Buy Text-Link-Ads here
Recent Comments

    follow OlbyWatch on Twitter

    In

    John Gibson Welcomes Back the Infamous, Deplorable Keith Olbermann

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

    In

    Welcome Back, Olby!

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

    In

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

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

    In

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

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

    In

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

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

    KO Mini Blog



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

    KO Countdown Clock


    Warning: mktime() [function.mktime]: It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EST/-5.0/no DST' instead in /home/owatch/www/www.olbermannwatch.com/docs/countdown.php on line 5
    KO's new contract with MSNBC ends in...
    0 days 0 hours 0 minutes

    OlbermannWatch.com "My Faves" Set

    OlbermannWatch.com Favorited Photos from other Flickr Users

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

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


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

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

    Red Meat Blog
    Keith Olbermann Quotes
    Countdown Staff Writers

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

    ...they should be...

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

    MSNBC's Countdown
    Bloggerman
    MSNBC Transcripts
    MSNBC Group at MSN

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

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

    Anonymous Rat
    For This Relief Much Thanks
    Watching Olbermann Watch

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

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

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

    Thanks for the blogroll link!

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

    Friends of OlbyWatch

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

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

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


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

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

    Google

    Olbermann Watch Masthead

    Managing Editor

    Robert Cox
    olby at olbywatch dot com

    Contributors

    Mark Koldys
    Johnny Dollar's Place

    Brandon Coates
    OlbyWatch

    Chris Matthews' Leg
    Chris Matthews' Leg

    Howard Mortman
    Extreme Mortman

    Trajan 75
    Think Progress Watch

    Konservo
    Konservo

    Doug Krile
    The Krile Files

    Teddy Schatz
    OlbyWatch

    David Lunde
    Lundesigns

    Alex Yuriev
    Zubrcom

    Red Meat
    OlbyWatch



    Technorati Links to OlbyWatchLinks to OlbermannWatch.com

    Technorati Links to OlbyWatch Blog posts tagged with "Olbermann"

    Combined Feed
    (OlbyWatch + KO Mini-blog)

    Who Links To Me


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



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

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

    Subscribe in myEarthlink
    Feed Button Help


    Olbermann Watch, "persecuting" Keith since 2004


    June 24, 2007
    Countdown with Keith Olbermann - June 22nd, 2007

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

    Host: Keith Olbermann

    Topics/Guests:

    • GITMO END GAME: Neal Katyal, Georgetown University Professor and lead attorney in Salim Ahmed Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
    • CHENEY OF COMMAND: Dana Milbank, MSNBC Political Analyst, National Political Reporter for the Washington Post
    • JEWELS OF DENIAL: Reurgitated video on CIA activity in the 70s
    • MOURNERS IN CHIEF: Rachael Maddow of Err America
    • TONIGHT'S PARISIAN POST: Michael Musto of the Village Voice

    8PM - P2+ (25-54)
    #1 The O'Reilly Factor - 1,907,000 viewers (386,000)
    CNN: Special Investigations Unit - 483,000 viewers (199,000)
    #4 Countdown w/ Olbermann - 551,000 viewers (179,000)
    Fast Money - a scratch with 90,000 viewers (a scratch with 35,000)
    Nancy Grace - 841,000 viewers (255,000)

    Source

    The "Gitmo meeting" is canceled but Gitmo has not. Apparently something is going on "beneath the surface" about it because the President said he wanted it closed. Day two of the "autonomous nation" of CheneyLand - is that like OlbyPlanet where stuff is made up? Presidential candidates show up to pay respects to deceased firemen in Charleston - is it politicking? Clips of Republicans - naturally. Penis joke on the "family jewels" on the CIA. Paris Hilton's shrink! Hold on to your chairs folks, Friday is no day off for Olbermahn. And a bad demo day too.

    Updated

    MADMAN

    #5: Apparently the Bush administration cannot shut down its operations in an "occupied foreign territory." Note to Laughing Stagehand and those who write Jabba's material: it's not occupied land. In fact, it's legal U.S. territory under a lease agreement setup with the Spanish after the 1898 Spanish American war. Agreement Terms. Not that this lie within the first 10 seconds matters to slamming the Bush administration at every chance he gets. No exit strategy for Gitmo at the Whie House. One criticism cited of the detention facilitiy - oh my! That never happens during a war! Neal Katyal, lead attorney for Salim Ahmed Hamdan's team in the case against Fmr. Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld chimes in. While I have no doubt as to the man's intelligence and legal ability, it should come as no surprise that Olbersturmfuhrer would have someone on who feels the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility is illegal - or at least its methods. Olbermann can't come up with a question, merely recaps the fact the administration wants to close Guantanmo Bay and that they stated they want to send them back to their home countries - only they won't take them. OH WAIT, there's the question. Hardball time: "Is this an attempt to palm off any legal responsibility for these people on those other countries or what is it?" Thank you for the powerful question. Katyal plays right into OlbyLogic that the eeeeevil Vice President and the Attorney General are "afraid of the constituion." Bottom line: Gonzales is afraid of the greatest document the world has ever known. He's afraid of the Federal Court system. Everything can be explain by that simple idea! Ok, I take back what I said about Mr. Katyal, he seems like a straight up partisan. Katyal opines you can never trust the administration - Guantanamo is a legal black hole. Funny how the Congress made it legal which Olby hates when the Congress exercises its congressional duty that disagrees with OlbyLogic. Now it's just unpatriotic to Katyal. Ok fine. Great. Is it illegal what congress did? Not necessarily. Just unpatriotic. He whines some more about how no legal proceedings have happened at Guantanamo - no trials. Gee, I wonder why? Maybe because you are too busy litigating against it making it impossible to hold said trials? More complaints about the evil Vice President. Great thanks.

    Cheney again, this time above the law. Who IS DICK Cheney? hehe - Dick. It gets funnier every time. To be perfectly honest, I have no idea what this segment is about. Something about Cheney being a shadow government. Was Fat Ass done with the penis jokes? Of course not. Caption below the welcomed Dana Milbank, sans splashy suit, read "Private Dick." What is it with Olby and this fascination with male genitalia? I don't think I want to know. Cue incisive question: Has the Vice President evolved into a higher being beyond our understanding? Maybe for you, Keithy. Milbank thinks it's like trying to understand the holy trinity. Yeah....ok. I understand it just fine but whatever. Milbank decides to mock the Vice President's heart condition by stating that the Mr. Cheney regards the law as he regards arterial plaque - you just push it aside and put in a stent - like the law. What kind of analogy is that? Did you spend your time in the green room thinking of that? What do heart conditions and stents, which are meant to keep blood flowing, have to do with the law? This whole matter is about documents. No one is checking whether Mr. Cheney's office is in compliance. In compliance with what, you ask? I still don't know. It's all just evil sounding. Great thanks and have a great weekend. Nice.

    #4: Good news, I now can rely on CIA agents leaking classified information to expose evil doings. Regurgitated video from the Mother Ship. CIA doing evil things. Why is Olby complaining? He's getting exactly what he wants - more "dirty laundry." But there is always some way to spin it to make that organization look bad.

    MADMAN

    Oddball: Fox Noise attack saying the Hearst news organization was the Murdoch of its time. Connection: Murdoch causes suicides like Hearst. A man shot himself over the evil smear machine of Hearst. Fireworks on a dummy. Tokyo Robot in the shower. The friendly skies: women in lingerie - Olby can barely contain himself!

    Newsmakers: Some arm wrestling guy tries to cheat. Tony Blair's retirement and wearing shoes every time he did Questions for the Prime Minister. A guy carrying a machete.

    #3: Exploitation of deceased fire fighters. Are politicians going to the funeral using it for politics? First clip: Sec. Chertoff mentioning things that are dangerous - including terrorism! Gasp! Giuliani, who was invited to the speech, but the International Association of Firefighters did not want him there. Funny, Olbermahn left out one tidbit on who the IAF is associated with - THE AFL-CIO. The IAF is a labor union! You don't say? Now, do you wonder why this was omitted on OlbyPlanet? Clear thinking readers don't. They know that the AFL-CIO is one of the biggest backers of the Democratic Party and their economic nationalist, anti free trade and and labor union loving friends. Giuliani is a Republican. That must mean he hates American workers, or something. Of course he's going to be disinvited. Although, this ruins that idea that the International Firefighters Association, which sounds very grand, rejected him without any partisan reason. More here. Welcome Rachael Maddow of the far left and bankrupt Air America. Olby concedes that Chertoff had some reason to be there - being connected with first responders. But he DID mention terrorism once - evil. Maddow plays sock puppet and attacks Giuliani for "wrapping himself up in 9/11." Well, it's shocking that he would talk about since it happens to be one of the biggest moments of his time as Mayor. Maddow goes into a filabuster and Olbermann simply shuts up and lets her rant about the evil Mr. Giuliani. Again, Olby gets himself in a swivet on the IAF hatred of Giuliani but keeps forgetting their ties to the AFL-CIO and the fact Giuliani was invited by the South Carolina Association Fire Fighters. This segment barely mentions the Democrats who were there and just goes on and on about how horrible Mr. Giuliani is for showing up at the memorial. Great thanks.

    Sound bites: Baby named 4-Real in New Zealand. President Bush on Black Music Month. Jon Stewart.

    #2: After Olbermann's attacks on O'Reilly for covering bears, here comes the biggest story of the evening - Thomas the Train! More regurgitated video from New York. Oh wait - it's on lead paint on toys from China. Glad to see Adam's Apple cares about the children. I guess bears don't pose a danger.

    Keeping Tabs: Britney blames her mother for her issues. Eddie Murphy is the father of Scary Spice's child. Spice Girls will reunite.

    #1: Olbermann mocks Paris Hilton for a bit making a high pitched voice and commenting how she hears keys jingle (which aren't really keys says Olby - hehe). Creepy Musto makes references to glory holes, pokey and other perverted trash. Edward R. Murrow is so proud right now. Musto keeps using slurs against women while Olby and the Laughing Stagehand nearly die. Viewers have probably died from boredom at this point. Update: I'd like to thank Josh Cone via Johnny Dollar for something I missed during Friday's pervert fest. It seems Olbermann asserted that Paris's doctor was not a medical doctor (emphasis mine):

    Well just maybe because the doctor, who's been so adept at getting Ms. Hilton out of tight spots, is not an M.D. and may have lied a little bit about his credentials. Radar Magazine reporting that Dr. Charles Sophy is not a medical doctor, but rather an osteopath, a doctor of osteopathy, focusing on alternative treatments.

    Well, there you go again Fat Ass. The reason I say that is it's clear your lackeys are too lazy to do any actual research. Sort of like that using of Star Magazine as a source, but this time Radar magazine. In fact, no one can be a psychiatrist without being an M.D. Osteopaths are in fact D.O.s which are also Medical Doctors, with slightly different training. Reading and information. More here. Thus, another either outright OlbyLie or just lazy journalism. It also has to do with his favorite target of perversion, Paris Hilton. Coincidence? You decide. Thanks again for the information.

    In the Media Matters minute, the bronze goes to the British Ministry of Defense on UFOs for not releasing enough information on some recent sightings. Silver: oh my god, John Travolta for siding with Tom Cruise on psychotherapy! I actually agree with this nomination. Gold goes to Glenn Beck for getting "desperate" - ha!. Funny Olby calls anyone desperate when you keep landing in third and fourth. We haven't seen Olby use his favorite source in quite some time: Media Matters. Edward R. Olbermann asserts that Glenn Beck is doing more damage to the world every day than any suicide bomber could dream of. Are you saving the world, Hauptmann?

    NAME

    Olbermann's book The book that bears Olberman's name is #1,534 at amazon.com, while "Culture Warrior" is #697. (It's that 2-for-$25 sale!) The OlbyTome is noticeably unranked at at Barnes and Noble; O'Reilly's book is #1,032 there. As predicted, Thursday's Hour of Spin was mired at fourth Place in the Man on Fan beloved, coveted all important "key demo" along with the usual kick out the door of barely finishing third overall. Perhaps one of the worst weeks in a long time for der Fuhrer. Tonight's MisterMeter reading: 4 [GUARDED]


    Posted by Edward Schatz | Permalink | Comments (170) | | View blog reactions

    170 Comments

    Sorry, a review is not a review unless Johnny D does it!!

    Is anyone else having periodic problems with a message about the 'server timed out, try again' and 'message not accepted too many posts in short time frame'?

    Its not the end of the world but it has been fairly time consuming and irritating. Any suggestions on what might be causing it. I have been logged in since last night. I forgot to log out and just started up again today. Could that effect it.

    Grammie

    Wow! to sit holed up in one's basement all weekend just to post the same old drippings.

    And this pin-head calls people paranoid.

    Just think, sitting in front of one's computer, calling in sick (there's a lot of truth in that) to work. Just to post that piece of journalistic hyperhole.

    A.C.C.S. , does your mom have to come down and push the power button for you too?

    But while, A.C.C.S. was having his mom looking for stuff to copy & paste, I came across this.

    DID YOU KNOW? According to a survey, 9 percent of people have never had sex?

    No need to give A.C.C.S. a hand.

    You'd think A.C.C.S. would have figured out how to play one handed solitare.

    But if he can't 'copy & paste'. How do you expect him to 'point & click'?

    Too bad the sex starved A.C.C.S. wasn't in the City this weekend. UFO buffs gathered in the East Village this weekend for what was billed as a 'Culture of Contact Festival' which oddly enough, coincided with the end of 'Gay Pride Week'.

    A.C.C.S. could have come out and experienced some versatility by attending both of the festivities.

    It would have been a great way for A.C.C.S. to celebrate both outer and inner space.

    Keith with 'dick' jokes. A.C.C.S. , I'm sure they must have fans at one of those festivals.

    Who or what is A.C.C.S?

    Grammie, I've gotten the same messages.

    AAP must be O'Leily's son
    Dropping turds on everyone
    His forte is first one of the day
    It's his special way to say
    "It's the only way I can have any fun"

    Wow. I never knew Glenn Beck murdered more people than suicide bombers. Thank you Keith on another fine expose.

    Wow. I never knew Glenn Beck murdered more people than suicide bombers. Thank you Keith for another fine expose.

    Many queers inhabit Keith's show
    From Rachel to Michael Musto
    "Glory Hole" the topic
    With guests so myopic
    Queef Uberloon's reached a new low

    Wow. I never knew Glenn Beck murdered more people than suicide bombers. Thank you Keith for another fine expose.

    Posted by: James at June 24, 2007 9:11 PM


    This sorta puts Keith's O'Reilly as Nazi bit in perspective.

    I guess it means his other airtime competition, Anderson Cooper, is as dangerous as subway train doorways...

    I guess it means his other airtime competition, Anderson Cooper, is as dangerous as subway train doorways...

    -----

    One time when I was getting on the Tube at Bayswater (Circle Line via Liverpool Station) in one of my favorite European capital cities, I was carrying a bouquet of flowers and the door closed on the flowers before I could get in. It snapped the head right off of a bearded Iris, so I think you underestimate the danger posed by subway doors. However, I have never had a similar problem on the S-Bahn in another of my favorite European capital cities, Wien, or as Americans call it, Vienna. I entered with all the flowers in tact as far as Margarettengirtl. So, I think, perhaps, this is an indication that subway doors are more dangerous in some European capitals than in others. Oddly, I lost a newspaper once in a Downtown A-B-C in New York. That makes me think subway doors are more dangerous in towns in countries which have troops in Iraq. I can't prove this because I have taken only trams and not subways in Warsaw. I am not even sure Warsaw has subways. But I think this is probably enough evidence to assume that where subway doors are dangerous, they are dangerous because of the Bush Administration's bungling of the Iraqi Occupation. And, I sure wouldn't want to take any form of public transportation in Iraq.

    If you've ever been to warsaw you would know if they have subways, idiot. Get some help, soon.

    So Olby's plan to get viewers now is dick jokes and references to glory holes. Good Luck.

    6/25/2007 1:58:00 AM
    Drug Rehab

    6/25/2007 3:42:13 AM
    Drug Rehab

    i wonder if keith will relay some personal strory about rod beck since he died yesterday? " rod beck and i e-mailed eachother just weeks ago" because its all about keith when someone dies unexpectadely.

    One time when I was getting on the Tube at Bayswater (Circle Line via Liverpool Station) in one of my favorite European capital cities, I was carrying a bouquet of flowers and the door closed on the flowers before I could get in. It snapped the head right off of a bearded Iris, so I think you underestimate the danger posed by subway doors.

    Posted by: Clucker at June 25, 2007 12:05 AM


    Who's underestimating the "dangers posed by subway doors"? I was referring to an incident that forever KO'd K.O.'s peripheral vision when he knocked his head on the top of a subway door some years ago.

    Seeing that Olbermann, himself, was personally injured, I'm sure that subway doors rate very highly indeed, on his potential for world destruction by media competitors ratings scale.

    Just as the only threat of terrorism that has occured that Olbermann has acknowledged as being "real" in this country since 9/11, was when someone mailed him soap powder...

    moron paranoid BUSHWIPES!

    Posted by: Average American Patriot at June 25, 2007 10:35 AM


    I feel a little cheated that you aren't using dollar signs for the S's anymore, AAP.

    Did you get bored with that or did your $ key give out?

    Wow! Cheney is no long part of the executive branch? AMAZING what neocons will put up with if they are told to.

    Give a neocon a copy of the constitution and he'll use it as toilet paper the minute that you turn your back...

    Blindrat,

    What do you think of the laughing stagehand bit. Its stolen from Talk Soup and the old Daily Show when Craig Kilborn hosted it.

    I've never heard you talk directly about Olbermann's show or its production values.

    Personally, I think its a little worn. Plus he stole it so no points there.

    Blindrat, The Constitution of The United States is totally intact and even admired in Cheney's side of the argument.....Try being a little less emotional, sir, and research what The Constituion actually says about The Vice President.....

    Sir, a nice source to start the discussion....

    http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/02/vice_presidential_powers/

    You will note that in The Constitution the vice president, "has no formal power in the Executive branch but is designated as the replacement in case the president dies (Article II, Section 1) or is incapacitated (Amendment XXV)."

    The traditional role/place of the VPOTUS has evolved over the 200+ years as The President has used him as he has CHOSEN....and we, as citizens, have evolved to simply assume he is only part of the executive branch....but The Constitution leaves a different impression.

    So simply by using the left's "neocon's manipulation," line leaves one with the impression that you don't really want to discuss Cheney's very intriguing argument, sir....It is a good thing that we have Constitutional lawyers who are willing to have a logical, nondemogogic discussion of the merits and dangers of such an argument, aren't we, sir?

    No, I do not believe Dick Cheney has any intention to destroy The USA or The US Constitution based on this latest of stories.....But again trying to be dispassionate about issues within the over-heated partisian environment we now find ourselves in is difficult.

    And this is my post today, the 1,516th day since the declaration of Mission Accomplished in Iraq.....

    I am cee, good night and good luck.

    "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

    "If we end up saying that because these people are committing these acts of terrorism in Iraq or Afghanistan, that we shouldn't have done the removal of Saddam or the removal of the Taliban, then we are making a fundamental mistake about our own future, about security, about the values we should be defending in the world." TONY BLAIR

    cee,

    Your analysis is flawed. The vice-president is chosen by the president. The expenses of his office are paid for by the executive funds. This has been going on for quite some time...

    Are you then saying that the legislative branch has authority over Cheney; or, does Cheney have authority over the congress?

    BTW, blindrat, the following post on OTB by a very intellectually curious person sums it up for me......

    "I'd certainly think that this particular theory should be adjudicated. I honestly have no opinion on the validity of this argument and no affection of any kind for Mr. Cheney but what's the theory on which the Vice President is any more subordinate to the President than the members of the Congress or Supreme Court are based on?

    "The Vice President is mentioned, by my count, twice in Article I and three times in Article II. He or she has no executive responsibilities (unless the President dies or is removed from office) whatever. He or she has legislative responsibilities. Does the potential for succeeding the President render him or her subordinate to the President? That would suggest that the Speaker of the House and President Pro Tem of the Senate are, too, which quite clearly isn't the case.

    "Is it that he or she runs on the same ticket as the President? That's a post-Constitutional development and just suggests that our current process is an incoherent mess but not that the Vice President is subordinate to the President.

    "So, what's the theory?

    "The Vice Presidency continues to be best characterized by 'Cactus Jack' Garner's description: not worth a bucket of warm spit. That's not exactly what he said but you get the idea.

    "Posted by Dave Schuler | June 22, 2007 | 06:39 pm"

    The problem with Cheney's brand-new interpretation of what branch of government includes the vice-president is that Bush's executive order presumably affected him. It is no more than an artful dodge. Funny how you neocons couldn't stand Clinton lying about his sex life, but won't hold the VP responsible for lying about issues which actually affect the entire nation...

    "Are you then saying that the legislative branch has authority over Cheney; or, does Cheney have authority over the congress?"

    My answer (and Cheney's) is, "What does The United States Constitution say?"

    "Funny how you neocons couldn't stand Clinton lying about his sex life....."


    ###
    There you go again, sir, emotional and off point.....Well, I tried.....

    I'll try again.....

    Another intersting post on OTB....

    "The Vice Presidency was an afterthought for the Constitutional Convention, put into the document in order to provide for orderly succession without resorting to election of someone from Congress to fill the vacancy. The Vice President is not a member of either the executive or the legislative branch. Constitutionally, the Vice President is not a subordinate of the President, who has no power to issue orders to the Vice President and who cannot remove him from office. (The Vice President can be removed only by impeachment.) But Vice Presidents have found that the way they gain influence in Washington is by subordinating themselves to the President. By doing so, they have become, since Dwight Eisenhower's administration, part of the inner circle of senior political advisers to the President."

    http://www.answers.com/topic/vice-president-u-s?cat=biz-fin

    cee,

    The consititution says that there are three branches of government. Cheney needs to choose one. But, let's ask the Whitehouse, eh?

    "The tradition of the Cabinet dates back to the beginnings of the Presidency itself. One of the principal purposes of the Cabinet (drawn from Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution) is to advise the President on any subject he may require relating to the duties of their respective offices.

    The Cabinet includes the Vice President and the heads of 15 executive departments-the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, and the Attorney General. Under President George W. Bush, Cabinet-level rank also has been accorded to the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency; Director, Office of Management and Budget; the Director, National Drug Control Policy; and the U.S. Trade Representative. "

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/cabinet.html

    Cee, thanks for the quotes and especially for the link I had seen something along those lines last week, but as thorough and well written, when I was researching something else. I went back to try to find it and couldn't.

    Grammie

    I am simply going back to your ORIGINAL sole use of THE US CONSTITUTION, blindrat, and your illogical assertion that Dick Cheney (as do all other neocons) uses it to clean his anus.....Now you change your argument to the executive's definition (The President's CHOICE) on what role The Vice President of The United States is to assume.......

    You, like you demand of Cheney, have to choose which argument you want to have, sir.....an illogical/emotional one that makes crazy assertions (your original one), or one that is measured and actually takes The Constitution seriously!

    Blindrat, I'll take the supreme authority over the Constitution by GWB in this matter AND ALL other pronouncements he makes.

    That is what you are arguing, you do realize.

    Grammie

    Perhaps I need to clarify. The vice-president AND the cabinet created in article two of the constitution. The vice-president is considered part of the cabinet.

    I see a lot of you trying to poke holes in my argument; however, not one of you DARES tell me what branch of government Cheney is in.

    This indicates to me that the rule of law, including the constitution, is of no value to neoconservatives, such as yourselves...

    Perhaps you'd like to dispel this and tell me what branch includes Dick Cheney...

    Oh, and a simple question....

    Has there been evidence of a breach of security in The Vice President's office to warrant such worry about his handling of classified information?

    And if you would like me to play the political angle of this tempest in a teapot....

    Since a very partisan leftist democrat brought the issue up (Waxman), could this all be simply a democrat party effort to keep Scotter Libby's legal problems front and center?.....A nice discussion of this would be interesting, sir.

    Blindrat, sorry to do a hit and run but I have to leave for my PT session.

    I'll be back in a few hours to discuss this if you want.

    Grammie

    Thanks for you non-answer, cee. I expected no more than that.

    Grammie, if I am on the boards, I'd love to continue the discussion...

    "The vice-president is considered part of the cabinet."

    True....but if being part of the cabinet is the only criteria to define where the VPOTUS lies in our government, why does The Constitution place him in a special cataegory where The President cannot fire him/her.....VPOTUS has to be Impeached and removed from office just like POTUS?

    And again, blindrat, The Constituion is not SPECIFIC who is in the cabinet, The President chooses with advice from The Senate.....

    ARTICLE II....

    "[The President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments."

    cee,

    Again, according to the constitution, Cheney has to be in one of three branches of government. Which one is it?...

    blindrat, since your so concerned with national security, where do you stand on the Sandy Burgler incident? You sure seem to be up in arms over Cheney doing absolutely nothing wrong, just curious.

    Another non-answer...this time from rk.

    Funny how rk never manages to provide anything real to a discussion. Kinda pointless...

    As they say in Mortal Kombat:

    Cee - Wins!

    Blindrat,

    By historical influences only (not codified in The Constitution as you have claimed), VPOTUS is part of the executive branch. History could have just as easily kept VPOTUS where it was originally...? branch, but it did not for various political reasons.

    However, if an executive order is given that VPOTUS wants to argue infringes on his constitutional role, then one should dispassionately clarify the situation. Dick Cheney believes he is not under this specific EO based on his dual roles constitutionally, and The President may challenge his assertion. Bush hasn't indicated he wants to in this specific EO, and it is his call, constitutionally.

    For Waxman to be all up in arms about it seems disengenuous since he is not part of the executive branch and this "power struggle" has nothing to do with him.

    The Congress can pass legislation or pursue amendments that codify the role and regulation of VPOTUS, but to charge Cheney broke his oath of office and is shredding The Constitution is baseless.

    It was valid question, rat. I'll take it that you could do nothing but apologize for Burgler, so you dodge the "valid" question. Right?

    rk,

    Berger broke the law. If you can find a post where I defend it, please post it. Otherwise, why not simply refrain from posting unless you've actually got something to say...

    That's a good boy...

    cee,

    What you are saying is that the vice-president wants to be under the executive branch say, when he invokes executive privalege; and, under the legislative branch, when asked to disclose information about what he has been doing as a member of the executive branch...

    Does that sum it up?

    cee,

    Again, according to the constitution, Cheney has to be in one of three branches of government. Which one is it?...

    Posted by: blindrat at June 25, 2007 12:51 PM


    Blindrat,

    I agree entirely with Cee's comments on your emotionalism.

    I just get so tired of hyperbolic comments that are thrown out willy-nilly here such as your statement that implies that all "neocons" agree with Cheney's argument.

    Have you looked around the internet, my friend? FYI--- you're going to find differently.

    Secondly, exactly how are you defining the term "neocon"? Have you bothered to understand that it is not synonmous with "conservative" or merely with anyone who agrees with our having gone into Iraq.

    Now, to answer your question, I think the office of the VP is a part of the Executive and as soon as the issue was raised, Bush should have amended the Executive Order on the handling of intelligence to make an exception for Cheney.

    As usual, they've taken something that really would have been a temptest in a teapot and made into something that will be a federal case.

    Nice dodge. I was curious how severe of a security breach you thought Burgler commited. Have fun with your witch hunt with waxman!

    Cecelia,

    A neoconservative is someone who uses the conservative label, but doesn't follow the principles of conservatism. Nixon was our last conservative president. Every "conservative" president since then has been simply a treasury raider disguised as a president...

    "Sandy Burgler".

    I have cracked up each and everyone of the 3,112 times you have written that. Some people might think you are obsessing, but I realize that in your condition, repetition is a form of "THERAPY".

    Have you ever thought about writing for the comedian Rush Limbaugh when you get released? Your sense of humor is identical. In fact, are you Rush Limbaugh? I have looked up "Jeff R. King" in a number of phone books, and I am not getting any leads.

    And what of your odd usage of quotation marks, never when convention would require, then you just throw in for no apparent reason. Doesn't Sean Hannity do that? Are you Sean Hannity? Probably not, because you would have to be fair and *****UN*****balanced.

    Where are "Cecelia" and Mrs. Hawkins when you really need them?

    No, blindrat, I think Dick Cheney explained to the executive branch representative from the national archives that he is exempt from the EO and that if they have a problem with that, take it up with Bush.....Waxman is all in a lather simply for political reasons and uses the situation to stir the pot......

    Fine, it get's headlines and kills 10 minutes of COUNTDOWN....but if argued on its merits there is nothing illegal or unconstitutional going on....Cheney is constitutionally able to stand-up up against authority originating from the legislative branch and execuative branch based on the purpusely ambiguous role the founding fathers gave the post....

    I think he has Chutzpah and I admire him for it. I do not think he is running a shadow government or believes he is not constrained by The Constitution or valid law.....If I believed that I would be phoning my Congressional delegation to start impeachment hearings against him.

    BTW blindrat, neoconservatives include many democrats who abandoned the party because of the extreme leftward tilt the party took in the 1960's....Leftists use the term "neocons" in order to blur the real reason the neoconservative movement occurred in the first place.....sane people's rejection of the lefts' radicalism.

    I was only 5 years old when neoconservatism attained any measurable power so I will not claim to be one.....Let's just say I believe in the same goal however.....keep the radical left from controlling The United States of America.

    >>Fine, it get's headlines and kills 10 minutes of COUNTDOWN....but if argued on its merits there is nothing illegal or unconstitutional going on....Cheney is constitutionally able to stand-up up against authority originating from the legislative branch and execuative branch based on the purpusely ambiguous role the founding fathers gave the post....

    Nice speech, cee. Unfortunately, you are admiring someone who is violating an executive order. What other criminals do you admire? Have you decided to give Cheney carte blanche to do whatever he likes?

    If you agree with Cheney, you are a neocon. A conservative believes in the law. A neocon believes in nothing but party and money.

    Again, I tried to remain logical and nonemotional......

    Instead, blindrat wants what the left wants.....

    a demogogic issue.....

    Sir, if you and Waxman believe in the law then pursue convicting Cheney of violating the law.....and as VPOTUS that is started with an Impeachment hearing.....

    Not political press conferences, not 10 minute superficial segments of COUNTDOWN.....

    Impeachment. The fact that Waxman did not say Cheney should be impeached for violating an EO tells me that it means nothing.

    Just like your initial statement, blindrat....You accused Cheney of violating The Constitution....he's a criminal.....No, factually he is not a criminal until the law says he is and you & Waxman refuse to afford Cheney the prviledge of defending himself in the only legal proceeding that is constitutional for the VPOTUS.....

    Impeachment.

    The elected VP is not a criminal. He is guarding his prescribed Constitutional powers that he will hand off in 2009....and the country is the better for it.

    Once again, the left (and blindrat) plays in politics only.....personal smears. Wouldn't they lead the country well? (Sarcasm)

    And this is my post today, the 1,516th day since the declaration of Mission Accomplished in Iraq.....

    I am cee, good night and good luck.

    "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

    "If we end up saying that because these people are committing these acts of terrorism in Iraq or Afghanistan, that we shouldn't have done the removal of Saddam or the removal of the Taliban, then we are making a fundamental mistake about our own future, about security, about the values we should be defending in the world." TONY BLAIR

    cee,

    You are insincere.

    Even you know that I don't have the power to impeach Cheney. Apparently, the law doesn't apply to him since you call it minor and "political". Shame that you neocons refer to yourselves as patriots...

    Although, I suppose you might be aligned with some other nation...

    No blindrat, I am not cynical about America and those legally elected and serving the public good in all areas. I still believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt based on their previous behvaior, their words and actions.

    However, I do not buy into the left's propaganda that exploits people's fears and prejudices. I do not buy into the pet case of the day coming out of the left's smear machine that I can set my watch by. Keith Olbermann has no journalistic integrity so when it appears on his show I am confident it is the manufactured crisis of the day.....It makes things very simple!

    You obviously like what the left is peddling and I would defend your right of choosing poorly. But please do not try to change the strawman in the middle of a discussion just so you can feel you won an argument. I asked you to specifically argue the constitutional points of Cheney's argument and you did not. Instead you asked me to state my opinion on which branch VPOTUS is in....I did and then you tried to use that statement against me.....Failed and disengenuous, blindrat.....even for a leftist, you resort to name calling......NEOCON! CRIMINAL!

    I say, "deja vu."

    Cecelia, the term "neocon" is just a far left blogoshere term that the far leftists call anyone that disagrees with their far left agendas. Some of them may actually know the meaning,but, most probably have not a clue. Just an observation. If you go to puffington post, you will see what I mean, cursing and "neocon" fills their rants.

    Cecelia, the term "neocon" is just a far left blogoshere term that the far leftists call anyone that disagrees with their far left agendas. Some of them may actually know the meaning,but, most probably have not a clue. Just an observation. If you go to puffington post, you will see what I mean, cursing and "neocon" fills their rants.

    Posted by: royalking at June 25, 2007 2:44 PM


    I know Royal. Just as emotional rants filled with half-baked charges of "criminality" do.

    I'm generally for the WH having the guts to take them on in court and in appeals to rulings, if needed, when it comes to security issues. However, in this case, I wish they had chosen their battles more carefullly.

    Cecelia, the far leftists are out to get Cheney, waxman is leading the half baked charge. They couldn't tie Cheney to the last witch hunt (Libby) so they are off on a new one. Tax dollars hard at work......

    Where are "Cecelia" and Mrs. Hawkins when you really need them?

    Posted by: Clucker at June 25, 2007 1:33 PM


    "Cecelia" is right here, Cluck-tut.

    I'm glad you enjoy Royal's references to infamous Sandy.

    I know I do.

    6/25/2007 1:26:54 PM
    Drug Rehab

    So, a question, blindrat......

    Who, in our three branches, is responsible to make sure The President and The Vice President specifically follow executive orders?

    You seem to imply that Congress as the power to say whether an Executive Order is being properly applied and enforced.....I disagree.

    This is what we are talking about, we must remember.....executive orders.....not laws passed by Congress or bench orders given by judges.

    "Cecelia, The term "Neocon" is just a far left blogospere term that the far leftists call anyone who agree with their far left aganda"

    WRONG again Jeff....not that you are ever actually right!

    As an example, one "far leftist" named Pat Buchanon has used this term repeatedly to describe 'conservatives' who aren't really true conservatives. He has written at least one book touching heavily on the subject. Pat Buchanon is the classic definition of a traditional conservative. The Neocons in Washington have strayed far from that defintition.

    The term 'Neocon' defines anyone who believes in the Bush doctrine of projecting US Military power abroad with the ultimate goal of transforming and dominating the world. Invading Iraq with the goal of "spreading freedom and democracy" at gunpoint was the ultimate implimentation of that flawed and very simplistic philosophy.

    Belief in the 'Neocon' doctrine has little to nothing to do with left/right of liberal/conservative ideology. The present day reality that this ideology is tied to the republican party seems to have more to do with party loyalty than anything else.

    Invading a distant foreign country that did not attack or threaten us on the premise that they MIGHT is not a conservative principal at all, and never has been. This stupidity could have just as easily eminated from a leftist leadership as it did from the current right wing leadership.

    Every conservative is not a Neocon and every Neocon is not necessarily a conservative (liberal Joe Leiberman being one prime example).

    Prime high profile examples of Neocons include Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, William Crystal, Donald Rumsfeld, and of course, George Bush, all of whom played key roles in getting us caught in this quagmire called the Iraq war.

    Those of us who use the term 'Neocon' know exactly what it means, and no, we didn't get it from the 'blogoshere'.

    So, Mike, you are saying Joe Lieberman is a neocon?

    "mike", speaking for others has bit you in the ass before and here you go again, speaking for others. You thinking that every person that throws the term neocon around knows "exactly" what it means pur bs. P.S. Do you ever get tired of typing the same ole thing over and over again? "Invade" (ding!) "quagmire" (ding!) "did not attack us" (ding!). P.S. day 6, still waiting for you to tell us how you support the troops besides banging "needless deaths" every day on your keyboard from the comfort of your home.

    "mike" 2 more things, when you quote someone, get the quote right, at least. Second, I never said neocon came from the blogoshere. "Get it?"

    Is that all you you've got to throw back at me, Jeff.....pathetic...but expected!

    And you DID say that 'Neocon' is a "far left blogoshere term".

    As for your question....do I ever get tired of typing the "same ole thing". WHAT A STRANGE QUESTION!!!!!....Of course not...the truth always bears repeating as many times as is needed.

    Sheezzz!!!

    He seems to fit the definition, Cee.

    Invading a distant foreign country that did not attack or threaten us on the premise that they MIGHT is not a conservative principal at all, and never has been. This stupidity could have just as easily eminated from a leftist leadership as it did from the current right wing leadership.

    Every conservative is not a Neocon and every Neocon is not necessarily a conservative (liberal Joe Leiberman being one prime example).

    Prime high profile examples of Neocons include Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, William Crystal, Donald Rumsfeld, and of course, George Bush, all of whom played key roles in getting us caught in this quagmire called the Iraq war.

    Those of us who use the term 'Neocon' know exactly what it means, and no, we didn't get it from the 'blogoshere'.

    Posted by: Mike at June 25, 2007 3:51 PM


    Since it's this simple a thing and Pat Buchanan is your authority on "true conservatism" where would Buchanan and Barry Goldwater's support for the containment of communism fit into your definition of neoconservatism, Mike? Specifically, Buchanan's view of Vietnam since he does define "justifiable wars" not solely the response to military attacks, but the more nebulous response against aggression towards American interests.

    Also, traditionally liberalism or what's called "classical liberalism" believed in the tenets of limited govt, property rights, and low taxes. Liberals today would suggest that some of these principles have evolved or devolved within their ideology, depending on where they stood and that is simplistic to think all principles of any ideology are so fixed as to be almost religiously dogmatic in nature. Are you suggesting that liberals who hold positions that are not wholly traditional as in classical liberalism, are not "true" liberals?

    So, Mike, you are saying Joe Lieberman is a neocon?

    Posted by: cee at June 25, 2007 3:54 PM


    Actually, based upon this strict a definition, most of congress would be neocons. The majority of Dems in power now voted to go into Iraq.

    Cee,

    if Pat Buchanan had a nickle for every "green-eyeshade conservative" who has accused HIM of not being a "true conservative" because of his advocacy of social/cultural conservatism, he could buy his own country... :D

    Cecelia, until recently, I accepted it as historical fact (based on our collective national experience) that Vietnam was a mistake, from the contrived Gulf of Tonkin incident right through to the bitter finish. I had also accepted that the so called "dominoe theory" had proven itself to be a fallacy as well. I was obviously pretty naive to have so firmly believed that America had learned a valuable lesson from Vietnam, and therefore would never replay that mistake. That is probably the basis for my anger that others do not share.

    The problem, repeated over and over and over and over again on this blog is that the Iraq invasion is being trumpeted as an imbodiment of a 'conservative' ideology, while being against it as a 'liberal' one. We see it over and over again....that is until challenged....and then there is usually nothing but silence.

    Obviously the generally accepted definitions of conservatism and liberalism are evolving with time, but I would not call that a good thing. I believe the dictionary defintion of the words remain the most reliable way to define an ideology. Many people these days seem to shout out 'liberal' or 'conservative' with much passion without really having a clear idea about what either term actually means.

    "projecting US Military power abroad with the ultimate goal of transforming and dominating the world. Invading Iraq with the goal of "spreading freedom and democracy" at gunpoint was the ultimate implimentation of that flawed and very simplistic philosophy."

    Posted by: "mike" at June 25, 2007 3:51 PM

    You're right, Cecelia. Billary, Ketchup Kerry, John "hedge fund", "I'm for the little guy" Edwards and countless other neocrats fit right into "mike's" definition of a neocon. Ouch, that can't be good......Day 6, still waiting for "mike" to tell us how he supports the troops besides posting on this smear site "I hate Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, they're criminals and they should be in jail! War crimes!" "War for oil" "How many have to die, needlessly" etc. Support?


    "The problem, repeated over and over and over and over again on this blog is that the Iraq invasion is being trumpeted as an imbodiment of a 'conservative' ideology, while being against it as a 'liberal' one. We see it over and over again....that is until challenged....and then there is usually nothing but silence.

    Posted by: Mike at June 25, 2007 5:31 PM "


    Funny, I haven't seen that as much of an issue here at all. What I've seen mostly is the sort of ploy that you just engaed in. That is to categorize Republicans/conservatives who are for the war as not being "real" or "true" conservatives.

    "Obviously the generally accepted definitions of conservatism and liberalism are evolving with time, but I would not call that a good thing. I believe the dictionary defintion of the words remain the most reliable way to define an ideology. Many people these days seem to shout out 'liberal' or 'conservative' with much passion without really having a clear idea about what either term actually means.

    Posted by: Mike at June 25, 2007 5:31 PM "


    More funny-- how you've left out that they shout "neocon" too.

    They do that with MORE...eh.... "passion".... and also with a misguided belief that know what they're talking about and that it's all so black and white...

    cs moniter, oh boy! You and blindrat must be regulars over there, judging by your daily spews! Donkey shows all done for the day down there?

    With both posts about neoconservatism from Mike and AAP, another question.....

    If you had the power to choose the kind of collective security arrangement (governance) you had to live under, which of the many types we have currently and/or in the past would you choose?

    1. Those of us who use the term 'Neocon' know exactly what it means, and no, we didn't get it from the 'blogoshere'.

    Posted by: "mike" at June 25, 2007 3:51 PM

    2. Many people these days seem to shout out 'liberal' or 'conservative' with much passion without really having a clear idea about what either term actually means.

    Posted by: "mike" at June 25, 2007 5:31 PM

    Can you please explain this? I'm confused....

    Democratic, republican federation.

    Posted by: Average American Patriot at June 25, 2007 6:16 PM
    Is that what they have in mexico?

    I agree, AAP, representative democracy is the best form of governance and is the intitial yes/no in my mind when I choose who I think The United States should ally themselves with.

    The radical left in the late 60's and 70's actively supported the totalitarian regime of North Vietnam and drove the founders of the neoconservative movement to leave the democrat party.

    Those events are ignored today in the left's attempt at rewriting the history regarding the Vietnam conflict as a victory of nationalism over United State's hubris.

    However, I see the victory of totalitarianism over democracy in the Vietnam conflict as the real history and those, like Mike, wanting to learn the other lesson endorse that outcome.....totalitarianism winning over democracy.

    If democracy loses to totalitarianism because people are not willing to support the continued United States security support needed by the fledgling Iraqi democracy then I see it as a failure to support a form of government that is right and the best.

    Same with South Korea....just because the security situation is now stable there, thousands died previous to that situation becoming stable. Why do we invest millions yearly there and are unwilling to do so in Iraq?

    Gawker Stalker alert: Olby spotted lunching JUne 23 with a blonde at Cafe Habana.

    http://www.gawker.com/stalker/?date=2006-03-06

    hahaha "massive paunch"

    Post here and then post at that mutt site there Mikey. Just another little troll like those that you whine like a baby about on the mutt site. Poor Liberal Mikey. It's okay. Someday your mommy will kick you out of the basement and then you will see how misguided the views were of those tail sniffers you wasted your time praising. Smell the freedom and not your butt and you'll be alot happier.

    Just an interesting comment posted at the NEWSHOLE (aka: GloryHole)

    Michael Musto's comments on Paris Hilton were disgusting, worse than Imus's. (2)Osteopaths practice the exact same medicine that MD's do, and often share practices or hospitals. (3)For previous reference, "Moron" was once a professional term applied to the mildly retarded; it does not belong in the broadcast. Finally, (4)law schools, including Ms. Goodling's, all use the same text books and an ivy league degree offers no guarantee of competence (Note current leadership). No one should be denigrated on the basis of where they live, where they go to school, and how much money their parents have (that's how you get into Ivy League schools.).

    I have about had it with the arrogant cruelty masquerading as wit this show revels in.
    Joe---Dublin, Ohio (Sent Saturday, June 23, 2007 8:11 PM)

    From gawker-stalker: They had a seame street icon (very funny)---I'm sure referring to his age-challanged girlfriend. Perhaps Olbermann has "arrived," he's now "celebrity" enough to be worth a gawker-stalker shout-out....

    Keith Olbermann
    229 Elizabeth St
    Jun 23rd, 2007 @ 11pm
    spotted keith olbermann dining with attractive blonde--ummm--"colleague" at cafe habana. he looked even more foxy in person (well, from the neck up)....he stood up from the table to reveal a seriously massive paunch. guess he's been spending too much time in the studio.

    law schools, including Ms. Goodling's, all use the same text books and an ivy league degree offers no guarantee of competence (Note current leadership). No one should be denigrated on the basis of where they live, where they go to school, and how much money their parents have (that's how you get into Ivy League schools.).
    ---
    No completely true, and, in any event, it is the teaching method which matter. A graduate of a Tier 4 law school is a Tier 4 lawyer. Perhaps, a graduate of a Tier 1 law school is not a Tier 1 lawyer, but that is a completely different story.
    -----
    Look, everyone, Jeff/royalking is now posting as poor mikey as well?

    hahaha "massive paunch"

    Posted by: Edward Schatz at June 25, 2007 6:48 PM


    It's probably a marsupial pouch where he keeps Dan Abrams.

    He's been spending too much time at the buffet table.

    Look, everyone, Jeff/royalking is now posting as poor mikey as well?

    Now look who is obsessing? Here is a final thought.

    Bob, AAP, Why (and sometimes anon), I didn't want to open up this anymore but you are one and the same. So what you may say? I like to study behavior. It is a hobby of mine and this provides me with a good venue. I don't spend hours on it but I have always tended to focus on details most people would just overlook. I figured Bob was AAP and believed Why was just too cantankerous to have a sense of humor like AAP but the FACTS bore this out.

    I ask something in return. Why the clandestine behavior? I guess it must be quite funny to see the various reactions when you pose as different people. I am not going to waste my time documenting. I can, though. Besides the ((((swing))), the quirky sense of humor can't be denied. I didn't just come to this conclusion but knew for sure when "Bob" was civil one night and forgot that AAP was already on line. Jeff was all over it, but I ignored it. He also posted the following which made me LMAO (I am so sick of the acronymn) although I have nothing against Jeff:
    ***

    You're up: on stage and the spotlight shining directly on you !

    The audience is buzzing with anticipation !

    Here's.................. Jeff !


    Posted by: Bob at May 16, 2007 12:40 AM

    The audience is boooooooooooooooooing !

    Jeff is a fraud !
    Tomatoes are being thrown. Jeff is ducking !

    Documented evidence from the dumb one's favorite source of news, Fox !

    ( He's been furiously looking for 30 minutes and come up with .....

    And Jeff's source is....


    Oh wait. He doesn't have one !

    This is way too easy, Jeff. You bore me.

    Nite nite don't let the bed bugs bite.
    Posted by: Bob at May 16, 2007 12:54 AM

    The same sense of humor was displayed with the Charlie's Angels bit from the other day:

    *
    -Charlie: (Bovine) OK, Angels, your mission: Find out who is that wascally wabbit hiding behind the Sir Loin moniker.
    Your clues: It might be AAP. I have reliable information from Bosley. Now, go fetch!
    I have a meeting with Dr. Weiners. Posted by: Average American Patriot at June 23, 2007 6:42 PM

    I'm done clogging up the Board. Great discussion above.

    See ya Bob, Why, Anon, AAP. I hope these are conscious decisions and not some sort of Sybilesque fugue states.

    "Maybe the whole Middle East will get better if we start *raining* bibles over Mecca?"

    I doubt that will help, but success of The Iraqi coalition government would be better than what was there because it would be a representative democracy....

    I am not pessimistic based on the struggling nation's religion, predominant skin color, culture, etc.

    I am pessimistic based on the lack of support in my own country for a successful outcome that has eroded since the fall of Saddam Hussein 4 years ago.

    4 years......The Korean War was 3 years that saw 33,686 battle deaths....and not one democrat asks that we withdrawl from the penisula because it, "was a mistake."

    I'll quote Tony Blair again,

    "If we end up saying that because these people are committing these acts of terrorism in Iraq or Afghanistan, that we shouldn't have done the removal of Saddam or the removal of the Taliban, then we are making a fundamental mistake about our own future, about security, about the values we should be defending in the world."


    ###
    Please tell me how Mr. Blair, who proudly stands by his decision even in the face of his domestic erosion, is WRONG?

    AAP observes....

    "We have Rosie O'Donnell."

    ###
    One of your "BUSHWIPE$" has the latest on that gal, AAP....

    "FoxNews.com's Roger Friedman 'guesses' Rosie O'Donnell is going to NBC/MSNBC.

    "Johnny Dollar has the audio

    "'My guess is that she will get a daytime show on NBC with a package deal to do a night-time talk show on MSNBC.'

    "'What she wants is a daytime show with a night-time show mixed in. The night-time show will be on MSNBC, and it will be a very liberal show, and during the morning she'll be the happy, friendly Rosie.'

    "Friedman writes since O'Donnell left 'The View' on May 25, the ABC talk-fest has lost over 400,000 viewers.

    ">An emailer wonders: 'Could this take the place of Scarborough Country if Joe Officially begins Morning Joe?'"

    http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/

    Jeff asks: "Can you please explain this? I'm confused"...

    I KNOW you're confused Jeff. Every new post you make illuminates how confused you stay.

    Sharon, I noticed some of the same things you noticed and some things you didn't notice or just didn't feel the need to elaborate on. I had to laugh when every body else (loons) called me every name in the book and paronoid just for being observant. "mikes" multiple postings were fairly easy to recognize, as well. I never knew being observant was a flaw till I met (online) olbyloons. They are a breed apart.

    Jeff illuminating his ongoing and unrelenting stupidity again: ""mikes' multiple postings were fairly easy to recognize,"

    Except you were WRONG every time you tried it!!!

    poor mikey, above, was not me, think what you want to think. If I say something, I use the same name every time and stick by everything I say.

    "mike," I'm not surprised you can't explain why you think people that use the term neocon know "exactly" what it means and people that use "liberal" and "conservative" words don't really know what they mean. Foot in ass once again. You must like it there, it seems to be permanently planted.

    Except you were WRONG every time you tried it!!!


    Posted by: Mike at June 25, 2007 8:19 PM
    Lie # what are we up to, now? Day 6, still waiting for "mike" to tell us how he supports the troops.

    Anon 8:29 asks Jeff: "Could there be a bigger idiot on this planet than you !"

    I think there probably is a bigger idiot on the planet than Jeff, Anon, but they wouldn't be particularly easy to find....in a group home somewhere....maybe.

    YOU ARE GONE!

    Isn't the appropriate response ROFLMAO? I think you missed the compliment in there. Cecelia always points out your sense of humor. I don't think Mike posted under any other names than those he admitted to. Enjoy your game.

    Cee,

    Although Trump was entirely nasty concerning Rosie, I agree with his point that whatever Rosie does will ultimately fail because she is just a bully at heart. I haven't seen much of Morning Joe but it seems kind of boring the couple of segments I have caught.

    How is Rosie a bully ? Examples please

    Cee,

    I know this is OW but you may be interested in checking out The Jawa Report (which on occasion does a reality check with Olbermann). The comment sections don't run as they do here because there are continuous posts. It is in an easy format to just quickly check. You can disregard what doesn't interest you and it stays pretty current.

    I watched the video of the dispute with Elizabeth Hasselbeck. I have seen a couple of segments of The View.

    I don't question her comedic effort: the comb-over imitation of Trump was priceless. She'll probably end up with a big contract somewhere because she'll draw the numbers. She got the ratings on The view also, but that didn't last. Neither did her show.

    My adorable AAP is Chucky????

    NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

    Bob, Johnny, Edward.... oh, hell, even Brandon...tell us it's not true!

    The "new" gal in town is just like the same old posters on OW.....a mindless shill....

    "Thank God there are patriots like Rep. Rahm Emanuel who said today...."


    ###
    he, he, he....

    When the democrats actually move to remove the criminals from power, they can then be called patriots, gal.....Until then, they are like you.....cheap, superficial, cowardly and pathetic rhetorical assasins who have been impotent in changing one iota of Bush policy.....what a shame.

    Hey gal, instead of the emotional, breathless argument, why don't you try to address my specific constitutional points about the applicability/enforcement of executive orders......they are a tool under The President's interpretation, NOT silly partisian representatives' like Waxman or Emanuel. (blindrat seems to have given up)

    Oh, and if Rahm can cut VPOTUS funding perhaps funding issues will finally be used by this congress to assert their power in areas that will actually be appropriate....Like that silly thing called Iraq War funding?

    Cut the funds....bring the troops home!

    And this is my post today, the 1,516th day since the declaration of Mission Accomplished in Iraq.....

    I am cee, good night and good luck.

    "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

    "If we end up saying that because these people are committing these acts of terrorism in Iraq or Afghanistan, that we shouldn't have done the removal of Saddam or the removal of the Taliban, then we are making a fundamental mistake about our own future, about security, about the values we should be defending in the world." TONY BLAIR

    New gal,

    I think I missed where you credited the WaPo? Accept my apologies if you did. Why don't you address Grammie directly and ask her pointed questions? Here, I'll show you what she had to say on the other thread:

    Cecelia, New gal's penchant for plagiarism is worse than I originally thought. I should have picked up on it in the first so called comment of any substance she tried to palm off. If I omit the copy and paste from Glen Greenwald's article at Salon.com and my quote this is the sum total of her own words in her 6:58 PM post:

    She will respond when she gets done with her PT. Boy, you're a tough talking new gal, aren't ya?

    Oh yeah....I forgot.....

    Cut the funds......Make Cheney comply with Bush's executive orders!

    Let me ask, does it matter which publication this paragraph would come from,whether it would be the NYT, Michael Moore's web site, or Rush Limbaugh's web site?

    It doesn't matter but it is intellectually honest to give a citation. It gives others a chance to read it in full context.

    Did I miss when Bush asked for Congress' help in enforcing his EO?

    Twerpy AKA New gal lurking, you made two posts that were copy and paste without any attribution or indication that they were not your words and thoughts.

    I consider that juvenile intellectual dishonesty, which gives rise to my opinion that you are a little twerp.

    However, in the interest of collegiality I will use the affectionate diminutive 'Twerpy'.

    Grammie

    Cee,

    You have probably already stated this in your synopsis but I found this interesting:

    "Several framers ultimately refused to sign the Constitution, in part because they viewed the vice president's legislative role as a violation of the separation of powers doctrine. Elbridge Gerry, who would later serve as vice president, declared that the framers "might as well put the President himself as head of the legislature." Others thought the office unnecessary but agreed with Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman that "if the vice-President were not to be President of the Senate, he would be without employment, and some member [of the Senate, acting as presiding officer] must be deprived of his vote."

    http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:Rz20I2LZtpgJ:www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Vice_President.htm+vice+president+of+the+united+states+legislative+branch&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a


    If the role of the VP were so clear, the preceding would have never occurred. Later, the piece states that the role of the VP evolved into more of an executive type position. But it seems clear to me, that to what branch the VP belongs was not clear. Curious to hear your response.

    It's hilarious that the other female kissass, Cecelia thought Grammie "outdebated" me. The GOP girl's club all stick together I see. That's fine. I'll stick with the 75% of the American people that totally disagree with you Bushies.

    I went back a looked at yesterday's post and it still amazes me that Grammie missed the very first paragraph I wrote and then went on with her verbal masturbation.Here it is :

    "Today, the Washington Post unveiled the first in its lengthy four-part series on the unprecedented influence and power of the vice president."

    Let me ask, does it matter which publication this paragraph would come from,whether it would be the NYT, Michael Moore's web site, or Rush Limbaugh's web site?

    Posted by: new gal in town at June 25, 2007 9:28 PM


    So it's not enough that you quote passages from blogsites without using quotation marks or attributions, when you do use quotation marks you manage imply the quote is from someone never uttered it. I never used the term '"outdebated"'.

    Yes, I thought it ironic but not at all surprising that you would insult others as being mindless partisans while using unattributed lines from some story on about Cheney spying on staffers found on Think Progress.

    Still do.

    New tough talking twerpy gal (NTTTG),

    Get your facts right at least once. I, Sharon, am the one who commented about the name game.

    Your statement:
    I bet you're a squirrelly looking little bald nerd .
    Pretty close ?

    Way to post what's really important, Cecelia, oops, I mean NTTTG

    Sharon studies behavior,
    A hobby not a labor,
    So analyze Royal King
    The idiot of the Right Wing,
    With so many a name,
    Each point just the same,
    Simply Wiener's last word,
    Both offensive and absurd.
    --------------------------------
    Kudos to Olbermann tonight for his positive piece on the Presidental scholars and their well-reasoned and drafted letter to Bush. The hero declaration and the applause on national television were a wonderful award for these bright, fine, courageous young men and women. We do have hope.

    Clucker,

    Not a bad poetic effort! Concise. Sort of in the style of Willie Wonka.

    "The GOP girl's club all stick together I see.."

    Posted by: new gal in town at June 25, 2007 9:28 PM

    hmmmm.... the statement above with the first sentence you uttered to us was to call us the equivalent of Bush butt-kissers.

    Now, I'm not surprised that you'd still expect utter cogeniality and to be taken seriously after that.

    Afterall, no one would confuse you with Einstein.

    We just have to be nice to terrorists, don't we "Clucker"?

    My adorable AAP is Chucky????

    NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

    Bob, Johnny, Edward.... oh, hell, even Brandon...tell us it's not true!
    Posted by: Cecelia at June 25, 2007 9:23 PM

    Just saw this. Hey, I was disappointed also. That scenario of Jeff (RK) on the stage with tomatoes getting thrown at him, well, it was just downright funny. I would have laughed even if it were directed at me. I will stop with the name game investigation now and forever.

    Two of the kids are done playing for the night and the other pooped out early, so I'm out of here.

    On what planet?
    It takes a lot of chutpah insisting that the worst president in our lifetime is right b/c he doesn't change when he's wrong.

    Posted by: new gal in town at June 25, 2007 9:56 PM

    These are the kinds of statements that think are meaningful debate.

    Congress can't pass a troop draw-down plan.

    You will NOT see a majority of Dem pols vote to enact policy that will put terrorists into the criminal justice system, no matter how many pieces the WP writes on Cheney, and it's pretty unlikely that the recent court decision on Al Mari will stand on appeal.... but the above is the level of discourse you get from our brilliant objective analysts...

    I will stop with the name game investigation now and forever.


    Posted by: Sharon at June 25, 2007 10:07 PM


    Sharon, don't you dare! It's fun and funny and you're uncanny!

    Afterall, no one would confuse you with Einstein. (Cecelia to Gal)

    Just saw that also. HAHAHAH
    ***
    I also ran across a classic from Grammie

    "I don't speak cluck so can you elaborate (or something close)"

    Bye

    I see Cecelia also has a comprehension problem. Try Washington Post and many other publications !
    Are you that uninformed that you didn't read that Cheney spied on staffers?

    Now back to your true obsession.THE NAME GAME.

    Posted by: new gal in town at June 25, 2007 10:00 PM


    Ah, here's logic.... it's fine to cut-n-paste word-for-word without using quotation marks simply because your source is paraphrasing another source...

    I'll quote Tony Blair again,

    "If we end up saying that because these people are committing these acts of terrorism in Iraq or Afghanistan, that we shouldn't have done the removal of Saddam or the removal of the Taliban, then we are making a fundamental mistake about our own future, about security, about the values we should be defending in the world."


    ###
    Please tell me how Mr. Blair, who proudly stands by his decision even in the face of his domestic erosion, is WRONG?


    Posted by: cee at June 25, 2007 7:53 PM

    That is an easy one, cee. Our invasion of Iraq was unprovoked and based on a web of lies that your side has struggled to recast for the past five years. A just war requires clear and valid casus belli, and the revolving door of failed excuses we have been given does not meet this criterion. Our country has engaged in in what Nuremburg prosecutors classified as the ultimate international crime: agressive war. This has damaged our nation's (and Tony's) global prestige and domestic well-being in many ways that can be empirically regcognized today, and many that will become apparent in the unfolding furture.

    Tony Blair is a failure for England- he may have attached himself to Bush in the beginning in the hopes of acting as a brake on some of the worst looming imperial mistakes that his government saw in Bush's tea-leaves, as many have asserted, but such appeasment never ends well.

    Tony himself will be fine - he'll be a well-paid consultant to the international Military Industrial Complex until he dies, but his country is going to regret his tenure, just as we all will regret the Bush regime.

    Just what are these "values we should be defending in the world"? Aggressive war? Trial by ordeal? Neocolonialism and neo-mercantilism? Institutionaliszed torture? These are the Bush/Blair legacy, at the expense of the interests of international law and order.

    Your statement:
    I bet you're a squirrelly looking little bald nerd .
    Pretty close ?

    Way to post what's really important, Cecelia, oops, I mean NTTTG

    Posted by: Sharon at June 25, 2007 9:49 PM


    Next, she'll be commenting that Cee thinks she's illogical and emotional because of he's partisan...

    Afterall, no one would confuse you with Einstein.
    Posted by: Cecelia at June 25, 2007 9:58 PM

    And your obsession with the Bob's and AAP's of the world proves your intellectual superiority.

    Posted by: new gal in town at June 25, 2007 10:22 PM

    THAT and everything else I write.

    "Obsession", huh... Reading blue-blogs must spawn more hyperbolic thinking than being a Rastafarian.

    So you're not a Bush butt kisser?
    Have you ever read any of your posts?

    I'm outta here. This convoluted and simple bitch is really off her rocker.

    Posted by: new gal in town at June 25, 2007 10:29 PM


    Evidently, you haven't....as you'd see if you scrolled up some.... but I'm sure not reading something has never detered you from playing the expert.

    Twerpy, DEFEND THIS:

    Your response to several posts of mine that were based on the actual Al Marri decision and my conclusions from it and Whatizname's response re the comparison of Nazi Jurisprudence to our system of Jurisprudence today in the GWB admin:


    " Why are we not surprised that Grammie has taken the side she did in the Al-Marri case.

    The question raised by Al-Marri is a clear and simple one: Does the President have the power and/or should he have it to arrest individuals on U.S. soil and keep them imprisoned for years and years, indefinitely, without charging them with a crime, allowing them access to lawyers or the outside world, and/or providing a meaningful opportunity to contest the validity of the charges?

    How can that question not answer itself? Who would possibly believe that an American President has such powers, and more to the point, what kind of a person would want a President to have such powers? That is one of a handful of powers which this country was founded to prevent.

    Our partisan Grammie writes:"One man has gotten the full attention of our courts, our political systems, the press and citizens from every viewpoint on the spectrum. Al Marri is the only one in this particular situation but any final judgment will apply to him and any like him in the future."

    Not surprised again why she totally ignores the others that have had this same treatment by her incompetent and reckless administration she blindly supports.
    Screw all the rest of them who have had such treatment eh Miss Grammie?
    Posted by: New gal on the block at June 24, 2007 6:58 PM "

    From Greenwald's article:

    "....The question raised by Al-Marri is a clear and simple one: Does the President have the power and/or should he have it to arrest individuals on U.S. soil and keep them imprisoned for years and years, indefinitely, without charging them with a crime, allowing them access to lawyers or the outside world, and/or providing a meaningful opportunity to contest the validity of the charges?

    How can that question not answer itself? Who would possibly believe that an American President has such powers, and more to the point, what kind of a person would want a President to have such powers? That is one of a handful of powers which this country was founded to prevent."

    The beginning and ending quote marks are from me to indicate your words. There was nary a quote mark from you in your entire post except when you quoted me.

    You started your unattributed quote at the second clause of Greenwald's first sentence in his second paragraph, which is represented by the ellipsis.

    This is the clause you left out:

    "Although its ultimate resolution is complicated,"

    And this is from a subsequent post of mine:

    "BTW, I only skimmed the first part of his article but it seems to a well thought out analysis of the decision. He is totally con but he does mention some of the pro argument and rebuts it.

    Anyone interested can find it at:

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/06/13/al_marri/"

    Lerky Twerpy, have you ever had an original thought in your life?

    Did you really think that you could plagiarize a Constitutional Lawyer's words and use them as a 'one size fits all' rebuttal to any question asked of you?

    Lerky Twerpy, you have moved beyond tedious (thanks Sharon) into laughable.

    Grammie

    New gal: Cecelia likes to disguise her butt kissing for this administration by long winded, esoteric, rambling posts that when you cut thru the bullshit, is exactly what you stated.

    Bravo for your preceptive skills new gal.
    Glad to see some female sanity around her for a change.

    Posted by: Why Do you care what my name is at June 25, 2007 10:34 PM


    As though THIS post here won't be over your head too....

    Another thing you'll notice about Cecilia, New gal, is another of her obsessions: She always has to have the last word, even if it means staying all all night to outlast someone.( and even when she knows they have signed off.)

    Her analness knows no boundaries !

    Posted by: Why Do you care what my name is at June 25, 2007 10:39 PM


    We know ... we know... over your head and you can't keep up either.

    Did you really think that you could plagiarize a Constitutional Lawyer's words and use them as a 'one size fits all' rebuttal to any question asked of you?

    Lerky Twerpy, you have moved beyond tedious (thanks Sharon) into laughable.

    Grammie


    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at June 25, 2007 10:38 PM


    Well, that's okay as long as you add a few Grammies'.

    It is, ya know. Really. I read it. Bush sucks, you Bush robot....

    You really are a legend in your own mind.
    Time to roll over your aging husband and change his diaper ?
    Then you can come back and continue to bore us all.

    Posted by: Why Do you care what my name is at June 25, 2007 10:49 PM

    Not to worry. I've got my servants doing that on autopilot, I have plenty time to best you...

    But then who can't...

    The vice president is unequivically a member of the executive branch. He has no distinct constituency, and he is a member of the cabinet, as blindrat asserted above. The clear primary reason for this office is to provide a replacement-president. The Gerry quote supplied by Sharon clearly explains his role as president of the senate as a factor of him being the only govt official with nothing pressing to do most of the time, so he might as well lend a hand - an afterthought.

    Its almost funny: righties still scream about wat "the meaning of is is", but they revel daily is postmodern word-games being played with our constitution by this administration to our national peril. This recently invented question regarding the nature of the office of VP is of the same ilk as Gonzales' assertion regarding habeas corpus: that since the constitution only says that "the priviledge of the Writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended", it is not clear that any of us actually HAVE this privilege in the first place.

    What is really scary is that so many of you love to hear this stuff, and applaud it as "chutzpah" - and happily watch them erode your rights and liberties in return for such entertainment.

    Cheney is clearly making a very banal attempt at another power-grab, as our founders were fully aware that human beings in positions of power will do. Given Cheney's intransigence, he only way to determine which viewpoint will prevail will be the remedy of impeachment.

    They know they are wrong, but they are just too anal and stubborn to admit it.
    Who in their right mind could actually defend these criminals and actually mean it ?

    At least I'd like to think these ...ahem...women couldn't be that jaded .

    Posted by: Why Do you care what my name is at June 25, 2007 10:47 PM

    Yes, WDYCWMNI, we really are so jaded as to think a charge of criminality needs more than your and New Gal's say so.

    Whatizname, I'm really glad to see you.

    This is a copy and paste from me to you that you seem reluctant to address:

    "Whatizname, another screed is not a legitimate answer. You lamented the lack of factual rebuttal:

    It's funny how none of these facts are ever refuted?( including you Sharon)
    It's a real tough job defending the indefensible !
    Posted by: Why Do You Care What My Name Is at June 23, 2007 1:09 PM"

    You get a factual rebuttal using the Al Marri case to illustrate the points and you ignore everything else and give an answer that completely ignores the CONTEXT AND MEANING of everything to key in on one word (fascism) to say:

    "Grammie thinks that because we haven't descended to Mussolini's Italy or Hitler's Germany that all the FACTS AND evidence against this president, VP, attorney general etc aren't true nor significant."

    I realize that holding more than one thought in your mind at the same time would over tax your brain, so lets just confine ourselves to the so called point you made that our system has not sunk as low as Nazi Germany's system but has started its long decline..

    How far have we descended, according to you, on any scale you choose into the judicial murderous madness of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.

    Just to give you a heads up to dispute my overlying conclusion that our Constitutional Rights are not only shredded and dead but absolutely robust here is a quote from The Nuremberg Trials: The Justice Trial @ www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/Alstoetter.htm - 130k -:

    "In German legal theory, Hitler was not only the Supreme Legislator, he was also the Supreme Judge. On 26 April 1942 Hitler addressed the Reichstag in part as follows:

    “I do expect one thing: that the nation gives me the right to intervene immediately and to take action myself whenever a person has failed to render unqualified obedience....”
    “I therefore ask the German Reichstag to confirm expressly that I have the legal right to keep everybody to his duty and to cashier or remove from office or position without regard for his person or his established rights, whoever, in my view and according to my considered opinion, has failed to do his duty....”
    “From now on, I shall intervene in these cases and remove from office those judges who evidently do not understand the demand of the hour.”

    On the same day the Greater German Reichstag resolved in part as follows:

    “ . . . the Fuehrer must have all the rights postulated by him which serve to further or achieve victory. Therefore—without being bound by existing legal regulations—in his capacity as leader of the nation, Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, governmental chief and supreme executive chief, as supreme justice, and leader of the Party—the Fuehrer must be in a position to force with all means at his disposal every German, if necessary, whether he be common soldier or officer, low or high official or judge, leading or subordinate official of the Party, worker or employee, to fulfill his duties. In case of violation of these duties, the Fuehrer is entitled after conscientious examination, regardless of so-called well-deserved rights, to mete out due punishment, and to remove the offender from his post, rank and position, without introducing prescribed procedures.”

    The assumption by Hitler of supreme governmental power in all departments did not represent a new development based on the emergency of war. The declaration of the Reichstag was only an echo of Hitler’s declaration of 13 July 1934. After the mass murders of that date (the Roehm purge) which were committed by Hitler’s express orders, he said:

    “Whenever someone reproaches me with not having used ordinary court for their sentencing, I can only say: ‘In this hour I am responsible for the fate of the German nation and hence the supreme law lord of the German people’.”

    The conception of Hitler as the Supreme Judge was supported by the defendant Rothenberger. We quote:

    “However, something entirely different has occurred; with the Fuehrer a man has risen within the German people who awakens the oldest, long forgotten times. Here is a man who in his position represents the ideal of the judge in its perfect sense, and the German people elected him for their judge—first of all, of course, as ‘judge’ over their fate in general, but also as ‘supreme magistrate and judge’.”

    You asked for a factual discussion and when you got your wish you fell back on the same old propaganda bromides and non sequitur attacks that is your meat and potatoes.

    Come on, big guy, tell us where on this scale you place Nazi Germany's judicial system and our judicial system.

    Grammie
    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at June 23, 2007 3:41 PM "

    I said reluctant out of courtesy. I actually think that you don't have a clue how to answer it unless you can find 'Lerky Twerpy' response that touches on the issue.

    Hey, big guy, you are definitely not shy or self effacing. I am puzzled why you won't step up to the plate and hit my softball out the park.

    Grammie

    The next time you best me will be the first time.
    I have FACTS on my side. You have your pontificating, smarmy, arrogant jabs.

    I'll take FACTS anytime.

    FACTS in BOLD just to piss you cunts off.

    Posted by: Why Do you care what my name is at June 25, 2007 10:57 PM

    Your facts are probably as irrefutable and logical as your lamenting "smary jabs" while issuing obscene insults... :D

    And don't forget, I'm Bob, no AAP no the Easter Bunny.

    Idiots !

    Posted by: Why Do you care what my name is at June 25, 2007 11:00 PM

    I'm not convinced that you're Bob or AAP and the Easter Bunny is too cute. But I'll agree you could be "idiots" (In your case only the plural would accurately describe it.)

    Cheney is clearly making a very banal attempt at another power-grab, as our founders were fully aware that human beings in positions of power will do. Given Cheney's intransigence, he only way to determine which viewpoint will prevail will be the remedy of impeachment.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at June 25, 2007 10:56 PM


    Yes, all "the righties" feel exactly as you say.... Just as all the "lefties" in power will no doubt chose to vote on impeachment proceedings based upon such an issue...

    Whatizname, what is your aversion to backing up your overwrought rhetoric with facts?

    Will I have to chase you all over OW to get an answer of how far down on the scale has our Jurisprudence sunk in relation to Nazi Jurisprudence?

    That question is based on your words.

    Perhaps no answer is an admission that you were blowing smoke at the time; and anyway it sounded good; and how dare that old broad question you.

    Still waiting.

    Grammie

    Cecilia: I bet your demeanor would be totally different if you got laid once in awhile.

    Posted by: Why Do you care what my name is at June 25, 2007 11:13 PM


    You can only dream WDYCWMNI. :D

    And I mean that.... you can ONLY dream...

    "Savage has a history of linking Democratic politicians and Nazis."

    Posted by: Why Do You Care What My Name Is at June 24, 2007 6:32 PM

    Why do you care if Mr. Savage/Weiner invokes unjustifed Nazi allegations when you apparently don't care if Olbermann does the same thing?

    Come on, big guy, tell us where on this scale you place Nazi Germany's judicial system and our judicial system.

    Grammie
    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at June 23, 2007 3:41 PM "

    I don't understand your argument, Grammy. You illustrate beautifully how a democratic system in a country psychically stressed by demagogues can hand all of their liberties over to a cult of personality in a single knee-jerk. I am particularly surprised that you would venture to mention the judicial system in trying to make your point - -the parallel there is very fresh in our national consciousness.

    Your argument seems to be that since our descent into tyranny is occuring in a time of relative peace and order on the domestic scene, then it can't really be happening. SA thugs and Friekorps are not ranging our streets murdering communists and vice versa, and inflation is not preposterously out of control - but that only makes our abdication of our constitutional rights to a phony cowboy that much more pathetic and dishonorable. Apparently we are doing it out of boredom.

    Whatizname, I must have missed the rebuttals from all those others. I do remember someone (Patsy?) with the response of "Yawn". Is that your rebuttal?

    Not even Whatizname would consider that a rebuttal, or would you. There must be others so point me to them and I will consider it.

    I am a bit surprised, though, that you are so timid that you depend on others to defend your obviously deeply held convictions.

    Cat got your tongue? Or is it that you simply can't back up your overwrought rhetoric.

    Grammie

    Grammie,

    Here I am being called a "wench" by WDYCWMNI. Imagine that.

    Lie # what are we up to, now? Day 6, still waiting for "mike" to tell us how he supports the troops.

    Posted by: royalking at June 25, 2007 8:25 PM

    At this point, it looks like you will just keep avoiding a simple question only asked of you because you accused me of not supporting the troops (supplying all of the beef, beer and my house on occasion wasn't enough for you) and you can't answer. So, it stands, you are all talk and no action. Armchair warrior as you said yourself? Yep, that's you.....

    Cecelia, my mind has gone blank. Do you remember who called you a wench before?

    I don't think it was Whatizname.

    Come on to the rescue, Angels. Our mission is to discover who first used 'wench' referring to Cecelia. :)

    Grammie

    I can't remember the exact name, Grammie, but you nicknamed him "dopey". :D

    Boy, do I feel old. Last evening, I referred to Mrs. Hawkins and Cecelia as "broads," and I sweated over the use of that term. In the course of the evening, I regretted it. But, I see horrible words I would never use thrown about as if they were cheap candy no one wanted. I really don't think that kind of language is acceptable about any woman, other than one you're divorcing and then only when you're in a locker room. It is disheartening.

    And, yes, I know others have complained about the coarse language. Just drop it. It is a recurring theme in many contexts. There is nothing unique about it. As common as the coarse language ....

    Both Grammie and Cecelia are avoiding SLOB's post.

    LMAO

    Posted by: at June 25, 2007 11:46 PM


    Anonyloon, when you can find any link between Sir Loin's conjecture about our rights being slowly usurped and Grammie's question concerning Al Marri and his access to the judicial system, I'll answer it.

    And, yes, I know others have complained about the coarse language. Just drop it. It is a recurring theme in many contexts. There is nothing unique about it. As common as the coarse language ....

    Posted by: Clucker at June 25, 2007 11:46 PM


    Only you, Cluck-tut, could tut-tut bad language and tut-tut anyone else potentially concurring with that opinion--- all in the same post.

    You were referring to Mike as dopey.

    conjecture?

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    Cecelia is almost as funny as Jon Stewart, or George Carlin.
    Almost.

    Posted by: at June 25, 2007 11:58 PM


    You can't find a link either, huh.

    Clucker: see what I mean.

    Posted by: at June 26, 2007 12:00 AM

    Proably not. Maybe you could be a bit more eloquent and elucidating by adding a few "hahas"....

    But then after her Ann Coulter-like rants she'd turn around and lamblast you for thinking she's partisan.

    Posted by: anonanonanonanonanonanonanonanonanonaonoanonanonanonanonanonanonanonanonanon at June 26, 2007 12:06 AM


    Care to point out an Anne Coulter rant I have made?

    SLOB, first I hope you, your wife and family are doing well. I know how demanding and draining these situations can be.

    There are multiple posts re this @ the June 20th thread.

    To copy and paste all of them would be fairly easy technically but would be short story size.

    If you are interested in the background and history it started with my post @:

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at June 23, 2007 1:25 PM

    This was a repetition of an earlier post on a different thread that no one had answered. Whatizname had complained, and I am paraphrasing here, that no one from my side of the aisle ever posted anything debatable.

    And excluding the obligatory 'Bush sucks and so do you' this was his answer:

    "Grammie thinks that because we haven't descended to Mussolini's Italy or Hitler's Germany that all the FACTS AND evidence against this president, VP, attorney general etc aren't true nor significant."

    I gave him my thoughts on the subject and the post above @ 10:59 PM was my response to his idea of a rebuttal.

    If you want to pursue it I would welcome any comments you have.

    If you don't want to pursue it, or possibly can't because of your situation, that's fine with me.

    Grammie

    You can't find a link either, huh.
    Posted by: Cecelia at June 26, 2007 12:07 AM

    And when links are posted, we hear from the cacaphony chorus that we don't use our own words.
    So around and around the wingnuts go ..............................................................................................................................................................................

    Posted by: at June 26, 2007 12:10 AM


    So now you've confused "link" as in logical progression of thought with "link" as in website.... brilliant...

    You were referring to Mike as dopey.

    Posted by: Sharon at June 26, 2007 12:03 AM


    Sharon, I don't think it was Mike who called me that. It was someone else.

    Cecelia, thanks.

    It was 'Ropeadope'. He popped up, got whacked a few times and faded away. :)

    Grammie

    That's what you have for rebuttals, Cecelia,
    Caca and phony.

    Posted by: at June 26, 2007 12:13 AM


    Rebuttal of what? You've not made an argument.

    Yes, that's it. Thanks, Grammie.

    I know liberal men are the first to call women sexist names, but how many men, of any political persuasion, are THAT midieval in this day and age?.... :D

    Ropeadope is probably another WDYCWMNI doppelganger.

    I'm Ropeadope, still popping your ass.

    See how wrong you WENCHES can be.


    Posted by: at June 26, 2007 12:27 AM


    Yeah.... your going totally anonymous confused us about how bold and stalworthy you are....

    Nailed !

    Posted by: Ropeadope at June 26, 2007 12:29 AM


    Yeah, it's enough for Sir Loin of Beef to simply state that we're losing our freedoms when Grammie asks a question about a suspected terrorist who just had his day in court...

    I'm sure you've been persuaded by less before....

    Just having fun showing what a fool you are, Cecececelia.

    Posted by: ropeadope, no Bob, np AAP, no Chucky, noooooooooooooooooooo at June 26, 2007 12:33 AM


    You're far more gifted at showing what a fool you are.

    If I'm not mistaken Why Do you care gave a good rebuttal about how you dames have ignored all the other countless men who have had their freedoms revoked, held interminably, never charged and then released.
    yet you focus on the one who had his day in court.

    That shows what hypocrite partisan wingers you are !

    Make a huge point over one who gets his day in court and ignore the hundreds others who have had their freedoms denied .

    Roped myself another dope.

    Christ, Cecelia has burn marks from all the rope !

    Posted by: Ropeadope at June 26, 2007 12:41 AM


    Care to cut and paste it.

    BTW... when talking about the "one" who had his day in court, you might want to consider the significance of this "one" in that he was arrested here and the others weren't... and that this has been allowed to stand...

    BTW-- this same ruling about Al Marri would have put Mohammad Atta in a criminal court. Have you considered that there might be a valid argument that counters THAT scenario and that Al Marri's ruling might not stand after an appeal?

    Are you all totally comfortable deriding we broads?

    From Patsy, my absolut (deliberate misspelling) favorite one trick pony:

    "I nominate Robert Cox as "Bosley"

    Then I would have to go with BovineQueen as "Charlie." Given his paranoia, Bovine will be trying to give you ladies instructions from the safety of a barn in an undisclosed location.

    *
    -Charlie: (Bovine) OK, Angels, your mission: Find out who is that wascally wabbit hiding behind the Sir Loin moniker.
    Your clues: It might be AAP. I have reliable information from Bosley. Now, go fetch!
    I have a meeting with Dr. Weiners.
    *
    Posted by: Average American Patriot at June 23, 2007 6:42 PM"

    Patsy was the first to send we 'Angels' on a mission.

    I actually thought it was funny. So I used the sincerest form of flattery by emulating him.

    Just a suggestion from me. I think all the name shifting has made you all too uptight.

    Get a life and lighten up.

    Grammie

    ...that is simplistic to think all principles of any ideology are so fixed as to be almost religiously dogmatic in nature.
    Posted by: Cecelia at June 25, 2007 5:11 PM

    The whole idea of "liberal" "conservative" is always changing, and it's why I could never place myself in either group. I think individuals should be changing their ideas "hopefully" as they grow and mature in this mud hole we call society. Words are wonderful things. With a couple syllables we can bring to mind a whole set of what we percieve someones beliefs, wants, and needs are. Real communication is "hard work" and most people don't have the time or energy to try it.

    Get a life and lighten up.

    Grammie

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at June 26, 2007 12:51 AM


    Hell, I'd settle for Legion just getting more interesting.

    You know I'm bored when I leave a flame war.

    Night, all.

    Ropeadope mysteriously appears to do his name calling game. Who will he reappear as? Isn't it funny how ropeadope appears only to reappear as another certain olbyloon?

    Janet,
    First; thanks for your concern. 'nuff said.

    To the point formerly at hand; I came into this thread late and grasped a couple of topics through a quick scan of postings before I weighed-in. I mildly regret missing the specifics of your ongoing discussion (the Al Masri factor), but in review I don't really see how my post could have been considered irrelevant to the debate. I don't know about anybody else, but "Bush sucks and so do you" wasn't any part of my response to your post, and I have to agree with others here that my contributions to the discussions reamain unaddressed.

    Back to the point: I am confident that the framers and ratifiers of our constitution could have agree on a definition of "tyranny" as the "rule of men as opposed to laws" or some close rendition of the same concept. A cabal grasping power and ruling by arbitrary decree could concievably enact policies that would promote universal justice and general contentment - but please...with power and self-perpetuation acting as twin catalysts in politics - and money as fuel and lubricant - such an outcome is not likely to be frequent or long-lasting. Its also possible to concieve of a coup in which the usurpers engage in mild mischief and larceny without really corrupting the entire system and the nation it serves - but the very word "arbitrary" (as opposed to "procedural" or "statutory") means all bets are off, and its anybody's guess which way the pendulum will swing.

    Today we're responsible for somewhere between 200,000 and 1,000,000 dead citizens of a country that never attacked or threatened us in any way; at least 29 people have died of torture in US custody; we have an executive branch that claims the right of the judiciary to interperet the products of the legislature - effectively (if we let them) nullifying the constitutional powers of these branches. Where does all this fall on your abrupt two-point continuum between Mayberry and Auschwitz?


    ...oh fuck, its getting late and I've got a long way to go before I get to the Enabling Act, and my frequently-posted quote from Goering: "... The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders...tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. Blah balh blah". You know where i'm going with this...

    Goodnight

    RK, you made a good point.

    No one has heard from Dopey for quite a while yet just mention his name and he presto magico voila miraculously pops up again almost instantaneously

    The same miraculous reappearance by Bobo happened a month or so ago.

    Whatizname is here, there and everywhere just like Pepe Le Pew. He has brilliantly rebutted my QUESTION according to so many, or so few, who knows.

    This is his answer to my post at the thread June 20 Posted by: Why Do You Care What My Name Is at June 23, 2007 1:38 PM:

    "Grammie thinks that because we haven't descended to Mussolini's Italy or Hitler's Germany that all the FACTS AND evidence against this president, VP, attorney general etc aren't true nor significant."

    And here is the question that I am still waiting for an answer to from my post on the same thread @ 3:41 PM:

    "How far have we descended, according to you, on any scale you choose into the judicial murderous madness of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany."

    There have been numerous posts claiming that Whatizname had annihilated me with his rebuttal to this question. He NEVER answered the question much less rebutted anything.

    Which brings up the point how do you rebut a question if you can't or won't even answer it.

    Let me make an attempt to forcefully repeat that:

    HOW DO YOU REBUT A QUESTION IF YOU CAN'T OR WON'T EVEN ANSWER IT?

    Whatizname and/or all your surrogates, you have my quotes and a link to comprehensive material re Nazi Jurisprudence based on the Nuremburg Trials in the post mentioned above.

    If this is not acceptable to you the internet is there for us all to explore. This should be a very simple exercise for you or your surrogates to draw a compare and contrast analysis based on the evidence and your conclusions derived from it.

    Until then, I am still waiting for either an answer to my question or a citation from someone at OW, hell anyone at OW, to give the answer to the question much less the rebuttal.

    Grammie

    gal tried and failed again.....

    "One more thing, Cee, you couldn't be any more annoying with your blind partisanship and your arrogant posts if you tried.

    "I bet you're a squirrelly looking little bald nerd
    .
    "Pretty close ?"


    ###
    I could be more annoying.

    I think my look is more geek than nerd.

    Oh yeah, the rest of your Cheney/Bush fear posts?......That fear is misplaced and unnecessary also....

    Sir Loin of Milquetoast was 100% right....

    "Cheney is clearly making a very banal attempt at another power-grab, as our founders were fully aware that human beings in positions of power will do. Given Cheney's intransigence, [the] only way to determine which viewpoint will prevail will be the remedy of impeachment."


    ###
    Did I hear Emanuel, Waxman or any of the left's ruling class mention impeachment?....

    Why not? Because what Loin did not mention is that Cheney's questioning the applicability of an executive order....My question remains.....Why is the legislative branch concerning itself over an issue reserved only as a function of the executive? If it is such a banal move to usurp power, why don't they move to examine Cheney's management of classified documents with hearings.....and make those hearings HAVE CONSEQUENCES FOR ONCE!.....HAVE THEM BE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS!

    Impeach and remove from office...the criminals Bush and Cheney!
    Cut the funds....bring home the troops!

    And this is my post today, the 1,517th day since the declaration of Mission Accomplished in Iraq.....

    I am cee, good night and good luck.

    "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

    "If we end up saying that because these people are committing these acts of terrorism in Iraq or Afghanistan, that we shouldn't have done the removal of Saddam or the removal of the Taliban, then we are making a fundamental mistake about our own future, about security, about the values we should be defending in the world." TONY BLAIR

    "If it is such a banal move to usurp power, why don't they move to examine Cheney's management of classified documents with hearings.....and make those hearings HAVE CONSEQUENCES FOR ONCE!.....HAVE THEM BE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS!

    Impeach and remove from office...the criminals Bush and Cheney!
    Cut the funds....bring home the troops! "

    cee is 100% right. These things need to be done and it is inexcusable that we have not yet unlimbered the constitution and exercised the remedy for insipient tyranny.

    Sadly, the Dem front-runners - being people of the sort clearly recognized by the founders (i.e human ones) - are salivating over the powers and potential we have foolishly extended to this administration. I wonder: will cee applaud Hillary's "Chutzpah" when she uses and augments the new executive tool kit cobbled together by Bush? "Rule-of-law; schmool-of-law" she will scoff when crucial demands are made of her by congress, citing a raft of precident provided by her predecessor.


    Happily, Democratic lawmakers are experiencing harsh pressure from their constituents to engage in just these actions. Cheney's laughable claim will only help to convince them to comply.

    cee, I cheerfully welcome you into the the ranks of those demanding impeachment.

    And here is the question that I am still waiting for an answer to from my post on the same thread @ 3:41 PM:

    "How far have we descended, according to you, on any scale you choose into the judicial murderous madness of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany."


    Well, we haven't yet adopted the swastika or the fasces as our national symbols; we haven't given German or Italian names to all of our streets...

    that's what you are asserting, isn't it? That we don't need to worry about the erosion of our liberties until we look exactly like the some of the most famous precedents of corporate tyranny?

    Psychiatrists can hold either the M.D. degree or the D.O. degree. D.O.s are represented in all medical specialties (including surgery, radiology, anesthesiology, internal medicine etc.) and practice with all privileges afforded M.D.s in all 50 states. The D.O. degree is not as well known as the M.D. degree and there are currently fewer practicing D.O.s than M.D.s, but the training is very similar in the basic and clinical sciences and differs only in an additional area of training that includes musculoskeletal manipulation.

    You have very interesting site!
    Respect you!
    http://louisellipsehandbag.iespana.es

    Leave a new comment