"Joe Scarborough, tonight's Worst Person in the Wooooooorld"

just thought I'd try it out since we won't hear it from Keith

I watched a video of the event and linked to the ABC link above and read their account.

One very pertinent point Hasselbeck made that was ignored/shouted down and ABC also ignored was that Rosie didn't answer her own rhetorical question.

Rosie could have vindicated herself to varying degrees if she had done that. A simple enough question. Exactly what is YOUR answer to your own rhetorical question.

I think Rosie wants to vent her spleen on those who differ with her while whining and crying that she is a victim of meanies who lied about what she said.

My Mama used to use an expression "Good riddance to bad rubbish".

I think that is perfect for Rosie's departure.

Grammie

Hey, Whatsyaname, I see you are trailing right behind me not commenting on a public figure like Rosie but on little ole Grammie.

I am flattered beyond words to realize the elevated place I hold in your regrettably little mind.

Grammie

"Foot in mouth Rosie" is on record as saying she didn't mean the troops. She didn't SAY the troops....yet Robert is quick to call someone a 'liar' who dares interpret her words any other way than his geniuship.

Typical!

I had some trouble with the video and ended up having to delete and re-upload it several times before giving up on the file and re-compressing the entire thing as a new file. So, I took the time to add in one other small clip from Hardball.

In case you don't get it...Keith changes the word "who are the terrorists" to "who IS the terrorists" which is not only not what she said but does not even make sense grammatically. I thought it was pretty fun that Keith was blaming Fox News for the (correct) perception that Rosie had called U.S. troops in Iraq "terrorists" who had killed over 600,000 people when the MSNBC show BEFORE and AFTER his own show both reached the same conclusion.

The word "They" couldn't possibly mean the Bush cabal of him, Cheney, Rumfeld, Wolfowitz, could it? It HAD to be "the troops" didn't it.

Funny how anytime a perceived liberal makes a slip that could reasonably be interpreted several ways, the conclusion is ALWAYS that it was a put down of "the troops".

How convenient!

How anybody takes Olbermann as a legitimate news person is beyond me.
Good Lord!

I see Olby is back in 3rd place in the ever so coveted ratings "demo"....
Even after his smecheul komment and O'Reilly on vacation.

That is one of the most devastating videos yet. Blame Fox for somthing that all the other primetime MSNBC shows said. What a repellent, hypocritical hack!

Johnny Dollar: Whe are you coming back to your duties? We are starting to get to know your methods. Better come back soon.

Looks like "mike" has beat nobody cares/below average clinton c**k smoker/booby to the first apology of the night! However, there is no prize. More evidence that Olbermahn does NO wrong in these loons eyes. They claim to only agree with "95%" of what he says and does. Yea, right.

Femininity is a good thing, however:
Keith Olbermann is a very feminine man.
Keith can raise an eyebrow and scold the camera with a look, ala the "churchlady". Keith relates well to college age girls.
Keith has womanly, child-rearing hips.
Keith loathes American Idol.
The idea of Keith "hangin out with the guys" is pretty darn funny.
Keith makes up "Special Comment"s.
Keith is a very feminine man.

This is amazing. Simply amazing. Rosie O'Donnell calls Americans terrorists, and Keith DEFENDS her. You would think that a man who is trying to model himself after Edward R. Murrow might take umbridge with what Rosie said.

Mike, are you gunning for a special entry into the "Great Thanks Hall of Fame"?

You totally miss the point in your effort to defend the Great One.

First of all, and I know its a minor point in Olby-land, but if you say "Last week Miss O'Donnell said, quote" shouldn't you at least actually quote her? In his seven word "quote" Olby gets the number wrong (she said 655,000; Olby says 650,000) and then changes the word "are" to "is". So tell me, what's the story there? Poor, lazy research? Or just an outright lie in effort to point the finger at Bush?

Secondly, Mike, "but not on Fox noise"(just funnier every time he says it)....the hypocrisy cup runneth over. Now we know that KO, who claims to "answer to no one"(paraphrase) at MSNBC, has said publically that he isn't allowed to criticize other hosts on MSNBC. So I understand why he wouldn't mention Joe or Chris. But wouldn't the wise choice be to eliminate the "Fox noise" reference, lest his hypocrisy be noticed? Again, omitting the MSNBC hosts who reached the same conclusion as "Fox noise" (I just can't stop using that phrase, its so funny), is it poor research, or just outright dishonesty?

Mike, I understand the "blame the messenger" knee-jerk response when someone questions your hero. But look honestly at the multitude of errors/omissions in this one quote, and defend him with reasoning. We get it. Olby hates the President. His loyal followers hate the President. Rosie hates the President. Therefore you must defend her and attack all critics. That's not what this post was about. Its a prime example of what passes for reporting on Olby-world. Filled with errors, omissions, and half-truths(or outright lies), all in just 30 words.

He defends her for a simple reason: he thinks she's right. And if it means changing what O'Donnell said to try and exonerate her, he's ready, willing, and able to do it. He's as big of an apologist for Rosie as his lunatic fan base is of him. They whine, bitch, and moan about the alleged "lies" and "bias" at Fox News but they have no problem whatsoever with the KNOWN lies and biases of one Keith Olbermann.

If I remember right, when Bill O'Reilly said Malmedy instead of Normandy, his claim that he misspoke wasn't exactly accepted by Keith, who pretty much ran with that for the following 5-6 months while demanding Fox yank his show off the air for such a transgression.

So for Olbermann's supports to now claim his inability to get a statement that he tells viewers is a direct quote right is no big deal is laughably hypocritical. Of course, these are the same people last week who though Keith going all giggly while replaying the toddler being kicked in the head 10 times and then recreated as a pinball in a YouTube video was no big deal either (In their world, police could discover Olby's the Jeffrey Dahmer of Upper Third Avenue and they would think this is nothing but a facist effort by Bush, Cheney and their corporate lackeys to silence Keith's special comments before they cause the see the light and overthrow the current illegal government).

We sometimes call Howard Fineman the Pundit for All Occasions. That's because his responses are so, well, adaptable, depending on whether he's talking to, say, Laura Ingraham or Olby. So here he is with Chris Matthews, and Matthews says Rosie called the troops terrorists didn't she? And Fineman, right on cue, agrees. Does anyone doubt how it would have gone if Fineman were talking to Herr Olbermann? Olby: Rosie was obviously not talking about the troops, she was talking about George Bush, wasn't she? Fineman: Of course she was.

I think when Rosie said, "who are the terrorists?", she meant that America is behaving like terrorists in that we attacked a country that had not attacked us. She meant a collective "we"-- the country, the troops, but was really pointing her finger at the country's figurehead and the troops Commander-In-Chief.

I'm not just givng her the benefit of the doubt here, I'm convinced that she didn't mean the troops are terrorists but that Bush and company are terrorists. She could have been saying too, that everyone who supports the Iraq war supports the U.S. behaving like terrorists.

I think the irony here is that Olbermann was in full-glare pressured speech teeth-gritting mode in a special comment about Rumsfeld for saying that war critics were behaving like Neville Chamberlain (hilariously-- he's now made the same comparision about Dems for caving about timelines for troop withdrawal) but he covers for Rosie when she uses an analogy that gets her into trouble... :D

I mentioned a different video from the one above in my comment last night. I said:

One very pertinent point Hasselbeck made that was ignored/shouted down and ABC also ignored was that Rosie didn't answer her own rhetorical question.

Rosie could have vindicated herself to varying degrees if she had done that. A simple enough question. Exactly what is YOUR answer to your own rhetorical question."

I was referencing a video that I had seen of the big dustup between Rosie and Hasselbeck earlier in the week.

Cecelia, I understand the point you are making but Rosie herself refused to answer her own question more than once on the same show she posed the question. If she has no interest in clarifying it I assume she either can't or won't for political reasons.

When Hasselbeck asked her several times Rosie went extra ballistic even for her, insisting and degrading Hasselbeck for refusing to say what she thought Rosie meant. A rather strange reaction I thought.

Grammie

Mike,

I like what Scott wrote but would add...

Mike wrote "The word "They" couldn't possibly mean the Bush cabal of him, Cheney, Rumfeld, Wolfowitz, could it? It HAD to be "the troops" didn't it."

I am actually starting to feel sorry for Mike who is obviously either a child or mentally retarded or both. I would ask Mike "If you have some type of severe learning disability or mental incapacity please tell us so we can treat you with some degree of compassion as you embarrass yourself on this site."

Case in point, you are upset because wingnuts like myself have interpreted the word "they" to meet "the troops" when she could have just as easily (and in your mind this is the case) meant Bush and members of his administration. Have I got that about right?

Let me just point out one problem with your theory. The word "they" was not used during this entire exchange - not by Rosie, not by Hasselbeck not even by Keith in commenting upon it. Now that I've point that out do you see a little problem with your theory? Now do us all a favor: unplug your keyboard for a few days, take whatever medication your doctor recommends and come back when your braincells are once again functional if they ever were.

Of course, this s OlbermannWatch not RosieWatch (although that is not a bad idea) so the focus here is on Keith not O'Donnell.

It is generally required at news organizations that if you place words within quotation marks then what you put between them must be exactly what they said. As Scott noted, Keith did not do that even though he actually looks down as if to read the "quote" from a piece of paper in his hands. It does not occur to the OlbyLoons that Keith would intentionally lie so the added effect of looking down to read the "quote and actually saying the word "quote" was there to sell the idea that what Keith said she said was accurate - this despite the fact that just a few minutes later, on Scarborough Country, MSNBC producers HAD THE CLIP where she says "Who are the terrorists?" Why READ the "quote" when you can run the actual video? Simple, if your intent is to deceive. Keith knows full well that HIS version of the story will be repeated by lefties on the blogs and elsewhere so that two competing versions will exist leading those with only a passing interest to conclude the it's not clear what she actually said.

There is not a scintilla of doubt about what Rosie said and she got IMMEDIATE feedback from Hasselbeck that she was conveying the idea that U.S. troops were terrorists and did not "clarify" or back away from her words. When she was pilloried for what she said she STILL refused to "clarify" what she said, demanding instead the her co-host "defend" her. I think all clear-thinkers know that the anti-war left DO NOT support the troops but have learned, like Mexicans waving Mexican flags at pro-illegal immigration rallies, not to actually SAY what they think in public. These are people of the same mindset that called our troops in Vietnam "baby killer" (and, in some cases, the same people). Does anyone really believe that the sentiment of the anti-war left towards the troops as CHANGED? Or are they just a wiser about being so open about their contempt for those who serve our country in the military?

If she did not mean what she said she had the opportunity to correct herself because she was immediately challenged on what she said by Hasselbeck who repeated her words to her and asked her what she meant. That also happened again on Thursday - repeatedly. Rosie would only say she "supports" the troops and accuse "Republican pundits" of "twisting" her words. Of course, even more idiotic is the notion that the 655,000 figure is meaningful when it was produced by a British magazine not by totaling up casualty figures but by asking a small number of people whether anyone in their family had been killed since the invasion in 2003 and then extrapolating that data based on the number of households in Iraq. In other words, Rosie used a figure made up by a magazine. In the same breadth she talks about how "we" went against the U.N. Yet the UN has its own statistics which put the loss of life due to violence in Iraq since 2003 at between 150,000 and 200,000. Of that, a large chunk of those numbers come from al Qaeda attacks on civilians and Iraqi military and police and fighting between Sunni and Shia. Some comes from legitimate U.S. military operations. Not even our biggest critics in Europe or the Russians, Chinese, etc have accused the U.S. of deliberately targeting civilians. So Rosie takes a made up number that is 3-4 times higher than official U.N. estimates of which most is the result of terrorism and sectarian violence and asserts that U.S. troops caused all of those deaths. So, it's lie upon lie which explains Keith's interest in the topic.

What is also nice about this clip from Countdown is we get a crystal clear example of the depths KO is willing to trawl in order to come up with an "attack" against Fox News. His colleagues at MSNBC came to the same conclusion that most people who heard it came to - that she meant the troops yet Keith tells his viewers that Rosie is referring solely to Fox News and that Fox News alone put out this "absurd" notion that Rosie said the troops were terrorists. He refuses to play the clip of what she actually said and tries to pass off the entire affair as a GOP smear orchestrated by FNC.

Cecelia, I understand the point you are making but Rosie herself refused to answer her own question more than once on the same show she posed the question. If she has no interest in clarifying it I assume she either can't or won't for political reasons.

When Hasselbeck asked her several times Rosie went extra ballistic even for her, insisting and degrading Hasselbeck for refusing to say what she thought Rosie meant. A rather strange reaction I thought.

Grammie

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at May 26, 2007 11:57 AM

Janet, I watched that video and what I saw was a showdown between two colleagues.

It was Rosie in essence saying-- Elizabeth, you have called me a friend... you have worked with me... you know me.... are YOU saying that I would call the troops terrorists, Elizabeth? YOU tell me what YOU think?

I think Rosie is a bully and they can always dish it out, but can't take it in return. She's feeling all persecuted because she's gotten burnt in the media over her statement, so she says she's being picked on because she's obese and a lesbian...and Hasslebeck is little and cute...etc...etc...

She then tried to make Elizabeth vouch for her and when E. wouldn't let her off that easily she got her feelings hurt. She then demanded that E. answer in the sense that I mention above.

It's just my opinion, but I don't think Rosie feels like the troops are at fault, but that their commander is the terrorist.

I just reread the comments, and Mike's post at 12:48 is even more poignant now, thanks to Grammie's note.

Mike, again in Craig Crawford mode (attack the messenger when you have no salient points with which to defend your heroes) wrote "The word "They" couldn't possibly mean the Bush cabal of him, Cheney, Rumfeld, Wolfowitz, could it? It HAD to be "the troops" didn't it."

I love it! Taking a page from the Keith Olbermann handbook, after KO changed "are" to "is" to attack "Fox Noise" (I really do love that phrase, it's so witty!), Mike changes "are" to "they". That allows him to then attack the "Bush cabal" and all those non-liberals who interpretted Rosie remarks as meaing our troops.

Doctoring quotes is a very effective propaganda tool if you're addressing an audience that doesn't bother to do research to find the truth. And especially effective when you use the doctored quote to justify a subsequent attack on your foes.

Keep it up, Mike. KO has taught you well. Your "Great thanks" will be in the mail.

Cecelia,

A more pertinent question is whether or not Keith Olbermann accurately reported what O'Donnell said. Also, whether the understanding that she was calling our troops "terrorists" was some GOP smear orchestrated by Fox News Channel. What say you?

It seems pretty clear that he intentionally misquoted her in order to then advance his attack on Fox News, ironically for misreporting what she said because it was inconsistent with his phony version of the quotation.

As for your take on what Rosie said I see one problem with what you wrote. You IGNORE what Rosie said that CAUSED the controversy and instead focus exclusively on the subsequent exchange with Hasselbeck on Thursday which was, as you note, about Rosie feeling that Hasselbeck had not given her the benefit of the doubt as to what she MEANT. While that part of your analysis makes sense you then leap to a conclusion - I don't think Rosie feels like the troops are at fault - that is not borne out by the transcripts or video.

Why are you not addressing what she ACTUALLY said that is the source of the controversy? I suspect because you once again have this emotional reaction - "I don't think Rosie feels like the troops are at fault, but that their commander is the terrorist." - that is not supported by the facts. I think we've been down this read before so I already know that there is no point in debating you when you have this type of unfounded, emotional reaction so this is just a "for the record" observation that your beliefs about Rosie's inner goodness are not, in fact, borne out by her own words in the original exchange and that you are really just making things up out of whole cloth.
.
As I noted in responding to Mike, there is NOTHING in the original statement or exchange that would make clear that she was saying Bush and his administration although I would have a problem with that too.

Overall, I continue to be amazed that despite providing videos and transcripts, there are still commenters on this site who continue to ignore concrete evidence of what is said on Countdown or elsewhere and spin fantastic tales based on wishful thinking.

Cecelia --

Rosie's idea of being a friend is for that person to synchopatically allow Rosie to trash any statements they make while condescendingly treating them like a childish idiot, but at the same time expressing shock, hurt and anger if that person should ever actually challenge any of her comments, no matter how controversial they may be (I would say 'no matter how inane' but I assume O'Donnell thinks all her statements shine laser-like clarity on the situation).

Since Rosie has been a pretty well-known celebrity going on 15 years now, my guess is she's either surrounded herself or has been surrounded with obsequious types who bow to her every whim and agree with everything she says. That's why Hasselbeck's sudden decision to challenge her remarks head-on, instead of meekly backing down when Rosie turns up her volume and scorn came as such a shock, and (to give her the benefit of the doubt) may have angered and flustered her to the point that she couldn't back out of her insinuation that the trooper were terrorists, because she's never been forced on camera to back out of her previous Bizzaro world statements, like fire having never melted steel.

(And just to take this back to "Countdown", I have no doubt that while Keith may be madder than a nest of killer bees about the George W. Bush-like evil/dumb Elizabeth persecuting Rosie in this way, it's probably reinforced his determination never to have any opposing points of view on his show. Keith's anger in his special comments is 50 percent Bush Derangement Syndrome and 50 percent a "Look at me!" attempt to gin up his ratings among the netroots crowd; given a guest who could challenge his remarks, he doesn't have the naked fury to bull-headedly plunge into the logical abyss like Rosie. Having actual back-and-forths on "Countdown" involving both sides of an issue would leave Olbermann either back under his desk, in a bathtub, or some combination of the two.)

Bob,

I think the stuff about Fox News is bunk. More people than Fox News took her words as implying that the troops are terrorist. Olbermann is covering for her and lying.

I have no problem with your thinking that I'm responding emotionally to Rosie's words. When I told Grammie that this is just my opinion, I meant it is my gut reaction, but I think I'm right.

I don't think that she feels the military is comprised of little terrorists, but thinks they are commanded by one. Which is craziness AND carries implications against the troops, but in her mind she does make a distinction between the troops and Bush.

Similarly, I think she's making a distinction between saying that this country acted like terrorists in this action, from any implication that there is little difference between the U.S. and its institutions and Iran.

Again, I don't think she's arguing any more than that and is clueless as to the full implications of her remarks. She's making a lamebrain slam against Bush and the war and that's it.

John,

I'm with on that stuff.

What's particularly funny is Rosie refusing to come back after Elizabeth stood up to her.

Cecelia, this may be absolute truth:

"It's just my opinion, but I don't think Rosie feels like the troops are at fault, but that their commander is the terrorist.
Posted by: Cecelia at May 26, 2007 12:13 PM"

What I see, though, is a high profile public figure who has made her name and fortune on slicing, dicing and bludgeoning those she disagrees with suddenly refusing to use that very same platform from which she terrorizes others to make a simple explanatory statement that answers her own question and then let the chips fall where they may.

Based on her past history I believe she meant ALL of the interpretations, explanations and excuses that have been proffered on her behalf. She meant GWB et al, Republicans, Democrats who are pro war, and America as a whole (for not impeaching GWB et al) and the American troops.

Rosie and KO are so alike that I suspect she and KO were twins who were separated at birth.

Grammie

Based on her past history I believe she meant ALL of the interpretations, explanations and excuses that have been proffered on her behalf. She meant GWB et al, Republicans, Democrats who are pro war, and America as a whole (for not impeaching GWB et al) and the American troops.

Rosie and KO are so alike that I suspect she and KO were twins who were separated at birth.

Grammie

Yeah. Well said.

Janet, Let me direct you to the May 24th post where I posed all of the sources for my "conspiratorial screed laced with accusations" and You can make your own judgement with the same information. Also, I directed a few questions in the name of good debate. Thanks!

STO, I saw it when I checked to see if you had found the explanation for why your post didn't go through. Many people have said many derogatory things, including complaints that they are censoried, about OW but it is the most open of sites to everyone's opinions.

I plan on linking to them and answering your latest question but not right now. I have had a bit of the flu and still have some bouts of fever and headache and I'm a bit tired so I'm just piddling. I'll get back to you and wait until I see you on a thread to post it.

Grammie

Oh, STO, I also wanted to tell you that you didn't hurt my feelings at all. I'm not that fragile.

I was, though, intellectually offended by the shell game you seemed to be playing.

Those are two completely different things.

Grammie

Let me help you out, then Janet.

Here's the condensed veerion of STO's "proofs" for concluding that the Administration allowed 9/11 to happen in order to have a pretext for going into Iraq.

--Bush saying that Saddam tried to kill his father.

---Rumsfeld thinking that Saddam was in on 9/11 the day of, and writing a note asking for info, in order for both UBL and Saddam to be hit. (Evidently, Saddam not complying with U.N. mandates wasn't enough to go after him, they had to allow 9/11 to occur)

-- A leftwing news site's reference to a law suit that claims the military was duped into not following procedure the day of 9/11.

--- The philosophy of PACN-- which doesn't just indicate why how some in the Administration drew the conclusions and the course of action that they did, but "proves" that they went as far as to allow an attack on the U.S. in order to put their philosophy into action...

Alright, well. I hope you get to feeling better then and I look forward to your response. And please, if im playing a shell game, put me in my place and show me that I'm wrong. Really, I hope that I am cuz thats a pretty damned bad scenario but from what I have seen and read and know, its true.

At this stage of his tenure as host of Countdown and the endless examples of his bias and tendentious reporting cited here, for anyone to believe that Olberman is in any sense of the term a "news anchor" is risible.

Were the FTC to be involved, Countdown would be shutdown for committing consumer fraud.

But, as Lincoln used to say, for those who like this sort of thing, Olberman is the sort of thing they like.

When you simplify it like that it sounds so bad. However, when you leave it as it is as a full argument. Its pretty compelling. The Saddam trying to Kill Bush Sr...I only posted that to show that maybe George had it out for Saddam from the beginning, I would too if I were him, but I wouldnt destroy the U.S. army in doing so. The Rumsfeld thing...I just find it really interesting that he would jump to such a conclusion while being apart of an organization that so obviously wanted a stake in Iraqi oil fields. And then continue jumping despite the growing evidence that he was not linked to 9/11 at all. Then finally dive into war on false pretenses. Just because its generally a left wing news reference doesnt mean that its wrong. Show me that its wrong other than claiming its political scope and we'll talk. I never said ANYTHING was definitively proven, actually I've said quite the opposite, if you can prove me wrong, please do. I dont want this to be true, it'll be a sad day for America if it is. But I have nothing leading me to believe otherwise, if you can produce something, please, by all means, show it to me. Also, can you explain how we stopped 67 planes from going off course in a year but in one day we missed three while almost the entire security force was on alert? I think thats pretty fishy personally

Cecelia,

Yikes. You are really all over the place. You are making so many contradictory statements that I now hesitate to even post this reply I wrote to your earlier comment. I will go ahead anyway since I took the time to right it but I would suggest that you back and re-read what you've written today. If you cannot see how scattered your comments are then I am going to give up.

=========================

"it is my gut reaction, but I think I'm right."

If you form opinions based on gut reactions, always think your first impression is correct, can never explain the basis for your opinions and will maintain your position even when the facts clearly show you are wrong then I'm not sure there is much point in anyone every engaging you in discussion so it's not clear why you even bother posting on comment threads but hey...whatever floats your boat.

In this case, I am asking you to suspend the absolutist mentality that leads you to believe just because a thoughts pops into your head means its a good idea and separate what she actually said from what you imagine what she "really meant" because even in your defense of Rosie you contradict yourself.

It is a lot more than she thinks Bush is a "terrorist" (Keith has said the same thing about Bush, Guiliani and the entire Republican party). I suspect you have not really read the type of fringe Marxist literature that informs Rosie's world view. Had you done so, you would understand that the REAL leftists in this country (not Democrats or Liberal Democrats or Liberals but good old-fashioned communists, socialists and the cuckoo leftists) do, in fact, believe that the troops are carrying out systematic terrorism and atrocities in Iraq and around the globe as part of some capitalist plot. You can find a good deal of literature out there calling on troops to "resist" and "subvert" the military. You sometimes hear about this when there is a case of soldier refusing to go to Iraq and being court-martialed but you rarely get information about who is funding the legal defense or doing the PR for these cases. These are people who openly condemn the troops for willing participate in "genocide" in Iraq, the same people who disrupt efforts of military recruiters and keep them off college and high school campuses. The language and talking points Rosie puts forward clearly show that she is propounding this kooky, far-left ideology and if you do not think so then it is only because you have not really studied the literature and compared it to the things Rosie says. There is a bit of speaking in code going on with her - just as with Keith - where she says things that have a special meaning to people who move in her ideological circle.

Do you really think her "Building 7" theories are some isolated interest on her part? Press down a little bit and you will find that she is constantly advancing a holistic world view which is based on a quasi-Marxist understanding of the world of which her 9/11 conspiracy theories and "Americans are terrorists" and "Christian fundamentalists in the U.S. are the same as militant Muslin fundamentalists" are all just tips of the same iceberg.

Once you understand where she is coming from you can then follow the logic of her words better. Yes, she thinks Bush is a terrorist. We agree on that, right? She thinks that the invasion of Iraq is a terrorist act. Still with me? She SAID that "we" are responsible for all the deaths in Iraq since 2003 times three or four, right?

So when she says "we" and asks "who are the terrorists" she is not setting Bush apart she is including ALL OF US in America as being the terrorists. If she meant Bush do you think she would hesitate to use his name? If she meant the Bush Administration do you think she would be afraid so say so? She asked a rhetorical question meaning one to which she already "knew" the answer - which she then provided a few seconds later.

"Who are the terrorists?" she asks.

"We are..." she then says.

If you want to stretch this to the absolute limit then MAYBE you could argue that what she was trying to say was something like Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq has made us all complicit in his terrorism or something like that but that is pretty darn thin and certainly not the plain meaning of what she said.

Regardless, even if she ONLY meant Bush is a terrorist as you claim, how can you get around the fact that the way in which Bush is being a terrorist in her mind is by ordering our troops in invade Iraq. Seems to me, even if you are right, you are wrong. By your logic, our troops are carrying out terrorism in Iraq but Rosie "supports" the troops because she is saying that Bush is ORDERING them to be terrorists so it's not really their fault. Even based on your "gut reaction" the troops are terrorists, it's just a matter of whether it is by choice or because they are ordered to be. I have no doubt that Rosie wants to "make a distinction between the troops and Bush" but the logic of she says means that it's a distinction without a difference.

I wonder what you mean when you say she is "clueless as to the full implications of her remarks". What are these "full implications" that you reference? In all the video that I've seen, I do not see her mention or even allude to Bush.

I guess it just does not occur to you that there are people out there like Rosie who really do hate America. I am getting sick and tired of people making excuses for her behavior based on what they imagine is in her heart. Judge her on her words and actions and stop projecting some idealized image you have of her.

Scott, do you know what else I find to be quite effective propadanda. Fear-mongering. Like when Bush told a reporter the other day, after he got shit on by a bird(Karma is a bitch), "we are under threat" "The terrorists will follow us home"(Experts say otherwise) "Its a danger to your children, Jim" as well as other Right-Wing Fear-Mongers like Rudy Guiliani who said, "If any republican is elected president - and I think obviously that I would be best at this - we will remain on offense and will anticipate what [the terrorists] and try to stop them before they do it...But the question is how long will it take and how many casualties will we have? If we are on defense, we will have more losses and it will go on longer" Scaring the people into voting for him! What a loser

oo, cant forget this gem, "Democrats dont understand the full scope of the threats against us."

hahaha! Well, Bob, had I been aware of the "facts" of Rosie's marxism or neo-marxist world-view and understood the "code" language of that bent,, perhaps my analysis would have been more "factual"...

What I meant by "full implications" is that Rosie is clueless to exactly the full implication of her words. The implication that I alluded to and that you spell out in your post, although you seem to be attributing what I'm describing as Rosie's denial of the entire implication of her remarks to me.

But I'll take what your "fact-based" argument about Rosie's views and ponder on it. :D

Bob writes : "I have no doubt that Rosie wants to "make a distinction between the troops and Bush" but the logic of she says means that it's a distinction without a difference."

Well, great! That's my point. Perhaps the distinction that would make a differernce here is your then acknowledging the difference between Rosie's clueless about the logical implication of her words and her having actually meant what she implied.

Rosie is an embarrassment, not only to herself but to people who have Democratic leanings. All along she knew her rants were nothing more than sound bites for later on in the day's news. She's a no talent self, clueless, proclaimed loud mouth.

Rosie as for the building on 9/11. Steel can, under high temperatures, like jet fuel, lose their structural integrity. They can sway, bend and yes even do a kind of "melting" As a niece of a structural engineer I, who is completely ignorant of such things like structure science, even knows that! "Binny," as I call Bin Laden even knew that. Rosie, did you forget that for years it was no secret that Binny wanted those building down -- no matter how Binny had to do it?

Secondly, it pains me to say this, but I though Elisabeth was thoughtful in the way she handled herself in this whole fight. Air head Elisabeth told Rosie what for, now the cry baby Rosie ran wee, wee, wee all the way home. For Christ sakes every other sentence Rosie says is with a reminder that she's gay! Hey Elisabeth say "As a heterosexual I ..." "Hey Rosie, last night while my husband was making sweet love to me I ...." No one would appreciate that. So why must I hear your sex life Rosie? Goodbye. Don't let the door hit you where the Good Lord split you. Stop acting the child having friends draw mustaches on pictures. How childish!

Thirdly, how childish of you Keith! Yes you. You who unfairly claimed Fox Noise Channel called poor old Rosie a U.S. troop hater of sorts. Seems your buddy pal Chris thought Rosie was a U.S. hater too. Apology coming Keith? I think not.

Thirdly, how childish of you Keith! Yes you. You who unfairly claimed Fox Noise Channel called poor old Rosie a U.S. troop hater of sorts. Seems your buddy pal Chris thought Rosie was a U.S. hater too. Apology coming Keith? I think not.

Posted by: Judy at May 26, 2007 3:57 PM

No, you're wrong, Judy. But it's not an easy interpretation here.

You have to listen to what was EXACTLY said BUT then filter it through her past statements and the known code language cryptology of Marxist anti-Americanism to come up with a viable fact-based interpretation.

That's she's merely a Bush-hating, illogical dumb twit, won't do...

Nice job STO....

You are seriously trying to hijack this thread in order to get the subject off KO, aren't you?

What in the orignal story Bob posted, or the comments I've made, have even the most remote connection to your preivious posted "questions" or your "response" to my comments?

Again, when all else fails, distract. Is it possible that even the loyal Olbyloons have no defense for their beloved this time?

"A viable fact-based interpretation."

There is no such thing!

So here we are back to: "she's merely a Bush-hating, illogical dumb twit"

So take away the most logical aspect of Rosie's worldview...."Bush-Hating'....and the above description would fit Cecelia perfectly.

So take away the most logical aspect of Rosie's worldview...."Bush-Hating'....and the above description would fit Cecelia perfectly.

Posted by: Mike at May 26, 2007 4:30 PM

What sort of element do you put in the lining of your clothes, that makes you so utterly impervious to irony or sarcasm?

It has nothing to do with Olbermann, I was simply showing that there are two sides to it, The right is the worst propaganda machine around, especially with your postboy Bill O. Okay, I'll defend Olbermann like I already did on another post. Ya know how RCox said an anon poster brought this quote up, yeah, that was me that refuted it to begin with. Now let me do it again if you want. Rosie, while it might be interpreted by some as saying the troops are terrorists, was trying to refer to the administration that has sent them there. Bush is the terrorist, not the troops. The troops are pawns in the game of war that Bush and Petreaus(or the other several generals that Bush fired because they disagreed with him) are playing. You people are intentionally miscontruing what Rosie said in order to bash the left. Ive said time and time again, No one hates the troops, no one is anti-troops. Dont confuse the war with the warrior.

What is up with you all being against healthy political discussion? I quit posting on blogs like the dailykos and whatnot because its BORING. No diversity in opinion. Excuse me for liking political dialogue. I'll say it again, You learn from discussing things, like propaganda, wars, policy, corruption. You learn your own viewpoints more throughly and you're opening to a variety of other viewpoints. So excuse me for trying to take advantage of, for one of the first times in human history, to have the chance to argue politics with people of all color, creed, values, and judgements via the blogosphere.

OK STO, lets get back to it.

I could really care less what Rosie said, what Rosie meant, what Rosie thinks.

My posts have questioned KO's honesty and/or accuracy in his coverage of the "story."

I'll recap for you.

Watch the tape. He looks down when reading the "quote." Which he then gets wrong, giving a wrong number and changing the word "are" to "is". Sloppy reporting? Shoddy research by the crack CD staff? Or a deliberate (and dishonest) change to fit KO's argument?

Additionally, the "Fox Noise" bit, implying that only Fox was attempting to twist this "obvious referrence to President Bush" into a slur on the troops. Did you catch the clips from Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough (you know, the hosts of the shows that bookend KO's journalistic masterpiece)? Did they suddenly change networks and nobody told me? Or did KO deliberately ignore them in order to mislead his viewers and take another shot at Fox News?

As I assume I am included in your "you people" generalization, I challenge you to show me where I have "intentionally miscontru(ed) what Rosie said in order to bash the left." In fact, show me where I have even referenced what she said, aside from showing the numerous lies and/or errors in KO's "quote" of her.

My propaganda statement had nothing to do with left, right, or center. It had to do with KO and Mike both misstating Rosie's quote in order to further their personal agendas.

Again, I don't really care a lick about what she said. Fortunately, there is no room in my world for Rosie's idiotic rambling. My points have been directed at KO's coverage of the event.

You haven't defended KO on this issue, at least not in your post a 5:07. You defended Rosie. You have yet to address KO's distortion and misrepresentation of the story.

In reference to your post at 5:14. This isn't a political site, Its a site about KO and CD. While the comments often veer into political issues, that's not what its about.

Okay, excuse me on the political site reference, its a slanderous site.

On the topic at hand, I personally I do not see how Who is and Who are changes it all that much. So Rosie references the entire administration instead of just Bush. That isnt good of Keith to misquote, but I do not see it as a HUGE deal that everyone is making it to be. And Keith has said it himself when he's attacked saying that others on his same network are disputing what he says, to paraphrase, "You dont attack your own team, no matter what is said".

There, it is defended.

Now then, it is dispicable that you accuse Keith of promoting propaganda when he misses one word, the point of the argument is not changed, Rosie wasnt referring to the troops whether she said are or is; then, at the same time, no one has spoken out against Rudy Guiliani's obvious propaganda saying, "America will be safer with a Republican president" "the democrats dont understand the full scope of the treats posed against us" or why has no one spoken out against Bush's repeated propaganda terrorism? Because you're far too busy getting all upset about changing one word, its still the same verb for christs sake, just a difference in the amount of people its referring to. Who cares that Rudy is telling the people that if they vote democrat, they die? Who cares that Bush is telling people that if we leave Iraq, we die(which has been said is false by experts)?

Your turn.

> "You dont attack your own team, no matter what is said".

A very handy excuse for Keith Olbermann, who attacked Bill O'Reilly mercilessly for not criticizing the proposed Fox OJ Simpson book deal. (Of course O'Reilly DID criticize it, ergo another Olbermann lie, but I digress.) So he cackles that O'Reilly has no "manhood" because he won't criticize his own company. Yet when it's time for Olby to show his manhood, all of a sudden it's an immutable rule of journalism: you don't attack your own team, no matter what.

Hypocrite.

You really have a thing for "dispicable" (sic)don't you, STO?

You obviously don't get the point I've been trying to make, or that Robert presented in the initial post.

First, its not one word. Its the number, which he got wrong, and the change of the word. Read the quote. Its nine words long. KO got 2 of them wrong. I know, its so easy to say "well its just one word and its still a form of the word 'is' so who cares." But there's more to it than that. Changing the verb to the singular makes it easier to say "she meant Bush." Did she? Did she mean the President, the administration, the United States? Who really knows, other than her.

On its suface, the story KO reported is just wrong. Is it to much to ask that an award-winning journalist, such as KO, be accurate in his reporting? It shouldn't be.

Personally, based on his past efforts, I think KO's coverage was deliberatly slanted to make it look like Rosie's comment was being twisted by the evil Fox News machine. He ignored what people on his own network said, and most likely did it to but the blame on Fox.

Now, if it turns out (and we will never know by the way) that the numerous errors and ommissions KO made in the brief snip Robert has posted where simply mistakes, that KO's crack staff just typed his script poorly or some such reason, then fine. Sorry, Keith. It still doesn't excuse ignoring the comments by Matthews and Scarborough, while focusing on Fox.

But, somehow, I doubt that's the case.

Personally, based on his past efforts, I think KO's coverage was deliberatly slanted to make it look like Rosie's comment was being twisted by the evil Fox News machine. He ignored what people on his own network said, intentionally. If he didn't want to "blame his own team," he could have ignored the Fox comment totally. He didn't. He used it to attack Fox (again),

"I think when Rosie said, "who are the terrorists?", she meant that America is behaving like terrorists in that we attacked a country that had not attacked us. She meant a collective "we"-- the country, the troops, but was really pointing her finger at the country's figurehead and the troops Commander-In-Chief."

Kudos, Cecelia. That is the most open-minded I've ever seen you. I have no cat in this talk-show dust-up that everybody's freaking out about, but you just displayed what I believe to be unprecedented cicumspection for some from your side commenting on "terrorist-loving" lefties. Thanks, and I retract one of my past "mind-slave" rebukes.

Thanks, and I retract one of my past "mind-slave" rebukes.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at May 26, 2007 6:58 PM

Well, thanks, Sir Loin.

You really know how to compliment a lady

"Thanks, and I retract one of my past "mind-slave" rebukes. "

One down, about 487 more accusations to go.

In order to remove the others, you must agree to everything he says in the future.

But remember: Don't be a mind slave.

The irony can only be cut with a diesel powered chainsaw.

Let's take stock shall we?

Whether you believe Rosie meant the troops, or America, or Bush, or the Bush administration, is there some doubt whether she said "who ARE the terrorists?" and not "who IS the terrorist?" or, as the grammatically challenged Olbermann would have it "who's the terrorists?".

Are we at least agreed on that point?

Can we all agree that had Rosie said "who IS the terrorist" and began talking about Bush she would have been using a rhetorical question to convey her belief that "Bush is a terrorist"?

Can we all agree that what actually said, "who are the terrorists?" can reasonably be construed to mean that she is saying that U.S. troops in Iraq are terrorists?

Can we agree that it was not just "Republican pundits" on Fox News Channel who understood O'Donnell to have meant to say that U.S. troops are terrorists?

As we have video clips from the show before AND after Keith's show on MSNBC that not only was it not just Fox News but it was 2 of 3 of MSNBC's primetime hosts (Matthews, Scarborough) and one of Keith's most frequent guests (Fineman) who understood O'Donnell to have said U.S. troops are terrorists.

And these things being obviously true, is it not the case that regardless of what you might imagine to have been Rosie's intent or her really feelings about the troops, what Keith Olbermann said Wednesday night was lie, upon lie, upon lie.

The question my video poses is why is Olbermann lying to defend Rosie. If he wants to defend her he can simply do that without manufacturing quotes and twisting them into laughable accusations against a competing cable news network.

It's my opinion that Keith lies because he can. He know that no one at NBC News is going to call him on it, MSNBC management encourages it and his target audience is too gullible, too vapid to know the difference.

Cecelia,

Attempting to mock me for pointing out the context for O'Donnell's remarks only serves to highlight that you not only do not know what you are talking about but you actually wear your ignorance on your sleeve like some sort of badge of honor.

Why not take a few minutes out of your day to go read a few back issues of Counterpunch.org or a similar far-left site and get back to me when you have a clue about the anti-American Marxist mentality that informs Rosie O'Donnell's world view. If you will take just an hour or two to acquaint yourself with a mindset of you which you are apparently quite uninformed you might come to see that, once again, your "gut instinct" has mislead you.

Steal wrote "Rosie, while it might be interpreted by some as saying the troops are terrorists, was trying to refer to the administration that has sent them there. Bush is the terrorist, not the troops."

You can say the moon is made of cheese if you want but it does it make it so. Likewise you can SAY she meant BUSH but it does not make it so. Do me a favor and review the transcript below then explain why Rosie uses the word "us" and "we" and explain by what OlbyLoon math WE = BUSH?

O'DONNELL: I haven't -- I just want to say something. 655,000 Iraqi civilians are dead. Who are the terrorists?
HASSELBECK: Who are the terrorists?
O'DONNELL: 655,000 Iraqis -- I'm saying you have to look, we invaded --
HASSELBECK: Wait, who are you calling terrorists now? Americans?
O'DONNELL: I'm saying if you were in Iraq, and the other country, the United States, the richest in the world, invaded your country and killed 655,000 of your citizens, what would you call us?
HASSELBECK: Are we killing their citizens or are their people also killing their citizens?
O'DONNELL: We're invading a sovereign nation, occupying a country against the U.N.

Steal wrote "No one hates the troops, no one is anti-troops. Dont confuse the war with the warrior."

Wow! You actually believe that EVERY PERSON among the anti-war left shares your view? "No one" is "anti-troop"? You sure about that? Besides a cookie, what do I win if I can provide you a few examples of anti-troop rhetoric from the anti-war left?

Steal wrote "no one has spoken out against Rudy Guiliani's obvious propaganda saying, 'America will be safer with a Republican president'"

Really? No one, again? Seems to me that the day after Guiliani made those remarks Keith Olbermann spoke out about that for 9 minutes in a special comment, the video of which was posted on this site and on our YouTube channel. There were quite a few comments on this topic. So, again...no one?

Steal wrote "you accuse Keith of promoting propaganda when he misses one word, the point of the argument is not changed"

Ah! Now I see that you are just clowning around. Ha! Got me! I was actually taking you seriously. ROFL.

Despite being an OlbyLoon, StealThisOpinion made my day:

"What is up with you all being against healthy political discussion? I quit posting on blogs like the dailykos and whatnot because its BORING. No diversity in opinion. Excuse me for liking political dialogue. I'll say it again, You learn from discussing things, like propaganda, wars, policy, corruption. You learn your own viewpoints more throughly and you're opening to a variety of other viewpoints. So excuse me for trying to take advantage of, for one of the first times in human history, to have the chance to argue politics with people of all color, creed, values, and judgements via the blogosphere."

Keep coming back.

TBDave,

Hey! Thanks for DIGGing this post. We are up to 8 DIGGS on this one. Great.

For those who don't share the view of Cecelia, SLOB and Mike please consider jumping over to DIGG and giving his post a little poke.

http://digg.com/search?section=news&s=rosie

Cecelia,

Attempting to mock me for pointing out the context for O'Donnell's remarks only serves to highlight that you not only do not know what you are talking about but you actually wear your ignorance on your sleeve like some sort of badge of honor.

Why not take a few minutes out of your day to go read a few back issues of Counter