Shopping perhaps for Conservative viewers?

Silly Keith, Conservatives don't drink Kool-Aid.

The funny thing about this site is that it sometimes seems that on occasion the author posts things in all honesty and sincerity that actually defeat the point they're trying to make. I guess that's better than not reporting facts that disprove your point.

This is one of those posts. The opening sentences accuse of Olbermann of "attempting to present Philip Giraldi as a conservative". What the reader is expecting is for the author to reveal that this is a mischaracterization on Olbermann's part. However, the author goes on to not only fail to do this, but to actually defeat that idea.

The author points out for those that don't know that the magazine Giraldi has contributed to is produced by Pat Buchanan. Giraldi is then linked to a think-tank that appears to be a non-partisan isolationist (or, in its parlance, "non-interventionist") organization. For that matter, Buchanan himself is an isolationist - as were many conservatives, pre-Bush II. Actually, as was Bush II himself during his first White House campaign, attacking Gore for the Clinton-Gore administations many adventurist activities (Bosnia, Somalia, etc.) So, nothing linking Giraldi to the Democratic party or such here, either. Finally, Giraldi is linked to Vincent Cannistraro, again, someone associated with the Reagan administration, not the Democratic party.

So, the author (R. Cox) proudly producces this contribution, and I'm left scratching my head. The only thing R. Cox has done is taken his statement "All part of Keith's 'even conservatives' no longer support Bush or the Iraq War meme" and... well... make a stronger case than Olbermann did that _Giraldi is a conservative who no longer supports Bush or the Iraq war_.

In the last paragraph-length sentence, the author seems to shift to an entirely different subject of the post and turn it into some sort of accusation against the "Worst Person In the World" segment. However, this is just as weakly formed a case. Olbermann would have normally make someone a Worst Person In the World who... was associated with someone else in an employment capacity who did certain things in the 1980s??? Sorry. I may not be as familiar with the Olbermann program as those who run this site, but as far as I know no one's been attacked for, say, being the neighbor of someone. At least I hope not - I've been at an event with both Oliver North and Rush Limbaugh, and that would make me a double medal recipient by association!

In summary, this seems an instance where the author is so fired up at Olbermann that they're not even paying attention to what they're writing. It's axiomatic to the author that Olbermann is some sort of antiChrist, a belief that the audience for this peice consists solely of those who share that belief, and hence the author merely needs to invoke the name and a dimissive tone to receive accolades. There's some sort of assumption, given in the opening paragraph, that Olbermann's program is some sort of breeding ground of lies, a mega-lie, a grand scheme worthy of the most devious psy-ops program imaginable... a concept for which the term "hyperbole" barely seems adequate. Perhaps superhuman abilities need to be attributed to Keith Olbermann to make the authors feel that the creation and daily critiques of every word uttered by Olbermann are warranted and normal and not a sign of obsession.

As I said previously, this is not the first post that... well, not only adds nothing new whatsoever to the critique of Olbermann, but actually builds him up, and the author can't see this. These types of articles will not assist in the site being taken seriously. Is the focus of the site solely for those True Believers (tm), or does it honestly want to be a sane, rational, factual clearinghouse of material that can be used to fact-check the contents of the Countdown program? The more posts I see like these, the less is seems the site even cares about pretending to be intellectual and being respected.

And puck - everyone drinks Kool-Aid. I've certainly heard my share of conservative Kool-Aid drinkers. In fact, running around on many blogs right now, which started in The Spectator magazine, that zillions of WMDS really WERE found in Iraq and spirited away to Syria during the invasion, but the Dems and Repubs have joined together to cover this up because the Dems don't want to admit they really were there and Bush doesn't want to admit to not securing them. The only source is one man who claims to have been a civilian contractor in Iraq, and he only claims to have heard about it from a few Iraqis who he is SURE were telling the truth. Michelle Malkin and many others are saying how "credible" this nonsense is. And let's not forget the black helicopter crowd who brought down the Murrah building, those who thought Bill Clinton murdered Vince Foster, all those who believed there were WMD in the first place, etc.

Everybody has their Kool-Aid drinkers, Puck, from Malkin to Kucinich. But I suspect on some level you already knew that before you made your comment, which was as logical as your comment that the ACLU is responsible for language firewalls in public libraries that you made in another post. You might want to check what type of drink mix is in your own cabinet, Puck.

What you are implying here R. Cox? Are you saying that if you are a conservative that you can't be against the Iraq War? I've been a conservative for a long time and I was dead set against the Iraq War. If a democrat had launched this invasion conservatives would have been furious, but because Bush does it they are willing to throw the Republican Party in the dumps because of it.

Indeed Bush and his cronies have so distorted what a conservative is that often times on T.V. you'll have two liberals arguing with one of them billed as a "conservative". The only differences the two people have is the Iraq War.

James: Now a days, if you show up on Countdown, you are not a conservative. He used to have Michelle Malkin and Norah O' Donnell and John Ashcroft on his program, but he no longer does. I do not know what kind of issue can be safe enough to have an alternative opinnion about, but guess what: It ain't happening.

As for this website ... this website is being brought down from the inside. Where is our episode summary from Eschatz?!? I need it !

great reporting.

James, apparently reading comprehension isn't one of your talents. What Bob is very clearly stating is that Olby tried to peddle this guy off as a conservative when he's anything but. I guess he's trying to counter the criticisim he never has any conservatives on his show by simply relabeling his guests into being something they aren't, namely, a conservative when they're not.

BU$HWIPE$!!! Haha. So clever.

"those who thought Bill Clinton murdered Vince Foster, all those who believed there were WMD in the first place, etc."

Smarty, do you have any evidence that these aren't true? Do you remember Ted Kennedy blabbering in front of any camera he could find we were planning on invading Iraq in the weeks before? The satellite images of convoys of trucks going into Syria in the weeks before the invasion thanks to the murderer?

royalking,

The FBI investigated the Foster suicide three times--once by an investigator hostile to the Clintons. The death was ruled a suicide each time...

Brandon - be careful who you accuse of not possessing reading comprehension skills.

"What Bob is very clearly stating is that Olby tried to peddle this guy off as a conservative when he's anything but. "

Obviously you didn't read my post, or even R. Cox's article. Does he establish that Giraldi is not a conservative by presenting evidence that he 1) Contributes to Pat Buchanan's "American Conservative" magazine, 2) was associated with a non-interventionist think-tank, and 3) associated with a company headed by a Reagan-era CIA employee involved in running the Contras in Nicaragua? In fact, Cox ends by declaring that he felt this was someone who would normally warrant a Worst Person In the World award... since when do liberals get awarded those awards? They DON'T. Hence, he puts the final nail in the coffin of his argument himself.

That's what I complained about - Cox was "very clearly stating" that Giraldi was falsely being passed off as a conservative to garner Olbermann some sort of street cred he didn't deserve, then Cox goes on to make it CLEARER THAN OLBERMANN DID that Giraldi is a conservative, and sits back smug like he's just bested Olbermann (?!?!?). And then people like you and Olbyhater congratulate him on his great writing (?!?!?). It's ridiculous, makes the site look bad, and undermines the idea that this website is about genuine fact-checking of Countdown by competent people, rather than a simple bashing site.

Royalking - you're asking me to prove a negative? Generally one has to prove an idea, say that Elvis is still alive, rather than people being required to prove that he isn't. However, blindrat gives you a rebuttal on Foster, and as for WMD - well, there wasn't any, and even George Bush says so, so it's kind of silly to argue otherwise.

In regards to Ted Kennedy, I'm not sure what he has to do with WMD, unless you're asserting that he dumped them over a bridge on Chappaquiddick Island or ate them. All of the Powell evidence was discredited - most of it BEFORE the invasion, but no one bothered to pay attention or look for any counter-evidence, especially the MSM. Without rehashing it all, let me just make one common-sense argument: the guy who ran the teams tasked with getting rid of WMD after Gulf War I testified that they got rid of 90% of it. The sanctions prevented Saddam from building facilities to produce more, and scientists testified that this stuff has a shelf life, just like the aspirin in your medicine cabinet, and anything left over from 1990 or earlier simply wouldn't be potent anymore. We know there were no new WMD construction facilities because - well, we're there, and they're not. We also knew BEFORE the war, thanks to Saddam's relative that defected, that the WMD were destroyed, but apparently this administration didn't want to hear that and ignored it. The CIA found that one of Chalabi's "sources" who claimed to be a nuclear physicist couldn't tell them what H2O stood for (!!!) and yet Cheney and others shopped the discredited informant to the media anyway. Powell claimed that Al Qaeda was operating in NORTHERN Iraq - ahem, Saddam didn't CONTROL northern Iraq thanks to the no-fly zones - that was Kurdish country! The Kurds confessed to smugging an Al Queda guy in on the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" idea to help with anti-Saddam activities. Of course, that also dispels the Saddam and Al Qaeda were friendly idea. Powell played a tape of unidentified people talking about WMD and inspectors, but there was NO DATE given for the conversation, so it could have been after Gulf War I! Etc., etc., etc. Face it - there were no WMD, and there were some of us, liberal and conservative, like myself and James above, who knew it. Bush and Cheney were doing the same thing you were - saying prove to us that there ISN'T any WMD (and we won't look at any evidence you have anyway). There was never one credible piece of evidence put forward before the war began that Iraq had WMD or was an imminent threat, but the country followed Bush to war anyway, mostly due to trusting the Commander In Chief. Sadly, Bush may have eroded trust in the office more than Nixon and Clinton put together.

Finally, one last commen-sense question: If Saddam had a massive arsenal of WMD, why would he ship it all to Syria? Why wouldn't he USE IT???? Obviously, if we ever get into a shooting war with China, the first thing we'll do is ship all our nukes to Canada. :-) Whether there were any WMD found or not, Saddam knew that if the war was lost he'd end up in a noose, so why not use the weapons to FIGHT? Or, if you were going to get rid of the weapons anyway, why not just surrender them, prevent war, and LIVE? This argument that Saddam was in command of a major arsenal, either built at facilities that are invisible because we never found them, or the arsenal is magic because it's pre-1990 stuff and doesn't break down like the laws of chemistry and physics dictate it should, and it was secretly transported to Syria rather than used, where it's apparently also invisible, non-degradable, and being used as paperweights rather than to arm Hezbollah, is crazy and is the conjecture that needs evidence, not that there were never any WMDs.

Alcaide, one word of advise concerning both brandon and RoyalKing (also known as Jeff). I wouldn't waste a lot of time or energy responding to either one of them. Both serve basically as right wing trolls and hecklers, and neither ever actually bring any real ideas or debate to the table.

I am convinced that if Einstein Himself were to post the Theory of Relativity on this board, Brandon would call him an 'Olbyloon' and Jeff would say he had been 'debunked'....just as long as they perceived him to be a 'liberal'.

The word is "a-d-v-i-c-e" Mike, not advise. I'd advise you to look up the spelling for the word advice, particularly when you're pontificating on how "stupid" you think other posts on the board is. Everyone makes spelling errors and typos, I do it a lot but it really doesn't present you in the best light Mikey in the context of WHAT you were trying to post. But hey, typical Olbyloon!

Alcade:

Don't you find it interesting that Olbermann wasn't interested in Mr. Giraldi's views on tax policy or "climate change"? Why is that you might ask? Could it be the one pesky annoying fact that Mr. Giraldi disagrees with Olbermann on these issues and Olbermann will only invite guests on his program that will confirm his own agenda?

Typically, Olbermann will invite liberals of all stripes and varieties to be on his show to comment on the war because they almost universally support the idea of withdrawal from Iraq and they will not challenge Olbermann's worldview or suggest to him that withdrawal would have catastrophic consequences. If a guest were to do so, that would be actually exploring all sides of the issue and Olbermann does not do that on his program. The purpose of Meltdown (contrary to it being touted as a "news" show on the MSLSD website) is to confirm Olbermann's opinions, which Giraldi reliably did. Giraldi does not represent mainstream conservative thinking on the question of withdrawal from Iraq. Isolationists represent some small perecentage of conservative thinkers, but Buchanan and his ilk are not taken seriously as the voices of conservatism. So, I would not say that Olbermann touting Giraldi as a "conservative" voice concerning the question of withdrawal from Iraq is a lie, but it is certainly disingenous, just like passing off former conservative and disbarred felon John Dean as representative of the the GOP's world view. This would be tantamount to bringing Joe Liebermann on to the Glenn Beck program and touting him as a "liberal" voice on the question of withdrawal from Iraq. But again, this is Olbermann's little game and it gets boring after awhile.

BTW, Alcade, before you start accusing the conservatives of drinking the Kool-Aide maybe you should inform yourself of the one you are seeking to defend, Krazy Keith. It's not for nothing that he has been assigned that moniker. I don't know about you, but I'm still waiting for the evidence that KK says is out there to prove that the 2004 presidential vote in Ohio was "stolen" and his assurances that indictments were to to be imminently handed down against Karl Rove in the Valerie Plame case.

Brandon, that post was another example of what I posted about you to Alcaide. You never post anything of substance.

As that post proves once again, you're nothing but the heckler I said you were....just like Jeff,

HAHAHAHA, let me get this straight, Cox, people from the American Conservative magazine, are NOT conservative, but...

Tammy Bruce, who hasn't voted for a Democrat since 1996, who is conservative on every issue except abortion, and who supports Republicans, is a "liberal" and a "Democrat"? Or better yet, Pat Caddell? Or Mara Liasson?

I love your hypocrisy. You're nothing but a crying little windbag who contradicts himself left and right.

I saw something on the blogs about Giraldi appearing on Hannity & Colmes - I think tonight. It will be interesting to watch how that goes; he might get a slightly different set of questions from Hannity.

Alcalde:

As long as Cox makes Olbermann look deceitful (and not to the average person, but to the choir here) he's succeeded.

What Cox should realize is he doesn't need to try so hard. It doesn't matter what KO says or does, or how he characterizes it, the choir knows the song and dance by heart.

Even if the music doesn't ring true...

Cox doesn't have to make Olby look deceitful. He does that every single night on his show when he lies repeatedly.

Alcaide, one word of advise concerning both brandon and RoyalKing (also known as Jeff). I wouldn't waste a lot of time or energy responding to either one of them. Both serve basically as right wing trolls and hecklers, and neither ever actually bring any real ideas or debate to the table.

I am convinced that if Einstein Himself were to post the Theory of Relativity on this board, Brandon would call him an 'Olbyloon' and Jeff would say he had been 'debunked'....just as long as they perceived him to be a 'liberal'.

Posted by: Mike at May 2, 2007 3:41 PM
Substance?

Brandon, that post was another example of what I posted about you to Alcaide. You never post anything of substance.

As that post proves once again, you're nothing but the heckler I said you were....just like Jeff,

Posted by: Mike at May 2, 2007 5:24 PM
Substance? LOL!

It's funny how Jeff, who gets trounced every day, calls himself Royalking !
He probably models himself after King Stephen, the worst king England ever had !

Anon 8:52: "It's funny how Jeff, who gets trounced everyday, calls himself Royalking !"

It's blissfull ignorance for Jeff, Anon. Jeff really doesn't seem to know he's getting trounced....therefore he feels no embarrassment about it.

Jeff, I have to ask you this. Why did you just now cut and paste that repost from more than 24 hours ago? I see nothing to respond to, or nothing to defend, even though you left out what the post was in response to, which leaves it with no context....but most importantly, it contained nothing relevant to today's discussion, which I have not been involved in at all.

lil mikey, since you post sh-t w/out thinking, I will explain why I reposted your crap. You were criticizing Brandon for making posts with no substance. Then, you post that crap and that's why I put "Substance?" under each post.

It's funny how Jeff, who gets trounced every day, calls himself Royalking !
He probably models himself after King Stephen, the worst king England ever had !

Posted by: at May 3, 2007 8:52 PM
What's funny, anonyloon, you don't have any idea what you are talking about, lm.

Jeff: "thats why I put "Substance?" under each post."...........LOL

Jeff, your cleverness is exceeded only by your legendary obtuseness.

This thread proves Johnny Dollar's hypocrisy, and nothing but it.

Jeff, your cleverness is exceeded only by your legendary obtuseness.

Posted by: Mike at May 3, 2007 10:02 PM
More hypocrisy from lil mikey. It just never ends....