Buy Text-Link-Ads here
Recent Comments

    follow OlbyWatch on Twitter

    In

    John Gibson Welcomes Back the Infamous, Deplorable Keith Olbermann

    tonyome wrote: <a href="http://twitchy.com/2014/07/28/voxs-laughable-praise-of-keith-olber... [more](11)

    In

    Welcome Back, Olby!

    syvyn11 wrote: <a href="http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/keith-olbermann-reviving-worst... [more](9)

    In

    Former Obama Support/Donor Releases Song Supporting Romney/Ryan: "We'll Take It Back Again" by Kyle Tucker

    syvyn11 wrote: @philly I don't see that happening. ESPN has turned hyper left in recent... [more](64)

    In

    Blue-Blog-a-Palooza: Ann Romney Edition!

    djthereplay wrote: By mkdawuss on August 29, 2012 6:17 PM Will John Gibson be having a "Red-B... [more](4)

    In

    No Joy in Kosville...Mighty Olby Has Struck Out

    djwolf76 wrote: "But the FOX-GOP relationship (which is far more distinguished and prevalen... [more](23)

    KO Mini Blog



    What's in the Olbermann Flood Feed?
    Subscribe to Olbermann Flood Feed:
    RSS/XML

    KO Countdown Clock


    Warning: mktime() [function.mktime]: It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EST/-5.0/no 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 24, 2007
    Countdown with Keith Olbermann - May 24, 2007

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

    Host: Keith Olbermann

    Topics/Guests:

    • IRAQ WAR BILL: Richard Wolffe, Newsweek chief White House correspondent and MSNBC political analyst
    • PRES. BUSH'S CREDIBILITY: John Dean, fmr. Nixon White House counsel and author of "Worse Than Watergate"
    • ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Jonathan Turley, constitutional law expert and George Washington University law professor
    • AMERICAN I-DULL IS OVER: Maria Milito, radio host

    #5 - Bush Presser - Keith kicks off the show by demonstrating his ignorance of the framers intent in creating a four year term for the President and building in something called "separation of powers". On OlbyPlanet, the Congress holds "no confidence" votes, the President is more like a prime minister, and legislative elections require certain actions by the executive branch. Has Keith even READ the Constitution? Wow! Keith just surprised even me saying "just because Democrats in Congress appear to be willing to accept whatever CRAP the President gives them does not mean the reporters who cover the White House are...Mr. Bush meantime crapped upon both literally and figuratively in the Rose Garden this morning" Crap? Crapped upon? No wonder he is the Edward R. Murrow of our time!

    Another OlbyLie about the CIA "disbanding the bin Laden unit".

    Keith starts off asking Richard Wolffe "Why push the "fake terrorism" button?" Wasn't it just last week Keith was willing to admit there IS terrorism? Now its "fake". The spinning never stops.

    #4 Bush's Credibility. Well now we truly are in Bizarro Olbermann where the discredited sports journalist will interview a convicted felon on someone else's credibility. You can't make this stuff up. I actually got out some popcorn so I can watch this segment and truly enjoy it.

    We're off to a great start. Dean just said Bush's answer to David Gregory's "credibility question" was "about the weakest answer he could have given for the very reasons you STATE...in the...in the...question...Keith. Ha! Of course Dean knows that Olbermann does not ASK QUESTIONS in "interviews" he makes STATEMENTS to which disgraced former attorneys like himself are expected to nod in agreement, preferably while licking Keith's boot. Anything to stay to TV and continue to flog that masterpiece of fiction "Worse Than Watergate". Of course Dean wants something other than his own behavior to be "Worse Than Watergate" because he was one of the primary perpetrators of crimes in the Nixon administration so anything "worse" than what he did make his look "better" in the eyes of history.

    Keith picked our "under the bus" language for the past couple of weeks and now he's using the Teddy Roosevelt analogy we began using the other day. Keep an eye out for Olbermann pilfering analogies from Olbermann Watch. You won't have to look hard. Keith is SHOCKED that the U.S. would both show force and engage in diplomacy at the same time. Hello? Has Keith even read a single book on negotiations or geopolitics?

    I love how Dean begins every answer agreeing with Keith

    - "about the weakest answer he could have given for the very reasons you STATE" (your points are spot on, Keith)
    - "I don't know if anyone does believe him Keith (you're right!)
    - "it will be very difficult (by Jove Keith, you're right again!)
    - "I think it's not only fair I think its an accurate description" (you go girlfriend)
    - "I think that's a very accurate prediction" (you are better than Sybil the Soothsayer)

    Oddball - bun climbing, sand sculpture

    Top 3 Newsmakers - internet piracy guy blows up toilet, an underwear thief, false alarm at a hospital

    #3) Gonzo-Gate - Gonzales still in office, Congress adjourns without the oft-promised "no confidence" vote.

    Jonathon Turley has made it 60 seconds into the segment without saying the word "impeachment".

    Hey! Keith interrupted for "breaking news" - the vote in the Senate on the Iraq Funding Bill. REAL NEWS! Darn...just 10 seconds of it.

    Turley has now been going for 180 seconds without saying "impeachment". This could be a new record.

    Well that's a wrap and we witnessed a rare event - no "i-word" from Turley.

    Back to breaking news.

    More Stockholm Syndrome for me. I found myself laughing out loud when Keith said "Senator Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, ended the arguing about this by paraphrasing Churchill "the Democrats will never give in, never, never, never." Winston Churchill said something like that but one thinks perhaps Senator Reid was quoting Monty Churchill who runs a Waffle House in Nevada."

    Another "crap" reference brings the poop and crap references to five tonight. We may need to begin a "crap count" for Countdown.

    #2 - 60 year old woman gives birth to twins - I want to say a canned report from the Today Show but I saw this in the morning and Meredith Viera and she really let the woman have it for having in vitro fertilization at age 60.

    Dammit. I did another spit take when Keith closed the segment saying "The twins go home on Saturday Mom goes to the retirement home on Tuesday"

    Either I'm sleep deprived or Keith is on a roll.

    Keeping Tabs - Tom Sizemore arrested for drugs (again), Paris Hilton going to jail, Michael Jackson

    WPIW - a cop zaps a guy with a Taser Gun in the krogies, drive-thru booze, Department of Defense for firing gay Arabic translators.

    I am definitely suffering Stockholm Syndrome because now I am actually agreeing with Keith's WPIW for the DoD. These people are gay? But we don't have enough Arabic translators? I think even Jerry Falwell would have made an exception on this one.

    #1 - American Idol - another poop reference gets us to 7 before Mario Malito utters a word. Mario mentions the "Sanjaya Factor" and Keith slips in a Bill O'Reilly reference. Normally I would just skip this but Mario just made two incredibly stupid points. She has this idea that to make the show better by limiting the number of votes to one per household when AT&T is a sponsor at the whole point for them - and the show - is to have as many calls/votes as possible. So, there is no way in hell they would ever do this and if she understood the show at all she would know this. The other is that she is mad that you don't have to win to have a successful career. And? Should there be a rule that only the winner of the contest can continue as a professional singer? This is even more idiotic.


    Posted by Robert Cox | Permalink | Comments (157) | | View blog reactions

    157 Comments

    Oh, great - now Olby claims that the president is threatening David Gregory's kids. Lately, Olby has been mentioning kids a lot in his hour of spin.

    "Oh great - now Olby claims that the president is threatening David Gregory's kids."

    No, the president was just using the right wing's fear hyperbole again...probably intended to instill more fear into the half of the US population with "below mean average inteliigence", as R Cox put it earlier today.

    So, I doubt if David Gregory was the president's intended target.

    It's another episode of "My Favorite Felon." Boy, Olby has all the crowd-pleasers tonight.

    Yeah, he should have that other felon from Fox on occasionally!

    Now it's the Olby and the Perfessor show. I wish they would both shut up and go to the mothership to find out what's going on with the Senate vote, which would be more interesting and perhaps based in fact.

    CNN is covering the live vote. Bye, Olby.

    Yep....he should show more facts....like additional clips of the president spewing out Iraq terrorist scar talk.

    Mike,

    I said "below the mean"

    Not the "mean average"

    Apparently you have still not figured out that my statement is true BY DEFINITION. Half of anything you measure is above the mean, and the other half is below. It is what "mean" means. Duh!

    Not missing a beat, Olby has to make negative comments about a 60-year-old woman.

    Duh Robert: Jeepers...sorry for the slight misquote, I was too lazy to go back to the other thread and get the precise quote. Kind of like that "blink" thing, huh?

    Now, apparently YOU have forgotten that little forgettable statement you made earlier today....that the majority of the American people are "basically idiots"...and that precise somewhat arrogant statement is what I called you on.

    I have not disputed your mathmatically correct "above the mean" assertion...not one time, which has no relationship whatsoever to the false assertion you made that most Americans are "basically idiots".

    Unless...what you are really doing is calling anyone of average intellegence an 'idiot'?

    R.Cox: Where is the Issues 2 and 1 for the Countdown?

    Richard Wolffe: Again?

    John Dean: Again?

    Jonathan Turley: Again?

    Maria Milito: Again?

    Why doesn't Countdown just start splicing pieces of shows together.

    Most Loons would never know the difference.

    That's better.

    I watch the show on Tivo, I write up the time between the commercials then post while fast forwarding the tivo. Get it?

    It seems self-evident to me that the majority of the people in the United States are idiots but if you need proof please provide me some metric that you can accept and I will pull the data - if possible.

    R.Cox: Do your America-bashing on your own website, and leave Olbermann Watch alone with it.

    Robert:

    Great recap and thanks!

    John Dean...so pathetic. He must sit by the phone every day in a dark existence waiting for Herr Olbermann's producers to summon him.

    Dean is the quintessential yes man on Olby planet...more than wolfie...more than Dana...more than Fineman.

    Well if you really believe "that the majority of the people in the United States are idiots" then all I can say is that your arrogance is literally off the charts.

    The word idiot generally means "exibiting extreme folly or stupidity", something that can hardly be identified with average, or with the majority.

    But I'm glad you shared this with everyone. They will know to take it with a grin of salt the next time you call somebody an 'idiot'.

    Don't put the rest of the United States in with Keith Olbermann. It is not good.

    Here is something that we should have seen on Oddball or Issue #2!

    Richard Wolffeman and felon John Dean
    Pump and suck if you know what I mean
    Maria Malito?
    There goes my libido
    Bigger tools have never been seen

    Duh Robert: Jeepers...sorry for the slight misquote, I was too lazy to go back to the other thread and get the precise quote. Kind of like that "blink" thing, huh?

    Posted by: Mike at May 24, 2007 10:04 PM

    We have our daily dose of hypocricy from mickey mouse. How dare Johnny "misquote" someone. Mickey? It's ok, because he was just "too lazy"......

    We have our daily dose of hypocricy from mickey mouse. How dare Johnny "misquote" someone. Mickey? It's ok, because he was just "too lazy"......
    Posted by: royalking at May 25, 2007 1:36 AM

    Royal Douche-

    Haven't you thrown around the word hypocrisy enough that you should probably know how to spell it by now?

    ...And don't give me any of that Brandon-esque 'it was a typo' bullshit.

    I know you probably don't do a lot of that 'readun' and 'rightun' stuff in your 'line of work,' but come on now, it's a public forum.

    I'm only trying to help you out.

    I'm embarrassed for you...

    Looks like the olbyloons are here to point out the typos, since they can't make a valid point. Especially the below average one in TJ.

    RoyalKing, I've not posted often, but I've read this blog alot and I've come to a conclusion.

    You're the village idiot.

    And not the kind Cox referred to, the kind that "Mickey" reffered to, the kind that "exhibits extreme folly or stupidity"

    It seems self-evident to me that the majority of the people in the United States are idiots but if you need proof please provide me some metric that you can accept and I will pull the data - if possible.

    When I say that most Americans are idiots I am saying that in the context of people on this site citing polling data on Iraq and other foreign policy issues so there is no need for you to then take what I said out of that context, add your own definition of the word "idiot" and then manufacture "conclusions".

    The simple fact is that most Americans could not find Iraq on a map so why would their opinion about how the U.S. should conduct foreign policy matter to people like me? Few can name a single member of the Supreme Court, cannot name the three branches of the Federal government or can name their local Congressman.

    There are certainly political implications in the polling data but not for ME! Elected officials may worry about polling data but it has no bearing on MY view of the world.

    Since some of you people seem to disagree with me that Americans are functionally illiterate when it comes to foreign policy perhaps you can explain why Americans typically do so poorly when asked about basic geography, about civics, about history including American history, why so few Americans speak a second language compared to the rest of the world. Most Americans cannot calculate a 15% tip on a restaurant bill.

    This goes back to the point I made yesterday - that if you want to make a case for withdrawal from Iraq be my guest but don't do it by citing polling data because I don't really give a damn about a survey of 1,000 random people when very few of them ever pick up a newspaper or read a book.

    Robert,

    I humbly admit I am not a mensa member. I have had two respectable careers yet it wasn't until I started staying home that I took an interest in following politics and world events more carefully. I was very apathetic in my 20's and early 30's and focused on the tasks of the day. I won't give further details of my life story or even any excuses.

    Sometimes the bantering here is fun, sometimes acrimonious, often educational. It seems to me that you intentionally decided to change the direction of the board by your series of comments. Your points are exceptionally laid out and you are one of the gifted writers who can hammer the points home. But it seems you were on a mission, part of which appears to alienate those who can't quite measure up to your level of intelligence. Often there are lulls in traffic here and there is a holiday weekend coming up. But I am sure you have noticed the sparsity of comments since your labeling of most people as idiots. Several weeks ago when you asked for comments about some kind of monitoring system, it appeared to my eyes that more people came on board as a result. Don't you think you may have sabotaged your own site by calling us idiots? In my view, you have turned away people who are not as confident in giving a response who feel they can't go head to head with you, even if they agree with you!

    I am a somewhat regular poster of comments. Not that you have the time or the obligation to look behind every comment here but after a late night exchange the night before last that clearly indicated I don't buy into the "Bush lied" doctrine, you specifically addressed me when I said the following:

    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?
    Posted by: Sharon at May 24, 2007 9:36 AM

    Here was your response:
    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.

    Not long after came the idiot discussion. I guess that I lack the requisite intelligence to indicate sarcasm and must fall into the pool of idiots. Who do you really want to respond here? I always believed it was the ones who could cleverly point out Olby hypocrisy. When I questioned you as to how long you would continue to allow people to malign you when you are the webmaster, you indicated that you welcomed all opinions. But now you have called the majority of people idiots (which includes those who agree with you on at least some points). Maybe the hidden onlookers who do hit the site will flood the board. Good for you. I just don't see the purpose in me being here anymore. I say this as a goodbye to those whom I have bantered with myself. No drama here, just coming to a conclusion.

    "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.

    "On Tuesday, without note in the U.S. media, more than half of the members of Iraq's parliament rejected the continuing occupation of their country. 144 lawmakers signed onto a legislative petition calling on the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal, according to Nassar Al-Rubaie, a spokesman for the Al Sadr movement, the nationalist Shia group that sponsored the petition."
    http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/51624/


    Here, Cox,

    Are the elected Iraqi legislators about which your side so frequently brags informed and educated enough for you to permit them some democracy?


    ("I don't really give a damn about a survey of 1,000 random people when very few of them ever pick up a newspaper or read a book.")


    I still think you are cee - the two of you share the patronizing arrogance with which avid neoconservatives condemn entire populations.

    Only an esteemed journalist of Keith Olbermann's stature would manage....in the span of less than 60 minutes....to make reference to Bush using "fake terrorism" talking points....then, make the Department of Defense the Worst People in the World for firing translators, saying how when we are hit again with a major terror assault that basically there will be blood on the government's hands, for not apparently "taking it seriously".

    Why worry about Arabic translators, if it is all "FAKE TERRORISM"??????

    I don't really give a damn about a survey of 1,000 random people when very few of them ever pick up a newspaper or read a book.

    Posted by: Robert Cox at May 25, 2007 8:32 AM


    Cox, I think this guy must be one of the people you're talking about:

    That's a liberal for ya Royal. Lazy bastards standing around whining and waiting for a handout. We see it all the time. They attack free enterprises like Exxon and Walmart. It's dumb shits like Mike that I hope gas goes to $10/gallon. YOu can take some dumb shit and have him push a button to a lead with 110V attached to one of his nuts. Sooner or later the dumb bastard will wise up.

    Posted by: George B ush at May 25, 2007 8:56 AM

    "If you can fight the war on terror anywhere, why fight it in Iraq?" - Keith Olbermann

    Why worry about Arabic translators, if it is all "FAKE TERRORISM"??????

    Posted by: Ohio Mike at May 25, 2007 9:19 AM

    The "fake terrorism" was in the administration's jeremiads about Iraq prior to the war. There was no "real terrorism" in Iraq in a any case. The people who attacked us were let off scott-free while we destroyed the regime of one of their harshest rivals in the Islamic world - Saddam.

    Bush on Bin Laden in March 2002: "So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you...Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run."

    Our president said these things only months before he was to concede entirely to Bin Laden's demand that we remove our troops and bases from, Saudi Arabia. They're gone - Bush removed them, and Bin Laden is still "on the Run". ("He's hiding" was Bush's excuse yesterday as to why we had not aprehended Osama)

    Sir Loin of Milquetoast.....

    I think I recall that you once thought I was Cecelia.....wrong

    You now think I'm RCox.....wrong

    Loin, I may be totally against your arrogant and intolerant secularism which springs from defunked leftist ideology (that really is a religioun by definition).....and there may be some overlap of my opinion with "neoconservatism"....but I can assure you that my realistic (and cynical) view of how natural man governs himself and the usual results, does not result in a hopelessness in regards to any soul.

    Just as my Christian brothers and sisters happily flourished under the left's oppressive secular rule under the USSR in the 20th century, I know that those with the same environment today continue to look beyond solutions offerred by men to true contentment. I always hope that those under the thumb of any oppressive ideology.....radical Islam to secularism......will have the same gift that was given to me and my family....and I support those who pursue such laudable goals.

    Most of the American ]Democrat party does not support freedom and democracy for the Iraqi people.....and are willing to condemn them to a fate no better than they had under Saddam Hussein. I just simply disagree with you and them.

    "If you can fight the war on terror anywhere, why fight it in Iraq?" - Keith Olbermann

    Posted by: merkle923 at May 25, 2007 9:27 AM


    Thanks for bringing this up. I've been puzzling along these lines for some time over the utter incongruity between two of the right-wing war-mongers' favorite positions: 1) We are in Iraq to bring stability and democracy to that country; and 2) We are "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here".

    How are we to convince the Iraqis to support our plans for their political future when our leaders are stating out of the other side of their mouths that we've dragged our enemies into their country so that they, instead of we, have to suffer the collateral damage of that battle.

    Sharon: "I am sure you have noticed the sparsity of comments since your labeling of most people as idiots."

    Reality: Yesterday's comment thread had close to 400 comments which is the most active single comment thread on this site since we relaunched it in March.

    OlbyLoon: "The people who attacked us were let off scott-free"

    Reality: ALL of the people who organized or carried out the 9/11 attack are dead or in jail.

    If you mean bin Laden and Zarhawiri then just say so. There is a $25mm bounty on their heads. By all accounts they are alive and hiding somewhere in the mountains of Western Pakistan. They are certainly not free to move around the world. They have not been "let off".

    Note to Sharon - if you agree with me then by definition you are not an idiot. In fact, you are one of the smartest people in the country. Next time you decide to use "sarcasm" re-read your comment to make sure if does not come across differently then you intend. We all know how brilliant I am but even I am not a mind reader.

    Sir Loin: "Are the elected Iraqi legislators about which your side so frequently brags informed and educated enough for you to permit them some democracy?"

    Reality: I don't have a "side". My views are my own. If you don't like them fine but you are not going to win any argument by taking issue with some third parties and then blaming me for their views. If the Iraqi government decides they want the U.S. military to leave Iraq we have no choice but to leave but the members of parliament alone are not "the Iraqi government". However, I do appreciate you pointing out that the anti-war left and Al Sadr's Mahti army are allies.

    Sharon "Don't you think you may have sabotaged your own site by calling us idiots? In my view, you have turned away people who are not as confident in giving a response who feel they can't go head to head with you, even if they agree with you! "


    Bob has posted here infrequently until lately, but in the old days he was always insulting everyone.

    Bob's an equal opportunity grouch,. Don't take it personally, just fire back. With the size of his online persona, you're sure to hit something...

    Dear Sharm, I hope you are still reading the site.

    I hope you reconsider and come back as a participant in the future.

    Either way I wish you and yours the best.

    Grammie

    It is inarguable that half the people in this country are below the mean in terms of intelligence.
    Posted by: Robert Cox at May 24, 2007 6:47 PM

    Reality: Yesterday's comment thread had close to 400 comments which is the most active single comment thread on this site since we relaunched it in March.

    **Hmmm, close to 400 comments after that remark at 6:47? Reality check for you.

    Next time you decide to use "sarcasm" re-read your comment to make sure if does not come across differently then you intend. We all know how brilliant I am but even I am not a mind reader.

    **I didn't realize I had to give context when I was up late the night before and was part of the last discussion until 3:00 a.m. I guess I thought you played a little catch up as most others do.

    Life is too short. Thanks, Cecelia, but when you have to start defending yourself to people who hold the same view, it is time for quits. Go girl!

    And you too Grammie. Take care of yourself.

    "OlbyLoon: "The people who attacked us were let off scott-free"

    Reality: ALL of the people who organized or carried out the 9/11 attack are dead or in jail."

    All? Really? Well, those who "carried it out" sort of took care of that matter themselves. And in your own next sentence you reveal your "Reality" in regard to the top organizers as nothing but wishful thinking:

    "If you mean bin Laden and Zarhawiri then just say so. There is a $25mm bounty on their heads. By all accounts they are alive and hiding somewhere in the mountains of Western Pakistan. They are certainly not free to move around the world. They have not been "let off"."

    Words like "all" and "reality" do actually have meanings, Cox; you might want to look them up if you're going to use them as salient components of your arguments.

    Bin Laden and Zawahiri are not dead or in jail. I suspect you're right about their location in Afghanistan of Pakistan - but those are big places; "not free to move around the world" does not represent a satisfactorilly closed case - which Bush most definitely has been treating this as. Its just as likely that Osama's kicking his feet up in some cousin's palace in Saudi Arabia. Nobody know's. Our government doesn't care. Remember?:

    "And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run." Bush, March 2002

    However, I do appreciate you pointing out that the anti-war left and Al Sadr's Mahti army are allies.

    Posted by: Robert Cox at May 25, 2007 10:38 AM


    Please explain this delusional statement? How do my comments prove such an alliance in your "Reality"?

    And please; you most definitely have a "side".

    And not the kind Cox referred to, the kind that "Mickey" reffered to, the kind that "exhibits extreme folly or stupidity"

    Posted by: StealThisOpinion at May 25, 2007 3:13 AM

    If you ever make a valid post with an actual point or issue, let me know so I can debunk it.

    Life is too short. Thanks, Cecelia, but when you have to start defending yourself to people who hold the same view, it is time for quits. Go girl!

    Posted by: Sharon at May 25, 2007 11:16 AM


    Oh, Sharon, I hope you reconsider. I've enjoyed and admired you so much!

    Life is too short. Thanks, Cecelia, but when you have to start defending yourself to people who hold the same view, it is time for quits. Go girl!

    Posted by: Sharon at May 25, 2007 11:16 AM


    Oh, Sharon, I hope you reconsider. I've enjoyed and admired you so much!

    Posted by: Cecelia at May 25, 2007 11:30 AM

    I guess I missed some drama. Sharon must of deviated slightly from the Rovian dogma and got herself slammed for it. I always figured she would be the first one to be purged - she did exhibit a spark of critical thinking once in a while.

    Sir Loin of Beef

    If you are so unhappy with the people and our opinions here - then leave.

    You are not going to utter some magically brilliant piece of logic that will transform the belief of another that differs from yours.

    You are pulling a George Bush by constantly posting here.

    Sharon, dittos to Cecelia's remarks. You have weathered some very vile attacks some some with actual tones of a personal threat in the past and fought back.

    We'll miss you too much!

    Grammie

    Sir Loin of Beef

    If you are so unhappy with the people and our opinions here - then leave."


    I am unhappy with you people and your opinions in my country - I am here to try to get YOU to leave. Uzbekistan has a wonderful little cult-of-personality dictatorship goping that you'd feel very comfortable in. Bush Loves them - they are his strong allies.

    Your acronym SLOB suits you to a tee.

    Grammie

    A parting gift to you SLOB, who can't seem to see the connection:

    However, I do appreciate you pointing out that the anti-war left and Al Sadr's Mahti army are allies.

    Posted by: Robert Cox at May 25, 2007 10:38 AM


    Please explain this delusional statement? How do my comments prove such an alliance in your "Reality"?

    ***
    "But as in the United States, Iraq's lawmakers are moving further away from the views of the government, particularly on the issue of American presence in Iraq. The draft bill is being championed by a 30-member bloc loyal to al-Sadr, . . . "

    am unhappy with you people and your opinions in my country - I am here to try to get YOU to leave. Uzbekistan has a wonderful little cult-of-personality dictatorship goping that you'd feel very comfortable in. Bush Loves them - they are his strong allies.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at May 25, 2007 11:43 AM


    Now, Sir Loin, you'd get mightly lonely if everyone left for Uzbekistan.

    With just you and a couple of writers from The Nation, left, it's a sure bet you'd be doing all the cooking and cleaning.

    "But as in the United States, Iraq's lawmakers are moving further away from the views of the government, particularly on the issue of American presence in Iraq. The draft bill is being championed by a 30-member bloc loyal to al-Sadr, . . . "


    Posted by: Sharon at May 25, 2007 11:51 AM


    Similar to the admonition I had to give Cox ealier, words mean things, Sharon. The term "alliance" has a very particular meaning, which does not include merely agreeing on a sinlge point of policy regardless of context.

    I could just as easilly say that your side is "enslaved" by the Radical Islamic world because you take great pains to ensure that your thoughts and actions are in diametric opposition to any thought or action they might take. How easy they must find it to control you: "Don't throw me in that briar patch!"

    Cecelia, please don't tempt me to stay behind and become SLOB's supervisor. :)

    Grammie

    Major, I have been working on my response to you and somehow managed to delete it. At any rate I thought I had saved it and can't find it.

    Back to the salt mines in a little bit.

    Grammie

    To Grammie and Cecelia,

    I realize that I must have sounded like a spoiled child to you saying, "I quit" in order to gain some kind of attention. I am just very tired. It has been a long year for me. You may remember that my husband is working two jobs while I home school and most of the time, have to do the running around on my own with a soon to be three year old who has the mentality right now of "mines." I am going to see my sister this weekend with whom I haven't had much contact through the years. She was diagnosed with breast cancer over 6 years ago and seemed to be in remission. Now she has found out that she has bone cancer (the same situation as Elizabeth Edwards). Her first grand-daughter (and probably only grandchild)will celebrate her first birthday this weekend so there will be somewhat of a family reunion.

    So after a late night (of my own choosing), Bob comes on, misreads my comment and it just stopped making sense to defend myself. The others here don't bother me. My dad always gives the same talking points, even in the same tone only with hillbilly sarcasm. I think I just need a break from here. You girls are great.

    Sharm

    Robert to Sharon: "If you agree with me then by definition you are not an idiot"

    Nice Robert!....You have succeeded in running away what may have been your classiest and most sincere poster ever...on YOUR side, no less....and no, despite your arrogant crowing about your own perceived intelligence, you have absolutely nothing on Sharon in the IQ department.

    Apparently you spend 24/7 of your time thinking about, writing about, and I guess, researching policy. While there is certainly nothing wrong with that, there IS something very much wrong with believing that it makes you a genious because you might possess more rote knowledge regarding the subject of your own employment....or passion.

    Do you even realize how repugnant you come across?...Along with an added degree of sheer arrogance that is difficult to comprehend. I kept looking for signs of humor in some of your self deluding proclamations...but apparently there is none.

    It would seem that anyone who perceives themselves as being so accomplished, bright, educated, and articulate as you do wouldn't see ANY need to employ many of the negative and insulting 'debate' techniques that you do.

    While never missing an apportunity to tell your opposition how bright you think you are....you regularly high five yourself....call your opponents 'dolts'....applaud your own 'wit'....and then lecture them about what you perceive to be their lack of polish in their own style or delivery. It would seem that someone so bright and articulate as you perceive yourself to be would have no need to do any of those things. It would seem that your writings could stand on their own two feet without any such false props?

    Even as you deride the American people for their perceived lack of understanding of foreign policy, you resolutely stand behind a president who is known to have had a similar lack of knowlege even as he was doing whatever passed for 'planning' and 'executing' the monumentally stupid invasion of Iraq.

    I actually had far more respect for you personally before you entered the light and exposed yourself as the ultimate hypocrite, as well as the ultimate self deluding jerk. Keith Olbermann stands ten feet tall compared to you.

    You should have stayed in the background.

    Yes Robert, you don't deserve bright, articulate, and open minded posters like Sharon. Bombastic, closed minded, and insulting contributors such as Jeff and "George Bush" (see above) are all you really deserve here. You are their hero!

    POOP!!! Hehe! POOOOP!!! Tee hee! Can't wait for the weiner jokes.

    AAP made a post without BU$HWIPES. I think the poster is a poser.

    Mike,

    ...so you think Cox is cee too?

    So after a late night (of my own choosing), Bob comes on, misreads my comment and it just stopped making sense to defend myself. The others here don't bother me. My dad always gives the same talking points, even in the same tone only with hillbilly sarcasm. I think I just need a break from here. You girls are great.

    Sharm

    Best wishes and prayers for you and your family, Sharon. It's a good thing for you to take care of yourself once in a while too.

    Come back soon! We'll miss you!

    Sharon,

    I did not "misread" your comments. What you meant to say was different than how I understood your comments. I believe you are agreeing - by saying you were up late, you were being sarcastic - that your choice of words was not clear and that my take on them was not from left field.

    I believe I have directed one comment your way ever. If you are going to turn tail and run due to one comment that's your choice but to interpret my comments about the majority of Americans being idiots as applying to you is not correct. As I said, since you agree with me you are, by definition, extremely intelligent. :-)

    BTW....lighten up....who the hell takes the comments in OW seriously. The key thing is to take everything I say seriously except when I am joking or in error.

    Yes Robert, you don't deserve bright, articulate, and open minded posters like Sharon. Bombastic, closed minded, and insulting contributors such as Jeff and "George Bush" (see above) are all you really deserve here. You are their hero!

    Posted by: Mike at May 25, 2007 12:48 PM

    But neither you or we deserve Mike, Bob. Couldn't you have used your talent for alienation towards HIM?...

    Posted by Sit Loin: "You are pulling a George Bush by constantly posting here."

    END QUOTE

    UM, no. I bet I do not have 20 posts on this blog total. It may seem that way since I hit so close to home. Aint that right..........loser. You, Mike, O'Lielly just to name a few are on this board all day all week. You are losers. Most of us have jobs and are contributing to society instead of whining like a couple of five year olds or some whiney assed bitch. The lump sum of you liberals would amount to a small pile of dog shit. You are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. You are appeasers th at would rather live under tyranny on your knees than die on your feet as free men. I hear liberals like you saying 600k Iraqis have die and the Iraqi people were better off under Sadam. No. 1 the 600k figure is a lie. No. 2, if I can't be free I'll be dead. No. 3, it's pretty pathetic listening to some liberal bitch (with or without nuts) whine about losing rights under the Patriot Act when they think someone would be better off under a Sadam or Chavez.

    You liberals are losers and nothing can wipe the ugly off any of your asses.

    Keith: Mommy, make the bad man go away. I hate 'em, I hate 'em, I just hate 'em. No matter how much my people try to get at Mr. Bush or Roberto, I just can't get my way. Bwaaaaaaaaaa.......The bad men will not quit. I'm stuck in second place and slip to third occasionally. IF I had my way I ma gett more than 300k veiwers.

    Mommy: Now Keith. I told you what would happen if you didn't change your ways when you were growing up, your dick wouldn't get any longer, the world doesn't revolve around you, you can't have it your way or both ways and you'll never marry and you will be paying for it (wallet). Keith, there are only so many people stupid enough to watch your show. What kind of man (cough, cough) would have the same views as a Rosie, Whoppi, Bawa............

    I can answer that, a eunuch.

    Since he left office in 2001, former president Bill Clinton has been paid by InfoUSA, an Omaha, Nebraska company that has been identified as a key provider of specially designed databases that are sold to criminals who use the detailed information to defraud the unsuspecting elderly.

    Nice. Stealing from the elderly. Worth noting, he is still on the payroll of InfoUSA.

    Yeah, he should have that other felon from Fox on occasionally!

    Posted by: Mike at May 24, 2007 9:28 PM

    Translation: Olbypologist.
    "I don't defend Olbermann!"
    "I was driven to defend him by you guys!"

    "George Bush" sez "Most of us have jobs and are contributing to society"

    Thats WONDERFUL 'George': I'm so glad to hear that you have a job....and therefore can contribute in some small way to the economy of our great country. I'm SO proud of you!

    And you know what 'George'....SOME of us have businesses, who get to contribute in an even larger way to society....but don't get me wrong 'George', having a job is good too!

    Robert: "The key thing is to take everything I say seriously except when I am joking or in error."

    And the funny thing is....whether you are "joking or in error" is determined after you have been perceived as being serious, or have been proven wrong.

    Carter Planted Seeds Of Al-Qaida
    By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, May 23, 2007 4:20 PM PT

    Leadership: After being told over and over by President Jimmy Carter that America's ability to influence world events was "very limited," the Soviet Union believed him and invaded Afghanistan. And al-Qaida was born.

    But neither you or we deserve Mike, Bob. Couldn't you have used your talent for alienation towards HIM?...

    Posted by: Cecelia at May 25, 2007 1:00 PM

    "Mike" was alienated, he just doesn't realize it....

    Posted by: Robert Cox at May 25, 2007 8:32 AM

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

    R.Cox: Why did you give 4 different answers to the definition of idiot? First you stated that "idiot" was about polling data on the Iraq War, then it became illiteracy, next was finding Iraq on the map along with other information, and finaly people on this cite. Also, it has been six years of the Iraq War, so I think people can find it on a map by now. Sheesh!

    Do you even realize how repugnant you come across?...Along with an added degree of sheer arrogance that is difficult to comprehend. I kept looking for signs of humor in some of your self deluding proclamations...but apparently there is none.

    It would seem that anyone who perceives themselves as being so accomplished, bright, educated, and articulate as you do wouldn't see ANY need to employ many of the negative and insulting 'debate' techniques that you do.

    Posted by: "Mike" at May 25, 2007 12:48 PM

    Have you ever asked yourself these same questions, "mike?" You should take them into consideration.

    You liberals are losers and nothing can wipe the ugly off any of your asses.

    Posted by: George Bush at May 25, 2007 1:13 PM

    Are you so angry you're crying? Its the internet, you can't change anyone's beliefs by screaming on the internet.

    Everyone

    Smoke some spleef, catch some sun and enjoy the long weekend. All that hate for your fellow man is going to eat you up.

    Love, Blessings and Peace

    "You are pulling a George Bush by constantly posting here."


    Sorry, you lousy fuck-up of a president, you should check the posts you cite. That was someone on your side trying to insult me by saying I was staying on this site longer than I was wanted; "pulling a George Bush".

    Sir Loin of Beef

    What's your purpose here?

    You're are exactly like George W. 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.

    Sir Loin of Beef - Stop this meaningless war of words.

    GO HOME!


    Sir Loin of Beef - Stop this meaningless war of words.

    GO HOME!

    Posted by: at May 25, 2007 2:20 PM


    Your post actually contains great wisdom; there are many similarities between George Bush's brutal occupation of Iraq and mine here at OW. However, the only pain I bring on is in the form of cognitive dissonance ( I love your screams!), whereas Bush's initiative have caused Iraq to suffer immensely by all indices on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, physical and psychological.

    And since most of the people I pester are mindless supporters of war, war, war, I think I'll keep it up for a while. Don't worry, I will disapear again soon.


    I love it when Cox - supposedly the only one whose "work" actually involves OW, starts a discussion and then drops it without comment when he loses. Like he's really got anything else to do.

    Take it from me, being a gutless blog-sniper only works when you don't run the site.

    SLOB said: "Take it from me, being a gutless blog-sniper..."

    I will take it from him. HE would know.

    Sharon, can you take Cecelia with you (we'll keep Grammie, she entertaining in that nutty sort of way)....and sorry you have a personal life filled will problems...we'll let you know if anyone here gives a sh*t.

    Speaking of cognitive dissonance; How about John Boehner (R-OH) crying on the house floor the other day?

    "After 3,000 of our fellow citizens died at the hands of these terrorists, when are we going to stand up and take them on? When are we going to defeat them?"

    er, John...as a leading Republican member of a Republican congress happily servicing a Republican war-president for five years, perhaps you should be the one to answer your preposterous, blubbering question. If there was a job to be done when you all rushed us into a quagmire, why is that job not aywhere near getting done?

    He's just profoundly confused on at his tiny moral core: he was crying for his soul.

    SLOB

    That's the point. We just are amazed that despite proof you don't understand us or our culture you continue to spend time and treasure on what ever ill defined goal you have for us.

    And after every post of yours, with all its resources behind it, it changes nothing and certainly doesn't bring us around to your way of thinking.

    So you resort to creating imaginary meaingless benchmarks (someone didn't respond to my point, someone stopped the conversation) as indications of success.

    But nothing changes, we dismiss you instantly and some of us actually pretend to take your side only to come back and post against you.

    Think of what else you could be doing with your life instead of throwing it away here. What, are you going to stick around for 5, 10 years posting and claiming more imagined success?

    You've lost a war of words you should never have started. There is nothing you can do here to convince us of the righteousness of your mission. If we say the sky is green, its because it is. All of your facts might seem convincing to you but you are not one of us and we want nothing you are offering.

    Leave.

    He's just profoundly confused on at his tiny moral core: he was crying for his soul.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at May 25, 2007 3:23 PM

    No, I am not confused. I just finally realized that people who actually attacked us - as you correctly identified earlier - have been allowed to carry on with their lives and business while we corrupted the power of our great nation to the intractible colonial adventure that now consumes our security, integrity, and souls. I...I....WAHHHH - nuknuk - WAHHH

    Wow Sir Loin, someone's got your number. You've become what you despise.

    But a sad reality can make for positive days - if you change your ways.

    But a sad reality can make for positive days - if you change your ways.

    Posted by: Doc at May 25, 2007 3:31 PM

    I would announce a date for my departure from this site in light of this profound epiphany, but I fear my opponents would only wait me out and follow me home.

    SLOB

    Stop backpeddling.....turn around and run....I am sure you are much faster than anyone that would be chasing you.

    Sir Loin,

    You poor man, so delusioned by your hubris.

    Grasping at any ploy to justify being someplace you ought not be and ignoring all advice.

    The harm now is to yourself. This blog might have the qualities of fantasy but you really are compromising your true beliefs with these actions.

    Not to leave is to admit personal weakness and cowardice. Neither are suitable justifications.

    Your only avenue is to argue you are here to fight the good fight.

    But fighting in a place you are not wanted or needed in order to impose your philosophical beliefs does not a good fight make.

    Be strong, do the right thing. Leave. There is no defeat in doing what is right.


    Beff, it looks like the Olby Haters aren't interested in testing their ideas against yours. I guess they've seen how they just don't stand up too well when pitted actual truth and logic.

    So the new tactic is to try to shame you into leaving: "Oh boo hoo...please leave us to wallow in our ignorance by ourselves..... and then we can preach and be preached to by the choir! ....Please leave Beef?"

    Be strong, do the right thing. Leave. There is no defeat in doing what is right.


    Posted by: Doc at May 25, 2007 3:55 PM

    I will if the Olbermannwatch people ask me to do so through ratified legislation. Of course I will - OW is a sovereign website.

    ....but its up to Cox and Dollar to step up to the plate and put a lid on the retarded ideas that infest OW so they can't spread and destabilize the virtual region. They're on notice; when they stand up, start making sense, and stop promulgating insanity I will stand down!

    And back to the politics of war and peace....

    From THE HILL:

    “This vote may win favor with MoveOn and liberal primary voters, but it’s the equivalent of waving a white flag to al Qaeda,” McCain said, regarding the vote of his Democratic opponents.

    Obama returned fire, saying that it is clear a new direction in Iraq is needed.

    “And if there ever was a reflection of that it's the fact that Senator McCain required a flack jacket, 10 armored Humvees, two Apache attack helicopters, and 100 soldiers with rifles by his side to stroll through a market in Baghdad just a few weeks ago,” Obama said in a statement.

    McCain responded immediately, mocking Obama’s lack of experience.

    “While Senator Obama’s two years in the U.S. Senate certainly entitle him to vote against funding our troops, my service and experience combined with conversations with military leaders on the ground in Iraq lead me to believe that we must give this new strategy a chance to succeed because the consequences of failure would be catastrophic to our nation's security,” McCain said.

    The former Navy pilot and prisoner of war then took a shot at Obama for making a mistake in his statement.

    “By the way, Senator Obama, it’s a ‘flak’ jacket, not a ‘flack’ jacket,” McCain said.

    ###
    Oh my, the two top democrat presidential candidates have to worry about their left for now....Good thing they voted "nay," last night!

    I love it....."Flack jacket" I think Obama better be careful in going up against a decorated POW regarding military issues.

    "Flack jacket?"

    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

    "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." DEMOCRAT Bob Kerrey

    "While Senator Obama's two years in the U.S. Senate certainly entitle him to vote against funding our troops, my service and experience combined with conversations with military leaders on the ground in Iraq lead me to believe that we must give this new strategy a chance to succeed because the consequences of failure would be catastrophic to our nation's security."

    "By the way, Senator Obama, it's a 'flak' jacket, not a 'flack' jacket."

    And if you still don't get it, a McCain aide blows away the anthill with, well, a rocket.

    "Obama wouldn't know the difference between an RPG and a bong."

    Flack...Flak....Flack....Flak

    You and McCain are high. Did Obama spell his words as he spoke them? Flak (FLAek) and Flack (FlAeK). I've never been a soldier, but the pronunciations as I've heard them are indistinguishable.

    Mike, can you clarify.

    Actually, SLOB, I think you completely missed the point.

    'Flak' derives from WW II's German acronym referring to airplane defense cannon.

    'Flack' derives from a press agent Gene Flack for movie stars.

    I think McCain fired some flak at the flack.

    Grammie

    Loin....how many times have former military people pulled out that weapon here at OW, just like the honorable Senator McCain, to get a cheap shot on those who have not had the honor to serve.....It is very tempting to "pull rank" especially as Obama decided not to support the appropriation.

    It's funny....especially for our heavily scripted elite political class that Obama and Hillary thrive in!

    cee

    "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." DEMOCRAT Bob Kerrey

    SOLB

    People like you are the reason these wars happen. Pretend you are a good guy and that your truth is better than everyone elses.

    Operate under the notion the world spins on your axis.

    You are at heart no better than those you lambast.

    Your opinion carries no weight here.

    You have changed nothing.

    You have wasted precious moments out of your life arguing on a computer in order to achieve some bizarre level of gratification those comes from being dismissed by people you have no understanding of.

    Your day here was a failure. Your tomorrow here will be a failure. Pretending you have achieved success is no replacement for actual success.

    Will you someday lie on your deathbed wishing you had spent more time here posting comments no one reads and not changing anyone's mind. Do you want to prove you've deluded yourself into thinking you are someone you are not

    Save yourself from becoming what you hate.

    Leave

    Major Craig, the theme of your response is that there are four reasons that GWB (to include him and others in his Admin) lied while the Others (to include Dem officials, foreign leaders and intelligence agencies etc) were not lying although they said virtually identical things. Although it is the best case that I have ever seen made I find it specious as an argument to justify the claims that GWB lied, especially in light of the context and accusations of war crimes and murderous tyrants that so frequently accompany it. Some of your points , naturally, have some overlapping so some of my answers will too. Also, just as you did I will use some generalizations that should be acceptable to both of us.

    1. GWB was making a case for war while the Others were not.

    Although that is factually true to a greater or much lesser degree it is not pertinent to the truthfulness of the statements. In the case of PBC (President Clinton and his Admin) the statements were every bit as strong, except for some specifics mentioned in the latter stages and after the invasion began by GWB, and involved justification for Acts of War by the US and some allies against Iraq and other countries as well as part of the public debate during 2001 and 2002. PBC made the same type statements to the world and the UN to both garner support and justify military action against Iraq, other Mid East countries and in defense of Muslim Bosnia. They continued to reiterate the same points they had made earlier after we were, as a nation, considering the case of what action to be taken against Iraq. Also, I fail to see the distinction between statements in the US Senate explaining their support for The Iraq Use of Force Resolution as not being made in support of a case for war since the resolution endorsed the concept that war was a legitimate cause of action for GWB to follow if necessary.

    They might tweak and twist all they want now that they didn't think he would do it, or he did it too soon or he did it the wrong way. That does not alter the fact that their comments about Iraq were no different than GWB's comments. The Chairmen and Vice Chairmen of Intelligence Committees in both the House and Senate have special access to virtually all the info that POTUS has. They all made public statements supporting GWB more than once based on their access.

    To see Senator Clinton's remarks on the Senate floor explaining her vote for The Iraq Resolution you can go to:

    http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

    She said in part:

    "And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them."

    If only she was doing a better job of living up to them now.


    2. GWB presented the intelligence evidence without qualifying it with disclaimers about any uncertainty.

    See paragraph above. Additionally, I can not ever remember hearing or reading of a POTUS or his reps and high ranking officials presenting a case, attempting to garner support or attempting to inspire the country using qualifiers like 'I hope I'm right' or 'two reports said maybe or maybe not' and three said probably but still a remote chance might not be' and one said 'ITS A SLAM DUNK' balancing their statements out by listing everything that came their way that they have sifted through to reach their judgment. I think the American public realizes that by its nature many assessments are based on judgments and competing ideas all up the line. We also realize that some positions afford more of an opportunity to hedge your bets such as Senators and Representatives stating the case for their votes.

    The point is that by the time the raw data is analyzed and correlated it probably becomes more definitive, or as definitive as it can get, as it moves up the line and is refined. And eventually POTUS makes the decision. PBC bombed a aspirin/baby milk plant based on bad intelligence. I don't think he lied in any way. We bombed Bosnia based on intelligence that has frequently been found later to be flawed. I don't think PBC lied in any way. I just can't see Winston Churchill saying 'we will fight them with pitchforks assuming we haven't melted them down to make ships to replace those being sunk in our desperate effort to be supplied by the Yanks and build planes to stop the Nazi's from blowing us all to hell before the Yanks get provoked to joining in, if they ever do'.


    3. GWB cherry picked and by implication manipulated the intelligence to the point it became a lie.

    You bring up that those foreign Intelligence Services also had debates of the accuracy or inaccuracy of their own info. I'm sure they did because the nature of the business is that it can rarely be any different. BTW, to this day the Brits stand firmly behind their Niger report. I have seen reports that there was essential agreement that Iraq had and were developing WMD from around the globe from Israel to Jordan to Egypt to France to Poland etc. There were differences in certitude and level of development as well as solutions but it seems to have been universally accepted that they were there in one degree or another. That even included many of Saddam's own high ranking officials and military.

    You quoted the Bureau of Intelligence and Research which you say "concluded there was no evidence of WMDs". Let me pull those absolutely unequivocal words from your quote to help ascertain the complete certainty of their conclusion. BTW, what or who is this group. I don't think I recognize the name. What is the date of the report?

    "Activities we have detected...do not...COMPELLING case...Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would CONSIDER to be an integrated and comprehensive approach...MAY be doing so...considers the available evidence...INADEQUATE to support such a JUDGMENT.

    This seems to have the same degree of certainty/uncertainty that those reports you use to justify calling GWB a liar had. Iraq may be doing so but based on our evidence we don't think they are.


    4. The Downing Street Memo proves GWB had decided on war at some point earlier then you consider seemly and before the rest of us knew.

    According to the 07/02 Memo, which is one piece out of a large puzzle, GWB appeared to have shifted more to a decision taken to invade, that the questioning stage was over. I don't know what pertinence that has to the truthfulness of his statements unless you believe that any deliberation must stay in absolute flux until the moment action is taken. According to the memo it would take three months to logistically be in place for an invasion. Those logistics started in 12/02 which means according to the writers perception the decision was apparently made four months before action started. During the time the planning appears to be going on we were also actively involved with the UN and on record with the world that if Saddam quit defying all those UN Resolutions and complied we would not act to enforce them. Why, if he was not engaged in developing and making WMDs, did he defy the world and the US who had a decade earlier stopped just short of invading his country and cost his people untold death and destruction.

    I don't understand the standards that you have set for GWB. If you read the 9/11 Commission Report it is apparent that Iraq was not part of the focus until after the Afghanistan invasion. The fact that questions were raised and contingency plans were being developed do not prove anything other than that is how individuals, businesses and governments have to operate. If PBC had not discussed and negotiated and gone to the The UN while making plans for bombing Bosnia before the action began I think then we would have had a big beef with him. Or, is it that you disagreed with GWB all along on your philosophical and political beliefs and can with hindsight find lots of reasons to support your opinion?

    BTW, which publisher do you use? I think I am going to need one myself for this tome.

    Grammie


    Why is everyone telling Sir Loin to leave?

    Get off his back!

    Sure he's more paranoid than a mafia stool pigeon and as loony-left as they come, but he has as much right to be here as anyone.

    Mike,

    A piece of insight. We aren't here for logic and reasoning. Beliefs are not based on those.

    You don't understand anything about this culture. And you kid yourself if you think your concept of how the world work applies to everyone else.

    Leave, you can do nothing here but fail.

    Life is unfair and that is truth beyond all reason and logic.

    Go

    Mike,

    A piece of insight. We aren't here for logic and reasoning. Beliefs are not based on those.

    You don't understand anything about this culture. And you kid yourself if you think your concept of how the world work applies to everyone else.

    Leave, you can do nothing here but fail.

    Life is unfair and that is truth beyond all reason and logic.

    Go

    Posted by: at May 25, 2007 5:11 PM


    Well...okay.... now on the otherhand...you're right... Mike SHOULD go...

    (*KIDDING!)

    I wish no one to stop posting on OW.....If I don't like what you say (personal attacks or whatever), I simply do not respond.....If RCox or whoever has a thread that is not my cup-o-joe I don't look at it.....

    I really wish Sharon would not leave....her posts have always been interesting to read and she seems very nice.

    And I second Grannie's post about Sir Loin of Milquetoast....although he still thinks I am RCox.

    I meant Cecelia's post....I agree with her.

    And I second Grannie's post about Sir Loin of Milquetoast....although he still thinks I am RCox.

    Posted by: cee at May 25, 2007 5:18 PM


    Didn't he think you were me or that I was you, or something?

    Grammie, I suppose you're next in line to be Cee.

    Cecelia, I meant I used to be you but now I'm me, um...I'm so confused...Who am I anyway?

    Actually the Mujahideen and the Taliban are not the same people Average Olbermann Pariot but why let facts get in the way.

    Factor, we went over this already:

    Let me do a quick recap.

    Had Raygun NOT supported and praised the mujahideen, there would not be a Taliban.

    Had Raygun NOT supported and armed Saddam,
    GW Sr. had NOT have to fight Gulf War I.
    or Jr., "Shit for Brains" had NOT have to land in the Iraq quagmire.

    Capisce?

    Really, how do you explain the mujahideen aiding kill the Taliban with U.S. troops then?

    Actually, the weapons Saddam used against the United States in both gulf wars was supplied to him by the Russians and the Chinese (Scud missiles, Mig Fighters). Reagan only sold parts for missile delivery systems. The Russians sold him the poison gas and biological weapons. I highly doubt Saddam would not have invaded Kuwait without the wepons he got from the US.

    Factor, what's wrong with you?

    Don't you understand the most basic and elemental of truths. Jimmy Carter stopped the Russians dead in their tracks in Afghanistan when he withdrew us from the Olympics. If only RR had just stayed quiet and allowed that brilliant strategy of Jimmy Carters to succeed Afghanistan would have prospered and there would be no Taliban running amok in the world.

    As for the rest of Pat's points I'll run them by the schizos in the ward next time I go visit my Aunt and I'm sure they will be able to explain it all to me.

    Grammie

    Any bets on whether Olbermann will defend Obamanation for his latest gaffe or attack him for Billary Rotten. I am guessing he will just ignore the whole thing and consider it not "news worthy".

    Grannie(Janet),

    Why did we attack Iraq at all? While we thought they had WMD's we know that they were not connected to Al-Qaeda, which Bush claimed. Iraq had not made any immediate threats to attack us.

    Also, why are we still there? We've proven that all the reasons we went in(while this might not have been known then) were false.

    Also, can you explain how at least 5 high ranking members of PNAC, also, have had high ranking positions in government under President Bush. Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby and Donny Rumsfeld being a few particular names. In 2000, they released a report saying that, in order to promote their agenda they needed "some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." Well, a year later, they got one. And about 15 minutes after everything went down on Sept 11, despite all the evidence already pointing at Osama(like a phone call to him asking to confirm the "good news that another plane was on te way", Rummy was already beating the drums for war with Iraq. Oo, cant forget that we were also doing 15 defense tests that day(an unprecedeted occasion), so every since man woman and child who was capable of defending the nation was on alert. Oo, and also, there were 67 times between June of 2000 and 9/11 where planes veered off course and loss contact, every time we responded appropriately and took care of the issue promptly. However, on 9/11, it took over 20 minutes to even report to NORAD that a plane had been hi-jacked(despite loss of radio contact and the plane changing course), not a single plane was even sent off the ground to chase the airliners down til 6 minutes before the first plane hit WTC. Then after this knowledge, how did we let two more planes hit on the same day, while having stopped 67 planes in the previous year flawlessly.

    To let me recap, Cheney and Rumsfeld were apart of an organization seeking to get more Oil revenue called PNAC.

    In Jan of 2001, Bush and Cheney started an "energy task force" and by March of that year they had documents discussing "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts" and had maps of Iraq seperating out the SW corner of Iraq into "Exploratory Blocks". Keep in mind, at this point Iraq was a soveign country who had not attacked us for over 10 years. If one transposes a map of the Oil-Pipelines in Iraq over a map of our military bases there, its easy to see a correllation.

    Can anyone(Including Janet) defend these people? They're dispicable!

    Oo, Ive been reading this blog for a while so I know your alls tactics. If no one is able to directly refute what was said and not nit-pick a few words, Ill consider it a win for the Left. Now we wouldnt want that would we?

    KOOOOL! Two moron BUSHIPES in one shot!

    Ahem! ...and I quote:

    ----

    "
    Lest we forget, Osama bin Laden was among the mujahideen whom we, in the Reagan decade, were aiding when they were fighting to expel the Red Army from Afghanistan. We sent them Stinger missiles, Spanish mortars, sniper rifles. And they helped drive the Russians out.

    What Ron Paul was addressing was the question of what turned the allies we aided into haters of the United States. Was it the fact that they discovered we have freedom of speech or separation of church and state? Do they hate us because of who we are? Or do they hate us because of what we do?

    Osama bin Laden in his declaration of war in the 1990s said it was U.S. troops on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia, U.S. bombing and sanctions of a crushed Iraqi people, and U.S. support of Israel's persecution of the Palestinians that were the reasons he and his mujahideen were declaring war on us"

    ---


    Now, GO FETCH!! moron BUSHWIPES!!

    StealThisOpinion, you start out with this:

    "Grannie(Janet),

    Why did we attack Iraq at all? While we thought they had WMD's we know that they were not connected to Al-Qaeda, which Bush claimed. Iraq had not made any immediate threats to attack us.

    Also, why are we still there? We've proven that all the reasons we went in(while this might not have been known then) were false."

    A very reasonable question to ask someone you disagree with to explain their current/former position on a crucially important issue to we Americans and the world.

    As I continued to read half of me was tentatively forming a response because it is so rare to get an honest straight forward question. But it take long to realize that that was the last thing you were doing. The question quickly turned into a conspiratorial screed laced with accusations.

    You asked a question, gave your version of facts that are no more than a front for your conspiracy theories and then gave the inevitable conclusion based on your facts:

    "Can anyone(Including Janet) defend these people? They're dispicable (sic)!"

    You could have saved both of us some time and trouble (I googled PNAC and did some cursory viewing) if you had skipped the beginning ersatz question and just jumped to the points you wanted to make.

    I am probably capable of stealing as most of us are whether we do or not. But take my word for this. I would not ever be tempted to steal anything so obviously and utterly worthless as your opinions.

    Grammie

    "You could have saved both of us some time and trouble (I googled PNAC and did some cursory viewing) if you had skipped the beginning ersatz question and just jumped to the points you wanted to make."


    This is amazing to me. Grammie, can it be that you are just now made aware of the PNAC, the think-tank/cabal that sports Bill Kristol, Dick Cheney, Donal Rumsfeld, Elliot Abrams, Richard Armitage, Richard Perle, and at least a couple of Kagans among its signatories? The mission statement of this group was adopted essentially unchanged as our national security policy and everything has gone to hell since.

    Don't you people wonder where the ideas you embrace come from?


    On another note, what's to be the first of the Iraq funding bill's toothless benchmarks to come due? It involves legislation that divides Iraqi oil between the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds and will dictate which American and British oil companies they will be allowed to deal with. Bush's New World Order = mercantilism.

    Why is everyone telling Sir Loin to leave?

    Get off his back!

    Sure he's more paranoid than a mafia stool pigeon and as loony-left as they come, but he has as much right to be here as anyone.

    Posted by: Cecelia at May 25, 2007 5:10 PM


    The annonymous poster who started it, Cecelia, is clearly not preoccupied with whether I post here or not. If you read the posts carefully you will find that this person began at the outset poviding a very clever commentary on the futility of Bush's war using my impotent posts here as a launching pad for some brilliant irony. No one seemed to get it, so I subsequently drove his joke into the ground through weak emulation.

    "The top analysts in government also said that establishing a stable democracy in Iraq would be a "long, difficult and probably turbulent process."

    This was "top secret" info? In what world? Anyone that had to be told this was clueless.

    Well, SLOB, I don't pretend to know that which I don't to impress you or anyone else. Although I am familiar with all the names and their opinions to one degree or another except for 'The Kagans" I am not a conspiracy theorist like many seem to be.

    I judge ideas and proposals as best I can based on the ideas, the facts as best as I can ascertain them and the likely outcome that I think will come from whatever is proposed. I read and listen to the the opinions of others and consider them if they seem reasonable and fit certain of my own philosophical beliefs about government and the place it has in this world. I give others the benefit of the doubt that they do also.

    I have never accused anyone here of parroting what they have been brainwashed with by whomever. I have pointed out quotes lifted without attribution directly from some far left blogs, but that is about as far as I go.

    You see, I don't believe that those who disagree with me are morally and intellectually bankrupt. Misguided, but not necessarily stupid, evil and despicable.

    I've always thought that is the first duty of a citizen, to form the best opinions on the best information according to their own consciences.

    If you, Whatizname and My Opinion Is Obviously and Utterly Wothless that is your problem, not mine.

    Grammie

    Weak Emulation? You sir are a brillant example of American ignorance.

    Leave.

    You cannot conquer a people in a land were you have no foothold.

    Sorry, left out disagree after Worthless in my last sentence.

    Grammie

    Mike, can you clarify.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at May 25, 2007 4:41 PM

    "mike" didn't know what a moab was, so, how would he know the difference "flack" and "flak?"

    Oh, and fucking royalking knows all about MOABs.

    I am now forced to live with the constant shame and humility that I didn't even know what an 'MOAB' was. They tell me time will heal the pain.

    Grammie...Im not sure if you noticed, but you didnt answer a single one of the questions on there.

    If anything I said was false, if I drew a false conclusion, please let me know, id love to find out. Otherwise, at least aknowledge your sucession and rethink your political views, your following a group of madmen whos only real intent is oil profits.

    It kind of makes you wonder...Recently the House announced it was going to pass a resolution to investigate the Oil industry, guess whos got his veto pen all ready for it? King George himself.

    A conspiracy theory? Only if its unproven.

    **Game Over, Please Try Again**

    "Those who sacrifice a liberty for safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"
    -Ben Frankiin

    "Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels!"

    "Assholes in sheep's clothing are still assholes."

    Grammie

    "Grammie noticed her reflection in that scoundrel's mirror, and she didn't like the view."

    Of course she didn't....anything to avoid questioning your own humanity.

    It's called being set in her ways.

    Janet just needs more 'proof' than others.

    To all the little boys out there who so desperately want to be BIG HE MEN, with a H/T I wish you all "Goodnight Mrs Calabash, wherever you are".

    Grammie

    "Assholes in sheep's clothing are still assholes."

    Grammie

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at May 26, 2007 12:30 AM

    Janet, good call.

    "Janet, good call."

    Does anybody besides me wonder why Jeff never, EVER makes a "good call" himself?

    No.

    Grammie's achillies heel isnt her blind patriotism, its her total lack of patriotism. "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" Thomas Jefferson called for a revolution every ten years just to keep the government in check, if he were here today, or in the 60's he would have been called an un-american fuck whos trying to aid the enemy. Whos the real patriot? Grammie with her undying loyalty to all things Bush, or Thomas Jefferson or his undying loyalty to all things Free.

    Janet, you still have answered any of my questions. How about this, ill meet you halfway, leave the second half of the post out(the half that you have absolutely NO response to, if this is an untrue statement, call me out on it instead of deffering and calling me an asshole in sheep's clothing) and defend the first half, the half that you said you were already forming a response to.

    And RoyalKing, ill refer you to my post at 6:31 PM. There are tons of valid points in there for you to "debunk". Go choke on something.

    Oo, Ive been reading this blog for a while so I know your alls tactics. If no one is able to directly refute what was said and not nit-pick a few words, Ill consider it a win for the Left. Now we wouldnt want that would we?

    Posted by: StealThisOpinion at May 25, 2007 6:34 PM


    It makes no sense at all for you to demand that someone disprove your conspiracy theories.

    You've written a screed that in essence accuses the WH along with several govt institutions, of colluding with Bin Laden to cause 9/11, or colluding to ignore that 9/11 was about to happen, in order to have a pretext for war in Iraq. That this was plotted to make a grab for oil.

    You then demand that WE are to prove YOU wrong and not just wrong as to circumstances, but wrong as to the conclusions you draw from them.

    It won't be enough to mention investigations, congressional or mainstream media, or the conclusions from those investigations. You're going to believe that to some extent these entities too, have colluded in order to keep the truth from us.

    Well, have at it, my friend. Believe it, embrace it...drink it down and savor it as you seem to do. But it's craziness and given some distance via the passage of time, you will look back and shake your head in puzzlement at how drunk you had become.

    Janet just needs more 'proof' than others.

    Posted by: Mike at May 26, 2007 12:59 AM


    Mr. Humanity, reiterate what the "proof" is here, please.

    "Grammie's achillies heel isnt her blind patriotism, its her total lack of patriotism."


    That's exactly right, STO, these people have a horribly twisted view of what America is all about. They are a cult of personality from their grassoots to the highest offices of their political machine. Bush can do no wrong as far as these people are concerned, and any who oppose him are The Enemy.

    Did you see Monica Goodling crying: "all I ever wanted to do was to serve this president, this administration" WRONG!! The justice department serves the American People, not a furher - Monica's proper place was the RNC, whose work she was clearly doing.

    OW poster "George Bush" said the other day that that Gonzales was justified in keeping quiet due to "attorney/client priviledge". Once again - the AG is the president's personal lawyer - he is supposed to defend the constitution from all threats. But there is no part of that document that these cultists would not wipe their Dear Leader's ass with.

    Remember last year when Bush publically celebrated is July 6th birthday on July 4? Have you ever noticed that almost every time Bush says the words "America" or "This nation" he simultaneously presses both palms to his breast in an exagerated gesture of self-referrence? Not by accident; that's clearly Rovian "body-language" coaching, and is a component of a massive media brain-washing effort that also includes constant statements by "journalists" that this swaggering dipshit "shimmers with a sunny nobility" or that he is "lincolnesque". Its been successful, too; 1/3 of our fellow American's essentially worship this asshole.

    Sir Loin,


    Is there no middle ground between uncritical support of the Bush Administration and the stylistic musings of Bernard Weiner?

    And Cecelia, yes, there's plenty of middle ground. I just dont reside in it, nor has anyone here(aside from possibly yourself, you seem pretty fair) shown me the middle ground.

    Is this a joke? Robert has to approve my rebuttal to what Cecelia said before it will post.

    "It won't be enough to mention investigations, congressional or mainstream media, or the conclusions from those investigations. You're going to believe that to some extent these entities too, have colluded in order to keep the truth from us"

    So...what exactly does that leave me? In my post I referenced the PNAC website a few times is that gonna be good enough? Why cant I use CBS as a source? Last time I checked they were a credible news source, unlike Fox News

    Robert, are you going to make it known to me if you dont approve that comment? There is nothing malicious in it, and this was not my first post here, so Im not entirely sure why you need to approve it at all.

    STO:

    You probably posted a link and somehow the posting box didn't like it.

    It happens.
    Try posting the rest of the post *without the link,* it may come through. Also avoid using the "less than and greater than" brackets.

    SLOB

    Again, you've accomplished nothing here. How long will you continue before you realize your imagined successes are the foundations of completely failure?

    Leave.

    You simply cannot force your beliefs, by logic or force, on a people you don't understand. We didn't invite you here. We don't want you to stay.

    Leave.


    Haha, thanks for the heads up. But my entire post was links, that explains it I suppose. the point of my post was revealing my sources which lead me to conclude what I posted at 6:31 since everyone, despite having nothign to disprove it, claims its just a conspiracy theory I plucked out of thin air.

    It happened to me earlier in the week in a post that had quite a few url addresses.
    The meassage was along the lines of the site moderator will review and aprrove go back to comment page.

    There is no site moderator. I remembered reading months ago here that it is a spam filtering thing or something like that.

    I broke my post down to include one or two urls in each segment and they went through. There may be one more glitch that I've heard mentioned that many posts in a row in a short time period might be held up.

    Grammie

    It happened to me earlier in the week in a post that had quite a few url addresses.
    The meassage was along the lines of the site moderator will review and aprrove go back to comment page.

    There is no site moderator. I remembered reading months ago here that it is a spam filtering thing or something like that.

    I broke my post down to include one or two urls in each segment and they went through. There may be one more glitch that I've heard mentioned that many posts in a row in a short time period might be held up.

    Grammie

    Im sorry if I hurt anyones feelings with the facts, I only ask that you question your beliefs, I question mine every day. We will get nowhere as a country if we have half of the population that blindly follows whoever is the leader without questioning. This is OUR Country, this is the United States of America, they work for us and we should be able to demand the hard questions without soft answers. So far, we have gotten nothing but a few "mistakes were made" comments from the administration for their mishaps. WE NEED AN HONEST PRESIDENT WHO IS WILLING TO ADMIT FAULTS.

    http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter.htm
    -Letter asking Bush to attack Iraq from PNAC. It mentions Saddam as a mainpoint on the war on terror(despite that he didnt collude with the people we were classifying as terrorists) but does not mention places like Syria, Iran, N. Korea, or other terrorist stronholds.

    http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
    -Pearl Harbor quote, on page 51, first column about 1/5 the way down

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
    -I only used this source for the associates list

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_iraqi-oil-maps.shtml
    -List of the maps I referenced including the Forign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts document.

    http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=militaryExercises
    -Complete list of military excerises leading up to and on 9/11. They only count 8 instead of the 15 I claimed(I cant find my original source), so, Ill "backpeddle" on that one by a few tests. But 8 is still pretty impressive for a non-response.

    http://newsmine.org/archive/9-11/norad-faa-response/complain-airline-emergency-procedures-911-lawsuit.txt
    -Reference to the 67 previous sucessful attempts at stopping a hijacking or retaining communication with a lost aircraft. It also references the happenings, or lack thereof, on the day of 9/11.

    A few other notables I found in this mornings research

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2835.htm
    -Reference to Bush saying "F**k Saddam, were taking him out" in March 2002

    http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/bush.war.talk/
    -Bush refers to Saddam as "the man who tried to kill my dad"
    -There is a second source on this, I just wasnt able to post it without the spam filtering thing. So if you want the second source, just le tme know

    Thank you, Janet, for tipping me off on how to do that.

    Now, in the spirit of good debate and politics, I want to ask you two questions.

    Why are we in Iraq to begin with and not defending against the real War on Terrorism in Afghanistan?

    Why havent(shouldnt) we left(leave?

    Thanks!

    Sir Loin,


    Is there no middle ground between uncritical support of the Bush Administration and the stylistic musings of Bernard Weiner?

    Posted by: Cecelia at May 26, 2007 11:26 AM


    Firstly, I am unfamiliar with Bernard Weiner, but I assume he i s a high-test leftie given his position on your continuum. I agree with STO; "Middle ground" in the current political climate is the position of cynical oportunists and cmfortable cowards. The "middle ground" of public discourse has been steered so far to the right in recent decades that Eisenhower and Goldwater would be burned in effigy at College Republican rallies were they alive and active today.

    The Democrats keep meekly seeking it, however, and each time fall prey to new levels of Republican smears and deciet. There are dire threats facing our country today from its own right wing, and they can only be defeated by truth and constitutional process. This means calling crimes crimes; calling usurpation usurpation; calling fascism fascism; and using the consitution as it was intended: today that means impeachment and accountibility.

    I know that is percieved as seditious radicalism by you people, but it is really just sticking to the fundamentals of our republic.

    ...postscript, Cecelia,

    There are a few consevatives (Chuck Hagel, Ron Paul, ...) who reflect this "Middle Ground" you pine for. They still maintain economic and social perspectives that I find unwise and unjust, but they admit a recognition that Bush is goddamn ciminal, and that impeachment is the unavoidable constitutional remedy. In short, the recognize the necessity of accountability in our government. Its the open respect on their part for our founding values and processes that makes me hopeful that the frightening mental collective on your side of the aisle is beginning to fragment, and that our country can start to work again on the basis of compromise and cooperation that was intended.

    Oh, I see, Sir Loin. The middleground lies between capitalist piggydom on one end but having:

    "...a recognition that Bush is goddamn ciminal, and that impeachment is the unavoidable constitutional remedy."


    on the other end... greaaattt.... Thanks, Sir Loin...


    Cecelia,

    Law enforcement is not supposed to be an exercise in political correctness or partisan negotiation. Bush has broken laws. He has publically admitted to it (ignoring the FISA laws). His chief minions have similarly broken numerous laws, the Hatch act violations pointed out and confessed to by Monica Goodling being just recently relevant examples.

    Is it "middle ground" to refrain from legitimately identifying a president's crimes just because 27% of Americans will grab their temples and do the William Shatner Alien-pain-ray dance to keep the truth out?

    Many people thought it was Ashcroft's doing. No. It was Monica Goodling ...and the result of having these Robertson graduates running the show.


    Posted by: Bob at May 27, 2007 12:38 AM


    The beginning of Ashcroft's "rehabilatation"?

    Sharon, can you take Cecelia with you (we'll keep Grammie, she entertaining in that nutty sort of way)....and sorry you have a personal life filled will problems...we'll let you know if anyone here gives a sh*t.

    Leave a new comment