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 26, 2007
    Olbermann Turns The Corner

    It is, at least, one small wish come true for yours truly. I've been waiting for the time, waiting for the opportunity, for Keith Olbermann to prove me right. All it took was one silly little vote in Congress. Something about money. And the war. But, man, did it give KO the chance to turn on the Democrats. Yup, he turned on them big time. I, for one, was glad to see it. Not so much because they deserve it (and they do), but because I've always thought that he'd take on a failing Democratic administration just as ardently as he does the Bush Administration.

    Granted, he did throw in a bit of Bush-Bashing, just for good measure. I thoroughly enjoyed reading through the comments after Robert posted the "Special Comment" summary, although my eyes do begin to glass over after watching certain people attack each other, rather than debate the issue. Thus is the simultaneous joy and despair of jumping into an online debate.

    There was (in the comments) some criticism of Keith BECAUSE he nailed the Democrats, a move perceived as just "going along" with all of the liberal bloggers who were also upset. That, to me, is quite similar to criticising Bill O'Reilly for siding with the John Boehners of the world, who consistently champion the Iraq Occupation. I don't see much of that going on.

    If the Dems live up to the chatter from their corner today, KO will be back beating on Bush before you know it. Then, all will be right with the world. You'll once again have your daily ration of fresh meat to devour. As for me, I'll continue to watch the debate, quietly shaking my head at all the ruckus, and waiting for the next chance for Keith to prove me right. If the Dems do get back on their predicted track, I may have to wait until 2009 to see if he lives up to my predictions on an ongoing basis.

    I think he can do it. In the meantime, my next "milestone" will be when his first segment appears on NBC Nightly News. Will we see the "Special Comment" persona? Or a more demure KO for the parent network? I predict we'll see the first of those in the next month or so. The new Executive Producer has the segments on her "crazy person list". My vote? They'll let him have pretty much free reign, but I don't think he'll be allowed to hit the "bug-eyed" point that he's famous for. No, check that. I think he's smart enough to tone it down a bit. A BIT. But, they want him for the "edge" he can provide. Goodness knows, they need a bump right now. Something more than a new "World Headquarters" at 30 Rock can provide.


    Posted by Doug Krile | Permalink | Comments (75) | | View blog reactions
    user-pic

    75 Comments

    ....they want him for the edge he can provide..........

    Channel 9 in New York once hired a guy named Morton Downey Jr. for the edge he could provide.

    Rosie was brought onto 'The View" for the edge she could provide.

    People tuned in for the curiosity factor.

    Mort & Rosie are off t.v. these days.

    Well it would be a trick if Mort could come back.

    Keith? Edge? Sorry I don't see it.

    Well, congrats, Doug, KO actually criticised the Democrats! What a milestone for you!

    Well, congrats, Doug, KO actually criticised the Democrats! What a milestone for you!

    Posted by: Cecelia at May 26, 2007 11:01 PM


    It's like Michael Jackson held a slumber party for boys and then slept alone!

    It is, indeed, Cecelia.

    It is, indeed, Cecelia.

    Posted by: doug at May 26, 2007 11:07 PM

    You.... journalists... must take your good news where you find it, Doug.

    Cecelia, I'm a journalist no longer. That's why I'm comfortable posting over here. Lots of experience, lots of comments, but no longer constrained by the normal journalistic rules...

    Cecelia, I'm a journalist no longer. That's why I'm comfortable posting over here. Lots of experience, lots of comments, but no longer constrained by the normal journalistic rules...

    Posted by: doug at May 26, 2007 11:14 PM


    Yeah, we know... Olbermann's gig must seem like nirvana to the majority of you...

    Yeah, we know... Olbermann's gig must seem like nirvana to the majority of you...


    Posted by: Cecelia at May 26, 2007 11:23 PM


    Bernard Goldberg's... not so much...

    Nirvana? No. But a break from the FoxNews stuff, yes...
    Nobody is perfect. I'm not. Neither is KO. Not even in my book..

    Puck, I'm not saying that Rosie was right, but she DID help the ratings. She's a bit over the top for me, but she help the show..

    Nirvana? No. But a break from the FoxNews stuff, yes...
    Nobody is perfect. I'm not. Neither is KO. Not even in my book..

    Posted by: doug at May 26, 2007 11:26 PM


    Now, Doug...you know your mantra... I didn't know journalist couldn't turn the dial from Fox News.

    Or is the problem that so many in the public tune in?

    Ask Bernie Goldberg if "journalists" care that he's merely human and "not perfect"...like... you.... and Keith...

    Puck, I'm not saying that Rosie was right, but she DID help the ratings. She's a bit over the top for me, but she help the show..

    Posted by: doug at May 26, 2007 11:31 PM


    I can't stand Michael Savage, but with Doug's reply I'd be fascinated to learn his numbers when he was on MSNBC.

    Savage on MSNBC? Didn't know he made it on MSNBC.

    Savage on MSNBC? Didn't know he made it on MSNBC.

    Posted by: doug at May 26, 2007 11:43 PM

    Oh, yeah. He got pulled for some hideous dis to gays.. Like I said, wonder what his "numbers" were...

    Don't think they existed.

    Hey, Doug,

    Now you're on the line let me ask you something.

    How come when you journalist discuss things like gun control you naturally ask conservative candidates questions from the left, but you NEVER challenge liberals with questions from the right of the issue?

    With conservative quests you push to the left on the issue and with liberal candidates you push farther to the left on the issue.

    That holds true for things like nationalized health care, campaign finance reform, etc.

    Dr. Weiner had a brief stint on MSNBC. Very briefly. He was fired over some over the top remark about homosexuals.

    Also, Laura Ingraham, a short stint. She was canned because of poor ratings.
    There was a time when she was invited on and off by Chris Matthews, only to be banned by CM because she wouldn't shut up and keep interrupting others. After that Laura, on her morning radio show, kept bitchin' on air about
    "Why is CM not inviting me to his show?
    Why is CM not inviting me to his show?
    Why is CM not inviting me to his show?"

    Laura has found greener pastures, Billdo!

    Don't think they existed.

    Posted by: doug at May 26, 2007 11:49 PM

    Well, you didn't know he had existed on MSNBC. Perhaps you should do some research before venturing that, Mr. Former-Journalist.

    Cecelia I don't think all journalists do that. I'd be happy to talk about other issuesll

    Cecelia I don't think all journalists do that. I'd be happy to talk about other issuesll

    Posted by: doug at May 26, 2007 11:56 PM

    See...why ole Bernie G. didn't stand a chance...

    I make my comments on what I see. Not on pasr efforts.

    Oh! I forgot Michelle Malkin.

    Somewhat similar situation to Laura Ingraham's.

    If I remember correctly, Michelle wouldn't shut up and CM had to cut her off.

    Just as Laura, Michelle Malking has become not only a regular with Billdo, but a frequent replacement for him when he's away.

    make my comments on what I see. Not on pasr efforts.

    Posted by: doug at May 27, 2007 12:01 AM

    That's convenient when making an argument that numbers are what counts when it comes to Rosie...

    (but not Fox...)

    G'nite!

    I can't stand Michael Savage, but with Doug's reply I'd be fascinated to learn his numbers when he was on MSNBC.

    Posted by: Cecelia at May 26, 2007 11:39 PM

    Savage tells it like it is. People that can't stand the truth don't like him.


    Savage tells it like it is. People that can't stand the truth don't like him.

    Posted by: royalking at May 27, 2007 12:31 AM


    Are you saying that because I don't like Savage that I don't like the truth, Royal?

    I don't try to speak for other people. I can't say why you don't like him. I know he is critical of conservatives, yet, he has millions of conservative listeners. He is critical of gays and their life style, yet, he has tons of gay listeners. He is critical of liberals, yet, he has a huge audience of liberals. He is critical of radical muslim extremists, yet, he has a huge audience made up of muslims. He is nobody's lap dog or sock puppet.

    Savage tells it like it is alright. Tells it lik e a fake persona he used to mock Conservatives with.

    Royalking: You are the one following Savage.

    doug I don't know what you're smoking but I sure would like a hit of it. Olbermann was merely expressing the opinion of the looney left in that editoral. The blue blogs where he draws a good chunk of his daily show material wanted the heads of the Democratic party delivered to them on a silver platter after the removal of time tables on that bill. He was merely echoing the echo chamber. The minute he goes against the popular and prevailing opinion with the denziens of the blue blogs and websites, THEN I'll believe he's "turned the corner" as you state. He has absolutely NOT done any such thing. He was just pandering to his fan base of radical, looney leftists. Yet again. Big whoop.

    What a surprise! Jeff craves Wiener.

    Keith turning on the Democrats is really no different than those 40 years ago who turned on the Democrats when LBJ was president during Vietnam. Johnson shepharded through the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and started the myriad of big-government Great Society programs that have drawn perpetual scorn from the right, but what killed Johnson in the end was the attacks in the media from the left, mainly over his failure to withdraw U.S. troops from Vietnam. And the attacks came from people who thought , that the country needed a more liberal Democrat in the White House and more liberal leaders in Congress. It wasn't as if Walter Cronkite came back from Vietnam in 1968 and suddenly was a big Ronald Reagan fan.

    Keith's doing the same thing now -- he's angry at Harry Reid and other Senate Democrats for, in his eyes, being too pro-military by failing to defund the war in Iraq (He may say he's merely anti-Bush, not anti-military, but he's still angry that they're not going to be forced to retreat for financial reasons). So this is simply more of the same from Olbermann, not a change of ideological direction. Were Keith to attack Democrats on some political matter from the center or right of the political spectrum, then you'd be talking about a major event (along with talking about the sudden plunge in the Earth's core temperature).


    Olbermann didn't diss the Democratic rank and file, the looney leftists who make up his lunatic fan base. He was merely parroting the lines featured at the likes of Democratic Underground, Daily Kos, Talking Points Memo and the like. The rank and file were/are furious with their leaders. So Olbermann, ever determined to pimp his ratings and win more "shout-outs" from his lunatic fan base, gave a commentary that exactly parroted what these rank/filers were saying. They were crawling all over their elected "leaders" so he joined in. That was hardly brave. And it was hardly taking a contrary view to that of the prevailing internet opinion from his favorite blue blog sources. If and when (and it will never happen) that Olbermann decides to go against the prevailing internet opinion and actually says something they vehemently disagree with, then I'll agree with Doug that he's "turned the corner". Until then, I say that the only corner Olbermann inhabits is the one where he tries to pimp his show's pathetic ratings.

    He's not brave in the least. He doens't know what bravery is. This is a man who refuses to go to Iraq, refuses to go to disaster scenes, who stays safely tucked away inside a studio. This is a man who frequently misquotes his "sources" and refuses to have anyone on his show who won't parrot the opinions he lifted straight from the leftists blogs. He shows not the slightest inclination for wanting to get to the real truth of any issue, he only wants to see how high he can get his ratings by parroting the blue blogs. He sold our his journalistic integrity a long time ago. But he's fortunate enough to have a cadre of Olbyapologists who are ready, willing, and able to either tell us what he "really meant" or invent some wild excuse for him when he stretches the truth or flat-out lies as he so frequently does. Congratulations Doug. Maybe if you keep writing pieces like this, Olby will put you on his payroll.

    Yeah, uhm, about that whole "signing the death warrants for troops" thing. Who gave Bush authorization to go to war in Iraq? Why that would be the Congress. Including Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd, and Joe Biden. Cutting off funds for the troops once we've gotten them into a war zone is signing their death warrant because without funding they don't have money for weapons, vehicles, body armor, and the essentials of daily life like food, clothing, etc. But hey, if you want them to starve, if you want them surrounded by terrorists who want to kill them without any means whatsoever to protect themselves, then I'd say that you are the one who seems to have a problem with reality. You won't acknowledge that the Democrats were as gung-ho on that war authorization as the GOP was and you won't acknowlege that Clinton and Obama seem to want to cut off funding to the troops now that they are there. And you call me an asshole? It's clear that you don't know your ass, or the current history of this country and the entire build-up to war from a hole in the ground. But then why would you-you use Keith Olbermann as your "news" source. Good luck to you on that.

    And "he gets most things right" on his show is hardly the most stunning of endorsements dear Anonymous. You claim he has "factful, truthful" reporting but then acknowledge that he "gets most things right" which means he gets some things wrong.

    In so far as "quality guests" go--you're obviously on some sort of drug that alters your perception of reality. Good luck to you on that too.

    Brandon, you are simply wrong in your assertion that cutting off the funding would deprive the troops the "essentials of daily life", and leave them with "no way to protect themselves". Cutting off the funding would simply necessitate the beginning of an immediate withdrawal and cessation of offensive militray operations.

    If you REALLY believe that this president would be evil enough to stubbornly try to continue the war effort, even when faced with having no funding to go forward, then you should 'hate' him even more than I do, because even I do not believe he would go that far. Also, if you really believe that Congress would not or could not allocate special funding for withdrawal related expenses and the "essentials of daily life" during the withdrawal process, then you are the one who is misinformed.

    What you are really saying is that you believe that we are stuck with absolutely no other options as long George Bush is president. In other words, you believe Mr. Bush is a virtual KING, at least as far as the war is concerned.

    I say you are WRONG, but as long as congress continues to wimp out, and large numbers of Americans believe as you do; that the president is holding virtually all the cards....then we will in essense, continue to have a king as president.

    Bicker, that wasn't me at 12:56 am. it was one of the cowardly anonyloons.

    Jeff: You allign your views with the most prejudiced, biased, bigoted people on the scene today.
    It 's what makes you the simpleton and village idiot we've come to know and laugh at , at this site.


    Posted by: at May 27, 2007 12:53 AM

    You must be referring to Olbermahn. I'll let it slide, though.

    And why would they have to withdraw Mike? Because they don't have the funds to continue fighting the war! It's naiive to think that simply withholding funds would force Bush to withdraw troops. You and I both know there are back doors way to get funding to the troops (well I know it, you probably are again living in some fantasy world where you wouldn't know it ). But again, you and the likes of Olbermann, Rosie, and company, would willfully and purposefully deny them bullets, armor, vehicles, and FOOD because you in your immense stupidity think that would mean they could then board the next flight out of the country and come home. For someone who claims to have served in the military, you seem to have a very vague notion of what military funding means to the troops.

    And in so far as your interpretation goes of what you THINK I think, it just goes to show your skills there are as fundamentally flawed as your logic on war funding. I opposed this war from the beginning because I knew we'd be opening up a can of worms we could not put back in the can. Sure Saddam was evil but there are a great many evil dictators in this world, half of Africa is governed by evil dictators, South Korea, Cuba, etc. I knew that once we entered Iraq, we'd be there for years, if not generations to come, in some fashion. The region is unstable, always has been, always will be. The structure of Iran, with its warring tribes is not one that is ever going to warm up to western-style democracy.

    I don't care WHO is president, the simple fact of the matter is that we are stuck there for a long time to come, and it doesn't matter who occupies the White House. Hopefully we will be able to reduce troop numbers at some point in Iraq, but you don't do it by withdrawing funding for the troops. That will just further serve to destabilize the region and put the entire world at greater risk from Muslim extremists and our troops in jeopardy, oh yeah, Mike supports the troops. He wants them to have no weapons, no armor, no vehicles, no food. Sure you're former military--that's why you have absolutely zero clue on what withdrawal would mean for Iraq, and the region and what lack of funding would mean for the troops on a daily basis.

    And the last time I checked, Kings rule until they die or overthrown. If you believe Bush is a king and has seized powers beyond the typical spectrum of presidents, then tell me, why have your Democratic Leaders failed to impeach him if the "evidence" is there? Not one person yet on this board has put forth a coherent reason as to why people like John Conyers were so vocal on impeachment for Bush prior to the '06 elections and then bailed on the idea the second they got control of the Congress, just as they have bailed on the idea of setting timetables for trooop withdrawal. See a trend here? Of course you don't because that would mean admitting your leaders are liars and your LoonDNA tells you that only Republicans lie. Note here Mike: they're politicans, of course they lie. All politicians lie. But console yourself, with this Mike: Bush will leave in '08 (technically, Jan. 09). Because he's not a king, just an elected official. I'm sorry that your elected leaders don't want to hold him accountable for what you say are his alleged "crimes". But the Dems caved on that just like they caved on the timetables for one simple reason: they know they won't work. Why be angry and frustrated with my stating the truth when it's clear that they get it (and you don't)? They know that withdrawing the troops would lead to furhter chaos in the region. They also know that withdrawing funding very much means the troops wouldn't have the essentials they needed to fight the war and would leave them stranded in the region.

    So they ran on one thing in '06 and now are doing the complete opposite. Maybe while you ask your Democratic leaders to hold Bush accountable, you might want to think of holding them accountable for the lies they told that got them elected in '06. Oh but that would mean admitting they lied and you can't quite do that can you Mike? Face it, they are what they are, politicans aka professional liars. You're just a rank amateur and grossly misinformed. Perhaps you might want to rethink getting the majority of your news from Olbyplanet. It's obvious you really don't have a clue about military funding or the lack of truthfulness of your elected leaders.

    Brandon: "And why would they have to withdraw Mike?": Because only a president as evil as you seem to imply Bush is would leave them sitting in a war zone with no funding in order to continue to press the war effort. Given that scenario - Would impeachment THEN become the immediate, justified, necessary, and practical alternative...absolutely!

    You say: "the fact of the matter we are stuck there for a long long time": Why are we "stuck here" Brandon? Because you say so? We are only 'stuck' there if we believe we are 'stuck' there. I don't accept that OPINION as 'fact' for one minute.

    Leaving will "further destabilize the region": That is simply your opinion...an opinion admittely held by many many, but it is not a 'fact', it is simply another opinion or prediction.

    Brandon implying I am a liar - again: "for someone who claims to have served in the military": Do you get some kind of a kick out of continuing to imply that an opposition blogger might be a liar? Yes Brandon....once again...I very much did serve honorably in the military. That said, opinions about the effects of military funding would have absolutely NO bearing on whether someone had served in the military or not.

    The only metephorical definition of a 'king' would not be just how long they are allowed to reign. it can also be applied to how they 'reign' while they are in power. This particular 'king' has succeeded in making Congress, which is SUPPOSED to be a co-equal branch of government irrelevant for more than 6 years, and continues to do so. So yes Brandon, in my OPINION, George bush is acting like a 'king' ....metaphorically, at least.

    You just called me stupid, and made many other snide remarks implicating the same. If you will look at my post addressed to you....you won't see any of that. The worst I did was call you misinformed....along with wrong. Tell me Brandon; Is it just totally beyond your ability to answer a respectful post with a respectful rebuttal? Does it in some way further your arguments by calling the other guy stupid? Is your goal to trigger yet another name calling flamefest on this blog that you love so much? Is that what you want?

    Is your goal to trigger yet another name calling flamefest on this blog that you love so much? Is that what you want?

    Posted by: Mike at May 27, 2007 2:56 PM


    Does that evoke that--- mutual flailing on each other scene--- from Dumb and Dumber, or what?

    Cecelia, thats the second time you have lumped me in with Brandon. I didn't think I'd ever see anyone do that!....LOL

    I really don't have a clue WHY you have chosen to aim you venomous spittle at me as of late...I REALLY don't.

    You can choose to enlighten me as to what your problem is, or you can choose to keep spewing out hatred at someone you don't even know.

    I CAN hold my own just fine in a flame war if that's what you want, but I'd rather not, and I probably won't bother.

    As for your "dumb and dumber" remarks, you have no claim claim to being 'smarter' than either one of us....and your continued unprovoked juvenile attacks do nothing but shine a light on your own illogical venom aimed at someone you don't even know... for no better reason than that you disgree with them about something.

    If you are convinced don't like me, thats fine. I don't care. First off, it's a FACT that you don't know me! Also, if you think I'm 'dumb', thats fine too. I don't really give a damn about that either.

    To be honest, you calling me 'dumb' is more analogous to the plain looking looking girl calling the pageant winner 'ugly' than it is anything of substance. I'm 55 years old, and I can assure you that NO ONE who actually knows me has ever thought of me, or has ever referred to me as being 'dumb', so rest assured that some virtually anonymous name caller on the internet, already known for their venom is going to effect my self perception in any way.

    Cecelia just like to flail away, hoping she can offend someone in the process.

    Her life must be a very sad and lonely one.
    Her president has become a laughing stock the world over and all she has left is to "tilt at windmills."

    Posted by: at May 27, 2007 5:07 PM

    Then you must think me a windmill worth taking you're time to tilt at, huh, Anonyloon. :D

    To be honest, you calling me 'dumb' is more analogous to the plain looking looking girl calling the pageant winner 'ugly' than it is anything of substance. I'm 55 years old, and I can assure you that NO ONE who actually knows me has ever thought of me, or has ever referred to me as being 'dumb', so rest assured that some virtually anonymous name caller on the internet, already known for their venom is going to effect my self perception in any way.


    Posted by: Mike at May 27, 2007 4:59 PM


    Well, if it makes you feel any better I saw you as the Dumb character.

    Cecelia: "well, if it makes you fee any better I saw you as the dumb character."

    Nothing you can do or say can make me feel 'better, or worse...because you are irrelevant.


    Nothing you can do or say can make me feel 'better, or worse...because you are irrelevant.

    Posted by: Mike at May 27, 2007 5:54 PM


    That's very wise of you. When a gibe from me nets seven paragraphs from you, my being relevant would put you into intensive care.

    As for your "dumb and dumber" remarks, you have no claim claim to being 'smarter' than either one of us....and your continued unprovoked juvenile attacks do nothing but shine a light on your own illogical venom aimed at someone you don't even know... for no better reason than that you disgree with them about something.
    .
    Posted by: Mike at May 27, 2007 4:59 PM

    Here, we have our daily dose of hypocricy from "mike." Doing what he does best, unfortunately, putting his foot in his mouth.

    Cecelia, the "seven paragraphs' from me were nothing more than an invitation from me for you to inform me why you keep lashing out at me unprovoked, like, shall I say....some rabid female dog....to avoid using a word I'd rather not use publicly?

    Simply a matter of mild curiosity for me, not any pressing need to know. But maybe anon 5:39 is right...you do just love to flail around in hopes of offending someone.

    Cecelia is perfect in every way. Her shit doesn't even stink like mere mortals.

    Cecelia, the "seven paragraphs' from me were nothing more than an invitation from me for you to inform me why you keep lashing out at me unprovoked, like, shall I say....some rabid female dog....to avoid using a word I'd rather not use publicly?

    Simply a matter of mild curiosity for me, not any pressing need to know. But maybe anon 5:39 is right...you do just love to flail around in hopes of offending someone.

    Posted by: Mike at May 27, 2007 7:07 PM


    Oh, my goodness, who are you kidding!

    "avoid using a word" you say... you've called me a bitch seveeral times publicly and now you're currently downplaying my pointing out that you wrote seven paragraphs in response to my gibe about you and "dumber" and then claimed to find me irrelevant.

    Earth to "dumb".... Sheesh!


    Simply a matter of mild curiosity for me, not any pressing need to know. But maybe anon 5:39 is right...you do just love to flail around in hopes of offending someone.

    Posted by: Mike at May 27, 2007 7:07 PM

    Probably because 5:39 was you. Idiot.

    "Probably because 5:39 was you. Idiot."

    I guess my other persona must have done that when I wasn't looking.

    Anon (Cecelia?), do you get some sort of perverted kick out of calling others 'idiots' while making false assertions you can't possibly prove?

    Anon (Cecelia?), do you get some sort of perverted kick out of calling others 'idiots' while making false assertions you can't possibly prove?

    Posted by: Mike at May 27, 2007 10:23 PM


    Oh, so it's not enough that you pretend like you've never publicly called me a bitch... or that you downplay a seven paragraph response to irelevant me.... NOW you're accusing me of posting anonymously while decrying the fact that you've been accused of that!

    Are you the poster boy for cogntive dissonance?


    There they go again. The posting anonymously hangup at this site.

    You fools are hysterical !

    Posted by: at May 27, 2007 10:42 PM

    Anonyloon who accused Mike of being an Anonyloon at 5:39.. this Anonyloon means you...

    Mike? Quality? There's a contradiction in terms if ever there was one.

    Mike is one of the quality people at this site.

    Posted by: at May 27, 2007 10:51 PM


    Says you Anonyloon at 10:51pm....

    Anonyloon at 10:02pm begs to differ...

    "(Cecelia?)" is an 'accusation'???

    Cecelia, I do admit I called you a 'bitch' on this site (but only after you lied by calling me a 'liar'), and believe it or not, I regret doing it...only because I'm normally better than that.

    That said, why do you continue to act like exactly what I called you?

    mike--- "(Cecelia?)" is an 'accusation'???"

    2000 and then some ---"jeff" posts--- and you have to ask this? I don't think so Mr. Disingenuous.

    Mike --
    Cecelia, I do admit I called you a 'bitch' on this site (but only after you lied by calling me a 'liar'), and believe it or not, I regret doing it...only because I'm normally better than that.

    That said, why do you continue to act like exactly what I called you?"

    Posted by: Mike at May 27, 2007 10:59 PM


    II'm "continuing to act" the same way I did when you called me a bitch times 2 in capital letters-- which is that I'm pointing out that you're dumb as a shoe....

    That you're now trying to call me a bitch in a way that you hope will be less overt is the sort of dishonesty that characterizes the whole of how you come across on this blog.

    Sorry Cecelia, but saying I am "dumb as a shoe" doesn't make me dumb, but it very much does help prove how petty, childish, and very worthy of the name I called you are.

    I've never called myself 'smart' on this blog, but I will put my intellect up against yours anyday.

    Sorry Cecelia, but saying I am "dumb as a shoe" doesn't make me dumb, but it very much does help prove how petty, childish, and very worthy of the name I called you are.

    I've never called myself 'smart' on this blog, but I will put my intellect up against yours anyday.


    Posted by: Mike at May 27, 2007 11:34 PM

    Oh, please... you just spent the evening accusing me of posting anonymously after aendless posts to Jeff, protesting the same accusation.... and pretending like you're reluctant to call me a bitch after writing it in capital letters time two....AND that it's only natural that you'd write seven paragraphs to someone you find irrelevant....

    Don't you think you've been disingenuous enough for one day?

    LMAO! "(Cecelia?)" was hardly even an accusation, but NOW you have expanded that little one word question into "an evening accusing me of posting anonymously"! And don't forget, you defended Jeff like an angry pitt bull when he did it 100s of times.

    And you have the nerve to question MY dishonesty....LOL!

    I'm not at all reluctant to imply you are a 'bitch'...after all, you keep proving you are one. I just regret that I let you make me loose my temper and actually say the word. I didn't realize at the time how utterly unworthy you are of my anger.

    Mike is one of the quality people at this site.

    Posted by: at May 27, 2007 10:51 PM
    LMFAO! Coming from a coward, yea, I'll take that to the bank.

    While I realize this will fall on deaf ears, I suggest we honor our troops and the day by being a bit less bellicose. Those who are so eager, so cavlaier in their desire to send even more Americans into danger, even serious injury and death, the Jeffs, Brandons, Cees, Coxs and Hawkins of this site, focus not on your own pathalogical need to scream the loudest, but on the sacrifices others are making while you do nothing but type away invective. And, for those who, like me, have so much anger at the President and an Administration who/which deceptively led us into an invasion and occupation of choice, but then so badly mismanaged that which they said was so vital to us, for the day, at least, we should be content with the fact that they are paying a dear political price. No doubt, they see their spiral downwards into political irrelevance as the ultimate price. Although they are mistaken in this belief and I personally desire to extract a far greater price, for the day, maybe it can be enough. For the former group (the pro-war set), maybe focus will lead to transformation, for the latter group (the peace set), maybe focus will lead to resolve. Our nation will be far better off.

    Of course Bush & Cheney & Pelosi and the entire field of Democratic and GOP presidential candidats and every single member of Congress are liars: they are politicans. I can't believe this many of you haven't gotten to the age you are and actually still believe politicans can be either trusted or tell the truth. But then, simplistic world views seem to be the specialty of some of you here, i.e., Mike who thinks that all you have to do to end a conflict is cut off funding and then get a big ole' plane to fly all the troops out of Iraq. I've been called any number of names here on this board, but at least I'm a realist where Iraq is concerned. It may be a pessimistic view but at least it's not a simplistic one.

    Name, you really do need a course in reality. I realize you're an Olbyapologist and apparently your duties also include apologizing for the Democratic party as well. You seem to have developed a first class case of amnesia where the Democrats and their cuplability in this war is concerned. How many of them voted to enter the war? How many of them gave interviews where they stated they believed the threat was real and the action justified? And you call me an excuse maker? Please, I have nothing on the skills of the average Olby/Democratic-apologists like YOU. Now go run along like a good child and play some games or something. It's very apparent you have a long way to go to become a grown-up.

    Okay, here you go. How about last week when the Dems removed the timetables for withdrawal from the war funding bill? Isn't that recent enough example of a cave-in by your party for you? Or how about their promising they'd impeach Bush if they gained control of the House & Senate. Gee, caved on that one too didn't they? That was just last year.

    And don't make me go haul out quotes where the likes of Bill Clinton and Hillary talk about how (at the time of the war) they believed Saddam was a threat who needed to be dealt with. Ah, how quickly they forget.

    LMAO! "(Cecelia?)" was hardly even an accusation, but NOW you have expanded that little one word question into "an evening accusing me of posting anonymously"! And don't forget, you defended Jeff like an angry pitt bull when he did it 100s of times.

    And you have the nerve to question MY dishonesty....LOL!

    I'm not at all reluctant to imply you are a 'bitch'...after all, you keep proving you are one. I just regret that I let you make me loose my temper and actually say the word. I didn't realize at the time how utterly unworthy you are of my anger.

    Posted by: Mike at May 28, 2007 12:39 AM


    Perhaps you can show me one of the 100s times when I defended Jeff when he attributed posts to you outside of the alternate IDs you've admitted to using.

    Now, let me ask you asomething, as regards the arguments I've made recently,and your reference to my arguments being easily taken apart.

    Since I've argued that Rosie O'Donnell does not think the troops are terrorists....where do you have a problem with this? Is it that I don't believe her accusation that Bush plotted 9/11? Rosie claims that a bomb planted by or with the knowledge of the President, brought down the twin towers.

    Since you got upset about me calling Rosie a dumb twit over her making that accusation, does this mean you believe Pres. Bush and company blew up the Twin Towers?

    Or....Since you defended the claims of Stealthisopinon, do you believe that Bush knowingly ignored and willfully plotted to allow Atta and company in their 9/11 plot, in order to have a pretext to go into Iraq?

    Also a recent argument that I've made, and that I assume you think is wrong, is that Katy Turic should not be subjected to being treated as on object of riidicule simply because she has a famous lover who has talked about her.

    Any problem with that argument, Mr. Humanity? Afterall, you're saying that my argruments are false, would you mind telling me just which argument you mean and why.

    Please get on record as you positions on the claims of Rosie, StealthisOpinion, and as to the faulty arguments I've made.

    Cecelia: "Perhaps you can show me one of the hundreds times I defended Jeff when he attributed posts to you outside of the alternate you've admitted to using."

    Now go back and re-read my post and show me where I accused you of defending Jeff "hundreds of times." I clearly said Jeff made the accusation "hundreds of times" and you defended him. You and I both know the 'hundreds' was referring only to Jeff. I remember one time very well when you jumped in the middle of it all with a personal attack on me...and no, I'm not going to waste time going back to try to find it.

    Cecelia: "Since I've argued that Rosie O'Donnell does not think the troops are terrorists....where do you have a problem with this?"

    I don't. Who said I did?

    "Is it that I don't believe her accusation that Bush plotted 9/11?"

    I assume you don't but how would I know unless you tell us?

    Cecelia: "since you got upset about me calling Rosie a dumb twit over her making that accusation, does this mean you believe Pres. Bush and company blew up the twin towers?"

    Who are you confusing me with? When did I get 'upset' over you calling Rosie a twit. I concur...she's a twit (who doesn't think she's a twit?). And no, I don't believe Bush bombed the twim towers.

    Cecelia: "Or since you defended the claims of stealthisopinion"

    When did I do that? Show me one post on this board where I 'defended' a 911 conspiracy theorist.

    I've also stayed completely out of the Katy Turic arguments.

    I guess Cecelia, the point you seem to be making here is that you ARE in fact on record of taking some controversial positions on this board...and on that point, I stand corrected.




    Now go back and re-read my post and show me where I accused you of defending Jeff "hundreds of times." I clearly said Jeff made the accusation "hundreds of times" and you defended him. You and I both know the 'hundreds' was referring only to Jeff. I remember one time very well when you jumped in the middle of it all with a personal attack on me...and no, I'm not going to waste time going back to try to find it.
    Posted by: Mike at May 29, 2007 3:36 AM

    Translation: He lied, again.

    Jeff, life has clearly dealt you many mental hadicaps. Being unable to 'translate' anything I or anyone else says is one of them.....Telling lie, after lie, after lie yourself, while falsely accusing others of 'lying' is another one of your mental deficiencies.

    Jeff, you may have already noticed that I rarely take the time to respond to you anymore....expect more of the same.

    I really don't know whether or not you actually believe all the lies you tell or not?,.. or whether you actually believe all the false accusations of 'lies' that you make?....But either way, you are not worth responding to or 'debating' with, something I should have learned long before I did.

    I really would not be surprised if your home is not one of those special education group homes.

    Mr. "George Bush": WHO exactly were you quoting in your filth laden 1:25 post.

    Hint....It sure wasn't "anybody like" me!

    George, since you say it's "people like us" (as in "you people) who have convinced you "there is a God", don't ya think maybe you should come out of the gutter and clean up you language before it's too late for ya?

    From your 1:28 post: "Whats with your liberals?"

    Whats with MY liberals, you ask? I Don't Know George, since Rosie isn't exactly one of 'my' liberals.....LOL.

    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.

    "George Bush" is seeing how many filthy, insulting posts he can squeeze into a lunch break! Is there a Guiness category for that George?

    George thinks that if he calls us "idiot, pussy, and stupid" enough, while inserting enough gutter level sexual put downs....he can shut them 'stupid' liberals up once and fer all!

    Won't work George....but keep posting and showing our side another example of intellectual midgetry from your side in action.

    Hey big bad internet tough guy Georgy!.....Whats an 'aethist'?

    Jeff, life has clearly dealt you many mental hadicaps. Being unable to 'translate' anything I or anyone else says is one of them.....Telling lie, after lie, after lie yourself, while falsely accusing others of 'lying' is another one of your mental deficiencies.

    Posted by: "mike at May 29, 2007 1:42 PM

    Here we have our daily dose of hypocrisy from "mike." yawn.

    Georgie needs a nice hot bath...oh Keithie come rub down little Georgie, he's very tired from his shift at Burger King.

    Leave a new comment