft. They are the ones bombing for no good reason., not us. When will you liberals get it? We are the good guys over there. Nope, you thik that we are the bad guys. It shows everyone why liberals are feared, not heald in awe, why liberal policies fail, and why as soon as the Kos crowd and the Think Progressers stop their nausitating fear mongering, the country will return to the right. We do not want the nation to lose to criminal reg9mes in Iraq.

    Don't waste your typing skills Robert. Mike will still hold the same pre WWI belief that we can hide within our own boarders and never be attacked. That no one will hate us as long as we don't make our presence felt around the world. He and his zombie friends will never be shaken from this belief until the nuke is set off in his hometown. This is the same logic that thought the Communist never wanted to harm us and Reagan was just inciting them when he called them the evil empire. He follows only two beliefs, peace through appeasement, and stick you finger in the wind to find out which path you should take.

    Lovemethefatties. Im here in order to see exactly what the right side feels on alot of issues. Believe it or not, Im not just here to rag on everyone. I've never had the chance to engage in a real political debate, now I have the chance, and everything Ive heard was right. Ignorance is bliss.

    Grammie, I hate do this but because of time I am only going to respond to the below paragraph. I will get to the rest later when I have a chance.

    "Since everything that GWB et al said about Iraq was said long before by Clinton/Gore et al (includes intelligence networks from diverse countries around the world) and long after by virtually every high ranking official here and abroad at what point did it all become a lie?""

    I am not sure what all Clinton or gore said on the matter, but in my mind it matters less as they were not making a case for war. But if they were making the same statements knowing what Bush most likely knew then I would accuse them of lying as well.

    So onto where I think it became a lie. Let's take a look at a few of The statements coming out of the administration prior to the war.

    "Intelligence leaves no doubt that Iraq continues to possess and conceal lethal weapons"

    George Bush, US President 18 March, 2003

    "We know for a fact that there are weapons there."

    Ari Fleischer
    Press Briefing
    January 9, 2003

    "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. "

    George Bush

    "We know where they [WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east" - Rumsfield

    The reasons these statements are misleading is not because they proved in time to be wrong. intelligence errors could have accounted for or been the blame for that. the reason they are misleading is because the administration is putting forth the case as though there is no debate in the intelligence community. particularly this statement:

    "Intelligence leaves no doubt that Iraq continues to possess and conceal lethal weapons"

    Though there were many like this. In fact their was much debate in the world intelligence and in our own community.

    the Bureau of intelligence and research for example concluded there was no evidence of WMds.

    That view said, in part, "The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq may be doing so, but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment."

    As part of the justification for the war a CIA White paper was declassified that made the case for the Iraq war. The administration who saw the classified portions of the document cited from it liberally. Despite the fact that the document declassified was altered (for security reasons it was claimed by the CIA). The document removed The report also notes that the White Paper dropped such qualifiers as "we judge" and "we assess," making best estimates appear as fact.
    Thus the classified report's language, "We assess that Baghdad has begun renewed production of mustard, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX . . . " became "Baghdad has begun renewed production...

    The document that was shown to the public was show without the list of intelligence agencies in the world that disagreed Wmds existed. Thus keeping the public from seeing there was debate in the world community.

    Next grammie there is strong evidence the administration was cherry picking evidence to make the case and ignoring evidence to the contrary. here is one of the most credible claims or snippets from an article. I have posted the link so you can read it if you wish.


    http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/23/cia.iraq/

    Tyler Drumheller, the former highest-ranking CIA officer in Europe, told "60 Minutes" that the administration "chose to ignore" good intelligence, the network said in a posting on its Web site.


    "[The source] told us that there were no active weapons of mass destruction programs," Drumheller is quoted as saying. "The [White House] group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested. And we said 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.' "


    Drumheller said the administration officials wanted no more information from Sabri because: "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy."

    Our one source for the uranium cake was a poor one and we warned by German intelligence. It was not credible.

    French Intelligence (From what I have read I'll admit I could be wrong on this one) were against the notion saddam had wmds

    SO I feel that the evidence is quite strong that the president was misleading the public and making it look as though there was no lack of certainly about Iraq and it's weapons program.

    Further evidence of misleading comes in the form that the President had also argued he would not have invaded Iraq if Saddam would comply with U.N resolutions.

    However, the downing street memo seems to show that the president had decided to invade BEFORE Iraq even had a chance.. and that the British were unconvinced that if Iraq had Wmds they were that grave a threat in fact the report shows the British thought Syria Libya and Iran had a stronger WmD program.

    from the downing street memo: " The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force"

    So we can see from this that British while perhaps believing in Wmds believed that they were far less than three other state sponsors of terrorism.

    There are many other examples. Perhaps you could argue that these could be legitimate errors and not an intent to deceive and that may be possible. however I just don't buy that. I think a very clear pattern to mislead is evidenced by all that I have mentioned... and more.

    until the nuke is set off in his hometown

    =

    nausitating fear mongering

    Cool, if 'factor' and 'obama' keep commenting consecutively they can just cancel each other out.

    Craig,

    You said you believe "the left" pushes the "Bush Lied" slogan for three reasons but by my count you only provided two: (1) if Bush lied he undermined the Republic and we cannot trust what we says going forward. You then ask a question - if we are not there for the reasons offered by Bush in 2002-03 then why are we there?


    Well if you don't believe that Bush lied then I guess with you he would not have a credibility problem with you. However since you were complaining about the downing street memo perhaps you would care to rebut it. Because it seems to offer clear evidence that the president lied.. At the least we can both agree he has proven wrong on his initial reasons for invading which is a reason to at least question his judgment. You seem to have concluded it was sound. I disagree.


    You wrote "It seems to me that Democracy is not doing well under the barrel of a gun. It seems to me that usually the movement must come from within. Like in the case of South Korea where over a very long period of industrialization, a middle class emerged that demanded democratic reforms"

    Your kidding, right?"


    I think your understanding of history is a bit hazy Robert. South Korea for the first 20 of its existence, or so, was an extremely repressive regime; in fact there was a MILLITARY COUP in 1980. It was NOT the Korean war and instead the industrialization of South Korea (Which took decades) that led to a democratic movement from within. So no, I was not kidding.

    "I cannot really argue with "if we ever had a chance to create a functioning democracy in Iraq I think it is gone" because it is pure opinion. It might be meaningful in some way if you were a recognized authority on Iraq or the Middle East or anything for that matter but you are just an anonymous commenter on a blog. Given that your statement that "de-Baathificaiton" was a mistake and has caused Sunni's to feel singled out is just as meaningless. Have you ever been to Iraq? Ever spoke with an Iraqi Sunni? "

    Have you? What the hell kind of argument is this? Why should anyone listen to you on the matter if your requirement is going to Iraq? I have read quite a bit about the war as I assumed you have. if you have been to Iraq and speak Arabic please let me know. By the way Debathifcation has been discussed widely I would suggest you look at the Iraq Study group's report and perhaps the Woodward book as a reference point. Your Argument is absurd as I have presented information and the best reply you can come up with is to say I am not an authority? Great When i look in my handy physics book, that points out the reason I am not floating in space is because of gravity, everyone else feel free to discount that. I mean I’m no physics professor.

    "Or are you just parroting what you read in the MSM or on blue blogs?"

    I was parroting what I read in the Iraq study group, the Woodward book a Google search. and article in the new York times. Taking that conclusion thinking about it deciding it seemd to make sense and putting forth as an argument. And there is an underlying logic to the claim which you ignored (rather pompously I might add). What are you doing parroting Red Blogs?

    "When you say "many "believe that the current govemrent is not legitimate I wonder what you mean by "many"? Do you mean the majority who voted? Or the few who are engaged in violence against the government. I mean come on, Saddam did not believe the government"

    I speaking of reports that the majority of Sunni's do not feel the government is legitimate. yes many voted many now are threatening to take their coalition and go home. Oh and there is an insurgency you may have noticed.

    "was "legitimate" before he was hanged. Is that the kind of "many" you have in mind? And are there MANY MORE who do support the government?"

    Who of these "many More" do you speak of? I love how you make blanket generalizations then take others to task for it.

    "When you say "the most powerful force in Iraq right now seems to be a fundamentalist minded Muslim cleric" you leave out a few things such as...hmmmm...the U.S. military. And you are obviously excluding both the Kurdish north and the Shia south as well as Anbar province. And last I heard al Sadr, if that's who you mean, was hiding in Iran."


    I meant the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. yes the U.S. military is there and at the rate we are going we are going to have to stay there (and take causalities) for quite some time.

    "What great accomplishment in the world has been achieved without sacrifice."

    What great follies have been avoided without sense.
    " Where do you think our own country would be if people thought like you instead of people like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln or Franklin Roosevelt. I'd be blogging in German if Churchchill was not such a cockeyed optimist."

    This is such a chickenshit answer on so many levels. That wild eyed optimest Hitler let a large portion of his North African Army get destroyed becasue he refused to let his troops to retreat at a point they were beaten. Rommel had to personally appeal to Hitler but by then the damage was done.

    If we succeed in Iraq it won't be because of "Bright eyed and Bushy tailed optimism" To use my first talking point. “Hope is not a strategy”


    "If you do not believe that economic, political and religious freedom are not shared values, the most fundamental of human rights, then I feel sorry for you and your world of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

    I of course belief these are shared values But not everyone else does and it seems a good portion of Iraqi's have problems with it and since it is there country that is what matters.

    I was respectful in my reply to you and did not insult you as others did, you decided to be dick
    So I would like you to take this opportunity to go fuck yourself.

    Robert,

    You responded to me at 10:05 a.m. I was being sarcastic. I don't believe the point of Bush lied is valid at all. I had commented several times previously which indicates that.

    Sharon


    Sharon: The old "I was being sarcastic" argument, to try and fool us, eh? That is not going to work here, either.

    Mike,

    Well you've got me now. I did not realize that you "strongly believe" your opinions. That changes everything. Let me offer a reort. I "really, really really, strongly believe" my opinions. OK?

    Strike One.

    Now where were we? Oh yeah, me asking if any OlbyLoons can make a case for pulling out of Iraq forthwith.

    You wrote "that Iraq is a 'war of choice" is NOT just "my opinion" it is a fact".

    It is? Based on what exactly? Oh yeah...your opinion that it is a fact. I guess OlbyLoons don't get the idea that saying that your opinion about something is "fact" is, in fact, an opinion. And you still have not explained what a "war of choice" is exactly. Seems to me all wars are "wars of choice".

    Strike Two

    You next offer up more opinion - "We are the major catalyst for violence in Iraq" and "Doomsday scenarios are false" and "Al Qaeda will not "take over" if the U.S. withdraws from Iraq"

    I'm going to have to call this one a foul tip. You've reverted back to saying why others are wrong instead of making a case for why you are right.

    Next up...a tautology

    A. The Neocons have been wrong in the past
    B. Bob Cox is a neocon
    Therefore, Bob cox is wrong now

    I'm afraid that's strike three. I am not a "neocon". I'm pretty sure you do not even know what a "neocon" is other than a "slur" tossed around on the Huffington Post. Plus, I am rarely, if ever, wrong and when I am wrong it is usually about something exotic.

    Sorry but....you're OUT!

    As you head back to the dugout, let me just answer one last question you raised - "" how do you know I'm not a conservaive in the Pat Buchanon mold?" Simple. If you were you would simply say so. You are an OlbyLoon, nothing more, nothing less.

    To the clear-thinking readers of Olbermann Watch, please note what a wonderful example Mike provides of OlbyLogic in his closing remarks.

    "I keep wondering what your statement that the majority of Americans are "basically idiots" says about you? That was a pretty arrogant statement. We can add to that your unfortunate tendency to label anyone who disagrees with you as 'dolts. The American People, including what you call 'Olbyloons', are not nearly as dumb as you think, Mr. Cox!....unfortunately, they are often preoccupied with other things, but they are anything but "basically idiots". They finally proved that last November."

    See how that works. Americans are not dumb in 2006 because they elected a Democratic Congress but electing George Bush was dumb in 2000 and 2004. Which is it, Mike?.

    It is inarguable that half the people in this country are below the mean in terms of intelligence.

    i'm still trying to wrap my brain around the phrase "see they not that to which.."

    Better watch out Mike, it's tough to win when the pitcher is the one calling the balls and strikes.

    And I'm still trying to wrap my brain around the fact that cheneyhasaweathermachine hasn't figured out you can spaces in the name field.

    It isn't a damn url you idiot!

    Everyone I would like to show a wonderful example of what Robert Cox calls logic.

    Robert Cox: "I am sorry you are such a pessimist about the future of mankind."

    Gosh Robert maybe you are right. maybe I shouldn't be such a pessimist.

    Robert Cox: The majority of the American people are, as you prove daily, basically idiots who know virtually nothing about the world around them."

    Olbermanwatch's managing editor and his finest bits of logic.

    re: the worst person in the world

    mary cheney's infant son does not need the approval or rubber stamp of the government to know that he has 2 loving people who care for him only a liberal like olbytard would think that a newborn child would value such a declaration by some official government decree you see keif my boy people in this country get up every day go to work, raise their kids and dont give two thoughts as to wether or not the government sanctions what they do - the government is irrelevant to many peoples day to day lives and that is the way it should be but as a kook lib you dont want it to be that way ou want everbody seeking and demanding approval from the government well that isn't freedom sir. see they not that to which indeed.

    >Plus, I am rarely, if ever, wrong and when I am wrong it is usually about something exotic.

    Hilarious post of the month!

    Just a little humility and you'd be perfect, heh, Robert?

    If I had a monkey I spank it right about now.

    "...demanding approval from the government"

    Oh, you mean like with, let's say, religion?

    To ANON May 24, 1:16 p.m.

    Perhaps you are unaware, the FIRST thing you learn in the military is to NOT speak your mind. Speaking one's mind and sharing one's feelings while actively serving overseas in a combat zone is not such a good idea.
    ***

    But when they were crying about their lost friends in front of a camera (I have been looking at many stories of the capture), that is not real?

    ***
    Sure, you can find quotes from soldiers to support your point of view. If that makes you feel better about what your president has put our military through, be my guest.

    But don't deprive them of their humanity. They are trained killers. Trained to protect this country from foreign threats. Not trained to invade and occupy a country.

    - You obviously haven't seen many of my other comments. No, I don't feel better about our soldiers being captured by looking a t the strength of the men. I know there are a variety of view points all around. If a guy just saw his friend get blown up, I doubt he would have anything good to say about the purpose of this war. I didn't look that hard to find the comments I did. I came across them without searching specifically for them.

    CDraigs: Maybe this has something to do with that whole aborting Robert Cox Jr. The doctors probably gave him some type of spiked hard liquor to get their right response and it did not go down well enough. Maybe it was an exotic form of liquor? The heat?

    >Everyone I would like to show a wonderful example of what Robert Cox calls logic.

    Robert Cox: "I am sorry you are such a pessimist about the future of mankind."

    Gosh Robert maybe you are right. maybe I shouldn't be such a pessimist.

    Robert Cox: The majority of the American people are, as you prove daily, basically idiots who know virtually nothing about the world around them."

    Olbermanwatch's managing editor and his finest bits of logic.
    Posted by: craigs at May 24, 2007 7:00 PM


    _________________________________


    Oh, he has faith in mankind, just not Americans.

    Those Al-Qaeda types come in all sizes, shapes, and colors.

    Even fat balding white american men who pretend to be republicans.

    "Perhaps you are unaware, the FIRST thing you learn in the military is to NOT speak your mind. Speaking one's mind and sharing one's feelings while actively serving overseas in a combat zone is not such a good idea."

    Sharon is telling the truth about her support for the military. I'm not sure if she has family members serving or it's just something she believes in. But her support for the troops is genuine.

    An example of Robert Cox's logic: "it is inarguable that half the people in this country are below the mean in terms of intelligence."

    And that makes the majority "basically idiots"?

    Then Robert argues his OPINION that my assertion that the Iraq war was "a war of choice" is wrong by saying "it seems to me that all wars are a "wars of choice"

    So, in your opinion, I'm wrong that Iraq is a war of choice....but then arn't "all wars "wars of choice"?

    So. I'm both wrong and right at the same time?

    Robert: "Plus, I'm rarely, if ever wrong, but when I am wrong, it's usually about something exotic"

    Normally you would expect someone to wink when they made a statement this arrogant, but I believe Mr. Cox is actually serious.

    It does, however explain why you are so WRONG about Iraq...because that is clearly an 'exotic' society that we had no business meddling with.

    Now lets get back to your silly baseball metaphor...but this time I was doing the umpiring...and guess what? ....YOU just struck out!... And I'm not even going to award you a "foul tip"!


    Thanks, Major.

    Do you plan on submitting it for publication.

    I have read it and have some ideas and/or rebuttals, but for later or tomorrow. I have spent a good part of the day in bed b/c I'm not feeling up to snuff and I'm heading back right now.

    Grammie

    I'm a little long winded. :) Look forwarded to your reply... Hope you feel better.

    Thanks, Major.

    Do you plan on submitting it for publication.

    I have read it and have some ideas and/or rebuttals, but for later or tomorrow. I have spent a good part of the day in bed b/c I'm not feeling up to snuff and I'm heading back right now.

    Grammie

    Mike,

    Don't you understand that its not witty to appropriate MY witticisms and pass them off as your own? Jeez.

    As for the rest of your blather, let's please clear about a couple things. First, I am always right. Second, you are always wrong. My role is to explain WHY you are wrong. Your role is to learn the errors of your ways.

    Case in point, if you will go back to the original discussion in which you have attempted to insert yourself, you will see that my point in regard to "wars of choice" is that saying the Iraq War is a "war of choice" is not a point in favor of the position that the U.S. should leave Iraq forthwith. The reason this is wrong is that, by definition, all wars are "wars of choice" just as people die in wars, people are injured in wars and wars use up lots of money. None of these things is unique to Iraq. So, unless someone here is advocating that a country should NEVER go to war then they are not points that support the position of immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

    So, you are WRONG to say that BECAUSE Iraq is a "war of choice" means we should leave Iraq. Since all wars are wars of choice you would have to first take the position that a country should NEVER engage in warfare. Since you are not taking a totally pacifist position, you have no foundation for asserting this advance your case.

    None of this means that there is NO case for leaving Iraq only that none of you OlbyLoons is making such a case.

    As for the American people, do you care to dispute the self-evident truth that half the people in this country are below the mean in terms of intelligence?

    Obama: "when will you liberals get it".

    Who said I'm a liberal?

    Who said the war in Iraq has anything to do with 'conservatism', or 'liberalism'?

    I think maybe I need to ask you; when will you war apologists "get it". When will it FINALLY occur to you that we are doing more harm than good to our own cause over there? When will it finally occur to you that far more potential terrorists are being created worldwide than are being killed or converted by our actions in Iraq?

    As for the American people, do you care to dispute the self-evident truth that half the people in this country are below the mean in terms of intelligence?

    Posted by: Robert Cox at May 24, 2007 8:13 PM


    Dispute it? Mike and Brandon are prime examples of it.

    First off Robert, thanks for informing me that you "are always right", and I "am always wrong". I'm glad you cleared that up!

    Now for a little more Robert logic: "As for the American people, do you care to dispute the self-evident truth that half the people in this country are below the mean in terms of intelligence?"

    Why would I need to dispute that? What I 'disputed' was your arrogant statement that the majority of the American people are "basically idiots".

    Essentially, what you are asserting is that anyone who does not have well above average intelligence is 'basically' an 'idiot'. I don't think too many of your self proclaimed 'above average intelligence' breathren would agree with you on that.

    Since I can't reuse your metaphors, I'll have to call that "2nd down and 15".

    Robert: "All wars are wars of choice"

    Wrong again! For example, WWII was NOT a "war of choice" after Pearl Harbor, despite your side's weak attempts to imply that it was. We were clearly attacked, and intentinally provoked. Iraq did not attack us, and any attempt to imply that they provoked us is a weak argument indeed.

    "3rd down and 20".

    Robert: "So you are WRONG to say that BECAUSE Iraq is a "War of choice" means we should leave Iraq"

    Not at all! First off, the FACT that Iraq was a "war of choice" is not necessarily the reason that we should now leave Iraq. However, the FACT that it was also a totally unnecessary and counterproductive war that was entered into on false premises has much to do with why we should now leave.

    However, I'm glad that you recanted your original assertion that Iraq was not a "war of choice".

    Uh oh...."4th and 20...time for you to punt!

    see they not that to which

    Cecelia: Might I ask you what gives you your claim to being part of the "above average" elite, who are not "basically idiots"?

    If you ARE making such a claim, you've hidden the evidence well on this blog board.

    Well, I think Keith deserves credit for criticising the Dems over their actions.

    I don't think anyone here imagined that his doing so would be a given...

    It's worth remarking upon that although he, of course, spent the majority of the time, slamming Bush, he didn't use Bush or Rove, etc... as an excuse for the Democrats.

    What Olbermann is either too clueless or too disingenuous to acknowledge is that what he characterizes as "betrayal" by the Dems, should be even more egregious to him, because it's poltically expedient for '08 presidential hopes.

    Have yourself measured for your burka, little girl- because when the next attack comes (and it will come) it will be because the LIBERALS (note- not all dems are yellow-bellied weasels) have said to the world, WE ARE NOT STRONG ENOUGH to stop you.

    Sleep well, son. You just helped weaken the country today.

    Posted by: Obama-Rama at May 24, 2007 12:14 PM

    Obama, assrat already has a burka and probably wears it while spewing his hate. He is a muslim.

    Cecelia: Might I ask you what gives you your claim to being part of the "above average" elite, who are not "basically idiots"?

    If you ARE making such a claim, you've hidden the evidence well on this blog board.

    Posted by: Mike at May 24, 2007 8:53 PM


    Back-tracking from your former statements already...huh? :D

    Craig,

    Thanks for being so polite for an entire post and then, as a typical OlbyLoon, resorting to invective the moment you encounter an opposing point of view. It's the reason Keith only has on guests who agree with them and the reason OlbyLoons like Keith.

    You wrote "South Korea for the first 20 of its existence, or so, was an extremely repressive regime; in fact there was a MILLITARY COUP in 1980. It was NOT the Korean war and instead the industrialization of South Korea (Which took decades) that led to a democratic movement from within. So no, I was not kidding."

    Maybe you had better be more clear then about what you mean by "barrel of a gun". Because the only reason that South Korea was able to develop a middle class was because the U.S. (and a little bit the U.N.) went to war with North Korea, China and the Soviet Union to defend the 38th parallel and maintained a significant troop presence in South Korea which exists to this day. More than 50,000 Americans died. You seem to be under the delusion that the United State MADE millions of Iraqis vote for a Constitution and a Parliament. My recollection is that people who wanted to vote went of their own free will. Likewise, in South Korea, if we had not gone to war in Korea then the South would have been overrun. Given that North Korea is STILL communist it seems likely the entire Korean peninsula would be under the control of Kim Jung-il. It was the intervention of the U.S. in the wake of "losing China" that permitted the development of both a flourishing economy AND democracy in South Korea.

    You wrote "What the hell kind of argument is this?"

    It's a very simple one. I have to keep it simple so OlbyLoons can follow along and not get all woozy from making their brain work hard enough to keep up with me. You are making a number of statements about what Iraqis think and what certain groups in Iraq will or will not do under certain conditions. Since you are making such definitive claims I would just like to know where this confidence in your own opinion comes from. I do not have to go to Iraq or speak Arabic in order to ask you to explain the basis for your ability to penetrate the psyche of people you have never met, whose culture you don't understand, whose history you do no know, whose language you do not speak. You will not that I, on the other hand, am making no such claims. Since you are making such claims and I am not the onus is on you to provide some reason we should accept at face value that your opinions about what Iraqis will or will not do is worth more than the pixels it is printed on.

    I do not need to look at the Iraq Study group's report or a Bob Woodward book since YOU are the one making various unsubstantiated claims. Why don't you provide details from the report or the book to support your argument instead of holding that it is up to ME to provide documentation to support YOUR argument. I guess you do not have a lot of experience debating people because the way it works is that you make your own case - not your audience.

    Your analogy between your opinions about Iraq and the theory of gravity holds about as much water as most of what you've written here - none.

    You wrote "I was parroting what I read in the Iraq study group, the Woodward book a Google search. and article in the new York times."

    Since you have done all this research why don't you SHARE IT WITH US? It is what I mean by MAKING A CASE for withdrawing from Iraq immediately. If those sources have provided you points that can support you making a case then do so. It's what I've been asking all day and yet here we are, another Countdown is upon us and no sign of a coherent argument from you yet.

    For example, you now, for the first time, say, "I speaking of reports that the majority of Sunni's do not feel the government is legitimate".

    Then why not say so, quote the reports and provide a citation. I am not doubting you on this but if you want to make the case then you are going to have to make it - not wait for me to do it for you.

    Now that you have a specific point, let's take a look at how it stands up to a little scrutiny. Last time I checked the Sunni's were a minority in Iraq (about 30-35%) so, if we take your statement at face value, a "majority of Sunnis" might translate into about 15-20% of the Iraqi people. Right? So, you feel that Democracy can never succeed in Iraq because TODAY between 15-20% of the population does not believe the government is legitimate. I have news for you. In THIS country about 1/3 of the population does not believe the government is legitimate. How is that our government does function but Iraq's government cannot?

    Apparently you believed Saddam's opinion polls that 100% of the people voted for him. I would say back then the 20% you are talking about were the only ones who through Saddam's government was "legitimate". So we've gone from 20% supporting to 80% supporting in four short years. Not bad, in my book. Add to this that the 20% figure is not static. If the government can sort through things such as scaling back de-baathification, coming up with a better oil revenue sharing plan and so on it may be possible to win over some of that 20%, right? In fact, that is, in large part, what is meant by the need for more than just a military solution in Iraq.

    I cannot really make heads or tails out of the rest of what you wrote and you have now gone so far off-topic that it is not worth the trouble to reply to the rest. I'm not sure why you feel that rebutting your comment is an "insult" but I am sure I did not curse at you. I can't say I am surprised as it is a typical OlbyLoons reaction to defeat.

    What "former statements" would they be, Mizz Cecelia?

    How come anvil's do not drop from the sky ?

    What "former statements" would they be, Mizz Cecelia?

    Posted by: Mike at May 24, 2007 9:00 PM


    Oh, you've referred to me as being "very smart" several times by-the-by and don't think I don't treasure it...

    How come anvil's do not drop from the sky ?

    Posted by: Bill O'lielly at May 24, 2007 9:01 PM


    Anvil-sized poop would...if you had wings.

    Because birds do not have an affinity to anvils. Reason-not on the periodic chart of elements.

    Sorry Cecelia....I was just trying to compliment you. I won't make that mistake again.

    It was my upbringing...you see! My parents taught me that an occasional innocent false compliment for the purpose of tactfulness was acceptable, if not laudable.

    It was that small southern town thing!

    Mommy.......Cecilia said poop. Ok, I'll stop.

    Sorry Cecelia....I was just trying to compliment you. I won't make that mistake again.

    It was my upbringing...you see! My parents taught me that an occasional innocent false compliment for the purpose of tactfulness was acceptable, if not laudable.

    It was that small southern town thing!

    Posted by: Mike at May 24, 2007 9:21 PM


    Well, sure...and this falseness and your false arguments come from that lower-half geography already referenced.... :D

    "false arguments": Arguments Cecelia doesn't agree with.

    Source: OlbyWpedia.

    "false arguments": Arguments Cecelia doesn't agree with.

    Source: OlbyWpedia.

    Posted by: Mike at May 24, 2007 9:34 PM


    Well, you just go on agreeing with them, Mike.

    As for the American people, do you care to dispute the self-evident truth that half the people in this country are below the mean in terms of intelligence?

    Posted by: Robert Cox at May 24, 2007 8:13 PM

    Did you actually just ask that? Are you joking or mathmatically stunted?

    Let's see....hmmmm....if the mean intelligence of the country is everyone's composite intellect divided by the number of people factored....uh....hmmmm....almost got it.....

    Yes! I've got it! Exactly half the population is below the 'mean' for intelligence.

    Whew. That was a doooooozy.

    Any more Cox pop quizzes?

    I got one:

    Who reportedly tried to kill GWB's daddy?

    I'll give you guys some time to chew on that one...

    "Ill give you guys some time to chew on that one...."

    Ding!....How long do we have to chew on it befroe we can respond?

    Robert! I was afraid you were going to continue to duck me. Welcome to the fray!

    "Thanks for being so polite for an entire post and then, as a typical OlbyLoon, resorting to invective the moment you encounter an opposing point of view."

    Well I see you ended with a crock and then decided to start with another crock. My first post to you was unfailingly polite and only when insulted did I become nasty. Perhaps YOU could manage to deal with an opposing viewpoint without becoming rude... probably not.

    "It's the reason Keith only has on guests who agree with them and the reason OlbyLoons like Keith."

    Well Golly Gee Robert REALLY GOOD POINT! You really got me there! Since I never mentioned Olbermann, and since I really don't care much for him, and since he has nothing to do with this argument, I can see why you brought that up. Thanks for serving us up that Red Herring.


    "Given that North Korea is STILL communist it seems likely the entire Korean peninsula would be under the control of Kim Jung-il. It was the intervention of the U.S. in the wake of "losing China" that permitted the development of both a flourishing economy AND democracy in South Korea."

    Great so All we have to do is put in a strongman to run Iraq build up the industrial base and in 30 years -- PRESTO, Democracy will flourish! Just like in Korea! Assuming that is of course that Iraqi's want us there (The south Koreans did).

    You wrote "What the hell kind of argument is this?"

    "It's a very simple one. I have to keep it simple so OlbyLoons can follow along and not get all woozy from making their brain work hard enough to keep up with me. "

    I do tend to get woozy when listening to drunken rants. Easy on the sauce.

    "You are making a number of statements about what Iraqis think and what certain groups in Iraq will or will not do under certain conditions. Since you are making such definitive claims I would just like to know where this confidence in your own opinion comes from."

    I already mentioned my sources (Woodward's book the Iraqi study group's report, the New york Times..." The google".) I presented parts as fact (the Iraqi army was disbanded De-bathification left many Sunni out of govemrent) then followed with analysis. I even went so far to mention that the whole thing was my opinion on the matter so as not to offend the narrow minded who might think I was preaching my analysis as the Gospel. Now in my next post I asked you about YOUR sources since you feel so free to comment on Geopolitics without listing any of them.

    "I do not have to go to Iraq or speak Arabic in order to ask you to explain the basis for your ability to penetrate the psyche of people you have never met, whose culture you don't understand, whose history you do no know, whose language you do not speak."

    That is some first class logic there Robert, So in order to conclude that people are dissatisfied about being excluded by a process that robbed many of their livelihood I must first speak the language, learn the culture and history. The truly amusing part is that you go on to make several claims about the whole psychology of the middle east without having demonstrated any knowledge of the above.


    "You will not that I, on the other hand, am making no such claims.

    Uhh, you are forgetful.

    Robert Cox: "I believe the least worst path towards creating hope for those who might otherwise be attracted to violent fundamentalist Muslim ideology is to foster the twin goods of Democratic freedom and economic opportunity."

    Seems like you think we should base policy on your very special knowledge of what inspires hope in the Muslim people. Again DO YOU SPEAK ARABIC?

    "Since you are making such claims and I am not the onus is on you to provide some reason we should accept at face value that your opinions about what Iraqis will or will not do is worth more than the pixels it is printed on."

    If you have problems with my analysis or with my logic feel free to refute it. perhaps you could challenge my numbers on De-bathification or you perhaps argue my conclusion is wrong that the Sunni do not feel disenfranchised from De -bathification or that they have several other economic opportunities such as X,Y and Z. See how debate works? Perhaps you could do any of this if you were capable of an actual debate. Instead you complain that I am not an expert.

    "I do not need to look at the Iraq Study group's report or a Bob Woodward book since YOU are the one making various unsubstantiated claims."

    I had assumed you had read both. Sorry for giving you too much credit. if you would like page number and chapters I will give them to you when I get home. Then you can admit you were wrong and we can move on.

    "Why don't you provide details from the report or the book to support your argument instead of holding that it is up to ME to provide documentation to support YOUR argument."

    I did supply details from the book (from memory) you ignored them because I am not labeled a Mideast expert. Then you act as though you are.

    "I guess you do not have a lot of experience debating people because the way it works is that you make your own case - not your audience."

    *Sigh* I seem to be getting a lot of experience debating people who are not interested in debate. You put your reasons forth for being for the war I put my reasons against; you then became insulting. I responded. I am open to the best argument if you can make one.

    "Your analogy between your opinions about Iraq and the theory of gravity holds about as much water as most of what you've written here - none."

    I'm sure Gravity doesn't hold much value for you there in fox news nut land.


    "Since you have done all this research why don't you SHARE IT WITH US?"

    I did. If you want more specifics I'll give them to you when I get home and have the book in front of me. That way I am not drawing from memory. Now how about you share some of your research with us?


    "It is what I mean by MAKING A CASE for withdrawing from Iraq immediately. If those sources have provided you points that can support you making a case then do so. It's what I've been asking all day and yet here we are, another Countdown is upon us and no sign of a coherent argument from you yet."

    First off I was responding to YOUR posts so I limited my arguments to that. If you would like a case for leaving Iraq I will present it, if you are interested in an honest discussion. That is. I don't think you are interested in anything of the kind though.

    "Then why not say so, quote the reports and provide a citation. I am not doubting you on this but if you want to make the case then you are going to have to make it - not wait for me to do it for you."

    I don't remember asking you to do anything for me. I put down arguments listed facts. if you doubt the source of those facts you could have politely said so and I would have been happy to show you where I came up with them. I also notice you have not cited a single thing in one of your posts today and yet you complain that I decided to post from memory.


    "Now that you have a specific point, let's take a look at how it stands up to a little scrutiny. Last time I checked the Sunni's were a minority in Iraq (about 30-35%) so, if we take your statement at face value, a "majority of Sunnis" might translate into about 15-20% of the Iraqi people. Right? So, you feel that Democracy can never succeed in Iraq because TODAY between 15-20% of the population does not believe the government is legitimate."

    Citation please. I mean you can’t expect me to just accept that. That would be like you accepting that hundreds of thousands of Sunni lost their jobs when the military was disbanded and through De-bathification. Please “SHARE IT WITH US”


    "I have news for you. In THIS country about 1/3 of the population does not believe the government is legitimate. How is that our government does function but Iraq's government cannot?"

    I have news for you. In THIS country we had a civil war where 1/3 of our population broke away.


    frustrated by olb.'s (willful?) misinterpretation of rosie o'd's question "who are the terrorists?" Olb. says the question was "who is the terrorist?" and says it "pretty clearly refers to president bush" Will no one call him on this?

    Robert,

    I went back and took a look at your first reply to me and see that i mis-read something you wrote as an insult. I do apologize for the name calling. I made a mistake.

    He is the terrorist. Why wont you call him out on it? Prove him wrong that George Bush isnt a terrorist.

    Ill prove that he is

    He used false pretense and scare tactics(if we dont get them there, they'll get us here) to enter a War with Iraq
    He entered into a war of agression against a country that did nothing to immediately threaten us
    He has targeted civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances
    He has used illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.
    He is a religious fundamentalist (God told me to go to war with Iraq)

    So, 'nuff said.

    Craig,

    Fine. But that would presumably mean the tone you took in your reply was predicated on some hostility towards my comment that was unfounded. But I do not want to go back and rehash all that. Just go back to my original comment - that stating things that are always true about war is not an argument against THIS war which was what I addressed initially. Do we agree that this type of rhetoric is pointless?

    Craigs,

    Thanks for speaking up for me about my support of the soldiers. I don't know why Robert took me to task about sarcastically stating Bush lied when I have clearly never supported that theory. I still don't agree with you on many issues, but I like a good debate, even if I am not actively participating.

    Sharon: "I don't know why Robert took me to task about sarcastically stating Bush lied when I have clearly never supported that theory."

    The answer is simple: Robert stated just today that "the majority of the people in the United States are idiots", and "I am always right".

    Such is the mentality of the 'master' of this site. It's amazing he is able to find the time to lower himself by preaching his infinite wisdom to the rest of us.

    It wasn't long ago you were defending him when I was defending Robert to you. (huh?)

    Ding!....How long do we have to chew on it befroe we can respond?
    Posted by: Mike at May 24, 2007 9:51 PM

    I thought folks would just jump in with the answer, so I wasn't gonna give it up...

    But since you are being so polite about it, have at it...

    I'm sure you don't need it, but here's a hint:

    'He's dead, Jim'

    It was my upbringing...you see! My parents taught me that an occasional innocent false compliment for the purpose of tactfulness was acceptable, if not laudable.

    It was that small southern town thing!

    Posted by: Mike at May 24, 2007 9:21 PM

    Did your parents "teach" you to call women sanctimonious bitches at the drop of a dime, too?

    "Fine. But that would presumably mean the tone you took in your reply was predicated on some hostility towards my comment that was unfounded. But I do not want to go back and rehash all that. Just go back to my original comment - that stating things that are always true about war is not an argument against THIS war which was what I addressed initially. Do we agree that this type of rhetoric is pointless?"

    I can agree to that. Although I don't think I ever disagreed with that portion of your argument.

    "Craigs,

    Thanks for speaking up for me about my support of the soldiers. I don't know why Robert took me to task about sarcastically stating Bush lied when I have clearly never supported that theory. I still don't agree with you on many issues, but I like a good debate, even if I am not actively participating."


    No Problem.

    Craig,

    That you never disagreed with my initial point is sorta my point - we got further and further away from the point I raised. When we began debating the post-war economy in South Korea we are WAY OFF the subject at hand.

    I was reacting to other commenters coming on this site who imagine that they are making a case for leaving Iraq because people have died during the war or because it costs a lot of money or who want to cite opinion polls.

    In your case, you are sort of beginning to make an argument but with all due respect your comments have been a bit disjointed.

    For example, if you want to say that one point is that a majority of Sunnis do not support the political process in Iraq then just say so. If you have some way to back that up say so. For example...

    POINT 1: According to the Iraq Study Group, a majority of Sunnis do not support the political process in Iraq.

    I can then point out that it does not necessarily follow that "as a result there is no way the Iraqi government can succeed"

    My problem with what you wrote on this particularly point is that you leap from "Sunni's do not think the government is legitimate" to "there is no way we can ever succeed in Iraq". That is such a leap that it strikes me more of a case of someone who never supported the war in Iraq, looking for a reason to justify that position (govt can't succeed) and then casting about for a data point to support that position (sunnis dont trust the govt). Seems like you are starting with your conclusion and working backwards from there.

    "I'd be blogging in German if Churchchill was not such a cockeyed optimist. North America would have five or even six countries on it instead of three."

    But Cox, Churchill picked a real threat to about which to raise his alarms. Bush attacked Iraq. Its as if Churchill had geared up an aggressive defense against Denmark as Dunkirk was taken by Germany. Bush's defensive priorities have been more analogous to Hitler's fear-mongering about the Ostjuden - total fabrication.

    Yeah, Cox- We're the bad guys, not the terrorists. Bush is "more analogous" to Hitler!

    Sheeeesh!

    StealThisOpinion,

    Olb. may be right that Bush fits defn of terrorist, but can't he make that point without twisting Rosie O'D's words? Olb is always very concerned with parsing words of others, but here he seems to be involved in just as much spin as everyone else.
    My point was more about style over substance; i used to like Olb, but now he seems just as willing to twist words as all other TV talking heads....

    I wouldnt have taken te way that he treated that quote the same what you did. He did twist the words a little, but he wasnt trying to misquote her, he was trying to make his point without outright saying it(cuz if he said it he might just become an enemy combatant), and i think that it made a nice segway the way that he did do it.

    I wouldnt have taken te way that he treated that quote the same what you did. He did twist the words a little, but he wasnt trying to misquote her, he was trying to make his point without outright saying it(cuz if he said it he might just become an enemy combatant), and i think that it made a nice segway the way that he did do it.

    below average clinton c**k smoker, How's Tijuana?

    below average clinton c**k smoker, How's Tijuana?

    Posted by: royalking at May 25, 2007 1:41 PM

    See, its things like that that lead me to believe that you're a total and unadultered idiot.

    Below Average? Care to prove that one?
    Clinton Cock Smoker? I dont think you can smoke a cock, and Im pretty sure te last time Clinton got his dick sucked he got impeached...I dont think he'd fall for that twice
    Tijuana? Go screw a donkey

    You really do prove points well. Good thing that you're putting your two cents in on the conversation, I dont think it could survive without your newsworthy, astoundingly intelligent comments.

    Stop Stealing My Air. Thanks.

    Robert,

    No Doubt we got off topic when we were on Korea, but I posted that in response to an argument regarding why the Mideast experiment is a noble endeavor. I argued
    Democratic movements should come from within, you argued that Korea is actually a better example for your point of view(That intervention can work) and we started going back and forth from there.

    In regards to my comments being disjointed I'll agree that I didn't cite my info in something close to the form you mention, but there was a reason for that. I was speaking off the cuff and info from several books was running through my head. However, I am happy to be more specific on these points. With the following:

    1) The Iraq study group proposes reversing De-bathification (in fairness it is now U.S. policy to try and reverse it) I take this as acknowledgement De-bathification was an error to begin with.

    2) Woodward's book and a few others argue that De-bathification and disbanding the army were the policies, that in part, "Lost the peace" (Due to the anger it created in the Sunni community).

    However, I think it is completely fair to argue neither mean this thing can't be fixed. It is conceivable that the policy can be reversed (overcoming current Shia opposition) and that national reconciliation can happen. It is also possible that Iraq can succeed even if this is not reversed. In my opinion though (and It is just that—my opinion) too much time and trust have been lost and too much anger and inertia have been created to sort this thing out.

    So yes, I suppose you could argue that I am arguing from the position the war is lost. Just like I believe you are arguing the war is not lost. I would like to add though, that I do not posses a messianic certainty that I am right. One of the reasons I engaged you is not to try to persuade you to my point of view (You seem to have rather firm convictions on the matter) my goal was to hear your position because I am genuinely interested in the other side’s arguments. I frequently read Christopher Hitchens for the same reason.

    Sorry it took me so long to get back, but Lovemethefatties. Im here to engage you all in healthy political debate. You dont learn anything from listening to your own idealouges over and over. You lean by debate and opening your eyes to new points of view. Ive learned alot by posting here. I find that debating strengthens ones arguments in that it forces one to question what they believe and defend what they believe. That is why I am here. Now, with that said, Cee...tiny pricks? You've posted twice on here without referencing what I had said or defending yourself. So, get to it!

    It is not clear to me that there was anything that could have been done to make the Sunni's HAPPY about losing their privileged place in Iraqi society and I really cannot say whether de-Baathification was a good or bad idea back in 2003. The Brits took a different approach and had better results in the South but they did not have to contend with Baghdad and the Sunni Triangle region. I do not think either one of us can say that lightening up on the de-Baathification policy now means that the original aggressive policy was wrong - time changes things and what might have made sense in the early days after the war might not make sense now. Your jump to the claim that a less aggressive policy in allowing former Baathists into the government MEANS the original policy was wrong is an example of where you tend to go astray. Why leap from one point to such a firm, broad conclusion?

    The same applies to disbanding the army. I am not in a position to say but if the army was judged to be so corrupted and dysfunctional after decades under Saddam then maybe disbanding the army was the least worst option. I do not realy know.

    But let's just grant, for the moment, that de-baathification and disbanding the army were 100% wrong. How do you get from that point to saying it is impossible to do anything about those mistakes? Isn't the solution to change policies? Isn't that what the Baker-Hamilton Commission recommended? Isn't that what is being done now?

    Seems to me that when you have such a complex situation as Iraq you are going to get somethings right and make some mistakes. The smart thing is to do more of what's working and correct mistakes as best you can.

    You say that you want to understand the other side of the argument but you cannot hope to do that if you look at everything through the prism that going to war was wrong.

    It is, of course, completely crazy to try and go to war to reshape the entire Middle East. Bush took an incredible risk moving forward with an invasion of Iraq. It could all end incredibly badly with millions dead in some trans-regional war. So, I have no problem with people who did not support the war. It was hardly a black and white issue. What I do have a problem with is people who, for political reasons, want to undermine Bush and his party and do what they can to undermine America's resolve to follow through on the commitment that has been made.

    Those who come here and rattle of casualty figures or slogans are not making a reasoned case against the war. They don't like Bush and they want to turn people against him in the hopes of gaining support for their political agenda. I put Keith Olbermann in that category. Every night he counts the "number of days since the declaration of 'Mission Accomplished'", he works casualty rates into his show at every turn, he calls the President a "liar" and otherwise insults the Commander-in-Chief when the troops he leads are in the field. Since he cannot make a reasoned, coherent case for withdrawal from Iraq, he spews and froths and rants, he mocks and ridicules and insults. It's all fine as entertainment but when he starts impersonating Edward R. Murrow (as if Murrow's reputation was based not on doing real reporting while under fire but rather the way he phrased his words or turned away from camera or signed off his show) he only embarrasses himself. I'm not sure what is more disturbing - the idea that Olbermann actually believes his own baloney or he says it knowing that there a few hundred thousand fools out there willing to believe his baloney.


    StealThisOpinion,

    I know you're involved in fascinating conversations with other readers (did you ever think you'd respond on-line to a crack about "clinton c**k smoker"?), but here's a follow-up to our last (brief) exchange.

    Here's the quote in question from the MSNBC official website: "Last week Miss O‘Donnell said, quote, 650,000 people have died in Iraq. Who‘s the terrorists? It seems like an obvious reference to President Bush, but not on Fox noise, which decided she meant American troops." (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18842749/) He got the quote wrong, and he seems to have willfully misinterpreted it (an "obvious" reference?). If _he_ thinks Bush is "the terrorists" [sic], fine, but don't misuse the quote to get to that.

    I'm pretty disappointed in Olbermann, and all news in general. Maybe I need to watch both O'Reilly and Olbermann and try to find the truth somewhere in the middle . . .

    It is clear to everyone, Mr. Cox, that no one will make a reasoned argument against the war because you are convinced that any argument against the war is unreasonable and that anyone making such an argument is unreasonable. That's fine as long as you can admit to yourself that your mind is not open to ne changed on this matter. You cannot make a reasonable argument for the occupation, because you cannot come up with a PLAUSIBLE, SUBSTANTIAL "gain" from our involvement. You argue for the status quo which simply means more American deaths, more American injuries, more American financial losses. It is ALWAYS the case that those supporting armed conflict justify it. The burden is on them. The only way I can JUSTify any war is to fall backs on the classical Agustinian JUST war principles and analysis. I am not interested in the "but if" analysis some people whose mothers are also their aunts put forth. JUST has a very particular meaning. Under strict Agustinian analysis, which historical wars are just? Certainly, WWII, certainly the Mexican Revolution, perhaps the French Revolution, maybe the US Civil War, but not WWI, not Vietnam, probably not Korea. Iraq is in the Vietnam category. Why? You explain. You are the one who has to justify this occupation.

    anon at May 24, 2007 10:35 PM wrote "frustrated by olb.'s (willful?) misinterpretation of rosie o'd's question "who are the terrorists?" Olb. says the question was "who is the terrorist?" and says it "pretty clearly refers to president bush" Will no one call him on this?"

    Great catch. I have been meaning to get to this. Working on it now and will have video up soon. Thanks!!!

    Leave Boehner alone. He grew up with eleven siblings.

    Anon, what was the original quote that Rosie said?

    I didnt see the show, I just wanted to take the chance to show that Bush is a terrorist :-)

    It is not an "excuse". It is a hard fact. You can not be a sane adult having to fend for 10 other children. You can not. It is too stressing and traumatizing.

    Why: you can not accurately use polls to gauge a definetive picture of the United States of America. Fo one thing, polls only ask a few people at a time. Another thing is that they are easy to minipulate, and it seems like there is a polls that favors any one's issue at any time. Not to mention all of the ridiculus polls done on things like barbequing, and whatnot...

    I think 71% of the pollsters are crooked.

    "I think 71% of the pollsters are crooked."

    That makes it much easier to ignor results that don't please you.

    "Obama is one dude in some deep deep denial!"

    Yea, but Obama isn't really the problem....unfortunately, we hava a president with the same malady.

    Mike, Why do you want to know... I only hope that either of you become president and to have to do something contrevorsial and have everyone come down on you like you are the worst person ever and see how you like it. If the roles were reversed, I am certain that you would be crumbled under pressure of false guilt & demonizattion and I know that George W. Bush would be much forgiving to you.

    Obama, "If the roles were reversed", I can assure you that I would not have done something so monumentally stupid as invade a country that had nothing to do with the attack on us...and already was an enemy of our enemy.

    It's awful hard to 'forgive' someone who has damaged our country so thouroughly and completely.

    Mike: We don't want to hear what you would do if you were president, macho ignoramus.

    You brought it up, Obama!

    Obama's definition of 'Controversial': Start an totally unnecessary war of attrition by attacking and destabilizing a country that did not attack us based on totally false information ...therebye doing exactly what the enemy that actually DID attack us wanted us to do in the process.

    "mike" is an armchair warrior of the worst kind. He didn't know what a moab was, but, he claims to have all the answers for the war. He and way below average clinton c**k smoker/nobody cares what his name is and his many aliases.

    Ohmagawd! Don't tell EVERYBODY that I didn't know what am 'MOAB' was!!!!!

    "he claims to have all the answers for the war."

    The single most important answer about war is to not have one unless it is absolutely necessary!

    Bush be forgiving. Mr. "He tried to kill my daddy". Ill bet my balls that he would, just like every other right-winger, come down on you for someone going down on you. They impeached for a blowjob, I would HATE to see what your side would do if it was the democrats that were running this war.

    Royalking, you're pathetic. You're the equivilent of a mole on someones ass, you're absolutely useless, harmless, and ridiculously annoying. Oh, and just like a mole you're incapable of actual thought.

    If there is a bigger fool than Jeff, I haven't seen him !

    Posted by: at May 26, 2007 10:24 AM

    No mirrors in your hovel?

    Hi Jeff.

    Shut up.

    Thanks.

    Hi Jeff.

    Shut up.

    ---

    From your mouth to God's ears, Nick.

    Yup, I said it and I meant it. Jeff is a hate mongering, factless retard who does absolutely nothing to contribute to the overall conversation of this site except to systematically smear people by calling them "clinton c**ck smokers" or doing his darnedest to make up "witty" names for them such as "Nickey, Mickey, . Nice job on calling me out on telling him to shut up but not on that. You're as stupid as him.

    And for the record, I've called him out on his refusal to post a rebuttal to anything, and I've seen other people do it as well. So, until he does...I dont see any reason to pay him the least bit of respect. So...FUCK ROYALKING! Do you think God heard that one too?

    Sorry about that, I was on a good friend of mines computer, "StealThisOpinion" and I forgot that he has his name saved on here.

    I have yet to see him debunk even the simplest charge, from impeachment to iraq, he's got nothing, over and over.

    As for exposure, maybe he exposes someone with the wit of a 12 year old as a troophating anti-american. But anyone who has an 8th grade education...he has no chance.

    OH! SURPRISE! That didn't stop Bovine's stupidity. BovineQueen kept charging others as being AAP!

    Posted by: Average mexican Patriot at May 26, 2007 2:39 PM

    Do you enjoy fabricating stories? Nothing better to do in TJ?

    No response RK? Ill assume what I said was true then

    Bovine's paranoia LEAPS!

    ---
    Do you enjoy fabricating stories? Nothing better to do in TJ?
    Posted by: royalking at May 26, 2007 3:39 PM

    ---

    Now, according to Bovine, I ain't only posting under "some other 40 names"
    Now I'm *making up stories*!

    Sure, Bovine. Anything you say. Like the many where you accused Mike of being AAP.

    LOL!!

    Like the other story when *AAP was banned,* yet you Bovine kept charging others as being AAP!

    ROFLMAO!!

    It is in the archives! Bovine!!

    ROFLMAO!!


    Accoding to Jeff, AAP was Booby, who lives in Tijuana....and AAP was me....and I was also LMAO....and LMAO was AAP....and AAP was 40 other names....but before that, I was everybody on here who 'defended' KO....except MAYBE there was one other poster who used many names too, and that had to be 'Booby'....who, in turn, must hve been AAP....who also had to be LMAO....yada....yada....yada.

    Getting dizzy yet?

    It kidn of makes me happy that someone came up with a screen name saying "Nick Is Wrong", not gonna lie. Jeff is pretty much a pathetic excuse for, if not a person, then at least a political debater.

    It is in the archives! Bovine!!

    ROFLMAO!!


    Posted by: Average mexican Patriot at May 26, 2007 3:56 PM

    If it's in the archives then post it. During the time you were eighty sixed.

    Once again, No response jeff? Pathetic.

    below average mexican patty, you just proved I was right.

    Yes, he was using profanity on another thread. Robert warned him and 5 minutes later he did it again and he was gone.
    ---
    If stupidity were to become a crime in the US, Jeff, you'd be the first convicted, and since you are such an obnoxious rat fink, snitch, you wouldn't last the first week. Turn on your radio, go worship your dear Wiener, and let intelligent, articulate people seriously discuss important issues in ways that contribute to the debate. You have nothing of value or interest to offer to anyone. If I care to hear screeching, the cat in next door is in season, and she is far more articulate that you.

    anonyloon @ may 27 2:20 pm

    You can un wad your panties any time now. I didn't snitch or do whatever you said. Robert made the decision. You're a typical left winger who can do nothing but point fingers and cry. Play the "blame" card all you want. I'll just keep laughing. Since you don't post with a name, would you mind pointing out all of your posts that contribute to the debate?

    Since you don't post with a name, would you mind pointing out all of your posts that contribute to the debate?
    ---
    I've got a better idea: Enlist. Cheney will make sure you don't have internet access, so we will all benefit/ I cetainly don't want you at the front lines since your stupidity would endanger the brave men and women actually fighting this war you so love. Since you are so convinced of your great debunking gifts maybe you can go debunk a barracks or two.

    I've got a better idea: Enlist. Cheney will make sure you don't have internet access, so we will all benefit/ I cetainly don't want you at the front lines since your stupidity would endanger the brave men and women actually fighting this war you so love. Since you are so convinced of your great debunking gifts maybe you can go debunk a barracks or two.

    Posted by: at May 27, 2007 6:27 PM


    That's what I thought, you've never made a post with any "substance." Thanks for your ignorance, though.

    That's what I thought ....

    LOL. Well, at least you have a sense of irony, Jeff, if not humor. You've never thought in your life. If Wiener were a mute, you'd be silent.

    Look at the pot calling the kettle black.

    Our inhouse unintentional comedian/ village idiot is at it again !

    Posted by: at May 27, 2007 10:44 PM

    Is that what olbyloons call hypocrisy? He says I have made no posts of substance, I call him on his spew, he has no evidence of his posts of "substsance" and I'm an idiot? Now, I'm laughing my ass off, big time....