Buy Text-Link-Ads here
Recent Comments

    follow OlbyWatch on Twitter

    In

    John Gibson Welcomes Back the Infamous, Deplorable Keith Olbermann

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

    In

    Welcome Back, Olby!

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

    In

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

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

    In

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

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

    In

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

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

    KO Mini Blog



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

    KO Countdown Clock


    Warning: mktime() [function.mktime]: It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EDT/-4.0/DST' instead in /home/owatch/www/www.olbermannwatch.com/docs/countdown.php on line 5
    KO's new contract with MSNBC ends in...
    0 days 0 hours 0 minutes

    OlbermannWatch.com "My Faves" Set

    OlbermannWatch.com Favorited Photos from other Flickr Users

    Got OlbyPhotos? See some on Flickr? DO NOT email us. Send us a FlickrMail instead. Include a link to the photo. If we like the photo you will see it displayed in the Olby Flickr Flood above.

    New to Flickr? Sign up for a FREE Flickr account!


    Got some OlbyVideo? See some on YouTube? DO NOT email us. Send us a YouTube Messages instead. Include a link to the video. If we like the video you will see it displayed in our favorites list in our YouTube page.

    New to YouTube? Sign up for a FREE YouTube account!

    Red Meat Blog
    Keith Olbermann Quotes
    Countdown Staff Writers

    If they're not on Keith's payroll...

    ...they should be...

    Crooks & Liars
    Daily Kos
    Eschaton
    Huffington Post
    Media Matters for America
    MyDD
    News Corpse
    No Quarter
    Raw Story
    Talking Points Memo
    Think Progress
    TVNewser
    Keith Lovers

    MSNBC's Countdown
    Bloggerman
    MSNBC Transcripts
    MSNBC Group at MSN

    Drinking with Keith Olbermann
    Either Relevant or True
    KeithOlbermann.org
    Keith Olbermann is Evil
    Olbermann Nation
    Olbermann.org
    Thank You, Keith Olbermann

    Don't Be Such A Douche
    Eyes on Fox
    Liberal Talk Radio
    Oliver Willis
    Sweet Jesus I Hate Bill O'Reilly

    Anonymous Rat
    For This Relief Much Thanks
    Watching Olbermann Watch

    Keith Olbermann Fanlisting Site I
    Keith Olbermann Fanlisting Site II
    Keith Olbermann Links
    Olberfans
    Sports Center Altar
    Nothing for Everyone

    Democratic Underground KO Forum
    Television Without Pity KO Forum
    Loony KO Forum (old)
    Loony KO Forum (new)
    Olberfans Forum (old)
    Olberfans Forum (new)
    Keith Watchers

    186k per second
    Ace of Spades HQ
    Cable Gamer
    Dean's World
    Doug Ross@Journal
    Extreme Mortman
    Fire Keith Olbermann
    Hot Air
    Inside Cable News
    Instapundit
    Jawa Report
    Johnny Dollar's Place
    Just One Minute
    Little Green Footballs
    Mark Levin
    Media Research Center
    Moonbattery.com
    Moorelies
    National Review Media Blog
    Narcissistic Views
    Newsbusters
    Pat Campbell Show
    Radio Equalizer
    Rathergate
    Riehl World View
    Sister Toldjah
    Toys in the Attic
    Webloggin
    The Dark Side of Keith Olbermann
    World According to Carl

    Thanks for the blogroll link!

    Age of Treason
    Bane Rants
    The Blue Site
    Cabal of Doom-De Oppresso Libre
    Chuckoblog
    Conservative Blog Therapy
    Conservathink
    Country Store
    Does Anyone Agree?
    The Drunkablog!
    Eclipse Ramblings
    If I were President of USA
    I'll Lay Down My Glasses
    Instrumental Rationality
    JasonPye.com
    Kevin Dayhoff
    Last Train Out Of Hell
    Leaning Straight Up
    Limestone Roof
    Mein BlogoVault
    NostraBlogAss
    Peacerose Journal
    The Politics of CP
    Public Secrets: from the files of the Irishspy
    Rat Chat
    Return of the Conservatives
    The Right Place
    Rhymes with Right
    seanrobins.com
    Six Meat Buffet
    Sports and Stuff
    Stout Republican
    Stuck On Stupid
    Things I H8
    TruthGuys
    Verum Serum
    WildWeasel

    Friends of OlbyWatch

    Aaron Barnhart
    Eric Deggans
    Jason Clarke
    Ron Coleman
    Victria Zdrok
    Keith Resources

    Google News: Keith Olbermann
    Feedster: Keith Olbermann
    Technorati: Keith Olbermann
    Wikipedia: Keith Olbermann
    Wikipedia: Countdown
    Wikiality: Keith Olbermann
    Keith Olbermann Quotes on Jossip
    Keith Olbermann Photos
    NNDB Olbermann Page
    IMDB Olbermann Page
    Countdown Guest Listing & Transcripts
    Olbermann Watch FAQ
    List of Politics on Countdown (by party)
    Mark Levin's Keith Overbite Page
    Keith Olbermann's Diary at Daily Kos
    Olbermann Watch in the News

    Houston Chronicle
    Playboy
    The Journal News
    National Review
    San Antonio Express
    The Hollywood Reporter
    The Journal News
    Los Angeles Times
    American Journalism Review
    Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
    St. Petersburg Times
    Kansas City Star
    New York Post/Page Six
    Washington Post
    Associated Press
    PBS
    New York Daily News
    Online Journalism Review
    The Washingon Post
    Hartford Courant
    WTWP-AM
    The New York Observer
    The Washington Post


    Countdown with Keith Olbermann
    Great Moments in Broadcast Journalism
    Great Thanks Hall of Fame
    Keith Olbermann
    MSM KO Bandwagon
    Olbermann
    Olbermann Watch Channel on You Tube
    Olbermann Watch Debate
    Olbermann Watch Image Gallery
    Olbermann Watch Polling Service
    OlbermannWatch
    OlbyWatch Link Roundup
    TVNewser "Journalism"

    July 2013
    September 2012
    August 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    October 2009
    September 2009
    August 2009
    July 2009
    June 2009
    May 2009
    April 2009
    March 2009
    February 2009
    January 2009
    December 2008
    November 2008
    October 2008
    September 2008
    August 2008
    July 2008
    June 2008
    May 2008
    April 2008
    March 2008
    February 2008
    January 2008
    December 2007
    November 2007
    October 2007
    September 2007
    August 2007
    July 2007
    June 2007
    May 2007
    April 2007
    March 2007
    February 2007
    January 2007
    December 2006
    November 2006
    October 2006
    September 2006
    August 2006
    July 2006
    June 2006
    May 2006
    April 2006
    March 2006
    February 2006
    January 2006
    December 2005
    November 2005
    October 2005
    September 2005
    August 2005
    June 2005
    May 2005
    April 2005
    March 2005
    February 2005
    January 2005
    December 2004
    November 2004

    Google

    Olbermann Watch Masthead

    Managing Editor

    Robert Cox
    olby at olbywatch dot com

    Contributors

    Mark Koldys
    Johnny Dollar's Place

    Brandon Coates
    OlbyWatch

    Chris Matthews' Leg
    Chris Matthews' Leg

    Howard Mortman
    Extreme Mortman

    Trajan 75
    Think Progress Watch

    Konservo
    Konservo

    Doug Krile
    The Krile Files

    Teddy Schatz
    OlbyWatch

    David Lunde
    Lundesigns

    Alex Yuriev
    Zubrcom

    Red Meat
    OlbyWatch



    Technorati Links to OlbyWatchLinks to OlbermannWatch.com

    Technorati Links to OlbyWatch Blog posts tagged with "Olbermann"

    Combined Feed
    (OlbyWatch + KO Mini-blog)

    Who Links To Me


    Mailing List RSS Feed
    Google Groups
    Subscribe to Olbermann Watch Mailing List
    Email:
    Visit this group



    XML
    Add to Google
    Add to My Yahoo!
    Subscribe with Bloglines
    Subscribe in NewsGator Online

    Add to My AOL
    Subscribe with Pluck RSS reader
    R|Mail
    Simpify!
    Add to Technorati Favorites!

    Subscribe in myEarthlink
    Feed Button Help


    Olbermann Watch, "persecuting" Keith since 2004


    May 25, 2007
    Keith Olbermann OlbyLies to excuse Rosie O'Donnell calling U.S. troops in Iraq terrorists

    First, I want to thank the Anonymous Commenter who encouraged me to go back and look at Keith's comments on Wednesday. I only wish I had looked sooner. My bad. The good news is Anon was Spot On...

    Watch as Keith Olbermann flat out lies in order to excuse Rosie O'Donnell calling U.S. troops in Iraq terrorists then twists HIS lie into a slap at Fox News for CORRECTLY reporting what O'Donnell said.


    To review:

    First, the OlbyLie...

    OLBERMANN: Last week Miss O'Donnell said, quote, 650,000 people have died in Iraq. Who's the terrorists? It seems like an obvious reference to President Bush, but not on Fox noise, which decided she meant American troops.

    What was actually said...

    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.

    By now you all know that Rosie O'Donnell's swan song at The View came three weeks earlier than planned


    Posted by Robert Cox | Permalink | Comments (250) | | View blog reactions
    user-pic

    250 Comments

    "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 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.

    Posted by: Robert Cox at May 26, 2007 8:48 PM


    Sure thing, Bob...

    Can I borrow your neo-marxist decoder ring that transforms Rosie from illogical Bush-hating twit into something more nefarious?

    Bob writes "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."

    Sure. Like that's enough to suit you...

    Cecelia, the Long Knives are out. First Sharon's loyalty was found to be impure, and now you are on the verge of a purge.

    Cecelia, the Long Knives are out. First Sharon's loyalty was found to be impure, and now you are on the verge of a purge.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at May 26, 2007 11:16 PM


    Sharon opted to go on her own. She doesn't realize that if bs were electricity, Bob would be a TVA power plant.

    "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?"

    Well, Cox, Cecelia expressed a far more credible explanation for the Rosie quotes you yourself provide above (e.g the "troops" are not responsible for invading Iraq, our government is) than you have.

    Go ahead, supply your "anti -troop rhetoric".

    And while you're at it perhaps you can attempt to counter this raft of anti-troop policies of the Bush administration:

    Congress just passed a 3.5% pay raise for troops in theater; the White House is vigorously and explicitly countering this with an attempt to cut the raise back to 3%, and to reduce the death-benefits smilarly passed by congress.

    The White House, rather than making a clarion call for military enlistment and sacrifice, or taking the politically courageous move of calling for a draft, instead lengthens tours and shortens the mandated intervals between mobilizations for the troops.

    When issues arise regading crimes that our troops have been ordered or manipulated into committing by the chain of command, the loyal but misled troops involved are labeled "bad apples" and thrown to the dogs and then in jail.

    Bush fires every top commander who publically offers opinions deviating fro his own; hiring replacemnets who toe the line for varying lengths of time before they get fired; and then he claims that all of the shots are being called by the "commanders on the ground" - effectively blaming the generals for all of is mistakes in the same manner he blamed the troops for Abu Grhaib and Al Qaqaa.

    We are a terrorist nation - not just the troops, not just the administration and congress, but all of us, by virtue of our system of government that makes us the decision-makers. Diplomacy is managed through threats of violence made significant through our exemplary destruction of whole societies. We take random "torture polls" of brown-skinned people pulled off the streets for arbitrary reasons - not for the unreliable information that everyone knows such activities generate, but for the fear and terror such methods instill in populations subjected to our control.

    I dont like being a terrorist, and that is why I am furious.

    ...Oh yeah I forgot about the administration restricting the access of military personnel to their own blogs, YouTube,etc.

    He'll pose in front of ranks of them day in and day out, but they'd better keep their traps shut!

    Cecelia,

    I am not clear on what you imagine your point to be.

    Is it that you think that Marxist ideology is not a component to some parts of the anti-war left political philosophy? Or that you do not think there are people who espouse a Marxist ideology? Or is that you do not think that Rosie is part of the anti-war left? I am also not clear why you think having a "hard left" position is "nefarious". I live in New York. My wife teaches on the Upper West Side. We encounter these type of hard-left, neo-Marxists all the time. There is nothing "nefearious" about them. From my experience most of them are laughably hypocritical; well-educated people, many with inheritances or otherwise comfortable lifestyles who talk the talk of socialist values while sipping their four dollar coffees and making plans for a long weekend in Vermont.

    Which part of this is so difficult for you to follow?

    I wonder if you realize it is possible to be an "illogical Bush-hating twit" and to adopt ideas and principles that have their root in a anti-capitalist, anti-American ideology at the same time, right?

    Since you seem so convinced that it could not possibly be the case that her controversial statements, which you perceive to be a series of random, illogical manifestations of Bush hatred are not only not "illogical" (irrational yes but not illogical) but entirely consistent with the current strain of Marxist, anti-capitalist, anti-American ideology which can be found in places like Counterpunch, Mother Jones, Daily Kos, The Nation and the like.

    Where do you think she is getting this "Americans killed 655,000 Iraqis?" and "9/11 was a plot by the U.S. government?" and "Building 7 was a planned demolition?" and "Guiliani set scrap metal from the Twin Towers to China so it couldn't be tested?" and "the British sailors kidnapped by Iran are a modern day Gulf of Tonkin incident". What newspaper is it that you think she's reading? The New York Times? The Washington Post? Even Keith Olbermann is not putting out these kind of kooky, fringe-left claims. So what IS she reading? What intellectual milieu is she operating within?

    It's actually kind of funny because you seem to be "defending" Rosie by saying that she's insane and thus not responsible for what she says or does. Meanwhile, I "attack" her by giving her all the credit in the world for being a bright, articulate person who is very honest and says precisely what she means to say. To me she is a bright but misguided person who is thought a good deal about how she presents herself in public. To you, apparently, she is just a kook.

    Tomorrow's another day. Go do the homework assignment I gave you and come back when you have a little more expansive understanding of the world.


    This preoccupation with Rosie is really something. Rosie clips make up a large portion of FOX's broadcast evening these days. Who would have ever thought Rosie would so frighten the RP and its Propoganda Ministry? I've always found her tiresome and irksome, but I guess I never understood her tremendous importance and power.

    Scarborough was on vacation.

    It was Olby's BOSS - Dan Abrams - that declared that Rosie had demeaned the troops.

    For starters Scott, I would like to say thank you. This is the first intellectual debate I've been engaged in on this website, it really is a breath of fresh air. I was begining to worry. Keep up the good work.

    Now, the words he got wrong were "650,000" and "are". On the number, he went down with it, which would actually weaken his argument...so, I dont see how he's being this super evil man trying to promote his agenda by weakening. I would assume that it was either just a round-off because he the more whole a number is the better it sticks, or he was too lazy to say it all. I dont know what the answer is, only he does.

    And as for are, I think changing it to is also weakens the argument. It puts sole blame on one person, when we all know that he blame is on the entire administration, most notably Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.

    Oh yeah, since You said that you dont know what Rosie meant, no one does except Rosie. Well heres what Rosie has to say on the matter,
    -----------------------------
    I DO NOT BLAME TROOPS
    I BLAME BUSH
    THE TROOPS R TRYING TO STAY ALIVE
    I WANT THEM TO LIVE

    WAR IS TERRORISM
    -----------------------------

    So, there we have it, whether KO misrepresented the quote to say that "Rosie hates Bush and not the troops", as it turns out, He didnt need to. Believe it or not, thats actually what Rosie meant!

    It's actually kind of funny because you seem to be "defending" Rosie by saying that she's insane and thus not responsible for what she says or does. Meanwhile, I "attack" her by giving her all the credit in the world for being a bright, articulate person who is very honest and says precisely what she means to say. To me she is a bright but misguided person who is thought a good deal about how she presents herself in public. To you, apparently, she is just a kook.

    Posted by: Robert Cox at May 27, 2007 1:34 AM


    I haven't argued that she's insane, I've said she's illogical and that she really doesn't think she's bashing the troops although that is the logical implication of her statement. You said the same about her yourself-- said that you have no doubt she did try to make a disinction between bush and the troops, but you seem to feel the logical conclusion of her argument is more relevant than her obvious intention.

    So you must launch into screeds about those "beyond liberal" anti-america marxist types who have traditionally felt the U.S. is a source for evil in the world and you talk about how they do see the troops as baby-killers and do wish to subvert them.

    However, now you add that the ones of Rosie's bent and some affluent lefty New Yorkers of your acquaintance are bright articulate hypocritical limosine left-wingers, who spout the jargon of social justice and anti-capitalism while following their stocks.

    Well, I'm down with the fact that she's influenced by that sort, prevalent in Hollywood as well as New York, Bob. But she's still just Rosie from the block....the non-chi-chi side of New York and she did not intend to insult the troops or imply that they are terrorists. You may illogically associate my conclusion with a lack of understanding of the far left ideas and rhetoric, but as my grandmother used to say-- It's not that I don't understand you. It's that I don't agree with you.

    She's really just a Bush hating illogical twit.

    Now quit making a mountain out of a molehill, Bob and quit being so silly.

    Now quit making a mountain out of a molehill, Bob and quit being so silly.


    Posted by: Cecelia at May 27, 2007 8:24 AM


    I mean this rhetorically. I'm not tryiing to squelch conversation. :D

    "My wife teaches on the Upper West Side. We encounter these type of hard-left, neo-"Marxists all the time. There is nothing "nefearious" about them. From my experience most of them are laughably hypocritical; well-educated people, many with inheritances or otherwise comfortable lifestyles who talk the talk of socialist values while sipping their four dollar coffees and making plans for a long weekend in Vermont."


    So Cox gets his "expansive understanding of the world", or at least of those ideologically opposed to him, from anecdoal encounters his wife has at work. I wonder is Mrs Cox eschews "four dollar coffees" while she hob-nobs with the liberal elite.

    In my work, I get thumbs up and verbal confrmations of my "Defend America/Impeach Bush" Bumer stickers from people working in gas stations, tobacco stores, diners, construction crews etc. from Easton PA, to Akron Ohio, to Riverton Kansas, to West Helena Arkansas.

    You all should get out of the Upper West Side more often; the people out here could teach you a few things, and the sushi is cheaper.

    I don't blame the soldiers for carrying out the terroristic policies of Bush and Cheney.

    Bush and Cheney are the terrorists and they're ordering our soldiers to commit terror.

    But our soldiers aren't terrorists. Even though they are not required to carry out illegal orders such as targeting civilians, et cetera. Even though they support our policies in Iraq, e.g., http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0706.ackerman.html).

    "In early April, National Public Radio’s John McChesney visited National Guard troops in Arkansas and found that, “to a man, they were gung-ho for the mission.” One specialist told McChesney, “I am looking forward to it. It’s going to be a great opportunity for me.” And news accounts regularly carry reports of soldiers who are eager to go to Iraq, whether out of a sense of duty or a sense of adventure."

    But they're not terrorists.

    Just like Mohammed Atta and the 9/11 attackers weren't terrorists.

    They were just carrying out the orders given to them by Bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

    And if you think any of the above makes any logical sense, then congratulations, you're a leftwing moonbat.

    Go to any liberal website or blog. They are praising Rosie to the high heavens over her statements. The liberal loons seem to very much think that Rosie IS a spokesperson for THEM. They also cheered her when she claimed that 9/11 had been an "inside job" and that WTC 7 was brought down by the US Government, not the terrorists and made the crazy claim that fire can't melt steel. People like O'Donnell and Olbermann are gleefully embraced by the left for speaking "truth" even when their "truth" is a lie.

    Dear Mr/Ms Anonymous: I do not support this war. I was opposed to it from the very beginning. I have family members serving in Iraq. But I DO support our troops and withdrawing money from them wasn't the way to support them. I heard a CNN reporter in Iraq say that if we withdraw from Iraq the region will fall into chaos--far beyond what it is now. Is that what you want? Who do you really support here? The radical terrorists in this world or your own country? "nuff said about YOU and your ill-informed "truths".

    "this coming from one of the biggest GOP and Bush apologists."

    Judge to Lawyer: "Counselor, you client is accused of fraud, perjury and making false statements. How does he plead?"

    Lawyer: "Bush lied!! Cheney lied! O'Reilly. Fox News... Republicans are evil..."

    Every time. Same response every time.

    The claim: Erroneous reporting by Olbermann?

    The response: O'Reilly lied.

    The claim: Biased reporting by Olbermann?

    The response: Hannity is mean.

    The claim: Slanted journalism by Olbermann?

    The response: Fox news is mean to liberals.

    It's like talking to a 4-year old.

    SLOB

    Let's see if you can follow along...

    Rosie works (or worked) on the West Side of Manhattan and lives in Nyack, NY which is on the other side of the Tappan Zee Bridge where I grew up and about 20 minutes drive from where I live now. I grew up in Westchester County and live here now, I have worked in Manhattan for the vast majority of my business career - and that my wife works on the Upper West Side, home base for the limousine liberal crowd in NY. So, my relating my experience as a New Yorker is directly relevant to my point that I am just a tad bit better acquainted with the kind of people who hang around Rosie than Cecelia - or you, apparently.

    By contrast your experience driving around Ohio and Arkansas has absolutely no relevance to the discussion but thanks for sharing!

    My wife is not a communist - in fact, quite the opposite having left Cuba as a young girl after Castro came to power - so I am not sure why she ought to be "eschewing" expensive coffee. And, as noted, we do not LIVE in the Upper West Side of Manhattan so we feel no need to "get out of the Upper West Side more often". We get out of it quite often but thanks for your concern.

    Who voted for the war authorization? Congress. And that includes several of the current Democratic candidates for president including Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, and Joe Biden. If anyone's hiding here, it's the ikes of Anonymous Poster who seems to want to deny the reality that the Democrats supported this war without protest from the beginning. Only when it began to go very badly, only when the public began to turn did they all of a sudden discover their opposition to the war. And if we want to talk about hypocrites and being "disingenous", then I think we have a clear winner with the likes of 12:40 pm and his/her so-called Democratic "leaders".

    Amazing. I asked you a direct question about who voted for the war authorization, who voted for it, who suppored it. And you respond with "Keith Olbermann"? Thank you for your fine example of Olbyloon logic 12:45pm.

    Anyone remember that made-for-TV movie "Sybil" starring Sally Fields as a woman with multiple-personality disorder? Perhaps they should have called it "Cecelia".

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

    Cecelia A: "I haven't argued that she's insane"

    Cecelia B: "I don't think that she feels the military is comprised of little terrorists, but thinks they are commanded by one. Which is craziness...

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

    Cecelia A: "I'm convinced that she didn't mean the troops are terrorists but that Bush and company are terrorists"

    Cecelia B: "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..."

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

    Cecelia A: "I'm not just givng her the benefit of the doubt here,. She could have been saying too, that everyone who supports the Iraq war supports the U.S. behaving like terrorists."

    Cecelia B: "I don't think that she feels the military is comprised of little terrorists, but thinks they are commanded by one."

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

    Cecelia A: "she's still just Rosie from the block....the non-chi-chi side of New York and she did not intend to insult the troops or imply that they are terrorists"

    Cecelia B: agrees with Grammie that "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.
    =======================

    Now me let me address Sybil...oops...I mean Cecelia misquoting me to utterly change what I wrote to then claim that I agree with her.

    Cecelia wrote "she really doesn't think she's bashing the troops although that is the logical implication of her statement. You said the same about her yourself-- said that you have no doubt she did try to make a disinction between bush and the troops"

    What I wrote quoted Cecelia and made clear that I DISAGREED with her:

    "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."

    Notice how Cecelia removes the word "wants". What I said quite clearly was that I have no doubt that she WANTS to make that distinction and then said "it's a distinction without a difference" which commonly understood to mean there is NO difference between the two as in "I ain't buying this excuse".

    As Cecelia has managed to confuse my DISAGREEING with her as AGREEMENT let me expand further. It is my position that Rosie (and Cecelia) WANT to make the distinction even though there is none. I am not clear on Cecelia's motives (perhaps she is big fan of The View or Rosie) but I imagine someone explained to Rosie that if she does not "correct" the common perception that she called U.S. troops terrorists she will permanently alienate a lot of people including some of her fans thereby making it that much more difficult for to land her next gig which will, in turn, cost her a great deal of money. I understand why Rosie is in her version of damage control mode (make the issue about ANYTHING other than her own words like "Republican pundits" or "Fox News" or "her friends betraying her"). I understand why Keith is trying to help her out because they sip from the same ideological cup of tea. I have no idea why Cecelia is taking it upon herself to join Rosie in her PR campaign to try and muddy the waters or otherwise take attention OFF of the plain meeting of what she ACTUALLY SAID. I, for one, have no intention of letting Rosie, Keith or Cecelia get away with it on Olbermann Watch.

    "So, my relating my experience as a New Yorker is directly relevant to my point that I am just a tad bit better acquainted with the kind of people who hang around Rosie than Cecelia - or you, apparently."


    Well. I guess Cox unequivocally wins this salient argument. I concede; Bob knows beter than I the kind of people who hang around Rosie. He truly is master of an "expansive understanding of the world".

    Cox,

    Why are you focusing on the socializing patterns of Rosie O'Donnell rather than dealing whith what she said? I clarified my interpretation of her statements, which I fully agree with; that the United States is a terrorist nation: You, Me, the troops, Cecelia, Bush, Harry Reid...all of us of legal maturity share in the guilt of the violent extortion we have been using to influence other nations. We have a constituton that makes us te decision makers, and we should have been using it.

    But all you can focus on is her friends and their propensity to drink expensive coffee.

    "Yes. Keith Olbermann is responsible for the War in Iraq, the huge debt we have, the Walter Reed scandal, the Gonzales scandal, the hiring of incompetents, the Abramoff scandals , etc.
    God damn that Keith !"

    Imagine that? Criticizing the terrible and biased journalism of Keith Olbermann on OLBERMANN WATCH!!

    I guess I'll defend, let us use as an example, Bill O'Reilly by pointing out to the corruption of the Democrats in Congress and the abused of power by, for example, Jack Murtha.

    Let me try it:

    Claim: O'Reilly interrupts liberal guests and doesn't allow them to finish their point.

    Response: Murtha is a crook! The Democrats have no immigration policy!

    Yep, to a 4-year old that makes perfect friggin' sense.

    "It's really terrible and biased reporting to report the negative policies and failures of this president.
    You're an idiot."

    No, it's terrible reporting to disseminate false information and one-sided news coverage.

    It's terrible reporting to repeatedly inject one's own views (whatever they are) into one's journalism.

    It's terrible reporting not to acknowledge demonstrably incorrect information.

    It has been shown at this site that Olberman repeatedly gives out false and incorrect information. He repeatedly asks biased and leading questions. He repeatedly does not allow guests with differing views on his show.

    Time after time after time these failures have been show.

    But your standard of journalism is to simply pee on Bush. It doesn't matter whether the reporting is true or not, fair or not, accurate or not.

    It it's critical of Bush, it's fair game.

    This is not journalism, this is editorializing.

    Let me guess: You think Fox News is biased?

    Because Fox News - which IS biased to the right - gives views you don't like, that's wrong.

    But when Olbermann does it, it's okay.

    It's wrong when any journalist does it.

    You're like a child who only wants to eat ice cream and cake all the time.

    SLOB,

    Touche, let's drop the Coffee Talk and get to the point!

    They say politics makes strange bedfellows and here we have SLOB and I in agreement that there is an element of the anti-war left does believe U.S. troops are terrorists and Cecelia and I who generally agree on Olbermann are debating what is obvious to pretty much everyone but her.

    Since Cecelia's "gut instinct" has spoken I am pretty sure there is nothing I am going to say that will convince Cecelia that her "gut" has misled here but perhaps you, SLOB, can explain to her how you and your pals hate America, hate the troops, etc.

    "Not the POTUS or the GOP, it's all Keith Olbermann's fault."

    No, the fault for the deaths of our soldiers is the FUCKING TERRORISTS YOU MORON.

    Just one fucking time I'd like to hear you fucking leftwing scum criticize the terrorists for killing Iraqis and our soldiers.

    Just one time.

    One fucking time.

    It's always Bush. Al-qaeda kills our troops. It's Bush's fault. Al-qaeda blows up a Mosque or market. It's Bush's fault.

    Al-qaeda blows up people in Pakistan. It's Bush's fault. The terrorists kill people in India? It's Bush's fault.

    Never the god damned terrorists.

    Oh, didn't you get the lefty memo 1:20 pm? 9/11 was an "inside job". There were no terrorists. It was all one giant hoax perpetuated by BushCo. Yes, that's what they really think. So of course they don't hold the terrorists responbile for anything because these raving lunatics really believe there is no such thing.

    By the way "Anonymous": The Democrats continued to vocally support the war at every single opportunity until the polls showed them it was no longer the politically expediate thing to do. That's how they make decisions: based on polls. These people aren't the independent thinkers you like to think they are, they are career politicans who will do or say anything to get elected. Remember, Conyers promised the faithful impeachment. Pelosi and company promised timetables. I don't see you declaring them liars. Nope, in your little world, only the GOP are capable of lying. Seems to me your hero Olby, your heroes Rosie & Mike Moore & your Democratic "leaders" in Congress have a trail of lies wafting behind them longer than the alleged lies you claim the Bush administration has told. And you accuse me of not criticizing the Bush admin? It works two ways you know. And as long as you insist on pinning 100% blame on only 50% of the participants, then you're the one who lives in a world of utter denial and ignorance.

    "Prove it. You never do at this site.You morons just twist and turn it all until you twist yourselves into a pretzel and then say:"

    It's repeatedly been documented at this site.

    On nearly every show Olbermann misstates facts, incorrectly reports on stories and broadcasts false information.

    I'll just cite one case:

    Olbermann has repeatedly claimed that Bush has the authority given to him by Congress to deny habeas rights of American citizens.

    If you read the Detainee Treatment Act along with the Military Commissions Act, you can see that no such thing occurred.

    The only people who's habeas rights are limited are alien detainees. If you're an American citizen or a legal resident of the country, you have full habeas rights.

    He's factually wrong.

    But because it makes Bush look bad, that's okay, right?

    As long as it's critical of that evil idiot Bush, standards of accuracy and fairness and objectivity aren't needed in reporting.

    Just get Bush. Get 'em. Everything else is of no concern.

    Bush Derangement Syndrome in it's fullest manifestation.

    That's completely false.

    "Wouldn't YOU defend your country if someone invaded it?"

    Here we go. The terrorists blowing our soldiers up - and the vast majority of suicide bombers are outsiders affiliated with al-Qaeda - are legitimate?

    This is a perfect example of the statement that the left wants the United States to lose.

    We're the bad guys. The terrorists are the freedom fighters.

    The terrorists blow up women and children. The blow oup markets and mosques and schools and hospitals.

    That's okay? It's legitimate for them to kill children and women and civilians?

    Here we go folks.

    When the terrorists blow up our soldiers, that's a legitimate act.

    Bus is to blame when terrorists hide behind civilians, pretend to be civilians, don't wear uniforms, torture our soldiers and violate every norm of war ever devised.

    They're not responsible. Bush is to blame.

    Bush!

    The radical Islamist terrorists aren't fighting for THEIR country. They're fighting to take over parts of Iraq to establish an Islamic state to rule over the Iraqi people.

    The other terrorists - the Baathists - want to run Iraq again as a dictatorship. They're the Sunni minority.

    They're not fighting for THEIR COUNTRY. They're fighting to rule over the Shi'a and kill them again.

    And this moron thinks that the terrorists are freedom fighters fighting for THEIR COUNTRY.

    They're fighting to establish a dictatorship over the rest of Iraq.

    Idiot.

    "They say politics makes strange bedfellows and here we have SLOB and I in agreement that there is an element of the anti-war left does believe U.S. troops are terrorists..."

    This innaccurate: My position is tHat the troops are terrorists only regard to their status as American citizens of legal maturity. You and I are equally guilty of terrorism as would be any soldier in theater. ...and as for any "element of the anti-war left"; I only speak for myself, but I've never percieved in reality the image of troop-hating enclaves of lefties that you present - it is pure, self-serving fabication on your part.

    "AND MANY LEGAL RESIDENTS who just happened to be Muslim are being denied their rights."

    Who? Which rights?

    They're denied habeas rights?

    Don't just make stuff up, my friend. This isn' the DailyKOS where fiction can be trotted out as fact.

    Fantasy doesn't cut it here.

    And this moron thinks that the terrorists are freedom fighters fighting for THEIR COUNTRY.

    They're fighting to establish a dictatorship over the rest of Iraq.

    Idiot.

    Posted by: at May 27, 2007 1:38 PM


    Your entire screed is spurious. The terrorists, whichever group they belong to, are of course guilty of crimes against humanity. But our reaction in kind only strengthens them. But you will never face the facts in this regard, so fuck off.

    This is a perfect example of the statement that the left wants the United States to lose.

    We're the bad guys. The terrorists are the freedom fighters.


    The terrorists blow up women and children. The blow oup markets and mosques and schools and hospitals.
    Posted by: at May 27, 2007 1:38 PM

    I have yet to see a liberal condemn the terrorists for blowing up women and children. They sure do cry when our troops inadvertantly kill one, though.

    "Your entire screed is spurious. The terrorists, whichever group they belong to, are of course guilty of crimes against humanity. But our reaction in kind only strengthens them. But you will never face the facts in this regard, so fuck off. "

    I'm not talking to you SLOB.

    The other SLOB above said the terrorists are fighting for their country after we invaded it.

    The terrorists are made up of al-Qaeda and the former Baathists who ran the country.

    They're killing us and the Iraqis - women and children - in order to establish a dictatorship over the Iraqi people.

    They're not fighting for their country. They're fighting to rule over the Iraqi people and crush all dissent.

    If I was interested in what you say SLOB, I'd ask for your opinion.

    Take off, SLOB.

    "I have yet to see a liberal condemn the terrorists for blowing up women and children. They sure do cry when our troops inadvertantly kill one, though"

    That's because Bush and the evil Republicans are to blame in each case.

    Bush is to blame when they kill women and children because we forced them to do it.

    And Bush is to blame when a US soldier kills a civilian becaure Bush put them there.

    And if the Democrats force us to pull out of Iraq and the Shi'a are slaughtered and Iraq descends into absolute chaos, Bush is to blame then too.

    Anything that happens anywhere in the Middle East - or indeed in the world - due to Islamist terrorists that is bad is because of Bush.

    Bush made them do it. Or Bush angered them. Or Bush incited them. Or Bush forced them.

    All Bush, all the time.

    Never the terrorists.

    "I have yet to see a liberal condemn the terrorists for blowing up women and children. They sure do cry when our trrops inadvertantly kill one though."

    This writer sees and hears only he wants to see, and that is why arguing with his kind of obtuse flag waving worldview is pointless....much like like arguing with a two year old.

    "writer sees and hears only he wants to see, and that is why arguing with his kind of obtuse flag waving worldview is pointless"

    Ironic, ain't it?

    This little mini-lecture coming from the world's leading apologist for Keith Olbermann.

    Life is funny sometimes.

    Some basic facts here for everyone regarding the groupthink of the Olbyloons:

    In Olbyloon World: only Republican politicans lie. The Democrats would never do such a thing, unless it involves promising to impeach Bush if they seized control of the Congress or demanding troop level withdrawals on any Iraq war funding. In Mike's world, withdrawing funding for the troops is being supportive of them.

    In Olbyloon World: people don't die in wars. Nope, wars are completely death-free for both civilians and troops. No one is ever supposed to die in a war.

    In Olbyloon World: The terrorists are really just terribly misunderstood.

    In Olbyloon World, 9/11 was an inside job and Muslim terrorists and Osama Bin Laden weren't really responsible: it was all BushCo.

    In Olbyloon World, Keith Olbermann is a "truth-teller" and a "journalist" and Rosie O'Donnell and Mike Moore are upstanding prophets and spokespersons for their "side".

    In Olb yloon World, anyone with an alternative opinion to theirs is evil and should be immediately silenced.

    In Olbyloon World, Castro and Chavez are great guys and our country should be run exactly like theirs where everything is a paradise on earth, unlike the evil Bush administration and the U.S. as a whole which of course, are the REAL terrorists of the world.

    That's the real Olbyloon mindset.

    "I have yet to see a liberal condemn the terrorists for blowing up women and children. They sure do cry when our trrops inadvertantly kill one though."

    ---

    That is too ignorant and assinine a statement to be anything but a damn lie. Even Jeff cannot be that ignorant, nor that big an ass, although we all know him to be a liar of the first order.

    Jeff, if your aim is to create a class of blood thirsty, bellicose war mongerers like youself, you ought to be more cautious in your pronouncements. People will look at you, listen to you and come to think being a war mongerer is a bad thing.

    Again we have a non-response from the lunatic left to my argument that the terrorists in Iraq are NOT fighting for their country as many on the Left argue.

    The terrorists in Iraq consist essentially of al-Qaeda and the former Baathis/Sunni's who ran the country under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.

    We can include in this group disparate elements of Shi'a militias which are killing Sunnis in revenge for the massacres of Shi'a that took place under Saddam.

    The al-Qaeda and Baathist terrorists are fighting the US and the democratically-elected Iraqi government in order to establish a dictatorship over the people.

    Al-Qaeda and the Islamists want to establish an Islamic/theocratic state. The Baathists wish to re-establish the type of dictatorship they had before we removed them from power.

    Neither of these groups want to have a country run by the Iraqi people themselves. Instead, they want a dictatorship where they rule the Iraqi people.

    According to numerous accounts (see the NY Times today), if we leave Iraq before the people can adequately defend themselves against these terrorists, the bloodshed will be worse.

    The Times piece today is here:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/world/middleeast/27withdraw.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin

    It's likely the government will fall. Militias will increase. The Shi'a majority will likely slaughter any Sunnis during this chaos.

    Al-Qaeda will establish based in Iraq and will continue to attack non-believers throughout the Middle East.

    Iraq is a country of 30 million. The Kurds in the north live in peace. About 1/2 of 1% of that 30 million are terrorists. We cannot allow these terrorists to take power of Iraq.

    The US is the good guy. We are trying to help the Iraqi people create a representative democracy where the dictators of the Baathists or the dictators of the Islamist do no rule.

    If we fail, the Iraqi people will be slaughtered. And the terrorists will have a base of operations in which to continue their assault upon the civilized world.

    "In Olbyloon World: only Republican politicans lie. The Democrats would never do such a thing, unless it involves promising to impeach Bush if they seized control of the Congress or demanding troop level withdrawals on any Iraq war funding. In Mike's world, withdrawing funding for the troops is being supportive of them."

    And what of Olbermann's denouncement of the Democrats for funding the war? You don't choose to notice it.

    "In Olbyloon World: people don't die in wars. Nope, wars are completely death-free for both civilians and troops. No one is ever supposed to die in a war. "

    But Bush s the one that refuses to attend military burials because of the media imagery that would generate. He refuses to this day to allow photographs of the "flag-draped cofins". The Bushes hate "bothering their beautiful minds" (that was Babs) with such things.

    "In Olbyloon World: The terrorists are really just terribly misunderstood."

    No, not by us. We know they are dangerous; but we know what drives them. We oppose policies that unambiguously have made them much stronger and more dangerous.

    "In Olbyloon World, 9/11 was an inside job and Muslim terrorists and Osama Bin Laden weren't really responsible: it was all BushCo."

    You may have something there. If only the Bushies weren't so arogantly secretive - ew might have sufficient data to dispell some f these suspicions.

    "In Olbyloon World, Keith Olbermann is a "truth-teller" and a "journalist" and Rosie O'Donnell and Mike Moore are upstanding prophets and spokespersons for their "side". "

    Here you are just being childish. But since you brought him up - even FoxNews has called Moore's nre film "moving" and "significant".


    In Olb yloon World, anyone with an alternative opinion to theirs is evil and should be immediately silenced.

    Perhaps some come off that way - no more than from your side.


    "In Olbyloon World, Castro and Chavez are great guys and our country should be run exactly like theirs where everything is a paradise on earth, unlike the evil Bush administration and the U.S. as a whole which of course, are the REAL terrorists of the world."

    Here you are just being childish again. "heaven on earth"? We just thought we were through with colonies.

    ....and we are only SOME of the terrorists on earth - the best funded and most powerful - but just SOME.

    "FYI: The USA is the only western industrial country that doesn't provide health care to all of its citizens."

    Thank God.

    Waiting 3 years for an MRI?

    I had to wait 2 days a year ago.

    And yes, the results of my brain scan showed nothing.

    (beat you to it)

    "What has Bush been RIGHT about in Iraq where we can take ANYTHING you right wingers say seriously ?"

    Okay, I mentioned the NY Times piece.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/world/middleeast/27withdraw.html?hp

    More than 40 individuals and a number of other sources were interviewed/studied.

    E.g., General Zinni says this will happen. He was againt the war.

    Of course, if you think they're a neocon pro-Bush publication, then never mind.


    "There are 60 million people in this country without health care and climbing daily"

    60?

    Without health care?

    No knucklehead, those are 60 million without health insurance.

    Not health care.

    Health insurance is not the same as health care.

    Is this our knuckleheaded friend again? The one who thought that Soros was Greek?

    Among other idiocies.

    Geez, go back to school.

    "more of the same chaos, misery and death."

    Nice position your president put us in, you brain dead idiot.

    The president did this?

    Not the terrorists?

    You're the type of moron who thinks a women deserves to get raped because she dressed provocatively.

    Never blame the perpetrators.

    Let's see: al-Qaeda kills people. Bush is to blame. The radical Islamists kill people Bush is to blame.

    The Baathists kill people, Bush is to blame.

    NEVER EVER BLAME THE MURDERERS.

    I guess according to this thinking those black Americans in the South deserved to be lynched because we forced integration on the racists.

    Is that what you think peabrain?

    Loony tunes time.


    "Waiting 3 years for an MRI?"

    Where is this supposed to be? Canada? Norway? England? Do you have some lone anecdote that "proves" your point? On most indices looked at statistically the US is behind Costa Rica in regard to availability of health care. We're behind just about everybody in the industrialized world. Quit making things up.

    "nitpik on terminology and semantics."

    Right, there's no difference between health insurance and health care.

    It's all semantics and world play.

    Like there is no difference between car insurance and car care.

    Oy.

    Double oy.

    "Yes, you moron. The president and Cheney/rumsfeld/Wolfowitz and all of the flag wavers that called anyone who disagreed a traitor did this."

    Okay.

    Are you Ayman Zawahiri posting here?

    Welcome, Ayman.

    I think.

    You're a wild and crazy guy.

    Just keep killing folks. You're not to blame.

    Bush is to blame.

    That probably angers you since you don't get any credit.

    But, sorry. When you call for your followers to go to Iraq and kill people, Bush is to blame.

    Not you.

    Strange world, isn't it?

    "So how has Bush done on helping people in this country GET AND KEEP health insurance ?"

    He's introduced medical savings accounts where people can invest money - tax-free - that can be used to purchase health care or insurance.

    Next question?

    You're playing dumb so realistically, Bob, that it might come too naturally to you.

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

    Cecelia A: "I haven't argued that she's insane"

    Cecelia B: "I don't think that she feels the military is comprised of little terrorists, but thinks they are commanded by one. Which is craziness...

    *** By craziness I mean it's illogical, but you knew that.... That Rosie is "insane" is not an argument I've made. I've said that she's none too bright, and doesn't understand the logical conclusions of her statement.

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

    Cecelia A: "I'm convinced that she didn't mean the troops are terrorists but that Bush and company are terrorists"

    Cecelia B: "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..."


    ***Well, why did you stop here?... why didn't you cut and paste the last sentence in that statement? Here's the rest:

    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.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.


    That last line you cut out sort of made a difference there, Bob...

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

    Cecelia A: "I'm not just givng her the benefit of the doubt here,. She could have been saying too, that everyone who supports the Iraq war supports the U.S. behaving like terrorists."

    Cecelia B: "I don't think that she feels the military is comprised of little terrorists, but thinks they are commanded by one."

    ****How is that contradictory? That's exactly what I've argued all along. Rosie makes a distinction between the policy, the folks who created the policy. from the folks who must carry it out.

    It's not my argument, it's hers. Yes, it's illogical, but she does make a difference between the policy, the policy creators and the soldiers carrying it out.

    However, she did go on to explictly state that when she said "we're the terrorists", she meant a collective "we" and not just the troops...just the politicians, etc.

    Actually, the collective "we" part of her self-defense she made to Hasselbeck is the easiest one to understand and the most logical.

    Again, it's HER argument, not mine..

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

    Cecelia A: "she's still just Rosie from the block....the non-chi-chi side of New York and she did not intend to insult the troops or imply that they are terrorists"

    Cecelia B: agrees with Grammie that "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.


    *** I didn't mean "yeah. Well, said", to come off like a complete endorsement of Grammie's remarks, particulary when I continued arguing my original point with you..... but I can see how they could be interpreted that way. Let me rephrase my intention for you, since my contiinued arguing with you didn't make that clear enough...:

    Yeah, Grammie, she's an illogical dumb twit.... Well, said...
    =======================

    Now me let me address Sybil...oops...I mean Cecelia misquoting me to utterly change what I wrote to then claim that I agree with her.

    Cecelia wrote "she really doesn't think she's bashing the troops although that is the logical implication of her statement. You said the same about her yourself-- said that you have no doubt she did try to make a disinction between bush and the troops"

    What I wrote quoted Cecelia and made clear that I DISAGREED with her:

    "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."

    Notice how Cecelia removes the word "wants". What I said quite clearly was that I have no doubt that she WANTS to make that distinction and then said "it's a distinction without a difference" which commonly understood to mean there is NO difference between the two as in "I ain't buying this excuse".

    **** In other words, you have no doubt she didn't mean to convey that the troops are terrorists, but you don't care. That is what it sounded like, that was the implication,

    It doesn't matter if Rosie WANTS to convey otherwise, you're holding her to it..becase BOB knows that is was what Rosie truly meant.

    I think this is the heart of our difference here. Rosie makes a statement and you hear some lefty lingo in it, that's probably there, but at the same time, is something that she's not completely aware of, and is rife with logical implications that she did not intend to convey.

    You admit that she didn't want to convey the message that the troops are the eqivalent of terrorists, but you smell blood in the wate. Rosie's made some hideous statements about the president in the past, and you're not letting go. You're wondering why the hell, I'm not circling for a bite too.

    Well, sorry. I don't have the appetite for that sort of thing when I know it's based on an implication the woman never really intended to make.

    I know you're enjoying that, Bob, and that you're telling yourself that she deserves it. However, I'm not biting. I don't get that ravenous.

    invading Iraq has become the biggest foreign policy blunder in our nation's history,

    Biggest blunder?

    Bigger than Vietnam (55,000 dead, trillions spent)

    Bigger than our failure to stop Hitler in the 1930s to prevent WWII. Churchill called WWII an "unnecessary war" because we could have stopped Hitler early.

    WWII, millions and millions killed.

    Those are smaller blunders than Iraq?

    Read much history my friend?

    Read ANY history at all?

    "No knucklehead, those are 60 million without health insurance.

    Not health care.

    Health insurance is not the same as health care."


    So 60 million people have to treat everything from their kids' colds to stomach cancer at the emergency room - the most expensive and inefficient way possible. And Anonymous Bumblefuck will bitch and moan they're getting "freebies" off of our backs, while the uninsurred themselves go into unending, family-crushing debt and the insurance companies throw the balance of the costs at the rest of us.

    Right wing o- a game of monopoly where the winners get to make new rules each turn and the losers are expected to go off and quietly die somewhere.

    Right-wng economics" I had intended to post above.

    So 60 million people have to treat everything from their kids' colds to stomach cancer at the emergency room

    Do you ever get out?

    There are all sorts of charity hospitals and other charitable organizations that help people who can't afford to pay for health insurance.

    We also have Medicaid, a federal program. And all states have their own Medicaid type programs that help the poor and elderly.

    Does everything have to be run by the federal government?

    Are you aware at all of all of these private organizations as well as state and local entities that help people with health problems?

    I know you lefties hate Christians but churches everywhere help the sick.

    Geez, turn of the DailyKOS and other leftwing sites and read books and source material on these issues.

    Read. Think. Read. Think. Don't regurgitate leftwing talking points.

    Mr Strawman at 3:04 and many prior posts continues his irrelevant "Bush is to blame for everything" bantering:

    "Bush" gets blamed for what "Bush' is respnsible for...and "Zawahiri' is blamed for what he is responsible for.

    Zawahiri has made no bones about what he is responsible and is clearly quite proud of his 'accomplishments'. He represents a group who is indeed our greatest enemy, and he is, in my opinion, a terribly misguided evil man.

    That said, what exactly is that going to accomplish for me to 'blame' Zawahiri? What will that do towards my goal of America adopting a more sane foreign policy?...Or helping America adopt a saner and more effective strategy of countering our enemies than the current knee jerk "kick their tail" insanity that clearly ISN'T working?

    No anon, we DON'T blame George Bush for 'everything', just the things he actually IS responsible for....which are many.

    So cool it with the strawmen!

    " read a lot more history than you, for you to characterize iraq as a "small" blunder."

    You think Iraq is a bigger blunder than Vietnam?

    You think Iraq is a bigger blunder than our and the West's failure to stop Hitler before Munich?

    If you think so, you need to sue your history teacher for failing to educate you properly.

    Although, to be blunt, I think the problem was with his students (or one of them) and not with his teaching.

    Just a guess.

    "Since you disagree, please list the good things that has come about by our invasion !"

    Millions of Kurds never have to worry about being wiped out again.

    Millions.

    Millions.

    Is that good? Or you don't care?

    "Biggest blunder?

    Bigger than Vietnam (55,000 dead, trillions spent)

    Bigger than our failure to stop Hitler in the 1930s to prevent WWII. Churchill called WWII an "unnecessary war" because we could have stopped Hitler early.

    WWII, millions and millions killed.

    Those are smaller blunders than Iraq?"

    He has GREAT POINTS! Vietnam was a catastrophic error to which we have yet to fully live up. Ho Chi Minh no was greater or more real a threat than Saddam - in fact I believe he he was much less of a threat - a once and potential ally, in fact, who was rebuffed again and again in our appeasement of the French who could not face the dissolution of their empire.

    The US not stopping Hitler was also a bad mistake, but one that can be placed firmly on the shoulders of the right wing and Wall Street - the same people who demanded that General Smedley Butler be courtmartialled for making derisive public comments about Mussolini; and the same people who were deeply invested in Hitler's war mobilization....the Bush family, for example.

    FDR's apparent eagerness for war with Japan I firmly believe was an end-run around Wall Street and their right-wing goon politicians who had been actively trying to overthrow his administration and throw our lot in with the Fascists. Once Japan attacked and Hitler was forced through his Axis treaties to declare war on us, the American fascists' wings were clipped by the power of a free populace at war; until Reagan and "Mourning in America"

    "Will the church pay for a $100,000 hospital bill?
    Of course not."

    Sure, churches get together with their parishioners and raise funds for expensive health procedures.

    There are all kinds of private organizations and charities that help people out.

    I drive elderly citizens to their dialysis treatment on weekends.

    It's not much; but it's something.

    Lots of my fellow church friends help out.

    "The US not stopping Hitler was also a bad mistake, but one that can be placed firmly on the shoulders of the right wing and Wall Street"

    Okay, it's right about here that we've reached nutsville.

    France and Britain and Russia didn't stop Hitler because of the rightwing and Wall Street.

    Lordy, lordy, them's crazy folks on the internet.


    "Since you disagree, please list the good things that has come about by our invasion !"

    Millions of Kurds never have to worry about being wiped out again.

    Millions.

    Millions.

    Is that good? Or you don't care?

    Posted by: at May 27, 2007 3:22 PM


    The destabilization of the region that we have orcestrated has made it liklely that the Turks will attack the Kurds in northern Iraq. Some say this has already started.

    Sooo that's the RW Health Care plan!

    ----

    Sure, churches get together with their parishioners and raise funds for expensive health procedures.

    There are all kinds of private organizations and charities that help people out.

    I drive elderly citizens to their dialysis treatment on weekends.

    It's not much; but it's something.

    Lots of my fellow church friends help out.
    Posted by: at May 27, 2007 3:25 PM

    ---

    If you are broke and sick, ask for charity and pray that God will heal you.

    Also remember, *God is like Santa Claus...*

    France and Britain and Russia didn't stop Hitler because of the rightwing and Wall Street.

    Lordy, lordy, them's crazy folks on the internet.


    Posted by: at May 27, 2007 3:28 PM

    Hey fuckface - read posts before you respond; I clearly wrote "the US not stoppong Hitler was a bad mistake".

    No comment on Prescott Bush's deep investment in Thiessen Steel? There were Senate hearings and Bush assetts frozen, although hte precise minutes of these abrupt and indecisive hearings are still classified.

    The destabilization of the region that we have orcestrated has made it liklely that the Turks will attack the Kurds in northern Iraq. Some say this has already started

    Hah, some say.

    I call BS on SLOB.

    Again, is it a good thing that the Kurds - millions of them - don't have to worry about the Baathists running Iraq slauthering them?

    'Course, if you lefties let the terrorist win again, the Kurds will be slaughtered.

    But, you'll just blame BUSH.

    It's the all encompassing, one- size fits all answer to anything that terrorists do.

    Bush did it. Or Bush created it. Or Bush unleashed it.

    Terrorists don't have free will. They are forced to act by Bush.

    All of the history of radical Islam, of the radical vision they have goes out the window.

    History began when Bush went into Iraq.

    So if you want acces to health care in America you damn well better join a church!...and don't forget to say "thank you kind sir" when the fuckface drops you off at the clinic.

    All of the history of radical Islam, of the radical vision they have goes out the window.

    History began when Bush went into Iraq.

    Posted by: at May 27, 2007 3:41 PM


    No, but in that time Al Qeada has tripled in membership; world public opinion of the US has tanked; and armed factionalism and the levels of overt hostilities have skyrocketed in the region. Anything relating to these varibles can arguably be attributed to Bush in lage degree.

    "So if you want acces to health care in America you damn well better join a church!...and don't forget to say "thank you kind sir" when the fuckface drops you off at the clinic."

    Typical SLOB completely mis-stating my point.

    As documentation shows, most people who don't have health insurance are young people who don't think they need it.

    For those poorer folks who do need care, there are all types of programs - private and government - to assist them.

    If someone has a catastrophic illness requiring hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars, they do not have much chance.

    This is very expensive treatment that most people cannot afford to have.

    A national health care system to provide care for these catastrophic illnesses might be good.

    But a national health care/single-payer program for all health care would be a disaster.

    There is no perfect answer. Whichever we choose has its positive and negative care.

    And by the way SLOB, what charity work do YOU do?

    At least I try to help out some. Could I do more? Sure.

    All you do is complain. How about lending a hand.


    "Still waiting for an answer of the work George Bush has done with health care AND health insurance in this country."

    Already provided above.

    Ha, leftwing historians don't like Bush?

    Hilarious, the day these lefties like a President is the day we're all rounded up in concentration camps.

    Which is how lefties run the countries they rule.

    "For Bush, Nothing Succeeds Like Failure
    by Karen Dolan"


    No source?

    For some reason, you forgot to include that.

    That's because Ms. Dolan works for the radical left Institute for Policy Studies.

    Which is about as objective as Granma.

    "All historians are "left wing"."

    I said this: "Leftwing historians don't like Bush?"

    And from that, he/she claims that I said "all historians are left wing."

    Try to argue with this type of intellect.

    Can't be done.

    Like arguing with a rock.


    Just a link to comment on the success of the Chimpster's campaign to spray freedumbs in the M.E.

    ---

    http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070611/glain

    article | posted May 24, 2007 (June 11, 2007 issue)

    Exodus (Title)

    (by) Stephen Glain

    (excerpts follow)

    The latest malignant outgrowth of Bush's war in Iraq is, according to Refugees International president Ken Bacon, "the fastest-growing refugee crisis in the world." Like debris from a maritime disaster, the remains of Iraq's shattered lives are washing up at border crossings, accumulating at immigration centers and settling into tenement housing. The exodus, particularly in its first stages, has included members of Iraq's once-legendary class of skilled white-collar elites--doctors, engineers, scientists and educators. Without Iraq's professionals, it will take a generation to rebuild the country into a self-reliant state with a functioning economy.

    "All of the doctors I know have decided to not go back," says a Sunni Iraqi pathologist and hospital administrator in Amman who, fearing for his family's security back home, would not give his name. "It will take a decade just to train new physicians. The insurgency has turned the country into an empty vessel, drained of talent."

    What began as a thin stream of Iraqi merchants and investors seeking a safe place to do business has become a flood of some 2 million refugees--though it could be twice that amount--concentrated largely in Jordan and Syria. Many are destitute, and they place enormous strain on a region that is already highly combustible, both politically and economically. Once welcomed as fellow Arabs in distress, they are increasingly blamed for a scorching rise in inflation, crime and prostitution. Heads of state and politicians warn that they will import Iraq-style sectarian strife--political fearmongering, many believe, that could become self-fulfilling at a time when the Bush Administration appears to be lining up its Sunni allies for a confrontation with Iran.

    "We have thousands and thousands of Iraqis spilling in from Iraq, and the government is worried that they may bring their conflict to Jordan," says Taher Masri, a respected former prime minister. "In Parliament a few weeks ago, members were condemning Iran for trying to convert Jordanians to Shiism. My driver just asked me if Shiites were a greater danger than Israelis."

    ....

    Jordan is scared to death of the spillover from Iraq," says Rhanda Habibe, Amman bureau chief for Agence France-Presse and the doyenne of the Jordanian press corps. "The Arab world is dividing into two groups, with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the US and Jordan on one side and Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah on the other. If there is civil war in Iraq or a civil war in the West Bank, it could all spin out of control and suck us into it."

    Though there are an estimated 1.2 million Iraqi refugees in Syria, compared with some 750,000 in Jordan, the strain is felt deepest in the Hashemite Kingdom. Tiny and resource poor, Jordan is a culture dish for the Middle East's myriad schisms, scored as it is by rich and poor, Muslim and Christian, secular and fundamentalist. Jordan lumbers under the weight of a large ethnic Palestinian population--40 to 60 percent of the total--much of which is still living in camps. The Palestinians in Jordan have coexisted uneasily with indigenous "East Bankers" since the two sides went to war in 1970. The regime is burdened by its alliance with the deeply unpopular US government and its peace accord with Israel. It is also a mendicant state, unable to survive without generous aid from the United States and its Arab neighbors. In February, for example, Jordan avoided a budget crisis only after Saudi Arabia, under stiff pressure from Washington, pledged $500 million in aid.

    Aside from strong-arming the Saudis, however, the White House has taken a back seat in the refugee crisis. Ellen Sauerbrey, the Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration, has pushed Amman and Damascus to accommodate Iraqi exiles while doing little to open America's own borders to them. Testifying before Congress four months ago, Sauerbrey--who has no experience with refugees and who was appointed by Bush during a Congressional recess last year to avoid a floor fight over her strong opposition to abortion rights--confined US resettlement efforts to a single paragraph of her opening remarks. It took a measure led by Senator Edward Kennedy to shame the government into granting asylum to 7,000 Iraqi war refugees (among them, Ahlam Al Jaburi, whose persistence finally paid off this past April when she was awarded a promise of asylum).
    ---

    Yup! Chimpster sure made the M.E. safer.

    Here's an objective look at health/medical savings accounts:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account

    Like any government program, there are benefits and there are negatives.

    It's a step to help some people but isn't good for everyone.

    Whatever program we embrace - single-payer health care, HSA/MSAs, private - will of course have its positives and negatives.

    No panacea.

    As Professor Irwin Copyandpaste, Ph.d pointed out:

    "There are two basic errors of logic employed by individuals who cannot think on their own. One is the argument from or to authority. In this case, authority is evoked as the last word on an issue.

    For example: Someone uses a statement from an academic as the basis for his arguments against or for some proposal.

    The second error is appeal to the people. In this case, someone attempts to justify a claim on the basis of popularity.

    In either case, the proponent is not making any argument for his or her position. They are simply relying, lazily I might addo, for unproven thoughts of other. Remember, opinion is not fact."

    Thank you Professor Copyandpaste.

    Robert. Was that a ad thing that you were reffering to about me?? Or was that an invite to keep posting to keep some diversirty in these conversations?

    Nothing against you, its just really hard to tell whether someone is being sarcastic over the internet, haha.

    Ha, leftwing historians don't like Bush?

    Hilarious, the day these lefties like a President is the day we're all rounded up in concentration camps.

    Which is how lefties run the countries they rule.

    Posted by: at May 27, 2007 3:59 PM


    True enough; when one party rules, concentration camps may not be far behind. This is why I am so effusive in my respet for the few earnest, honest conservatives who still appear to believe in the democratic process (Hagel, Paul, Voinovich, Specter).

    So why do you idiots applaud Bush's dismantling of the checks and balances that maintain the system of dialogue and compromise between branches of government and between political parties? Do you think Bush an Rove are smarter than Madison and Hamilton?

    " when one party rules, concentration camps may not be far behind"

    Why didn't those evil Republicans lock you up SLOB?

    And I guess, since the Democrats hold on to Congress, you'll be supporting a Republican for the White House?

    Let me guess, you think Ron Paul is just dreamy?

    ...and please don't try to pretend for a moment that single-party right-wing countries don't have concentration camps. Is that what you were suggesting?

    "Let me guess, you think Ron Paul is just dreamy?"

    The sad part is that Ron Paul is the ONLY republican who REALLY understands the threat, as well as the enemy. He is the only one who has it right....and has had it right from the very beginning.

    But how do you right wingers repond? You just label him as a 'nut', while your "front runners' are the one who mouth they can outbush Bush using the most false machismo they can muster.

    This is the sad state of the Republican party that I once embraced.

    "And I guess, since the Democrats hold on to Congress, you'll be supporting a Republican for the White House?"


    No, simpleton, as I clearly stated I support the system of checks and balances that will protect the civil liberties of you deluded, sniveling drowning rats when both houses of congress and the executive branch are occupied by Democrats, due to the reaction of the electorate to the abject falures of these right-wing dilletantes.

    You can count on me to oppose just as vigorously any usurpation of power or subversion of the constution that the Democrats may try to initiate - but first we need to stress the need that they reverse the damage done to our system by Bush so that they cannot weild unconstitutional power from the outset.

    Are you game?

    "idiots applaud Bush's dismantling of the checks and balances"

    What Constitutional check and balance was "dismantled"?

    When the Executive is acting in his role as commander-in-chief during war, he is given - implicitly and explicitly - more power than when he is acting domestically.

    Compared to the actions of Lincoln or Wilson or FDR or even Truman during war, Bush has acted much more judiciously and with more limits.

    Bush has done NOTHING comparable to the actions of FDR during war. Nothing at all.

    In fact, to cite one example, Bush is the first president in history to allow enemy combatants access to our courts. No president did that.

    See the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act. This is the first president ever to extend such rights to non-uniformed or even uniformed enemy combatants.

    And you'll note that I didn't lazily copy and paste the words of someone else. These, for good or ill, are my own words and own thoughts based on my own readings.


    Ron Paul sings the "cut n run" song and the lefties suck it right up. Thank God RP has no chance.

    Well, packing the Justice Department with what they themselves call "Loyal Bushies" is a pretty good example - then using this once-objective institution to harrass Democratic politicians and their supporters, and to disenfranchise huge swaths of democratic voters. That's a pretty good example of what they have done. The history of Bush's Republican congress rubberstamping his every wish and abdicating entirely their responsibility of oversight is another.

    It is entirely possible that the Democrats may fall short of their obligations to investigate and impeach Bush for his breaking of (for example) the FISA laws, and if they do it may be that they wish to utilize this unwise and unwarranted authority for themselves, when a Democrat holds the White House. This will have been made possible by Bush and his voracity for power.

    However, we Americans can act and speak out to reverse this sorry precedent so that no one party or executive can become king.

    Are you game?

    "Bush has done NOTHING comparable to the actions of FDR during war. Nothing at all."

    True enough; "winning" comes to mind.

    It is odd to me that the same people who want national health care - where the government views all of your medical records before funding your surgery - are the ones complaining about Bush and the evil Republicans taking away our rights.

    Under single payer healthcare, the government will know everything about your private health problems.

    Isn't THAT a dangerous interference into our private lives by the government?

    Or is that okay because you support it?

    It is odd to me that the same people who want national health care - where the government views all of your medical records before funding your surgery - are the ones complaining about Bush and the evil Republicans taking away our rights.

    Under single payer healthcare, the government will know everything about your private health problems.

    Isn't THAT a dangerous interference into our private lives by the government?

    Or is that okay because you support it?

    Posted by: Ohboy at May 27, 2007 5:59 PM


    It would be nice if we could encourage a system where consumers actually own their insurance policies rather than their employers or the govt.

    "It would be nice if we could encourage a system where consumers actually own their insurance policies rather than their employers or the govt."

    Bingo.

    Someone above posted about Medical Savings Accounts that help people save money to buy their own coverage.

    Folks on the left don't like it because... well I don't know. Because it doesn't cover everybody and doesn't work for everybody.

    Unless the government covers everyone for everything at any time at any cost, the left will oppose it.

    The enemy of the good - well, if not good, not terrible - is the better.

    Since the left loves government (when they run things), I guess they think we can just have "free" care for everyone and not bankrupt the country (among other things).

    Of the 40 or so million that don't have health insurance, I wonder what percentage don't want it. My guess is that some young people just don't think they need it yet.

    What is really needed is a system where everyone is covered for CATASTROPHIC and chronic medical needs beyond a certain threshold only. Routine care should be financed by the recipient.

    Capatalism is a great system. The best in the world, but it doesn't work for EVERYTHING. Medical care is one of those very few exceptions.

    Any free market system that by it's very nature, denies access to those with the most need, and opens it's arms up to those who need or want it the least, is by definition a failure...especially when the product being offered is life or death.

    America will never be a fully civilized nation until Medical treatment is available to all that truely need it without literally bankrupting the otherwise solvent recipients.

    "America will never be a fully civilized nation until Medical treatment is available to all that truely need it without literally bankrupting the otherwise solvent recipients. "

    And what person would be against this?

    The question and problem is the solvency one.

    Right now, we have $80 trillion (that's trillion) in unfunded obligations to Social Security and Medicare ALONE. These are obligations that have been added over the past 30+years.

    Source:
    http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba560/

    When Medicare was created in the 1960s, the projection was that the costs would be less than 1/10 of what we're paying. Obviously, they didn't foresee the rise in medical technology, costs and the increase in lifespans of citizens.

    If we add health care onto that, we're adding at least another several trillion dollars, if not more.

    We just do not have the money to provide health care for everyone. If we could limit it - somehow - to catastrophic, major problems (however defined) - for those who can't afford it, that would be one thing.

    Americans' lifestyles are poor. We eat too much, exercise too little, and engage in other risky behavior. Additionally, our medical culture rewards aggressive treatment - more tests, more surgery, more everything - against what other countries do.

    Here's a terrific book ("Medicine and Culture") about the different medical procedures and "cultures" and how that influences treatment.

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805048030

    Very complex issue. No easy solution.


    "It would be nice if we could encourage a system where consumers actually own their insurance policies rather than their employers or the govt."


    It would be nice if wingnuts could grasp the fact that our consitution is a tool for protecting the commons one that we have the ability to control. A "government-owned" policy, if properly structured, is clearly one owned by the citizen - as much as as our civil liberties belong to us when the constitution is properly attended to by all of us. The government won't be "giving" us health care - we will use government to ensure equitable health-care for all.

    Righties are just too greedy to let go of the idea that we have a zero-sum game here where there must be losers in order for there to be winners.

    "It would be nice if wingnuts could grasp the fact that our consitution is a tool for protecting the commons one that we have the ability to control"

    Typical leftwing dreams, SLOB. As long as the government is doing things YOU like, there's no problem in giving it more and more and more power.

    Somehow, you think that if the government is doing for you, on your behalf, and doing things you like, there's no worry about it abusing those powers.

    Tocqueville called it:
    "No sooner does a government attempt to go beyond its political sphere and to enter upon this new track, than it exercises, even unintentionally, an insupportable tyranny; for a government can only dictate strict rules, the opinions which it favors are rigidly enforced, and it is never easy to discriminate between its advice and its commands."

    And to think that you are worried about what Bush has done? He's done nothing compared to the immense all-encompassing Leviathan that you want us to have. In your world, government will be everywhere at all time to help us.

    All we need to do is give in to it.

    "Tocqueville called it"

    That is, of course, from Democracy in America.

    Tocquevill was talking about democratic despotism where individuals in a democracy gladly give up all of their rights in order to be safe.

    Sound familiar? It's what the left says we've done with Bush in the war against radical Islam.

    Only for the left, when they do it, when government runs all of our affairs and takes all of our resources, it'll be okay.

    Bush is evil. Don't give him power.

    The left is pure. Give them all the power.

    Only Republicans abuse the powers given to them.

    Progressives, on the other hand, can be trusted to run America. They are noble and pure and good and would never misuse or abuse all the power we give them.

    Bush is wrong to listen in to phone calls between the terrorists and America. That is a dictatorship.

    But if we allow the left to run the government and take care of us, they'll NEVER misuse that power.

    Sorry, no deal SLOB. I trust you and your radical left friends running my life like I'd trust a bunch of monkeys.

    Nothing personal.

    "Most of it was written by historians. You know who they are don't you ? People that study history, as opposed to the Bush fans who deny history."

    From what I've read, many British historians - to choose one example - in the 1930s believed that Churchill was a madman warning about the dangers of Germany.

    Were they right?

    One of the most famous British historians - Eric Hobsbawm - still living today believed that Stalin's mass murder of the Russians was justified because he was trying to create utopia.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Hobsbawm#Controversy

    My point, of course, is that historians are right when they deal with facts; but less dependable when they deal with opinion.


    "Ron Paul is the only republican using common sense.No wonder the wingnuts don't like him."

    So, you agree with Paul on, for example, racial matters?

    He's against Civil Rights legislation as he believes that the government has no constitutional role in interfering into the private rights of businesses as to who they hire or not hire.


    "Who said I agreed with Paul on everything.

    Love how you love to put words in my mouth"

    Huh? Put words into your mouth?

    Here's what I ASKED (and I quote):

    "So, you agree with Paul on, for example, racial matters?

    Asked.

    See the question mark at the end? That means it's an interrogatory statement. Not a statement of fact.

    I asked IF you agreed.

    There's an entire laundry list of crazy views by Paul. Just because he's against the war doesn't mean he's a credible candidate.

    Look up his statements on the floor of the House.

    Don't trust me; check for yourself.

    Sorry, no deal SLOB. I trust you and your radical left friends running my life like I'd trust a bunch of monkeys.

    Nothing personal.

    Posted by: Ohboy at May 27, 2007 8:13 PM


    You people really can't think past the idea of America as a fuedal oligarchy, can you? I think I've been amply clear that I would be as uneasy about the idea of a Hillary cabal running the country unencumbered by checks and ballances as I am by the regime the Bushies have been constructing.

    "Rule of Law"; does this mean anything to any of you? Naw, I didn't think so.

    Rule of Law"; does this mean anything to any of you? Naw, I didn't think so.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at May 27, 2007 9:53 PM

    Oh, my goodness, Sir Loin, I think you've hit the nail on the head.

    We currently have a Democrat majority in both houses. We may again have a Democrat president.

    I hope some suspicious of govt--- conservative type--- human, is able to think the worst of the highest officials in the land without being labeled as someone who hates Private Benjamin...

    Especially if they insist that this isn't the case.

    But then being a conservative and naturally suspicious of govt myself, I'm more open-minded than some... :D

    True enough; "winning" comes to mind.


    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at May 27, 2007 5:54 PM

    SLOB, how would you fair in a boxing match with both hands tide behind your back? Bush and our troops are in the same position. BBC, Socialist Stewart and the rest of the commies forget to point this out, though.

    "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."

    Posted by: Robert Cox at May 26, 2007 12:12 PM

    Worth reposting, over and over.

    "SLOB, how would you fair in a boxing match with both hands tide behind your back. Bush and our troops are in the same position."

    Yea Slob, don't you know nothin! We got all them big ole nasty MOAB's just sittin right there doin nuthin and that anti-American commie Nancy Pelosi won't even let us use em.

    An here we are with our hands 'tide' behind ou backs cause we cain't just go blow em all up to smithereens with them MOAB's like we should!

    Don't you know nothin SLOB?

    Damn Robert, I never saw that condesending post you made yesterday until someone else (probably Jeff) just reposted it. Thanks Jeff?

    Being hurled childish insults at by you Robert, no longer carries any impact because you've already shown your true colors as an arrogant, egotistical jerk.

    SO why would it be a surprise that you would respond in such a childish manner when criticized....kind of like Jeff would!....LMAO!

    SLOB, how would you fair in a boxing match with both hands tide behind your back? Bush and our troops are in the same position. BBC, Socialist Stewart and the rest of the commies forget to point this out, though.

    Posted by: royalking at May 27, 2007 10:18 PM

    So; The world's sole superpower that spends more on its military than all other nations on earth combined, run for five years by Bush and his two slavish houses of congress run and dominated by Republican war -mongers have had "their hands tied behind their backs" in regard to their war against terrorist "dead-enders" and "lurking killers"?

    What more do you want, you pussy? Are you going to cry like John Boehner (R-OH) that nobody's helping you? "When are we going to stand up to them? WAHHHHH nuknuk-WAHHHHH".

    Bunch of fucking honorless pussies; can't face your own crimes, mistakes, and failures - just like Hitler bitching about the "stab in the back" from pacifist Jewish communists on the hoke front losing WWI for Germany. You fascist cocksuckers are so redundant its sickening.

    "SLOB, how would you fair in a boxing match with both hands tide behind your back?"

    I'd kick your fruitcake ass, you pussy chickenhawk.

    It's Cox's website. It's his right to say anything he wants to on his own site.

    And it's anybody else's 'right' to say whatever THEY choose to say as well...and then it's Cox's right to block them if HE chooses to do so. Those are the options.

    So what's your point KAF?

    It doesn't change the FACT that Cox showed himself to be an arrogant, classless jerk on record of calling most Americans 'idiots' in the process of implying he is a genious who is never wrong. In the process he has apparently run off one of the classiest and most open minded posters he has ever had (Sharon).

    In the process he has apparently run off one of the classiest and most open minded posters he has ever had (Sharon).

    Posted by: Mike at May 27, 2007 11:10 PM


    True. And this "classiest and most open minded" poster made it clear that she thinks you are a jerk.

    If Sharon called me a 'jerk', it would bother me.

    However, when YOU call me a jerk, I consider it a badge of honor.

    You are famous on this blog for posting but saying nothing....and then attempting to dissect the words of others while not showing the courage to take a position yourself.

    If Sharon called me a 'jerk', it would bother me.

    However, when YOU call me a jerk, I consider it a badge of honor.

    You are famous on this blog for posting but saying nothing....and then attempting to dissect the words of others while not showing the courage to take a position yourself.

    Posted by: Mike at May 27, 2007 11:43 PM


    hahaha! Well, I'll definitely take the position that who you term the classiest bloger on the site, thought you were a dishonest jerk.

    "mike," Sharon didn't call you a jerk, she called you a prick.

    So now it has ballooned to "dishonest jerk". Sorry but I'd have to hear it from her, not a "dishonest jerk" like yourself.

    You really like this lowbrow stuff don't you?

    Beats making an honest argument somebody else might dissect and throw back in your face.

    It's in the archives!

    May 27, 2007 -- It now looks like the American people will never learn how - and why - Bill Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy "Sticky Fingers" Burgler, stole and destroyed classified documents from the National Archives.

    That's because Burgler - in a significant, but little-noticed, move - has short-circuited the last investigation into his sordid little burglary.

    As Byron York reports at National Review Online, Burgler last week voluntarily surrendered his law license.

    Now, that's hardly as serious a step as it sounds, since - as Burgler freely admitted - "I have not [practiced law] for 15 years and do not envision returning to the profession."

    What it does, however, is prematurely end an investigation by the District of Columbia Bar Association into Berger's confessed thievery. It also means that details of the probe, which would have been made public, now remain sealed.

    So much for the public's right to know.

    Burgler, recall, was nabbed smuggling state secrets down his pants - specifically, drafts of an after-action memo by anti-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke that reportedly identified national-security weaknesses so "glaring" that only sheer luck prevented a 9/11-style attack during Clinton's presidency.

    For a year after his arrest, Burgler insisted he'd only "inadvertently" walked off - several times - with the documents, which he later destroyed.

    Two years ago, Burgler finally admitted that his story was a lie. He pleaded guilty, paid a $50,000 fine and was sentenced to two years probation.

    Unfortunately, he wasn't required to explain in open court just what he was trying to conceal.

    Congressional Republicans would dearly love to question him, but they're in the minority now. And don't expect self-styled Capitol Hill watchdog Henry Waxinhisass House Oversight Committee, which sees GOP conspiracies everywhere, to show even the slightest interest in Democratic malfeasance. Liberal hypocrisy? Yes, indeed.

    More proof you got ziltch, nobody cares what your name is. Keep bringing up the "boycott" crap. It must have really got too ya, though. Maybe I should repost it.

    Jeff, your drool cup is full.

    Thanks for the link, mexican patty, great site!

    Nah, Name doesn't live in Mexico, they live in the Land of Denial and Delusion where they believe Olby is a real "journalist" and that the Democrats aren't spineless hypocrites. Dream on sucker.

    What an informative site, thanks for the link, why do you care! That's one of the best sites on the net.

    The good ol' ACLU. Such nice people. Defending our enemy while downloading kiddie porn.

    McLEAN -- A former president of the Virginia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union is expected to plead guilty to criminal charges stemming from his arrest on child pornography possession charges, according to court records.

    A judge in U.S. District Court in Alexandria scheduled a June 1 plea agreement hearing for Charles Rust-Tierney, 51, of Arlington. It was not clear what charges would be included in the plea agreement.

    A grand jury indicted Rust-Tierney this month on one count each of receipt and possession of child pornography. A conviction at trial on both counts could have resulted in a prison sentence of 11 to 14 years, according to federal sentencing guidelines.

    Rust-Tierney, who also coached Little League baseball in Arlington, has been in jail since his arrest. At pretrial hearings, two judges refused to grant bail, describing the pornography in question as some of the most sickening they had ever encountered.

    Prosecutors said in court documents that Rust-Tierney spent nearly $1,000 between March 2005 and October 2006 on child pornography ordered over the Internet.

    His lawyer did not return calls seeking comment.

    Rust-Tierney was president of the ACLU's Virginia chapter from 2002-2005.

    You bet one case of ACLU-related child-pornography; I raise you one Republican legislator, eight counts of rape, and one count of sexual contact with a child.

    He reportedly gave the girls beer when they cried.


    http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070518/NEWS/70518014/1001/RSS

    Got any other anecdotes?

    "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!

    Posted by: Mike at May 26, 2007 12:21 AM

    Wow, this is the most obvious sign that Mike is a delusional Olby supporter. Robert shows tape of Olbermann lying, Robert then shows tape of ScarRINO and Screwball saying Olby is a liar, and yet Mike still defends Olby with his own lie. Pathetic.

    In Jeff's world, the Constitution is a quaint little piece of paper, just ripe for trashing.

    Posted by: at May 28, 2007 2:00 PM

    Polly, wanta a cracker? Squak!

    Factor, not only is "mike" an olbypoligist, he's a rosiepologist. Beyond pathetic!
    "mike": "I don't defend Olbermahn!"
    "mike": "I was driven to defend him by you guys!"

    I must really make an impression on this board. I hadn't even had time to look on this board for over 24 hours until just now only to find the last to posts are about me.

    Are you guys really that bored?

    And Factor, concerning the Olbermann comment on Rosie: I saw the original broadcast where KO claimed Rosie meant Bush and I accept that it is his honest opinion. Rosie also claimed whe didn't mean the troops....and it seems to me that Rosie is the only person on God's green earth who really knows what Rosie 'meant'.

    You are calling her a liar, and I am not...it's no more complicated than that.

    That said, I don't even like Rosie O'Donnell. She's got a big mouth and she hurts her own cause whenever she shoots it off. However, this is another one of several similar verbal gaffes that have been taken to insult the troops in which the commentor is on record as claiming they did NOT mean what they were taken to mean (Kerry comes to mind immediately as another example).

    It would seem to me that a public figure would have to be pretty damn stupid to intentionally insult the troops in today's political climate, even if thats the way they really felt. Either Rosie is REALLY stupid, and a liar to boot, or she really didn't mean the troops...and if she really is that stupid, why does anyone care what whe says...or how anyone else interprets it?

    It would seem to me that a public figure would have to be pretty damn stupid to intentionally insult the troops in today's political climate, even if thats the way they really felt. Either Rosie is REALLY stupid, and a liar to boot, or she really didn't mean the troops...and if she really is that stupid, why does anyone care what whe says...or how anyone else interprets it?

    Posted by: Mike at May 29, 2007 2:47 AM

    So do you agree with her that the Bush Administration either planted ignored that someone planted a bomb in order to cause 9/11?

    If you think she's really stupid and a liar to boot...why did you jump on me for concluding the same thing?

    Also, it's hilarious that you're arguing that if Rosie really feels that the troops are terrorists that it would be quite a significant.... faux pas...in our current climate (is that all it is, Mike?...) but then you argue that even if she did make such a serious mistake that it's stupid for anyone to take it seriously enough to make an issue of it...

    Talking out of both sides of your mouth as always,, eh...Mike..

    MIke,

    Do you think Bush orchestrated the planting of a bomb in the Twin Towers or that he ignored that a bomb had been planted by UBL and company, in order to have a pretext for war in Iraq?

    Since you've come out against criticism of both Rosie and the claims of Stealthisopinion in these matters, I think you need to clarify your position explicitly.

    Cecelia, see the "turns the corner" thread.

    "talking out of both sides of your mouth as always,, eh..Mike.."

    Not at all Cecelia. Rosie is nothing more than a convenient object of scorn used by the right to try to ridicule the left.

    Both sides have their Ann Coulters, but I suspect the right takes Coulter far more seriously than the left takes Rosie.

    talking out of both sides of your mouth as always,, eh..Mike.."

    Not at all Cecelia. Rosie is nothing more than a convenient object of scorn used by the right to try to ridicule the left.

    Both sides have their Ann Coulters, but I suspect the right takes Coulter far more seriously than the left takes Rosie.

    Posted by: Mike at May 29, 2007 3:47 AM


    Since you blasted several posters for criticising Rosie, and defended her, isn't that taking her seriously?

    Again, do you agree with her that Bush plotted or allowed 9/11 to happen? I called her twit for that, and you blasted me.

    Coulter hasn't accused anyone of the left of direct complicity with 9/11. Since you've bothered to defend Rosie after her accusations of complicity by the Bush Administration, it's impossible not to conclude that you'd take similar accusations against Democrats by Coulter, very seriously indeed.

    Steal wrote "Robert. Was that a ad thing that you were reffering to about me?? Or was that an invite to keep posting to keep some diversirty in these conversations?"

    I like what you said because it is in the spirit of Olbermann Watch to have a wide open comment section.

    That is not, however, the same thing as me having to agree with everything that is said or have respect for the opinions or behavior of every commenter. As Mike correctly noted, the only regular on this site is ALWAYS right is me. It is my job, at the end of the day, to make the final determination of what is right and what is wrong. It is a tough job but one that I know i can handle.


    Cecelia, did you ever bother to look at the other thread as I asked. It addressed your questions.

    Now show me where I ever defended Rosie on any point other than whether she didn't mean the troops in her very public verbal gaffe?

    "As Mike correctly noted, the only regular on this site (did you mean 'who' here?) is ALWAYS right is me."

    Since you just took the liberty of grossly misrepresented my position regarding your self delusion of being a genius, should it come as any real surprise to me that you also routinely misrepresent Keith Olbermann?

    Huffington Post is a pro-lefty website which lists headlines and then links to opinion blogs. I realize that for many liberals, opinions equal facts but only in your universe, not in the real world. Next time, link to real AP news articles or don't waste my time.

    Cecelia,

    Let me reply point by point to the comment above

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

    1) When you say someone is not responsible for their actions because they are crazy, illogical, and delusional it sounds quite a bit like the "insanity defense". I find it amusing that you explanation of why using words "craziness" and "illogical" are not the same as calling Rosie insane because she someone who is too stupid to understand the meaning of what she says. So now she's not a crazy, illogical kook, she is mentally incapable of processing the meaning of her own words and actions and either does not know or does not care how her words and action cause harm to people. In other words, your "defense" that you do not call her "insane" is that you called her mentally retarded or a sociopath or both. However you want to slice it, your basic premise is that Rosie is not responsible for her own actions and I do not accept that one for one second.

    You make Rosie out like she's some kind of brain damaged child when she, in fact, a professional entertainer and talk show host who is one of the most well-paid people in television and has been for many years. She does not need YOU to "interpret" for her.

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

    2) Well, why did you stop here?... why didn't you cut and paste the last sentence in that statement?

    I stopped "there" for a very simple reason. In some comments you made an absolute statement - Rosie did NOT mean the troops. You then make a statement where she WAS including the troops - that she was including them along with others is not relevant to my point. Either she was calling the troops terrorists or she was not. Sometimes you say she was not and other times you say that she was (but also including others as well). You cannot have it both ways. Truncating the quote makes absolutely no difference to my point that you are contradicting yourself over and over again.

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

    3) "How is that contradictory?" you ask. If you believe that the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were not terrorists then it is not contradictory at all. The hijackers were carrying out the orders of Usama bin Laden, right? So UBL is the terrorists but the 19 hijackers are just some poor guys who volunteered for jihad. They are not in anyway responsible for the deaths they caused, right? Likewise, the people who helped the terrorists with money, housing, transportation, encouragement and support of any kind are not terrorists either, right?

    In A you say Rosie might have meant "everyone who supports the Iraq war" (which presumably includes a fair number of the troops) and "the U.S. behaving like terrorists" (where the behavior is that of U.S. troops in Iraq who are killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis). In B you say she does not feel "the military is comprised of little terrorists". So, those troops who support the war are terrorists and their behavior in Iraq is that of terrorists but she does not believe the soldiers are terrorists. I would call that a pretty major contradiction.

    Given that we have VIDEO of her actual saying certain words, I am perplexed as to the basis for this statement: "she does make a difference between the policy, the policy creators and the soldiers carrying it out." When? Are you watching some other video? I see no attempt to make such a differentiation - in fact, quite the opposite by her subsequent use of the term "we" and "us". I also see that when afforded the opportunity in the exchange on May 23 with Elizabeth Hasselbeck she pointedly REFUSED to clarify her previous statements. So, you are just making this up or basing it on facts not in evidence.

    You write "She did go on to explicitly state that when she said "we're the terrorists", she meant a collective "we" and not just the troops". JUST THE TROOPS? Did you just write "JUST THE TROOPS? " Good God, woman. What the hell is your point. You are AGREEING that she was calling the troops terrorists. Do you think that adding the qualifier that she may have also meant others - Bush, his administration, politicians, those who support the war, voters, etc. - makes a damn bit of difference?

    I mean really, you are just making no sense at all.

    You seem to have no problem with the idea that she was not EXCLUDING the troops, right? You keep saying that she was INCLUDING them, right?

    So, what I say that she was calling our troops terrorists you think that I am wrong because in your mind she was not ONLY calling our troops terrorists but everyone in the country including the troops. Are you familiar with a Venn Diagram? Can you draw two circles so that one circle contains ALL AMERICANS and the other circle contains ALL AMERICANS WHO ARE CURRENTLY ACTIVE IN THE MILITARY. Now look at them. Do they OVERLAP in anyway? Or is the second circle INSIDE the first circle. You see the way this works is that if you want to say she was calling ALL AMERICANS terrorists then, by definition, that would including ALL AMERICANS WHO ARE CURRENTLY ACTIVE IN THE MILITARY.

    Get the picture?

    You wrote "Again, it's HER argument, not mine"

    Cecelia, this is a major point of confusion for you isn't it? You are not "making" HER argument. You are making things up and then putting forward what you IMAGINE she MUST HAVE meant and then constructing that as YOUR ARGUMENT for what you think she was trying to say.

    If you pay close attention to the video you will see that she really does not make an "argument". She blurts out "655,000 Iraqi civilians are dead. Who are the terrorists? From the...655 Iraqi...look from the point of...If you are in Iraq...if the richest country in the world invaded your country what would you call us? invading a sovereign nation and occupying a country against the UN."

    The best I can piece this together is that she wants to get across the idea that she is sympathetic to the Iraqi people who view "us" as terrorists (and she agrees with them) for invading and occupying Iraq. She is asking a rhetorical question (i.e. she is not looking for an answer from Hasselbeck, she "knows" the answer...WE are the terrorists). This being Rosie she adds the rather strange qualifier "against the UN" as if it would be OK with her if more than half a million civilians were killed so long as the UN gave a thumbs up. Of course, she does not mean this, it is just her way of saying that war was illegitimate and that America is committing genocide in Iraq.

    It seems blindingly clear that Rosie thinks WE are terrorists - and there nothing in what she said that suggests she meant to exclude U.S. troops. In fact, she is obviously including them because THEY DID ALL THE KILLING (in her kind).

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

    4) I didn't mean "yeah. Well, said", to come off like a complete endorsement of Grammie's remarks

    You mean like calling Rosie crazy but not meaning that she is insane? This is a neat trick where every time I prove you wrong you try and claim that's not really what you meant or that I am "twisting" your words. Gee? That sounds familiar. Someone who says things and then, when confronted with her own words, tries to pretend she did not say them or that the plain meaning of the words is not plain. Hmmm. I know I've heard of something like that somewhere

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

    5) "In other words, you have no doubt she didn't mean to convey that the troops are terrorists, but you don't care. That is what it sounded like, that was the implication,"

    You really have trouble with reading comprehension, right? No, No and No. For the THIRD TIME, I will try again.

    Read along slowly...

    A. the exchange with Hasselbeck occurred on May 23rd
    B. that exchange referenced PREVIOUS COMMENTS from a PREVIOUS SHOW.
    C. Rosie has made other public comments AFTER the "who are the terrorists?" telecast - on her blog and to the press.

    with me so far?

    Unable to explain her own words, Rosie has resorted to repeated attempts to muddy the water: blaming Republican pundits, Fox News, her co-host for not defending her, anonymous emails to her blog, whatever. She is doing anything she can to avoid addressing what she actually said. I have yet to hear her say or blog or video blog "When I asked 'who are the terrorists' I did not mean U.S. troops or to include U.S. troops as part of any 'we' I had in mind."

    So, I have no doubt that she WANTS to CLAIM a distinction NOW because that is another way she can muddy the water and fool people LIKE YOU into changing the subject from her own words. As I made clear, there is NO DISTINCTION so her attempt to pretend there is one is complete hooey.

    So this is false - "You admit that she didn't want to convey the message that the troops are the eqivalent of terrorists"

    I believe I have made it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that I do not "admit" that. I believe she meant the troops. I think what we got was an unguarded comment made by Rosie in the heat of the moment. Her attempts to spin what she said are pathetic attempts to put the toothpaste back in the tube.

    Let me ask you a question, Cecelia. What does this tell you:

    YOUR SIDE: Cecelia, Keith Olbermann, Sir Loin of Beef, Mike, Bill O'Liley

    MY SIDE: J$, Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough, Howard Fineman, Fred Barnes, Brit Hume, and millions upon millions of other clear-thinkers.

    I watched the clip of Rosie trying to indoctrinate the Spew audience before the show about the 9/11 conspiracy about the towers being bombed before the planes hit. Some of the brainless in the audience clapped for her, which is very scary. I wonder how long Olbermann will start floating these conspiracy theories to his audience? He eventually will need to reach out to the tin foil hat side of the far left. My guess is that he will start if Rudy is nominated. He will try and paint Rudy as the bomber. I don't think his brand of propaganda will keep the left wing zombies attention long enough unless he starts mixing in conspiracy theories.

    Factor, I don't believe the 911 conspriracy theories at all, and I doubt KO does either. Believe it or not, I think the people that do are as nutty as you do.

    That said, it might surprise you who actually DOES believe them...not just 'lefties', as you would like to believe.

    I know quite a few evangelical Christian conservatives who believe them...and it is a well kept secret that a surprising number of Americans do as well. In fact the ONLY people I know personally who will publicly say they believe the 911 conspiracies ARE Christian Conservatives. This is something NONE of the media, right or left, is covering...for good reason I might add.

    Noooo Factor.....the nuts are not all in our camp!

    Actually many polls have been taken and most show that 36% of self described democrats believe in the 911 conspiracies as apposed to 20% of conservatives. Yes I admit their are some nutty conservatives out their who think the government was involved but polls show that the tin foil hats are mostly on the heads of democrats. KO probably doesn't believe in the conspiracies, I'll give him that. That won't stop him from using them to try and grab and audience.

    Olbermann's blog suggests he is going to cover Cindy Sheehan's announcement about her leaving the anti-war movement....I wonder if Olbermann will avoid the real substance of her motivation for calling it quits....lack of action on the part of the democrats and their recent turn against her since the November elections....

    From her letter:

    "I was the darling of the so-called left as long as I limited my protests to George Bush and the Republican Party. Of course, I was slandered and libeled by the right as a 'tool' of the Democratic Party. This label was to marginalize me and my message. How could a woman have an original thought, or be working outside of our 'two-party' system?

    "However, when I started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party, support for my cause started to erode and the 'left' started labeling me with the same slurs that the right used…"


    ###
    I guess the right was right....Sheehan was being used as a tool by the democrat party.....Because when it came time to do something substantive while they had the power.....NOTHING happened....

    no impeachment of Bush or Cheney as Sheehan asked....

    no ending of the war in Iraq as Sheehan asked....AKA immediate withdrawl...

    Oh how the left has been snookered (?sp) by their ruling class. I shake my head in pity.

    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

    Seems this comment fits better on this thread: Substitute Robert Cox for Mike:

    Mike, give it up. Cecelia is ALWAYS right and is ALWAYS "wronged" by others, (kind of like Olbermann, himself) (or kind of like O'Reilly, himself---depending on your pundit of choice). It seems she has no life other than posting here at OW and seeing her posts over this past weekend, this is sadly apparent.

    This is a woman who quotes Hamlet (in the Cavuto-Mary Carey "Porn Star" thread), then has to let everyone know she's quoting Hamlet. It's really sad and pathetic and kind of says it all about her. She has also contradicted her own personal information here, but it never seems to stop her from twisting up "new" arguments and avoid answering questions directly. She will make vast assumptions about you, even though, she seems to be one of the few people here who offer personal information constantly. (Heaven forbid you argue with her using her own comments...she will just ignore them completely as well as ignore your most salient points. I think coming here to OW gives her the forum to believe she's some sort of intellectual...sadly self awareness is not her strong suit, nor is her own hypocrisy.

    Keep up the good fight Mike, I would suggest ignoring her, but I understand the temptation to respond. You would think a college educated person like Cecelia who constantly "preaches" to all here, would have some level of her own self awareness, unfortunately that trait escapes her completely.....But I would add, she displays nothing but comtempt for those who do. Good luck Mike! Thank you for your sound responses and insight.
    Posted by: Jerry Fall...well at May 29, 2007 1:42 PM

    MY SIDE: J$, Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough, Howard Fineman, Fred Barnes, Brit Hume, and millions upon millions of other clear-thinkers.


    Posted by: Robert Cox at May 29, 2007 1:43 PM


    Well, for what it's worth, Bob, Chris Mathews made Bill O'Reilly (along with Kim Jong Ill...) one of the Biggest Despots of 2006. It's like that Fineman would have said the opposite had he been on Countdown and Brit Hume explicitly stated that the thing with Rosie is a ratings bonanza on Fox.

    So that really just leaves you and Johnny on the list you cite. Which means there is one person there whose opinion I find compelling... :D

    Cecelia is ALWAYS right and is ALWAYS "wronged" by others,

    Posted by: Cecelia at May 29, 2007 3:47 PM


    I've never felt "wronged" by anyone here and frankly I love a post touting your own "self-awareness" where you talk to me through addressing Mike. :D

    I've never felt "wronged" by anyone here and frankly I love a post touting your own "self-awareness" where you talk to me through addressing Mike. :D
    Posted by: Cecelia at May 29, 2007 3:53 PM

    Twat, I never said YOU felt wronged by others, I simply stated the obvious based on your numerous blathering incoherent arguement with Robert Cox. Cecelia is ALWAYS right and is ALWAYS "wronged" by others. Nor was I "talking" to you via Mike. Your irrelevant, remember...I don't need to talk to you, but like the self-righteous puke you are, you'll always have an answer. (The point isn't really necessary, just respond).

    Geezus, "mike" is getting beyond desperate, now.

    But don't worry, royal, Mike (or some other lefty) will come to Cecelia's defense, she'll be vindicated (in her mind) and all will be right in her little OW world.

    "...touting your own "self-awareness" ..."
    Posted by: Cecelia at May 29, 2007 3:53 PM

    I love how you assume I'm "touting" my own self-awareness by pointing out your lack thereof. What a contemptible twat.

    Just a reminder....again:
    This is a woman who quotes Hamlet then has to let everyone know she's quoting Hamlet. "Look at me Daddy, everyone, I'm S-M-A-R-T! :D" Heaven forbid you argue with her using HER OWN comments...(as Robert did) she will just IGNORE them completely as well as ignore your most salient point. The point isn't really necessary, just respond.

    I'm done for the night...gotta catch Olbermanns' "PROBING" interview with Al Gore.

    Royalking: "Geezus, "mike" is getting beyond desperate, now."

    Jeff, since you're so good at 'translations', you wanna explain what you meant with THAT little remark?

    Thats right, you don't never do no 'splainin' do you?

    Cecelia wrote "for what it's worth"

    Since "it" is worth NOTHING I am going to take it that you have no comeback to my dissection of your past statements and my further shredding of your excuses.

    I have not the foggiest idea how you think pointing out that Matthews criticized O'Reilly or that Hume said that the Rosie story was good for ratings is any responsive to my point that you are with the OlbyLoons in your "defense" of Rosie. I will take that for what is appears to be - capitulation to the nonsensical ravings of a superior mind.

    Like napalm in the morning...your comment smells like VICTORY!

    Since "it" is worth NOTHING I am going to take it that you have no comeback to my dissection of your past statements and my further shredding of your excuses.

    I have not the foggiest idea how you think pointing out that Matthews criticized O'Reilly or that Hume said that the Rosie story was good for ratings is any responsive to my point that you are with the OlbyLoons in your "defense" of Rosie. I will take that for what is appears to be - capitulation to the nonsensical ravings of a superior mind.

    Like napalm in the morning...your comment smells like VICTORY!

    Posted by: Robert Cox at May 29, 2007 6:55 PM


    Well, I've been telling you that your arguments spell since we started and these are the same arguments you've previously made, Bob, and my answers are still the same.

    Now, I wouldn't have labeled as silly your attempt to suggest my opinion is wrong because of the other people who hold it too, by calling it "the nonsensical ravings of a superior mind", as you did.

    I'd have just stopped at it being "nonsensical ravings".

    You certainly are a champion in that category... :D

    >Like napalm in the morning...your comment smells like VICTORY!
    Posted by: Robert Cox at May 29, 2007 6:55 PM

    Actually the whole thing smells a lot like something else entirely...

    Just a reminder....again:
    This is a woman who quotes Hamlet then has to let everyone know she's quoting Hamlet. "Look at me Daddy, everyone, I'm S-M-A-R-T! :D" Heaven forbid you argue with her using HER OWN comments...(as Robert did) she will just IGNORE them completely as well as ignore your most salient point. The point isn't really necessary, just respond.

    I'm done for the night...gotta catch Olbermanns' "PROBING" interview with Al Gore.

    Posted by: Jerry Fall...well at May 29, 2007 5:53 PM


    Me thinks the lady doth protest too much...

    I can't help that you think the well-worn quote "brevity is the soul of wit" is some highfalutin stuff, just because Shakespeare isn't Larry the Cable Guy.

    "Me thinks the lady doth protest too much..."

    That's from Hamlet, btw, Jerry...

    Cecilia thinks this forum is her personal " As the World Turns".
    Could she be any more shallow !

    Posted by: at May 30, 2007 11:50 PM


    Deep...

    I can't help that you think the well-worn quote "brevity is the soul of wit" is some highfalutin stuff, just because Shakespeare isn't Larry the Cable Guy.
    Posted by: Cecelia at May 29, 2007 7:49 PM

    Twat: Anyone with a GED can quote Shakespeare. Now do you get it? Doubt it. (The point isn't really necessary, just respond.)

    In defending Rosie, StealThisOpinion wrote:

    "Ive said time and time again, No one hates the troops, no one is anti-troops. Dont confuse the war with the warrior."

    In reply I wrote:

    "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?"

    In reply to that, StealThisOpinion wrote:

    "Go ahead, supply your "anti -troop rhetoric"."

    And to that I offer the following video from an anti-war rally in which you can clearly here Americans from the Anti-War left chanting "fascist war is nothing new, it's not just Bush, it's the soldiers too" as they burn a U.S. soldier in effigy"

    Progressive "Peace" Protesters Burn Effigy of U.S. Soldier
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G9SMnVNBUM

    Now, where's my cookie?


    do I hear crickets?

    No, you do not hear crickets --- not yet. Pretty soon, we all are going to get so fed up with E. Schatz that the only ones that will remain in this blog will be royalking and Cecelia.

    Chicken Blogger, I don't dispute or agree with your claim below:

    "The above interview was by Arianna Huffington, creator of the #1 blog on the web !"

    I don't know one way or the other and my attempt to find an answer failed.

    Citations, please.

    Grammie

    Chicken Blogger, I went to the one URL you listed and a few of the others. I couldn't find anything along the line of popularity of 'news blogs' in general or HuffPo in particular.

    I did skip the site HuffPo that you listed. I wouldn't consider it a credible source, especially for this.

    Still wondering and waiting.

    Grammie

    Actually, Chicken, I not only have never claimed to be computer literate but have mentioned more than once my difficulties in navigating that which is for me a whole new world that I am learning about very slowly.

    I went to "http://www.engadget.com" and attempted to "Find in this page" Huffington and found nothing. Sorry, I thought that was a URL address.

    I used the names you listed and once accessing their site did the same.

    Don't get so 'huffy', please excuse the pun.

    I have heard of Technorati and will give it a try.

    Thanks

    Grammie

    Yes, Chicken, having gone to the Technorati URL (I assume this is the correct terminology) I see what you were actually doing, which was to list the sites in order of discreet hits over the most recent six month period per Technorati.

    BTW, I do sometimes read HuffPo and on rare occasions have posted there.

    If you will go back to my original post you will see that I said I was neutral on the question and asked for a citation. I readily admit that I am a novice at this.

    Am I going to be shot at dawn because either your post was unclear OR I misunderstood it?

    Lighten up! Life is too short.

    Grammie

    My nutty aunt is pleased to live in Texas where the murder rate remains as high as the number of "lethal rejections" as she calls them. So, JH, come to Texas. As long as Cheney is not here, you won't be shot with a firearm, just a a needle, and it won't be done a dawn, but shortly before 10:00 p.m. so it makes the nightly news. A lasting legacy of Governor Dubya.

    RCox. For one i said nothing about a cookie :-). For two, I never challenged you, you made up half that conversation...the half that I said. Minus the one quote that I wrote that was not aimed at you. Not that I have a problem with reaching out in arguments, I do have a problem when people mis-quote me. Im just gonna guess that you were ACHING to put that video on this website judging by the way that you went about posting it.

    Now, everyone is entitled to thier own opinion. Dont hate them because they are against what you are for. And what they are saying does make sense...Anyone involved with this war is doing it voluntarily. These people could leave the army, but they do not. With that said, I am NOT anti-troop, I am very pro-troop. I want every single man and woman over there to come home safely and securely. I was merely trying to make a point that not everyone that is against the war is against the troops. Some people apparently are, I dont understand them, they dont speak for me. My point was equating and confusing anti-war sentiments with anti-troop sentiments is wrong and careless. Its entirely possible to be against the concept and the foundation of a war and still be entirely in support of the soldiers that fight said war.

    So, stop needlessly accusing people of being anti-troop. If i hear one more person who speaks out against the war, without ever mentioning any ill-will toward a soldier, be branded anti-troop I will punch them in the face then kick them in the shins for being ignorant and judgemental.

    Thanks.

    ... wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated "I am the president!"

    ---

    And remember the source for this. Not Soros, et al, Georgie Geyer, the DALLAS MORNING NEWS. Not a Bush basher by any stretch, nor a liberal news outlet, by any stretch. A reporter with strong, reliable, mainstream Texas connections, and a news source which knows Texas better than any other media organ. In other words, this is true, and this slide into demented and delusional thought and behavior has been pretty obvious for some time. Folks, we are in trouble here.

    (The point isn't really necessary, just respond.)

    Posted by: Jerry Fall...well at May 31, 2007 11:38 AM


    FYI--That policy isn't working for you.

    Steal wrote: "Im just gonna guess that you were ACHING to put that video on this website judging by the way that you went about posting it."

    Your gonna guess? Guess? Don't you mean your going to RATIONALIZE! You made an obviously false claim and were called upon by me. How about you just admit you were wrong and I was right. It's not hard. I'm sure you can do it if you try.

    If you will check your facts you will see that a subscriber to the Olbermann Watch Channel on You Tube sent that video as a response to this Rosie video AFTER you made your comment. So unless you are acusing me of being claire

    Steal wrote "I never challenged you, you made up half that conversation"

    That is an utter lie. I directly quoted your statement, in context, as anyone who cares to scroll up these comments can see for themselves.

    Steal wrote: "I was merely trying to make a point that not everyone that is against the war is against the troops."

    Excuse me that is baloney too. This post is about how Keith Olbermann lied in an attempt to defend or excuse Rosie O'Donnell. You were NOT "merely" making a point that being against the war does not make someone anti-troop. No one on this site has even argued that.

    Let me see if you can follow this: being against the war does not automatically mean someone is "anti-troop" HOWEVER being anti-war does not mean that someone is NOT anti-troop which is what you claimed.

    In this case, you were attempting to defend Rosie O'Donnell on the grounds that she is being attacked unfairly - that because she is against the war she is, in a vacuum, being accused of being anti-troop. Of course, this also is false because there is a predicate to claims that Rosie called U.S. troops terrorists as can be seen quite clearly in the video above.

    Steal wrote:"Some people apparently are, I dont understand them, they dont speak for me."

    If you had said this to begin with then there would be no issue here. At least you are acknowledging the obvious - that the video clearly shows exactly what you said did not exist.

    Steal wrote:"Its entirely possible to be against the concept and the foundation of a war and still be entirely in support of the soldiers that fight said war."

    Yes. And not a single person on this site has ever said otherwise. Any other straw men you care to introduce?

    Steal wrote:"stop needlessly accusing people of being anti-troop"

    You seem to be circling back to Rosie again so let's review. We are now agreed that there are people who are against the war who are anti-troop. Rosie is against the war. She made a statement that clearly equates U.S. troops with terrorists. It hardly seems a leap to say that she believes, like the people in the video, that the soldiers who volunteer to serve in a military that is carrying out a "terrorist attack" on Iraq are terrorists. If you want to debate that point fine but do not come to this web site and starting telling people that NO ONE who is anti-war is anti-troop.

    Steal wrote: "If i hear one more person who speaks out against the war, without ever mentioning any ill-will toward a soldier, be branded anti-troop I will punch them in the face then kick them in the shins for being ignorant and judgmental."

    Wow! You are some kind of peacenik!

    Twat: Anyone with a GED can quote Shakespeare. Now do you get it? Doubt it. (The point isn't really necessary, just respond.)
    Posted by: Jerry Fall...well at May 31, 2007 11:38 AM

    FYI--That policy isn't working for you.
    Posted by: Cecelia at June 2, 2007 3:52 AM

    Twat, Since you constantly respond, (to my pure delight) perhaps it is working. Good girl...now sit, roll over, sh*t, drool, masturbate, hallucinate, pontificate :D

    Hey buddy, you're getting me and SLOB mixed up. You just spliced mine and his conversations. And I never called you out. I just said dont confuse the war with the warrior. And apparently I was wrong. I didnt realize there were people out there so adamantly anti-troop. My point was that it is possible, though, to be anti-war and pro-troop. But apparently you missed that point.

    You're an idiot. A direct claim from Rosie saying that she wasnt referring to the troops isnt enough to show that she wasnt saying she hates the troops? Drop the Rosie thing.

    And yes, you all are saying that you cant be anti-war and anti-troop at the same time, proof of it is in the way you're reacting to Rosie. The way the entire right wing reacts whenever anyone speaks out against the war. The way the Republicans attack the Dems when they try to pass legislation to get us the fuck outta there.

    I am a peaceful person, I just hate ignorance. It pisses me off, and I do have a rough side, a few years of wrestling in HS caused that.

    And Ill say it again in case you missed it earlier
    -----------------------------
    I DO NOT BLAME TROOPS
    I BLAME BUSH
    THE TROOPS R TRYING TO STAY ALIVE
    I WANT THEM TO LIVE

    WAR IS TERRORISM
    ----------------------------
    That is a direct quote from Rosie's blog. I think it' you who owes her and myself an apology for purposefully twisting her and my words to meet your agenda.

    Nice try though.

    Looks like those fun loving muslims were trying to blow up JFK. SLOB, blind sheik and the rest of the loons will continue to make excuses for them and downplay the whole thing, without a doubt. Ulbermahn? No, it won't be news worthy enough for him, either.

    I think steal is holding his ass in his hands, right now. Anyone that defends Rosie deserves it.

    No one "lumps you in" you "lump yourselve's in" with your comments and views.

    Looks like those fun loving muslims were trying to blow up JFK.
    ---
    Jeff you and an idiot. An ignorant, illiterate, bigoted, racist idiot.

    Looks like those fun loving muslims were trying to blow up JFK.
    ---
    Jeff you are an idiot. An ignorant, illiterate, bigoted, racist idiot.

    Wow, it took 3 1/2 hours for an anonyloon to jump in and defend the terrorists. I didn't think it would take that long.

    Correction: 1 1/2 hrs, that's more like it.

    what an idiot

    Idiot, look at 4:13. That's defending the terrorists, no matter how you spin or deny.

    Idiot, look at 4:13. That's defending the terrorists, no matter how you spin or deny.

    ===

    Actually it is rather clearly calling you an ignorant, illiterate, bigoted, racist idiot.

    I am sure the terrorists have no greater friends in America that ignorant, illiterate, bigoted, racist idiots like you.

    Twat, Since you constantly respond, (to my pure delight) perhaps it is working. Good girl...now sit, roll over, sh*t, drool, masturbate, hallucinate, pontificate :D

    Posted by: Jerry Fall...well at June 2, 2007 11:16 AM


    And a hilarious point it is, since you first responded to a post I wrote, and continue to hump my leg at with every post since.

    Lie on the porch, Jer. Don''t try and make "points" or run with the big dogs cause you're just a mut... :D

    I am sure the terrorists have no greater friends in America that ignorant, illiterate, bigoted, racist idiots like you.

    Posted by: at June 2, 2007 4:56 PM

    Make no mistake, idiot, the terrorists are no friend of mine. You are the one's they love. You are too stupid to realize that they would slash your throat at the drop of a dime.

    And a hilarious point it is, since you first responded to a post I wrote, and continue to hump my leg at with every post since.
    Posted by: Cecelia at June 2, 2007 5:07 PM

    Dream on Twat, forget the spin, just flat out lie, GOOD GIRL. Respond Twat, you simply can not help yourself. I love it. You are the best Twat on this board, don' t ever change, don't ever leave. You are so entertaining! Don't forget to give us some Hamlet quotes, because we all know you'll respond. GREAT THANKS :D

    Ceciila heard the word " Twat" and came running.
    I thought dogs were the only species that had that special hearing sense.
    Posted by: at June 2, 2007 5:09 PM

    very funny anon!

    Have you found that quote where I said "Fox News is left wing" yet? That's what I thought. Keep lying and defending the enemy, since that's all you know how to do. Oh, and cut and paste from the puffington post and bbc. Thanks Bob!

    Do you know who the terrorists are friends with? The Bush family. The Bush familiy has VERY strong business ties with the Bin Ladens. Whos defending a terrorist? Who signed to allow 22 members of the Bin Laden family to fly back to Saudi Arabia after the 9/11 attacks? Yeah, that was Bush.

    Jeff, you are really the epitome of retarded. Will you please try to think every once in a while instead of just throwing claims around here and there w/o support?

    Hey RK, let me venture a guess.

    You grew up in a decent sized city in the Heartland of America.
    You went to a private, or otherwise influential high school
    You are middle-upper class
    Have always been that way, never had a time when you had to nickel and dime life.
    You have an influential job that you didnt really earn.

    How close am I?

    RK is an Amway salesman.

    -----

    That explains it. In fact, it is worse than I imagined. Thank you for the information.

    Do you know who the terrorists are friends with? The Bush family.(ding!) The Bush familiy has VERY strong business ties with the Bin Ladens.(ding!) Whos defending a terrorist? Who signed to allow 22 members of the Bin Laden family to fly back to Saudi Arabia after the 9/11 attacks? Yeah, that was Bush.(ding!)

    Jeff, you are really the epitome of retarded. Will you please try to think every once in a while instead of just throwing claims around here and there w/o support?

    Posted by: StealThisOpinion at June 2, 2007 5:53 PM

    All you forgot in your talking point memo, an old one at that, was Haliburton and Fox Noise. If you had added those, it would have been a home run!

    Ceciila heard the word " Twat" and came running.

    I thought dogs were the only species that had that special hearing sense.

    Posted by: at June 2, 2007 5:09 PM


    ...and we all know it's curs with no sense that use the word...

    Dream on Twat, forget the spin, just flat out lie, GOOD GIRL. Respond Twat, you simply can not help yourself. I love it. You are the best Twat on this board, don' t ever change, don't ever leave. You are so entertaining! Don't forget to give us some Hamlet quotes, because we all know you'll respond. GREAT THANKS :D

    Posted by: Jerry Fall...well at June 2, 2007 5:31 PM


    Still threatened by Shakespeare quotes since you first "responded" my post....huh... :D

    Next time I'll quote King Lear. You're the perfect Oswald.

    So jeff, are you saying that you agree with all that? Its definately true whether you believe it or not. And if you do believe it, why on earth do you defend his policies?

    Oh wait, you're prob gonna come out and say you've never defended him and technically thats true. You've never defended a word you've said.

    Am I missing something with the video? I don't get your point. It's just a bunch of sound bites that don't allow people to hear the whole conversation.

    Oh wait, you're prob gonna come out and say you've never defended him and technically thats true. You've never defended a word you've said.

    Posted by: StealThisOpinion at June 3, 2007 12:24 AM

    The only thing that is "true" is you own and watch with frequency Micheal Moore's "movie."

    I dont own any of Michael Moore's movies. They are entertaining but they arent the full story. Yes, I've watched Farenheit 9/11, but I have yet to see Bowling for Columbine.

    So what If i watched that movie? Prove me that I'm wrong. You cant, I know you cant, its a verifiable fact that the Bin Ladens are very strong business partners with the Bush's...Makes you wonder why Bush requetsted the soldiers to back down once we had Osama surrounded in a cave.