Host: Keith Olbermann

Topics/Guests:

• SCOOTER LIBBY! SCOOTER LIBBY! SCOOTER LIBBY! SCOOTER FIBBY!
• COMMUTER IN CHIEF/COMPASSIONATE CRONYISM: Wolffe Man on the commutation of Lewis Libby's sentence.
• SCOOTER FIBBY: Slippery Schuster
• COMMUTE DISPUTE: The ever dramatic Perfessor
• PRESIDENT BUSH'S LEGACY: Regurgitated video
• SPESHUL KOMMENT


If there couldn't be a bigger opening spiel, this is it. "Joining the obstruction of justice." Clip of Bush out of context thinking of a response to a question. Potential pardon - an actual Presidential power - shocker! Did Mister Cheney tell Mr. Bush to do this? The Democrats don't know where to start. Conyers and Waxman pictures. Former Vice President Gore (aka god) versus the St. Rudy. Plug for Speshul Komment. I think two bottles are in order.



#5: A "clear majority" of American disagree with the commutation. The President threw away any reason for Americans to believe he is an honest man. ANOTHER plug for the Speshul Komment. A real clip of the President making a statement on Mr. Libby's convinction. Clips of the always moderate media fighting with Press Secretary Tony Snow. The Vice President - SHOCKINGLY - was the last person to meet with the President before he made the decision to commute the sentence of Mr. Libby. Keithy admits that "Mister" Libby never requested the commutation - gasp! So what is Olbersturmfuhrer saying here? It was a favor but Libby didn't ask for it? It was just understood? Hm? Time to call in the Wolffe Man. Great insight about commutations in the White House versus those when he was Governor of Texas. Some how this ties into Iraq. Keith mentions the esteemed non partisan Conyers and Waxman of the House who are going to hold hearings on said commutation. Is this going to bring together the American people ? asks Keith. Well, it certainly didn't do them any favors says Wolffe Man. I wonder why he did it then because it sems more often than not that the President is interested in pandering than anything else on OlbyPlanet. Is this an example of the White House not caring what others think, again asks Hauptmann? The "surge being another example." Ok, pardon me for not getting that one, but when is the President supposed to bow down before the public? Do we live in a Democratic Republic or a pure Democracy, Fat Ass? That may be a tough one for you to answer but it happens to be the former. We elect officials to make their own decisions, not based on popular opinion. Goes to show you vis a vis that immigration bill you said nothing about. Wolffe Man decides arbitrarily that the President put his personal feelings above all else. Glad to know you were at the private meetings, Wolfy. This is one man's decision, Wolffe Man says. No, really? Another plug.



#4: Olby pretends to play "truth squad." Yeah, this is the no spin zone folks. The administration lies about lies and protects lies as it smears liars. Er wait. They aren't liars. Jabba is too fast for me. Olbermann, baffled at the fact that no one was charged in the "leak." Mr. No One Has This Better Covered Slippery Shuster comes in to help his Great Leader. We all know how reliable Slippery is with his "sources." Remember when Speaker Hastert was going to resign? Slippery reminds us that what "Libby" was convicted of were "crimes." Sacrament! YOU DON'T SAY. I thought he was convicted of being a member of the eeeeeeevil administration. No mention behind the real person who outed this "covert" agent, Richard Armitage. Schuster opines that the administration was fearful that Libby was a "ticking time bomb" if he was in jail. What was he going to explode? All of those "lies" that you have already concluded are such? What in god's name are you talking about? Is this the epitome of a "journalist" inserting his opinion about things that have never been said as to be fact? I think so. Embarrassing.



#3: MORE SCOOTER LIBBY. Why did he not actually grant the pardon? Is there something nefarious behind the President leaving the actual conviction intact that Olby believes to his dying breath was warranted? Fat Ass quotes a passage from "Mister" Bush's autobiography where he says he would not replace a jury's verdict. Well, Braniac, did he do that? Did he pardon "Scooter" Libby? No. He didn't. He commuted his jail sentence while leaving the fines, FELONY conviction and probation intact. What is so hard for you to understand about this? The holy jury that convicted Mr. Libby did not give him his sentence, the JUDGE did. Who appoints these judges? The President. Who confirms? The Senate. Who has the constitutional right to commute sentences and pardon people? The President. See the balance of power here? Or does it not play into your vast right wing conspiracy handbook you picked up ThinkProgress? Desperate to find ways to nail the administration, Olby brings in the Perfessor regarding immunity for Mr. Libby so he can testify against the eeeeeeeeeeevil President Dick Cheney Bush. The Perfessor, who learns from his puppeteer, starts saying Dick Dick DICK DICK. The penis Olbsession has become pervasive. Olby thinks there is a mere "appearance of a quid pro quo." Perfessor surprisingly attacks B.J. Clinton for abusing his pardon power. This will not go down on OlbyPlanet. I doubt we'll see the Perfessor for awhile. Perfessor drops impeachment as a possibility to remedy the appearance of abuse of power. Great Thanks. Another plug.

#2: The Bush Legacy. Regurgitated video from HQ and Andrea Mitchell. Olby, historian, consitutional expert and everything but God, declares President Bush the worst ever.

Keeping Tabs: God of convenient truths. Al Gore received an advanced copy of the final episode of The Sopranos. Wow. My heart skips a beat. Olby fumbles over a German Colonel's name. Someone has the same name as Olbermann! HAR HAR HAR! Plug again.

In the Media Matters minute, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe because his defense minister said something that most historians and veterans of the the Pacific theater in World War II would agree with - using nuclear weapons helped end the war. Would Constitutional expert and historian Oralmann like to opine on the possible casualties of invading the Japanese mainland? Doubtful. The defense minister resigned. What the hell Mr. Abe had to do with this is unclear to me. The guy was a member of his cabinet. He resigned. And....? I guess because he's a member of the same party that Koizumi (an ally of the United States) earns him the nod. OH. NOW I KNOW. It's because the Defense Minister said the war in Iraq was a mistake. So, without any evidence, we should infer he was dismissed rather than resign and that somehow leads all the way back to Mr. Abe. DUH. Silver: Duncan Hunter for supporting Ann Coulter after she was sandbagged on Chrissy Mathews show and maligned for an out of context comment. Everyone seems to think she called for John Edwards to be assassinated - WRONG. She said that if she wanted to say anything negative about him she should say that - just like Bill Maher did about Vice President Cheney and the MSM along with the Laughing Stagehand and lackeys missed. Blue Blog Source: AnAngryDakotaDemocrat. The gold: eeeeeeevil 'neo-con' and "publisher of the right-wing magazine Weekly Standard" for suggesting the reaction of Amb. Joseph Wilson was "ridiculous" along with thinking Americans are ridiculous for disagreeing with commutation. Apparently, this explains why no one ever buys a copy of the Weekly Standard. Hm, I happen to have a subscription! It also has a circulation of 83,000 copies a week. Not bad for a small, intellectual magazine that is above BathTub boy's higher level thinking. Perhaps your smear tactics, use of smear merchants and outright lies is why you continue to see yourself land in fourth place Mr. Edward "Solid Second" R. Olbermann. Blug Blog Source: Media Matters. Oh, and just because he needed one Fox "Noise" mention in there, he throws that in with Mr. Kistrol as he contributes to the network that destroys Olbermahn nightly. We needed one hilarious Fox Noise comment for the evening. Keep it up, Olby, maybe it'll pull you up to third.



Olbermann's book The book that bears Olbermann's collapsed to a humiliating, painful and otherwise embarrassing #256,400 on amazon.com - HA!, but "Culture Warrior" is #626. (It's that 2-for-$25 sale!) The OlbyTome managed to - wait - it didn't. It's still unranked at Barnes and Noble; O'Reilly's book is #1,178 there, and is one of the top five books of 2006 per Publishers Weekly. Tuesday's Hour of Spin managed a laughable and typical third place place finish in total viewers as well as that "money demo" Olbsession. Source. Tonight's MisterMeter reading: 15 [EXTREME!!!]




APPENDIX: Keith's Latest Speshul Education Komment

I didn't vote for him, an American once said, "But he's my president, and I hope he does a good job."

*cue eyebrow lift*

That - on this eve of the 4th of July - is the essence of this democracy, in 17 words. And that is what President Bush threw away yesterday in commuting the sentence of Lewis "Scooter" Libby. The man who said those 17 words - improbably enough - was the actor John Wayne. And Wayne, an ultra-conservative, said them, when he learned of the hair's-breadth election of John F. Kennedy instead of his personal favorite, Richard Nixon in 1960.

"I didn't vote for him but he's my president, and I hope he does a good job."

*cue second eyebrow lift*

The sentiment was doubtlessly expressed earlier, but there is something especially appropriate about hearing it, now, in Wayne's voice: The crisp matter-of-fact acknowledgement that we have survived, even though for nearly two centuries now, our Commander-in-Chief has also served, simultaneously, as the head of one political party and often the scourge of all others.

*brief pause, voice tone more forceful*

We as citizens must, at some point, ignore a president's partisanship. Not that we may prosper as a nation, not that we may achieve, not that we may lead the world -but merely that we may function.

But just as essential to the seventeen words of John Wayne, is an implicit trust-a sacred trust: That the president for whom so many did not vote, can in turn suspend his political self long enough, and for matters imperative enough, to conduct himself solely for the benefit of the entire Republic.

Our generation's willingness to state "we didn't vote for him, but he's our president, and we hope he does a good job," was tested in the crucible of history, and earlier than most.

And in circumstances more tragic and threatening. And we did that with which history tasked us.

We enveloped our President in 2001. And those who did not believe he should have been elected—indeed those who did not believe he had been elected—willingly lowered their voices and assented to the sacred oath of non-partisanship.

*sound angry, frustrated*

And George W. Bush took our assent, and re-configured it, and honed it, and shaped it to a razor-sharp point and stabbed this nation in the back with it.

*frustration growing, speaking more quickly*

Were there any remaining lingering doubt otherwise, or any remaining lingering hope, it ended yesterday when Mr. Bush commuted the prison sentence of one of his own staffers.

Did so even before the appeals process was complete; did so without as much as a courtesy consultation with the Department of Justice; did so despite what James Madison - at the Constitutional Convention - said about impeaching any president who pardoned or sheltered those who had committed crimes "advised by" that president; did so without the slightest concern that even the most detached of citizens must look at the chain of events and wonder: To what degree was Mr. Libby told: break the law however you wish - the President will keep you out of prison?

*look down, lips tight, powerful pause - PIVOT NOW*

In that moment, Mr. Bush, you broke that fundamental com-pact between yourself and the majority of this nation's citizens - the ones who did not cast votes for you. In that moment, Mr. Bush, you ceased to be the President of the United States. In that moment, Mr. Bush, you became merely the President of a rabid and irresponsible (furried eyebrow here) corner of the Republican Party. And this is too important a time, Sir, to have a commander-in-chief who puts party over nation.

This has been, of course, the gathering legacy of this Administration. Few of its decisions have escaped the stain of politics. The extraordinary Karl Rove has spoken of "a permanent Republican majority," as if such a thing - or a permanent Democratic majority - is not antithetical to that upon which rests: our country, our history, our revolution, our freedoms.

*switch back to camera 1*

Yet our Democracy has survived shrewder men than Karl Rove. And it has survived the frequent stain of politics upon the fabric of government. But this administration, with ever-increasing insistence and almost theocratic zealotry, has turned that stain into a massive oil spill.

The protection of the environment is turned over to those of one political party, who will financially benefit from the rape of the environment. The protections of the Constitution are turned over to those of one political party, who believe those protections unnecessary and extravagant and quaint.

The enforcement of the laws is turned over to those of one political party, who will swear beforehand that they will not enforce those laws. The choice between war and peace is turned over to those of one political party, who stand to gain vast wealth by ensuring that there is never peace, but only war.

And now, when just one cooked book gets corrected by an honest auditor, when just one trampling of the inherent and inviolable fairness of government is rejected by an impartial judge, when just one wild-eyed partisan is stopped by the figure of blind justice, this President decides that he, and not the law, must prevail.

*haughty voice, pivot again*

I accuse you, Mr. Bush, of lying this country into war.

I accuse you of fabricating in the minds of your own people, a false implied link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

I accuse you of firing the generals who told you that the plans for Iraq were disastrously insufficient.

I accuse you of causing in Iraq the needless deaths of 3,586 of our brothers and sons, and sisters and daughters, and friends and neighbors.

I accuse you of subverting the Constitution, not in some misguided but sincerely-motivated struggle to combat terrorists, but to stifle dissent.

*rage building*

I accuse you of fomenting fear among your own people, of creating the very terror you claim to have fought.

I accuse you of exploiting that unreasoning fear, the natural fear of your own people who just want to live their lives in peace, as a political tool to slander your critics and libel your opponents.

I accuse you of handing part of this Republic over to a Vice President who is without conscience, and letting him run roughshod over it.

And I accuse you now, Mr. Bush, of giving, through that Vice President, carte blanche to Mr. Libby, to help defame Ambassador Joseph Wilson by any means necessary, to lie to Grand Juries and Special Counsel and before a court, in order to protect the mechanisms and particulars of that defamation, with your guarantee that Libby would never see prison, and, in so doing, as Ambassador Wilson himself phrased it here last night, of becoming an accessory to the obstruction of justice.

When President Nixon ordered the firing of the Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox during the infamous "Saturday Night Massacre" on October 20th, 1973, Cox initially responded tersely, and ominously.

"Whether ours shall be a government of laws and not of men, is now for Congress, and ultimately, the American people."

President Nixon did not understand how he had crystallized the issue of Watergate for the American people.
It had been about the obscure meaning behind an attempt to break in to a rival party's headquarters; and the labyrinthine effort to cover-up that break-in and the related crimes.

*look up from careful thought and reading*

And in one night, Nixon transformed it.

Watergate-instantaneously-became a simpler issue: a President overruling the inexorable march of the law of insisting-in a way that resonated viscerally with millions who had not previously understood - that he was the law.

Not the Constitution. Not the Congress. Not the Courts. Just him.

*Silence. Powerful pause and look downard. Pivot*

Just - Mr. Bush - as you did, yesterday.

*eyebrows raised again*

The twists and turns of Plame-Gate, of your precise and intricate lies that sent us into this bottomless pit of Iraq; your lies upon the lies to discredit Joe Wilson; your lies upon the lies upon the lies to throw the sand at the "referee" of Prosecutor Fitzgerald's analogy. These are complex and often painful to follow, and too much, perhaps, for the average citizen.

But when other citizens render a verdict against your man, Mr. Bush-and then you spit in the faces of those jurors and that judge and the judges who were yet to hear the appeal-the average citizen understands that, Sir.

*growing angry again*

It's the fixed ballgame and the rigged casino and the pre-arranged lottery all rolled into one - and it stinks. And they know it. *forceful anger*

Nixon's mistake, the last and most fatal of them, the firing of Archibald Cox, was enough to cost him the presidency. And in the end, even Richard Nixon could say he could not put this nation through an impeachment.

It was far too late for it to matter then, but as the decades unfold, that single final gesture of non-partisanship, of acknowledged responsibility not to self, not to party, not to “base,” but to country, echoes loudly into history. Even Richard Nixon knew it was time to resign

*look up again from deep reading*

Would that you could say that, Mr. Bush. And that you could say it for Mr. Cheney. You both crossed the Rubicon yesterday. Which one of you chose the route, no longer matters. Which is the ventriloquist, and which the dummy (emphasis here), is irrelevant.

But that you have twisted the machinery of government into nothing more than a tawdry machine of politics, is the only fact that remains relevant.

It is nearly July 4th, Mr. Bush, the commemoration of the moment we Americans decided that rather than live under a King who made up the laws, or erased them, or ignored them—or commuted the sentences of those rightly convicted under them - we would force our independence, and regain our sacred freedoms.

We of this time - and our leaders in Congress, of both parties - must now live up to those standards which echo through our history: Pressure, negotiate, impeach - get you, Mr. Bush, and Mr. Cheney, two men who are now perilous to our Democracy, away from its helm.

For you, Mr. Bush, and for Mr. Cheney, there is a lesser task. You need merely achieve a very low threshold indeed. Display just that iota of patriotism which Richard Nixon showed, on August 9th, 1974.

*mouth open wide*

Resign.

And give us someone - anyone - about whom all of us might yet be able to quote John Wayne, and say, "I didn't vote for him, but he's my president, and I hope he does a good job."

*look down, saddened*



Posted by Edward Schatz | Permalink | Comments (285) | | View blog reactions


285 Comments

By mlong on July 3, 2007 10:44 PM

He forgot to accuse Bush of being behind 9/11....come on KO you know you want to say it...come on say it please!!!

By John on July 3, 2007 10:51 PM

"That's because FOX NOISE is behind it!!!" - Olby

By Doc on July 3, 2007 11:02 PM

Yawn.

Three things:

Keith's head is huge. Physically he looks like a bobblehead.

The shot of him with the television banks behind him is an obvious rip off of the Deathstar.

What's he so angry about? He's rich, he's white, he has job with no requirements or morals and his banging the snot out of 20something whore.

By The Raging Republican on July 3, 2007 11:04 PM

Who is his 20something whore?

By Doc on July 3, 2007 11:04 PM

Oh!

And he was wearing so much orange foundation his collar was tainted by the end of the show. Tivo it, he must have rubbed his neck at some point.

By Doc on July 3, 2007 11:07 PM

The RM Classic Car Auction is on now.

Who pays $75K for a body mod 56 Chevy?

Its just silly

By Little Feechie on July 3, 2007 11:11 PM

Doc...all good points. I'm glad Keith is hitting on 20 something talent. Lord knows, she's not in the relationship for his schlong.

By Anonymous on July 3, 2007 11:11 PM

The 20-something whore is named Katy Tur. Google her. I'm sure Olbermann is stooping her if he can get it up.

By RTL on July 3, 2007 11:12 PM

Bear in mind that I don't approve of the President, but this is EXACTLY what I'm talking about with KO. This guy makes it sound like Bush is not only the worst president to ever come aboard the White House and is incapable of nothing good, but he acts as if he is the only elected official to do something shady.

Um, how 'bout BILL CLINTON? How about practically every other sitting president that has done a list of pardons? Ha such hate ever come out from Olbermann regarding them? KO, George Bush is just as corrupt as all those other ones, yet to sit there and lecture about how Bush should resign as he is seemingly the sole offender of such BS acts. I'm sure Mark Rich is delighting in your "special comment."

Grow up, Keith. Stop treating the world as if you are the only source of correct information.

By xanthrope on July 3, 2007 11:13 PM

To: countdown@msnbc.com

Subject: Channeling Ted Baxter

Pure comedy gold!

I was on the edge of my seat, will he burst into tears? Self- immolate? Soil himself? All three?

The intellect and coherence of Gilligan, delivered by that puffed up, pompous and self-absorbed Olbermann character. He makes Ted Baxter look like the spawn of Mother Theresa and Ghandi.

Way more convincing than Colbert, he may act like a gay Bill O'Reilly, but Olbermann IS the gay O'Reilly.

Kudos


By Doc on July 3, 2007 11:14 PM

$122,500 for a 1952 custom restore. A Muntz Jet is...I know its a one off but its just out of touch with what you find on the market now.

I think the cameras affect people.

By The Raging Republican on July 3, 2007 11:18 PM

Found Katy Tur here at olby watch:
http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2007/05/a_real_photo_of.php

Along with her own words from 2005 article she wrote:
When are the people in charge going to realize that we, the youth, the ones who are in high school and college or who, like me, have just graduated, do not want to be read the news by another cheesy blonde anchor who looks like the girl who does keg stands and dances on coffee tables at frat parties? Respectable journalists don't wear hot pink and they don't die their hair blonde if they are Korean like Mia Lee, one of the anchors at KCAL. The women shouldn't have fake tits that are pushed up to their neck and the men shouldn't be orange. Do you respect the guy in your psych class that has frosted tips and highlights? No. Then why would you feel differently toward the guy reading the news?

By The Raging Republican on July 3, 2007 11:20 PM

BTW: that girl has got skank written all over her chin....... Olbergay might want to go have himself tested at the free clinic

By Doc on July 3, 2007 11:21 PM

Anybody catch Dan Abrams show after? That guy is so preoccupied summering on the island he's just phoning his "report."

Funny, he lost the stubble. I guess it was so last year.

Man I love those spoked rims. Car builders from the 1930s pulled out all the stops.

By The Raging Republican on July 3, 2007 11:22 PM

Nothing says classy like a see through white top with a black bra..............yeah I'm sure she's saving it for marriage.

By Doc on July 3, 2007 11:23 PM

The Rolls Phatom II is dowdy. Its just lacks that finished sport look.

By Katy Turic on July 3, 2007 11:24 PM

Speshul Komment has Krazy Keith spittin'
From blue blogs he reads the words written
I accuse Keith of hack
And not knowing jack
Ed Murrow would call him a kitten

By Doc on July 3, 2007 11:26 PM

1957 ferrari 250 gt. sweet car but lacks that ferrari tuning later cars do. the v12 pipes, nothing in the world sound like that.

By The Raging Republican on July 3, 2007 11:26 PM

stop posting about cars

By Little Feechie on July 3, 2007 11:30 PM

she's cute...I can tell you this...she's not having that much fun with Olbermann.

I mean, why would anyone that young and pretty want to be with one of the mosted hated men in journalistic circles?

Keith has more enemies at NBC news than you think.

By The Raging Republican on July 3, 2007 11:32 PM

Not all that cute................blonde, yes.............big tits, yes...........but nothing special

By John on July 3, 2007 11:32 PM

HA! Damn, that's pretty good. O'Reilly often reads limericks sent in from viewers on the air. You should write some material for him Re: Olby. (oreilly@foxnews.com)

By The Raging Republican on July 3, 2007 11:35 PM

I bet this is 'their song'

http://youtube.com/watch?v=D0owRk-zYOk


b/c she prob does!

By The Raging Republican on July 3, 2007 11:38 PM

Their other song:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=OtIG48NHsM4&mode=related&search=

By N15PCA on July 3, 2007 11:50 PM

I do not accuse you, Mr. Bush, of lying this country into war. In fact every intelligence
agency here and around the world told you that Saddam Hussein did have Weapons of mass destruction.

I do not accuse you of fabricating in the minds of your own people, a false implied link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

The President of the United States can fire any general for any reason.

I do not accuse you of causing in Iraq the needless deaths of 3,586 of our brothers and sons, and sisters and daughters, and friends and neighbors. The flight in Iraq is a noble and good flight. We are trying to bring Democratic government to Iraq.

I do not accuse you of subverting the Constitution, not in some misguided but sincerely-motivated struggle to combat terrorists, but to stifle dissent. Bush is fighting this war in Iraq to stop Islamic Jihad from take over the Middle-east and other parts of the world.

I do not accuse you of fomenting fear among your own people, of creating the very terror you claim to have fought.

I do not accuse you of exploiting that unreasoning fear, the natural fear of your own people who just want to live their lives in peace, as a political tool to slander your critics and libel your opponents. If the Dems look weak on the war on Terror they have no one to blame but themselves.

I do not accuse you of handing part of this Republic over to a Vice President who is without conscience, and letting him run roughshod over it. Last time I check Bush is still the President and Dick Cheney is still Vice President.

And I do not accuse you now, Mr. Bush, of giving, through that Vice President, carte blanche to Mr. Libby, to help defame Ambassador Joseph Wilson by any means necessary, to lie to Grand Juries and Special Counsel and before a court, in order to protect the mechanisms and particulars of that defamation, with your guarantee that Libby would never see prison, and, in so doing, as Ambassador Wilson himself phrased it here last night, of becoming an accessory to the obstruction of justice. Let’s not talk about who Bill Clinton pardoned. Bill Clinton pardoned people who had the biggest check books and he didn’t give a dam what they did.

That’s my Special Comment.

By Olby's Shrink's Janitor on July 4, 2007 12:04 AM

Is this Keef who is complaining about how corrupt this adminsitration is, the same Keef that gave a check to Clinton on air.. The same Clinton, who after receiving a 400K donation to his presidential library from the man's wife, pardoned the same man who completely avoided the justice system?

It is? Oh.. Okay. I thought I was on crack or in somer parallel universe.

By ohboy on July 4, 2007 12:40 AM

Wow, they don't make "news anchors" like this anymore.

The highlight for me has always been KO's special commentary after Bush said "you cannot think that we treat prisoners the way that al-Qaeda treats their prisoners."

KO then went on for 200 minutes (okay, maybe 5, it seemed like 200) of sputtering outrage that Bush was trying to tell us patriotic American how to think and what to think and that he was stifling dissent.

Geez. Hey Keith, saying "you cannot think" is a figure of speech. Bush can't stop anyone from thinking anything. He doesn't have a mind control device.

Loon. A 100% full throttled loon.


By ding on July 4, 2007 12:51 AM

He's angry because our president is a corrupt ass.
It might be nice if you could refute what the man said instead of fantasizing about his supposed love life. And before you say it, no, whining "But Clinton did it too" does not constitute a refutation of an argument.

By John on July 4, 2007 12:57 AM

It will be interesting to see how Star-Spangled Special Comments Night on MSNBC does against O'Reilly in the ratings, especially since Fox News was reruning a three-week old Factor tonight. If Keith can't at least come close to Bill in the total number of viewers under those criteria...

By Glen on July 4, 2007 12:57 AM

I've never seen a display of hyperbole like that in my entire life. What is truly scary and horrific about it.....is that Olbermann believed every word. Every word. He truly is nuts.

By Katy Turic on July 4, 2007 1:00 AM

No one cares about Valerie Plame
Her dumb husband is laying the blame
She appeals to the mass
Covert like Keith's ass
Like a whore she hasn't much shame

By Sir Loin of Beef on July 4, 2007 1:11 AM

In fact every intelligence
agency here and around the world told you that Saddam Hussein did have Weapons of mass destruction.


Just like Cheney would leak made-up bullshit to his pet reporters, then cite their stories based on his fabricated leaks as proof of his own bullshit, our government told every other country in the world that we had clear proof (i.e. contrived allegations) of Saddam's arsenal, and then used the cautious credence of these other countries - and even their skeptical internal reports regarding our allegations - as independant inernational concurrence. The Germans have stated this explicitly, and this clearly is wat curred with the British, insofar as they were not also eagerly complicit.

By not e e cummings on July 4, 2007 1:15 AM

Unhinged leftists waited with glee
for the Fitzmas that would never be
A pony was promised to Fitzgerald's fans
Turned into a "phone"; a string with two cans
Expecting to land a big fish named Dick
Instead caught a minnow; Scooter's dirty trick
Bush commuted his loyal little homey
Moonbats now wail "Who stole our pony?"




By Sir Loin of Beef on July 4, 2007 1:16 AM

"SPESHUL KOMMENT"

Touche, Mr. Schatz! Move aside, Jon Stewart, for we are in the prensence of topical satire in its highest, most pristine manifestation: the gratuitous misspelling!

By Scott on July 4, 2007 1:19 AM

Let me say, as much as it pains me and makes me retch to say this, I agree with much of the early part of this (not so)Special Comment (because they are WAY to frequent). Bush, and who ever told him this was a good idea, must be morons. This was the straw that broke the camel's back of my support of this president.

Although I feel this was a completely political persecution, as well as prosecution, of Libby (ytf wasn't Armitage, who actually committed the crime Fitzie was investigating, prosecuted?) how can anyone think this was the time to commute Libby's sentence?

Over the past years, Bush has turned his back on the Republican party....the incomprehensible nomination of Harriet Myers.....the equally incomprehensible nomination of Julie Myers to head ICE....the completely inexcusible "Comprehensice Immigration Reform" bill (which comprehensively ignored all our immigration laws, as well as our borders and sovereignty).

That said, as usual, KO has gone WAAAAAYYY overboard.

"Were there any remaining lingering doubt otherwise, or any remaining lingering hope, it ended yesterday when Mr. Bush commuted the prison sentence of one of his own staffers."....He wasn't a Bush staffer, he was a Cheney staffer.

Whether or not the majority of Americans voted for Bush (the majority of Americans, including our beloved KO, don't even vote in presidential elections; in addition, I believe Bush 41 was the last president elected with a majority, although I could be wrong on that; I do know it wasn't Clinton) the 2000 election in almost 7 years past....despite KO's claims, Bush was elected in 2004.

"The protection of the environment is turned over to those of one political party, who will financially benefit from the rape of the environment. The protections of the Constitution are turned over to those of one political party, who believe those protections unnecessary and extravagant and quaint."......Um, hey, Keith....A "Republican" is in the White House...both houses of Congress are controlled by the Democrats...this whole passage is either a lie, or just makes no sense.

"The enforcement of the laws is turned over to those of one political party, who will swear beforehand that they will not enforce those laws. The choice between war and peace is turned over to those of one political party, who stand to gain vast wealth by ensuring that there is never peace, but only war."......See above

"And I accuse you now, Mr. Bush, of giving, through that Vice President, carte blanche to Mr. Libby, to help defame Ambassador Joseph Wilson by any means necessary," even if true, and far from proven by anything KO has show, not a crime. "to lie to Grand Juries and Special Counsel and before a court, in order to protect the mechanisms and particulars of that defamation, with your guarantee that Libby would never see prison, and, in so doing, as Ambassador Wilson himself phrased it here last night, of becoming an accessory to the obstruction of justice."....A bit to far, don't you think? No evidence to show this, just conjecture on the part of KO.


"But when other citizens render a verdict against your man, Mr. Bush-and then you spit in the faces of those jurors and that judge and the judges who were yet to hear the appeal—the average citizen understands that, Sir."....Bush did not "spit in the faces of those jurors"....he upheld the guily verdict (despite what KO's flunkies at the Newshole posted yesterday, this wasn't a pardon) and upheld all but the incarceration portion of the sentence.+

"even Richard Nixon could say he could not put this nation through an impeachment."....Did KO say these same words when Clinton faced impeachment? (hint.....NO)

Sorry for the length of this post.




By Sir Loin of Beef on July 4, 2007 1:25 AM

Lack of respect for a CIA officer shows Turd's true colors.


Posted by: at July 4, 2007 1:07 AM

To see the levels to which they will allow their shameless idolatry to drag them is a living lesson in fascist dynamics. These people are zealous hero-worshippers who literally hate our constitutional system - and look what the fuck they pick for heroes!

By not e e cummings on July 4, 2007 1:27 AM

One should have compassion for the hapless wonders named "" who support their hero, Krazy Keith, but they make it hard.

But what to call them?

Many options:

Anonyloon
He/She/It
Thing
Nothing
Nobody
Anti-somebody
Quote Unquote
Empty
Nameless Brainless
Self propelled vacuum
Flatliner
' '
" "
Krazy Keith

By Cecelia on July 4, 2007 1:33 AM

I've never seen a display of hyperbole like that in my entire life. What is truly scary and horrific about it.....is that Olbermann believed every word. Every word. He truly is nuts.

Posted by: Glen at July 4, 2007 12:57 AM


He's running on the fumes of his Watergate Era crusading journalist fantasies.

That and a play for ratings via this latest excitement for his audience base.

By G. Terry on July 4, 2007 1:58 AM

Wow, you people really need a constructive hobby. Sane people need to turn away from this fuck-noise. Did a search looking for some clips and found this spunk. Good lord. The internet has truly given stupid people the means to spread their form of blinding, misguided hate to those who find relief in that specific form of inanity. I'm not shocked, just once again sickened.

Opining on a T.V. show? Could you be any dumber? Why not do some research and find a truth of merit? I know, I know, you might actually have to do some work. You're right, this is easer. Take passed-down opinion and respect it as you would truth. But, be warned, having an opinion and feeling strongly about it do not make you intelligent, or necessarily, right.

Personally, I fear for this generation of blind idiots.

By not e e cummings' agent on July 4, 2007 1:59 AM

Anti-Name,

What treasonous act?

By D2Boston on July 4, 2007 2:03 AM

Keith, I accue you of being a total douchebag... and a dumb one at that..

By not e e cummings' agent on July 4, 2007 2:06 AM

ANONYLOON,

So "outing a spy, dummy" is what you said.

But Scooter Libby outed no spy. Richard Armitage is the one who outed Valerie Plame. Now if Bush lets him out of jail, I will be really pissed! I presume we can both agree on that.

By billy on July 4, 2007 2:07 AM

Reading fat ass' latest tin foil hat "special comment" it occurs rtio me this idiot is showing his limits. As we all know fat ass is no William Buckley--no George Will--no Podhorez--but he is in fact a laughable hack writer who shows his ineptness in using the canvas that is English.It's always the same thing with faty ass---every "special ciomment" is always about one thing and one thing alone---fat ass olbertard--and his deranged feelings of being slighted--or wronged.
Just like that putz Joe Wilson--who slings around terms like treason and unamerican --to the same extent as fat ass blankly stares into the camera and says "ummmmm" when his writers fail to feed him his next line. Wilsonm acts as if he was wronged--yet it was wilson himself that was running all over DC saying to all who would losten to his hackness that his wife workwed for the CIA---------why it was old joe who outted his wife to lefty Nation scold David Corn.
Having read all Miss Coulter has to offer--one thing comes to mind--a brilliant mind and a sense of humor that is only matched by her grasp on good writing and a real grasp of history--and love for her nation --and its guiding document--the US Constitution. Fat ass---however comes off as a bafoon---be it an oranged hued bafoon--but still a bafoon.Funny--fat ass never said one word--other then a desire to perhaps heavy pet---to Mr.Clinton about his pardons for $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ when he "intervied" him---starting the interview off right by handing over a check--so he could bask in his boy love crush for a an that admitted to perjury . Hmm---in the orange tinted bizaro world where fat ass wears the "Carrie" dress---when a Presidenty sells grave sites at Arlinton to the highest bidder--sells our nukes and targetijng systems to china---along with the needed Cray computers and satalites----selling a few --err--few dozen pardons for cash --oh and keeping Susan Mc Dougal quite by granting her a free pass-thus keeping his beard of a wife and himself safe from going to the slammer over the con that was white water--is protecting the Constitution--as long as said president is a lefty---and a democrat.
HMMM--i WONDER IF DFAT ASS IS MAKING HAY WHILE THE SUN SHINES? wHO KNOWS----who knows with Rosie out of work--and fat ass falling further and further behind Fox News--how much longer will the orangetard be spining his tin foil hat dreams on LS -MSD--err MS l-lsd--NO--ms-nbc? How many consecutive years will it take of fat ass coming in last--before NBC once again pulls the plug on the orange failure( recall---in his last stint on MS-NBC--fat ass chanelled a five yr old girl and tossed sa hissy fit refusing to discuss the caldron of scandle that was the clinton admin----and we know that fat ass would rather cut off his puddgy arm then ever say or hear a negative word about his boy crush--bj Billy.
Fat ass--in the words that someone else wrote for you--it's time to go-----we on this most valubl;e siter charge you with being a cheap political whore---and even worse--a bore of a cheap political whore. Let the Rosie show begin----at least Rosie offers a few laughs----all fat ass offers is-..........what does fat ass offdr besides a nap?

By billy on July 4, 2007 2:08 AM

Reading fat ass' latest tin foil hat "special comment" it occurs rtio me this idiot is showing his limits. As we all know fat ass is no William Buckley--no George Will--no Podhorez--but he is in fact a laughable hack writer who shows his ineptness in using the canvas that is English.It's always the same thing with faty ass---every "special ciomment" is always about one thing and one thing alone---fat ass olbertard--and his deranged feelings of being slighted--or wronged.
Just like that putz Joe Wilson--who slings around terms like treason and unamerican --to the same extent as fat ass blankly stares into the camera and says "ummmmm" when his writers fail to feed him his next line. Wilsonm acts as if he was wronged--yet it was wilson himself that was running all over DC saying to all who would losten to his hackness that his wife workwed for the CIA---------why it was old joe who outted his wife to lefty Nation scold David Corn.
Having read all Miss Coulter has to offer--one thing comes to mind--a brilliant mind and a sense of humor that is only matched by her grasp on good writing and a real grasp of history--and love for her nation --and its guiding document--the US Constitution. Fat ass---however comes off as a bafoon---be it an oranged hued bafoon--but still a bafoon.Funny--fat ass never said one word--other then a desire to perhaps heavy pet---to Mr.Clinton about his pardons for $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ when he "intervied" him---starting the interview off right by handing over a check--so he could bask in his boy love crush for a an that admitted to perjury . Hmm---in the orange tinted bizaro world where fat ass wears the "Carrie" dress---when a Presidenty sells grave sites at Arlinton to the highest bidder--sells our nukes and targetijng systems to china---along with the needed Cray computers and satalites----selling a few --err--few dozen pardons for cash --oh and keeping Susan Mc Dougal quite by granting her a free pass-thus keeping his beard of a wife and himself safe from going to the slammer over the con that was white water--is protecting the Constitution--as long as said president is a lefty---and a democrat.
HMMM--i WONDER IF DFAT ASS IS MAKING HAY WHILE THE SUN SHINES? wHO KNOWS----who knows with Rosie out of work--and fat ass falling further and further behind Fox News--how much longer will the orangetard be spining his tin foil hat dreams on LS -MSD--err MS l-lsd--NO--ms-nbc? How many consecutive years will it take of fat ass coming in last--before NBC once again pulls the plug on the orange failure( recall---in his last stint on MS-NBC--fat ass chanelled a five yr old girl and tossed sa hissy fit refusing to discuss the caldron of scandle that was the clinton admin----and we know that fat ass would rather cut off his puddgy arm then ever say or hear a negative word about his boy crush--bj Billy.
Fat ass--in the words that someone else wrote for you--it's time to go-----we on this most valubl;e siter charge you with being a cheap political whore---and even worse--a bore of a cheap political whore. Let the Rosie show begin----at least Rosie offers a few laughs----all fat ass offers is-..........what does fat ass offer besides a nap?

By Sir Loin of Beef on July 4, 2007 2:12 AM

I've never seen a display of hyperbole like that in my entire life. What is truly scary and horrific about it.....is that Olbermann believed every word. Every word. He truly is nuts.

Posted by: Glen at July 4, 2007 12:57 AM

That's right ; he's nuts. And you guys are the sane ones, who acknowledge NO criticism of the administration that has:

- spent five years in a war they declared would last "six days; six weeks; I doubt six months". We sped more on our military than ALL OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD COMBINED, and we have the best equipped and best-trained forces to be found anywhere - yet we can't beat a "handful of dead-enders"? What gives?

- spent 300 BILLION dollars of OUR MONEY on a war they promised would not top two billion,

- changed the rationales for this war five or six times,

- changed the name of the war three or four times,'

- changed the name of our ENEMIES two or three times,

- changed dissenting top generals about a dozen times,

- blamed enlisted soldiers or non-coms whenever possible (Al Qaqaa; Abu Ghraib) for policies or mistakes that clearly originate high on the chain of command,

-alienated and been deserted by each of the few allies they started with,

- had at least three high-level officers and aides indicted, tried, and convicted of serious crimes (David Safavian, Claude Allen, Scooty Libber),

- no (current) member whatsoever that served in a shooting war when he or she was of age and had the opportunity. The list of shameless dodges and spurious deferrments is universal with the exception of Powell.

-enriched its members and their families through trasonous conflicts of interest involving defense contracting ( see previous item re: 300 BILLION DOLLARS OF OUR MONEY)

- made every concieveable move in Iraq that one would take if one wanted to prevent the development of a stable civil society in that country (e.g. disbanded military; disbanded civil bureacracy/police via "De-Baathifiction"; fired Jay Garner and cancelled his plans to hold elections no later than June, 2003 and to dole out reconstruction contracts EXCLUSIVELY to Iraqi firms; watched the looting of the munitions from AlQaqaa and other armories that blow our people up to this day, fired any general who proposed realistic occupation force levels,...)


Who the fuck is nuts?

By not e e cummings' agent on July 4, 2007 2:13 AM

ANONYLOON,

Are you saying that Armitage lied to Fitzgerald?

By not e e cummings' agent on July 4, 2007 2:18 AM

ANONYLOON,

I'm still trying to figure out how Armitage managed to not get tried for any crime by Patrick Fitzgerald. Please help!!!

By not e e cummings' agent on July 4, 2007 2:37 AM

ANONYLOON,

But "outing a spy, dummy" is still treason. You said so.
Confessing to it does not get one off the hook. If you murder somebody tomorrow and walk down to the police station and confess, you don't get to just walk home and get on with your life.

"But let's not dwell on the facts of this case..."

Just like a liberal, not interested in facts.

By Kansas Flyer on July 4, 2007 2:37 AM

Keith Olbermann,

I accuse you of being the mouthpiece of far left loon groups, while claiming to be an objective newsman.

I accuse you of treason-like reporting and giving aid and confort to our enemy when it comes to the issue of Iran.

I accuse you of siding with terrorists at the expense of our national security by your obsene characterizations of what is happening in Gitmo.

I accuse you of misleading the public by your blantant misuse of out-of context quotes to fit your warped reportage

I accuse you of misrepresenting your guests as true experts with no agenda, by not coming clean about organizations they represent.

I accuse you of bringing the same old "yes-man" who are willing to echo your sentiments.

I accuse you of spreading propaganda from the left wing sources while ignoring evidence to the contrary, and furthermore, not attributing such info to those sources.

I accuse you of an unprofessional obsession with your competition.

It is said that Will Rogers claimed that "he never met a man he didn't like." Will Rogers never met you Mr. Olbermann!

Good Night and Good Luck!

By byte me on July 4, 2007 2:46 AM

The only reason for the latest head up the ass stunt our decider has pulled is to cover evil ones ass. Seems like when liars get caught the popular thing to do is spin lie and deny. Swift boaters dubuay ports deal the fact that Bin Laden hasent been caught what happened to special group? Blow up wrong country so your company can bill and double bill us to death for your own gain not the 3,586 that have given their lives for souless guttless liars who have no problem tossig someone under the bus remember Ollie?

By Cecelia on July 4, 2007 3:02 AM

Armitage made his admission in early October 2003, nearly three months before Fitzgerald was appointed. So it should be clear that Fitzgerald wasn't appointed just to find out who leaked to Novak. In fact, this means that -- even with Armitage's confession in hand -- there was so much evidence of wrongdoing that a longtime GOP loyalist like John Ashcroft felt he had no choice but to recuse himself and allow the appointment of a special counsel.

But let's not dwell on the facts of this case, there's so much bad poetry to be written about ....er...nothing.

Posted by: at July 4, 2007 2:25 AM


This sounds very dramatic considering that "so much evidence of wrong-doing" only led to one indictment of perjury against Scooter Libby though he had talked to Judy Miller about our covert Plame BEFORE Armitage talked to Novak about her.

At some point let's hope that our friends on the left come to understand that when there's a whole lot of difference between what a Prosecutor claims and the actual charges he is able to bring against a defendant, that what you're hearing is a bit of lawyerly persuasion rhetoric.

Shockingly hard to imagine a prosecutor or a defense attorney doing that...




By olbyhater on July 4, 2007 6:12 AM

what a puke. he thinks hes important.

By benson on July 4, 2007 7:58 AM

The problem is- the lefties believe that any conspiracy spouted at a blue blog is fact.

Nofacts that they think fit their agenda.

-Armitage's confession was a white wash created by bush.

-Scooter's sentence was commuted to stop him from making a deal.

-Olbermann is right, so it is OK for him to lie and distort facts.

You Libs have no facts. Knowledge is power. Get some.

By benson on July 4, 2007 8:00 AM

By the way.... scooters legal defense fund is already substantial enough to cover the fine AND I hear he is gonna play another round of golf today. Bawahhhhhhhh!

By Great Thanks on July 4, 2007 9:27 AM

I'm glad Congress is investigating the Libby deal. I was wondering if there was any more obvious legal use of Executive powers than firing US attorneys for any reason, and it turns out there is: presidential pardons for any reason.

Terrorists are still trying to attack us and the Democrats are more worried about blatantly legal actions.

By Anonymous on July 4, 2007 9:39 AM

Great Thanks, that should tell everyone how screwed up the Dhimmicrats' priorities are. For those of you who voted for the loser Dems in the last election: You were robbed. You got less than nothing in return.

By Katy Turic on July 4, 2007 9:40 AM

Looks like Olby's head might explode
As his ratings slowly erode
His "news" show obscene
Where's that felon John Dean?
Countdown's where careers will implode

By robny on July 4, 2007 10:06 AM

It's very simple. Keith's ratings are firmly in 3rd place in the key demo. Despite the appearances of huge growth (generated against a miniscule base), Keith cannot hold on to second. At times he flirts with dropping to 4th.

This is a business. Olderman has a big salary and at some point, it is going to be evident he's not bringing home the bacon.

By Ohboy on July 4, 2007 10:16 AM

Treason:
US Constitution
Article III, Section 3
"Treason against the United States, shall consist ONLY in levying war against them, or in ADHERING to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

By no measure does "leaking" a "spy's" name ALONE constitute treason.

First, one must prove that the person knew that the name of the person was indeed classified. In other words, prove that the person knew the name was secret and that he knew he was committing a criminal act (mens rea).

Second, as the Constitution above requires, one must have "adherence" to the enemy. They must be aligned with or associated with or in favor with that enemy.

Aid and comfort ALONE isn't sufficient.

Nothing Libby did (or even is accused of doing by the most deranged lefties - like the usual fine people posting here) constitutes treason.

If leaking classified information (or giving aid and comfort) ALONE is treason, then what Daniel Ellsberg did in leaking the Pentagon Papers and what the NY Times did in publishing them was also treason.

Somehow I don't think our lefty friends consider those acts treason.

And I won't even begin to discuss Jane Fonda's actions.

By dr.know on July 4, 2007 10:31 AM

"Loser, whiner, finger pointer, baby, complainer, obstructionist, an allie of terrorist, quiter, defeatist, appeaser, atheist, poor, flag urner, defender of flag burners, pot head, defenders of those removing Christ from society, queer lover, faggots, defenders of faggots. Those are words associated with a liberal."

Ahhhh more of that staunch compasionate conservative drivel I see. Say laura, how's it feel to be a 28%?

By not dr. know on July 4, 2007 10:44 AM

Nancy and Harry are at 23%

By Anonymous on July 4, 2007 10:47 AM

dr.know:

Democratic Congress: lowest approval ratings in the history of polling.

Congrats.

By Anonymous on July 4, 2007 10:51 AM

I'm sure that Keith and Katy's "song" is actually Kayne West's "GoldDigger".

I'm equally sure that the outrage that Olbermann feels has more to do with his ratings than with genuine outrage with the Bush government. He made a very cynical decision sometime ago to court the radical left, believing that if he could get them to watch his show, it would boost his ratings. If Fox were a liberal leaning news outlet, trust me, Olbermann would be a conservative that would make Rush Limbaugh tell him to reel it in because he was too far to the right. These people, the clueless viewers who support him no matter what, don't seem to get that he's this extremely self-motivated individual who is cynically using them for his own purposes. One day it will all come clean in the wash and Olbermann willl be revealed for the true manipulator and user that he is. Until then, it's amusing watching these suckers get reeled in with Keith's latest line of bullshit.

By royalking on July 4, 2007 10:55 AM

Ahhhh more of that staunch [compasionate] conservative drivel I see. Say laura, how's it feel to be a 28%?

Posted by: dr.know at July 4, 2007 10:31 AM

I'm no mathematician, but, I'm pretty sure 28% is twice as much as 14%.....

Treason......ADHERING to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

I can name at least 3 olbyloons that fall directly in this category. Wha's funny is the same 3 claim to be "patriots" and also claim to support our troops!

By royalking on July 4, 2007 10:59 AM

You can start with Not EE, Billy, cecelia, Cee and then go really rock bottom with Puck, RK, Benson and Factor.

Posted by:coward at July 4, 2007 2:15 AM

Coming from a spineless, gutless olbyloon....

By Ohboy on July 4, 2007 11:13 AM

How can any serious person believe that Olbermann can continue to anchor coverage of Republican Debates or report on hard news involving this White House?

He has stated (among other notable items) that the:

Republican Party is a terrorist entity (for scaring the public about terrorism in order to garner political advantage);

That Bush has created a "form of fascism" in America;

That Bush committed the "greatest crime in the history of this century" for et cetera et cetera

Certainly, at some point even the most partisan Democrat would have to admit that he has no credibility in terms of objectivity.

Flip this around: If we had a Democratic Administration and a "news anchor" was calling it a "form of Communism" and called for the impeachment from office of the President and VP, wouldn't Media Matters and other liberal media groups question the appropriateness of that "news anchor" covering Democratic debates or matters involving that White House.

He's gotta' go. No more anchoring the news; no more covering debates or hard news events.

By not e e cummings on July 4, 2007 11:15 AM

Scooter envy can drive a loon mad
No Fitzmas: we've been had!
Hoped to take Dick down
Now we are wearing a frown
Commutation makes us so sad

By Sir Loin of Beef on July 4, 2007 11:17 AM

Dear Keith,

Fuck you pussy.

Your Commander In Chief,

President of the United States of America
George W. Bush

Posted by: George Bush at July 4, 2007 9:43 AM


A case of the cunt calling the pussy pink?

By cee on July 4, 2007 11:24 AM

ESchatz:

I am concerned about your need for alcohol to get through the show. I know it is a necessity, especially with a Special Comment, but please keep it in check.

My goodness, a level of hyperbole never seen before. When I read Keith's speech this morning I was ready to reach for the tanker....

By Anonymous on July 4, 2007 11:34 AM

MSDNC is rebroadcasting (hourly) the Speshul Komment this morning. Now we know it's a slow news day. To me, this means that Olby's latest half-assed diatribe/spitfest also is the opinion and political stance of General Electric and its subsidiaries, including NBC Universal and NBC News. Anyone who thinks NBC News is impartial is impaired.

Brian Williams, do you wonder why your ratings are falling? This is why.

By Sir Loin of Beef on July 4, 2007 11:49 AM

""Treason against the United States, shall consist ONLY in levying war against them, or in ADHERING to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

By no measure does "leaking" a "spy's" name ALONE constitute treason."

Really,l Ohboy? Even in war-time? Even when that spy is the operations chief for the Joint Task Force on Iraq, a unit of the Counterproliferation Division of the CIA's clandestine operations directorate, whose primary duty was overseeing covert operations designed to gather intelligence on WMDs in Iraq and Iran? How about when the leak is intended to serve as a severed horse's head in the beds of anyone who might want to publically contradict the administration's fairy-tale casus belli?

Just setle down and let the grown-ups figure these things out, Boy-o.

By Sir Loin of Beef on July 4, 2007 11:52 AM

Clearly the administration's sympathy, affection, and encouragement for treason is the reason there are so many god-damned fascist traitors in this country.

By Janet Hawkins on July 4, 2007 11:56 AM

HAPPY BIRTHDAY to the USA!

May she survive all her enemies and prevail in helping others around the world gain what we are blessed with!

Grammie

By Ohboy on July 4, 2007 11:57 AM

SLOB:
"Really,l Ohboy? Even in war-time?"

It's not MY view, SLOB.

It's the Constitution's definition.

Read it again.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist ONLY in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

ADHERING TO THEIR ENEMIES.

Treason requires that the individual both gave aid and comfort to the enemy while adhering to that adversary.

If the requirement was solely giving aid and comfort, a lot of your leftwing comrades who defend the Islamists and jihaddists would be in prison.

We wouldn't want that, would we?

By Rico on July 4, 2007 11:59 AM

SLOB,

For some strange reason, you have not called for the head of Richard Armitage, the traitor who outed Valerie Plame. He told Bob Novak, who printed it. I say hang them both. You don't even talk about this. Instead, you Olbyloons keep talking about somebody else, this little Scooter person, who outed no one. Don't even pretend that you care who outed Plame. Even Valerie doesn't care that much about those who really outed her. She's too busy being unhinged about Bush, Cheney, etc. You dingbats sure are strange people. Never concerned with the person who did the bad thing. Always upset with somebody else, instead. Suicidal Leftist Dingbats, Baby!

By Anonymous on July 4, 2007 12:01 PM

I agree, Grammie! Happy Independence Day! Celebrate freedom and remember the sacrifices made for our nation.

By Sir Loin of Beef on July 4, 2007 12:14 PM

SLOB,

For some strange reason, you have not called for the head of Richard Armitage, the traitor who outed Valerie Plame. He told Bob Novak, who printed it. I say hang them both. You don't even talk about this. Instead, you Olbyloons keep talking about somebody else, this little Scooter person, who outed no one. Don't even pretend that you care who outed Plame. Even Valerie doesn't care that much about those who really outed her. She's too busy being unhinged about Bush, Cheney, etc. You dingbats sure are strange people. Never concerned with the person who did the bad thing. Always upset with somebody else, instead. Suicidal Leftist Dingbats, Baby!

Posted by: Rico at July 4, 2007 11:59 AM

Armitage,like Libby, was a cog in this crime. Armitage cut a deal, and is being handled more gently - perhaps the information he proferred will come to light in Libby's appeals? Someone else's trial?

Its also true that I can't stand the idea of the CIA - I think it should be abolished, so I am not emotionally distraut over the outing of one agent. But any means to bring down this criminal mob acting as our executive branch is fair game, and I will applaud it. I've stated before that the best target would be Bush's circumvention of the FISA laws, seeing he has publically admitted doing so repeatedly with full knowledge and forethought. I suspect the Democratic leadership is avoiding making this an issue because they covet such unconstitutional powers for themselves when they take the White Huse in 2008. In this regard, you shoud be with me in thwarting a looming Pelosi Junta.


I do find it freakish how far you fascists will bend your morals and judgement to protect your fetish/president.

By dilligaff on July 4, 2007 12:18 PM

E(at) Schitz:

We can now only hope for more Special Comments, so you can continue your drinking game.

Severe alcohol poisoning can be a GOOD thing!!!

By Ohboy on July 4, 2007 12:19 PM

"I do find it freakish how far you fascists will bend your morals and judgement to protect your fetish/president. "

You mean like re-defining the term treason?

Geez, who would do something like that for partisan reasons?

Can't imagine....

By Sir Loin of Beef on July 4, 2007 12:20 PM

I agree, Grammie! Happy Independence Day! Celebrate freedom and remember the sacrifices made for our nation.

Posted by: at July 4, 2007 12:01 PM


...but under no circumstances should we provide photographs to the public documenting these ongoing sacrifices; or make their up-to-date tally a lead story on our news programs - that would be aiding the terrorists!

By Rico on July 4, 2007 12:31 PM

SLOB,

Armitage did not cut any deal. One cuts a deal when one rats against their accomplices. Armitage and Libby were not working together. A person "cutting a deal" acknowledges the crimes they commited with their accomplices. Armitage's only accomplice was Novak. When Sammy the Bull turned against Gotti he had to confess to his crimes first. He got less punishment to help prosecute the bigger fish. But in the Plame case Richard Armitage is the big fish.

You say Armitage was treated "More gently"??? Fitzgerald has not even suggested that Armitage has broken any laws.

Armitage was not charged with anything because his outing of Valerie Plame was not illegal.

But my main point is that you never even mention Armitage unless somebody else reminds you about him. You totally have zero interest in this man. None.


By cee on July 4, 2007 12:33 PM

On this day celebrating American Independence....

Jesse Jackson Jr. has it right......

"In her first weeks as leader of the Congress, Speaker Nancy Pelosi withdrew the notion of impeachment proceedings against either President Bush or Vice President Cheney," announced Jackson. "With the president's decision to once again subvert the legal process and the will of the American people by commuting the sentence of convicted felon Lewis Scooter' Libby, I call on House Democrats to reconsider impeachment proceedings."

http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/200040


###
Yes, please move to impeach Bush and Cheney, dear democrats. It is your duty as requested by the fringe of your party. As they believe, impeachment is the constitutional, all-American, and absolute way to find the truth.

Anything less would be just like the Iraq war movement so far....impotent, weak, and unsuccessful.

Convictions, like those expressed in Keith Olbermann's Special Comments, demand actions. Mr. Olbermann has spoken for his constituents and action is necessary. He claims there have been obvious, provable, impeachable offences and they must be pursued.

Impeach Bush and Cheney!
Cut the funds....bring the troops home!

And this is my post today, the 1,525th day since the declaration of Mission Accomplished in Iraq.....

I am cee, good night and good luck.

Happy Fourth of July everyone!

By Anonymous on July 4, 2007 12:35 PM

Just a quick brief quote from a former Islamic jihhadist (because this guy will NEVER be on Countdown):

"When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network - a series of British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology - I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.

By blaming the Government for our actions [gee, I wonder if he watches Countdown?], those who pushed this "Blair's bombs" [or Bush's bombs] line did our propaganda work for us.

More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.

I guess he's referring to people who give aid and comfort to our enemy.

According to the lefties here, these people are committing treason.

By Sir Loin of Beef on July 4, 2007 12:36 PM

But my main point is that you never even mention Armitage unless somebody else reminds you about him. You totally have zero interest in this man. None.


Posted by: Rico at July 4, 2007 12:31 PM


Yeha, pretty much. He's been jettisoned by the Bush gang and their sycophants (I heard Dr. Savage Wiener call him a "liberal" the other day - Hah!), and therefore is more or less nuetralized in regard to being an active threat to our republic.

By Anonymous on July 4, 2007 12:39 PM

SLoB, why don't you move to Cuba so you can be with your fellow anti-American ultra-leftists? I hear the health care system there is fantastic.

By Ohboy on July 4, 2007 12:39 PM

SLOB:
"...but under no circumstances should we provide photographs to the public documenting these ongoing sacrifices; or make their up-to-date tally a lead story on our news programs - that would be aiding the terrorists!"

According to the SLOB, the war is in service of a fascist criminal government. It's illegal, immoral and unjust.

But he wants to "honor" our soldiers carrying out this war by showing pictures of them.

His intentions are entirely noble; driven by his sincere concern for the men and women in uniform.

I'm frankly sceptical, SLOB.


By Sir Loin of Beef on July 4, 2007 12:44 PM

cee's 12:33 PM (?) post above is absolutely correct and unimpeachable

By beniceormywifewillbeatyouup on July 4, 2007 12:46 PM

The best part of Oralmann's night was early when he made the statement that our country is "nearly 200 years old." Hey you frickin' lard ass, today is birthday 231. Now we know counting isn't a requirement to get on the air at A-RACIST-NBC either.

By Sir Loin of Beef on July 4, 2007 12:46 PM

SLoB, why don't you move to Cuba so you can be with your fellow anti-American ultra-leftists? I hear the health care system there is fantastic.

Posted by: at July 4, 2007 12:39 PM

Why don;t you kiss my fucking balls, you chicken shit facsist?

By yomama on July 4, 2007 12:51 PM

Why don;t you kiss my fucking balls, you chicken shit facsist?

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at July 4, 2007 12:46 PM


Don't you have to take them out your mouth first queer beef of loin?

By Rico on July 4, 2007 12:53 PM

SLOB,

You forgot to refute any of my points. Typical of the dingbat left.

By Anonymous on July 4, 2007 1:00 PM

Treehugger Veep Al Gore's son just got busted for allegedly possessing drugs and for driving a Prius at a speed of 100 mph. I didn't know a Prius could go faster than 50 mph on the highway. Amazing.

By Ohboy on July 4, 2007 1:07 PM

"You forgot to refute any of my points."

He follows the Keith Olbermann method of rhetoric and debate (also known as, on Countdown, as "news reporting").

That is: smear people, make unsupportable charges, then smear more.

When the smears are shown to have no subtance, just go back to a leftwing website and disseminate more smears.

Rinse and repeat.

By Greg on July 4, 2007 1:09 PM

I'm not sure if anyone here checks out "Morning Joe" (with Joe Scarborough) or Tucker Carlson's show but both men have started taking Keef to task lately. Scarborough makes fun of Keith (in a somewhat light-hearted way, but at least he's pointing out what a frothing loon the guy is) and his no facts, all-hyperbole style quite often. You can tell he wants to really rip on him, but holds back since they?re colleagues. Tucker seemed quite pissed off on Tuesday night's show regarding Olby's interview w/ Joe Wilson. Tucker even implied that Keith (without specifically using his name) is a left-wing fanatic.

Nice to see these two finally calling out the biggest joke currently working for MSNBC.


By Ohboy on July 4, 2007 1:32 PM

"OhBoy and his merry group of traitors to the United States of America will justify anything this administration will do."


Again, for the last time: The Constitution (not me) says:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist ONLY in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

In order to commit treason, one must ADHERE to the enemy. That is, be aligned with, work with, be sympathetic with.

As Justice Jackson argued:
"A citizen, it was said, may take actions which do aid and comfort the enemy . . . but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason."

There must be an intent to betray; an intent to help the enemy.

If simply "aiding the enemy" was treason, as I stated above, Daniel Ellsberg would have committed treason for leaking the secret Pentagon Papers.

Indeed, the NY Times reporters when they published classified information about our secret monitoring of terrorist financial transactions would have been committing treason since the revelation certainly "aided" al-Qaeda in informing them of our surveillance.

And really, if you can't understand this basic idea - that there are two requirements in committing treason - aid/comfort AND intent - you're a hopeless lost case.

Also known as a Bush deranged leftist loon. AKA, an Olbermann fan.




By Sir Loin of Beef on July 4, 2007 1:38 PM

SLOB,

You forgot to refute any of my points. Typical of the dingbat left.

Posted by: Rico at July 4, 2007 12:53 PM

Points? I think you said something like "talk about Armitage! talk about Armitage!". I talked about him a little. What more do you want?

By Sir Loin of Beef on July 4, 2007 1:43 PM

"If simply "aiding the enemy" was treason, as I stated above, Daniel Ellsberg would have committed treason for leaking the secret Pentagon Papers."

Well, the White House levied accusations of treason and threats of prosecution against Ellsberg, but it didn;t get far. You see, such classifications become very clear when its the White House itself that is exposed as the most dire enemy of the republic; then as now.

By Rico on July 4, 2007 1:45 PM

SLOB,

I accept your surrender.

By Sir Loin of Beef on July 4, 2007 1:49 PM

According to the SLOB, the war is in service of a fascist criminal government. It's illegal, immoral and unjust.

But he wants to "honor" our soldiers carrying out this war by showing pictures of them.

First sign of a chockenhawk? -hiding behind the troops. If someone critiizes the war; they respond by claiming that the troops are being called criminals.

The troops are victims of this administration; used as cannon-fodder, scapegoats, and photo-op props.

By Sir Loin of Beef on July 4, 2007 1:52 PM

SLOB,

I accept your surrender.

Posted by: Rico at July 4, 2007 1:45 PM


Just as you accept the honest leadership of the ush administration - something that has never been given.

By Ohboy on July 4, 2007 1:53 PM

"Well, the White House levied accusations of treason and threats of prosecution against Ellsberg, but it didn;t get far"

As anyone who watches Olbermann realizes, accusation is not proof.

Anyway, using YOUR definition of treason (when applied to Libby), i.e., giving aid and comfort to the enemy, Ellsberg DID committ treason (the Pentagon Papers had an appendix that included names and methods of intelligence gathering; a gold mine for the Vietnamese and the Soviet Union).

If you think Libby committed treason, then you must also believe that Ellsberg did so too.

He who says (A) must also say (B).

But as the Constitution states (once again), one must adhere to the enemy in order to commit treason. There must be intent to help the enemy.

And I must add that I particularly enjoyed the post from one your friends (or was it you?) who said I was committing treason as well.

Simply by quoting from the Constitution as to what constitutes treason? And by simply stating (opining) that under that standard, Libby did NOT engage in treason?

Cloud cuckoo land time.

By Ohboy on July 4, 2007 1:58 PM

"Oh Boy is defending outting a CIA agent because it doesn't fit the definition of treason, thus it's a patriotic and fine thing to do."

My response was to the charge that Libby et al. committed treason.

By the standards required in the Constitution, those charges have no merit. None.

If you aren't intellectually capable of responding to my posts, just acknowledge it. We'll understand.

Good luck. You'll need it.

By Ohboy on July 4, 2007 2:02 PM

"First sign of a chockenhawk? "

SLOB, it's barely after noon and you're already resorting to the "chickenhawk" smear?

I'm disappointed in you, my lefty friend.

Usually you at least try to put up some type of rhetorical fight.

I guess you're losing it. Time to go back to DKos or the Democratic Underground for some refresher courses in intellectual nonsense (also known as just making crap up).

Godspeed.

By Ohboy on July 4, 2007 2:07 PM

"Ohboy is a traitor to our country.
Pure and simple !"

Oh, I get it now. I'm a little slow on the uptake today.

I thought you were at least somewhat semi-serious. Boy, I've got egg on my face.

You're just a clown.

Practicing your clown show on your day off.

Needs work, my clownish friend.

Good luck though. I'm sure you'll be a full-fledged clown soon.

Godspeed to you too.

By Ohboy on July 4, 2007 2:13 PM

"No one ever said Libby committed treason"

Huh, no one? Nobody?

Did you see the posts here? SLOB, among others (posts with no names) said he committed treason.

Joe Wilson said he committed treason.

Go to the DKos or Democratic Underground and there are hundreds of posts claiming he was a traitor.

No one?

Please, try to keep up with things. You're going 15 miles per hour in the fast lane.

By Ohboy on July 4, 2007 2:18 PM

Realist:

Says:
"No one ever said Libby committed treason"

Then he says:

"OhBoy and his merry group of traitors to the United States of America will justify anything this administration will do."

Merry group of traitors implies to me, Libby et al.

'Course, why I am also a traitor is a real tough one to figure out.

But the real tough one to muddle through is why I'm responding to this clown.




By Anonymous on July 4, 2007 2:20 PM

When the country finds out how much the Dems want to raise their taxes to pay for universal health care, they won't be picking out curtains - it will be curtains.

By Crash on July 4, 2007 2:21 PM

Realist,
Funny "gloss" you chose to use considering a realist approach to foreign policy is exactly what you do not want. Google it before I have to explain it to you.

1) What kind of a dumbass "covert" (not so) CIA agent suggests her high profile husband to go on a high profile "fact finding" mission to Niger? Valerie Plame, that's who. Genius pure genius.

2) What kind of an idiot publishes his "covert" wife's name in "Who's who in American Politics"? Joe Wilson, that's who.

3) Who's the person who claimed to have seen classified documents about dates and attempts by Niger to buy Uranium only to find out that these documents weren't even in US hands until 8 months after Wilson's alleged viewing? Yep you guessed it, dumbass himself.

Just a few side questions.

1) Why isn't Sandy Berger in Jail?
2) Why didn't Bubba get sent to jail for lying to a grand jury?
3) Why are liberals so bat shit crazy?
4) Why are there squares on toilet paper?
5) Why is Christopher Hitchens such a genius?

By Crash on July 4, 2007 2:25 PM

"(You know, someone like George Bush, who, as Governor of Texas, said: "I don't believe my role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own, unless there are new facts or evidence of which a jury was unaware, or evidence that the trial was somehow unfair." And none of those exceptions applied in this case.)"

I didn't know he changed the verdict. Someone needs to explain to this yahoo the difference between verdict and punishment.

By Scott on July 4, 2007 2:25 PM

Realist:
"The Pentagon Papers blew the door off the secret governent of Nixon's. It exposed the abuse of power of that president.
It was a monumental important event in our nation's history."

Exactly how did the Pentagon Papers do this? The "Pentagon Papers", officially titled "United States-Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense", encompassed a period prior to Nixon's election in 1968. If anything, they reflected poorly on the Johnson administration, especially considering the report was ordered by Robert McNamara.

By Ohboy on July 4, 2007 2:26 PM

"3) Why are liberals so bat shit crazy?"

That's no#1 and 1A through 1Z on my list.

I love this one: After showing that, by the standards/requirements of the Constitution that Libby didn't committ treason, the response was:

"No one said that Libby committed treason"

Oy. Lefties have been claiming for 3 years that Libby was a traitor.

And then this clown says: "No one said that he committed treason".

Batshit crazy indeed. Moonbat species.

By Ohboy on July 4, 2007 2:30 PM

"He is a traitor, and an arrogant putz."

That's not a response to my point.

(1) You said that "no one said that Libby committed treason".

I stated that here and on other leftwing website (DKos, DU et cetera) that lots of poster say that he did.

Your response was, well, you don't have one.

Good luck with that clown act, my friend.

You're getting closer to really getting it down.

Godspeed.

By John on July 4, 2007 2:35 PM

What a waste of space you sperm swallower's are - all hot and bothered because Keith deep-fried your jackass president again..lol Jesus man, whoever still supports George "Barney Fife" Bush has to be a clear product of inbreeding - everyone here needs to shoot themselves in the head.(immediately) ..lol

By Ohboy on July 4, 2007 2:40 PM

"And Ohboy was nailed in his inability to admit that outting a CIA agent is wrong. He still can't do it.
Wonder why."

Well, NO NAME, you don't have the guts to even given an appellation to your little post (my guess is that you're the clownish coward Realist). But I'll respond anyway, clown coward that you are.

The question on the table was whether Libby committed treason.

And when I show that he did not, I am accused of treason.

As such, I will not dignify that smear with a response.

The central question, of course, and one that has not been answered sufficiently, is whether Armitage and Libby KNEW that Plame's status at THAT time was classified information.

If they did know that it was classified, it was wrong to leak that information.

If they didn't know that her status was classified, they they aren't culpable.

If we are going to criticize those officials who leak classified information, there's going to be an awfully long list of officials we need to condemn.

Democrats and Republicans.

I hope you join with me in condemning, for example, Pat Leahy who leaked classified information?

Or the NY Times for publishing classified information about our monitoring of terrorists financial transactions.

Let's all join together and condemn ALL PEOPLE WHO LEAK AND PUBLISH CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.

Agreed?

By NahNotGoingtoDignifyYou on July 4, 2007 2:44 PM

"What a waste of space you sperm swallower's are - all hot and bothered because Keith deep-fried your jackass president again"

Geez, what rock did you crawl out from under?

Classy aren't we?

By Clucker on July 4, 2007 2:50 PM

1) Why isn't Sandy Berger in Jail?
2) Why didn't Bubba get sent to jail for lying to a grand jury?
-----
A mere guess: They were never convicted of a crime.

By Ohboy on July 4, 2007 3:04 PM

"Wrong again.
The NYT published information that was already accessible.
You didn't know that?
I'm not surprised."

Why did the government ask the Times not to publish the information?

Answer: Because they classified it as secret. The Times (and other papers) disseminated classified information.

The Times also published details about the program that had NOT been divulged previously.

And I thought you lefties believe that whatever the CIA says about classified information (about for example Valerie Plame's status) is the final word?

I guess not on this occasion.

Furthermore, many European governments weren't aware (or looked the other way) about the program. Once the information was published, they - under pressure - changed the requirements of the program.

By eliminating - or reducing the effectiveness of the program - the Times gave "aid and comfort" to the enemy.

And according to you folks on the left, that's TREASON.

I'm using your standards; not mine.

By royalking on July 4, 2007 3:12 PM

Clintons pals in the drugtrade...

1. David Christopher Billmaier D. New Mex. 1980 Possession with intent to distribute
amphetamines, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)

2. Carl Bruce Jones W. D. Mo. 1983 Distribution of marijuana and use of telephone to facilitate marijuana distribution, 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 843(b)

3. Candace Deon Leverenz N. D. Calif. 1972 Unlawful distribution of LSD, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B

4. Susan Lauranne Prather W. D. Ark. 1975 Causing marijuana to be transported through the mail, 21 U.S.C. § 843(b)

5 Patricia Ann Chapin W. D. Mo. 1986 Falsifying prescription for controlled substance, 21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(4)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2

6. George Edward Maynes, Jr. D. Canal Zone 1975 Distribution of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)

7. Haig Ardash Arakelian
(aka Haig Arthur Arakelian)
S. D. Calif. 1975 Possession of marijuana,several tons 21 U.S.C. § 844

8. Thomas Earl Burton E. D. Va. 1982 Attempted possession with intent to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846

9. James William Gardner D. Wyo. 1983 Conspiracy to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1)

10. Sebraien Michael Haygood E. D. N. Y. 1982 Importation of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and 960(a)(1)

11. Warren Curtis Hultgren, Jr. W. D. Tex. 1982 Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1)

12. Michael Ray Krukar D. Alaska 1988 Unlawful distribution of marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)

13. Leslie Jan McCall W. D. Okla. 1988 Use of telephone to facilitate cocaine distribution, 21 U.S.C. § 843(b)

14. Lewis Craig Seymour W. D. Okla. 1979 Distribution of Phencyclidine (PCP), 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)

15.John Timothy Thompson W. D. Okla. 1986 Use of the telephone to facilitate cocaine distribution, 21 U.S.C. § 843(b)

16. Meredith Marcus Appleton, II W. D. Okla. 1990 Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846

17. Elizabeth Marie Frederick (fka Elizabeth Sigmon) D. So. Dak. 1987 Distribution and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)

18. Daniel Clifton Gilmour, Jr. D. So. Car. 1985 Importation of marijuana, 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960, 963, and 18 U.S.C. § 2

19. Michael Lee Gilmour D. So. Car. 1985 Importation of marijuana, 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960, 963, and 18 U.S.C. § 2

20. Jodie David Moreland W. D. La. 1987 Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(6), and 846

21. Mark Edwin Pixley D. Oregon 1991 Aiding in the manufacture, by cultivation, of marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2

22. Steven Elliott Skorman N. D. Ga. 1972 Distributing lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)

23. Daniel Larry Thomas, Jr. N. D. Ohio 1987 Illegal use of a communication facility to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 843

24. Peter John Thomas D. Del. 1978 Conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 846

25. Heather Elizabeth Wilson
(fka Heather Elizabeth Calvin)
E. D. Okla. 1993 Use of telephone to facilitate commission of drug-trafficking felony, 21 U.S.C. § 843(b)

26. Dane Robert Hessling S. D. Ohio 1987 Conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846, and distribution and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)

27. Richard Edwin Sacchi M. D. Fla. 1989 Conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846

28. James H. Wetzel, Jr. E. D. La. 1981 Conspiracy to distribute cocaine, 18 U.S.C. § 371, and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)

29. Diane Mae Zeman
(aka Diane Mae Moseman)
E. D. N. Y. 1981 Use of a telephone to facilitate importation of hashish oil, 21 U.S.C. § 843(b)

30. Cheryl Ada Elizabeth Little S. D. Fla. 1978 Conspiracy with intent to distribute a controlled substance, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1)

31. Jane Marie Schoffstall S. D. Calif. 1989 Possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance (methamphetamine), 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)

32. Glen David Curry S. D. Ala. 1982 Conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, distributing and possessing with intent to distribute cocaine, and using a telephone to facilitate distribution of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 843(b), and 846

33. John Donald Vodde N. D. Ind. 1989 Possession and distribution of cocaine, and aiding and abetting, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2

34. Melinda Kay Stewart Vodde N. D. Ind. 1989 Distribution of cocaine, and aiding and abetting, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2

35. Harlan Richard Billings D. Maine 1985 Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute in excess of 1,000 pounds of marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 846

36. William Robert Carpenter N. D. Calif. 1991 Possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)

37. Philip Vito DiGirolamo N. D. Calif. 1984 Conspiracy to import marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 963; willfully subscribing to a false tax return, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)

38. Peter Welling Dionis N. D. N. Y. 1976 Conspiracy, importation, and possession with intent to distribute hashish, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 952(a), and 963, and 18 U.S.C. § 2

39. Peter Bailey Gimbel S. D. N. Y. 1991 Conspiracy to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846

40. Pierluigi Mancini N. D. Ga. 1985 Possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 841(

41. Edward Francis McKenna, III S. D. Miss. 1993 Possession with intent to distribute anabolic steroids, 21 U.S.C. § 333(e)(1)

42. Andrew Kirkpatrick Mearns, III D. Del. 1978 Conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841

43. Anthony Andrew Schmidt D. Kan. 1985 Conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846

44. Dent Elwood Snider, Jr. D. Colo. 1981 Use of a telephone to facilitate the distribution of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 843(b)


45. Stephanie Marie Vetter D. New Mex. 1979 Possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)

46. Charles Z. Yonce, Jr. D. So. Car. 1988 Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and aiding and abetting therein, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, and 841(b)(1)(B), and 18 U.S.C. § 2

47. Nicholas M. Altiere S. D. Fla. 1983 Importation of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a)(1) and 960(a)(1)

48. Chris Harmon Bagley W. D. Okla. 1989 Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846

49. David Roscoe Blampied D. Idaho 1979 Conspiracy to distribute cocaine, 26 U.S.C. § 846

50. Donna Denise Chambers E. D. Wis. 1986 Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine, possession with intent to distribute cocaine, use of a telephone to facilitate cocaine conspiracy, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 843(b)

51. Roger Clinton 1. W. D. Ark. 1. 1985 1. Conspiracy to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846
2. W.D. Ark. 2. 1985
2. Distribution of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)

52. Jay Houston Harmon 1. E. D. Ark. 1. 1982 1. Conspiracy to import marijuana, conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute, importation of marijuana, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. §§ 963, 846, 952, and 841(a)

2. M. D. Ga. 2. 1986 2. Conspiracy to import cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960, and 963

53. Debi Rae Huckleberry,

(fka Debi Rae VanDenakker)

54. D. Utah 1986 Distribution of methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(
Hildebrando Lopez S. D. Tex. 1981 Distribution of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)

55. Charles Wilfred Morgan, III W. D. Ark. 1984 Conspiracy to distribute cocaine, 18 U.S.C. § 371

56. Vernon Raymond Obermeier S. D. Ill. 1989 Conspiracy to distribute cocaine, distribution of cocaine, and using a communications facility to facilitate distribution of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846,


57. Miguelina Ogalde D. Puerto Rico 1981 Conspiracy to import cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and 963

58. Richard Wilson Riley, Jr. D. So. Car. 1993 Conspiring to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute marijuana and cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846

59. Bettye June Rutherford D. New Mex. 1992 Possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(D)

60. Gregory Lee Sands D. So. Dak. 1990 Conspiracy to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846

61. Marlena Francisca Stewart-Rollins N. D. Ohio 1989 Conspiracy to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846

62. Ignatious Vamvouklis D. New. Hamp. 1991 Possession of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 844(a)

63. Kevin Arthur Williams D. Neb. 1990 Conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846

By Clucker on July 4, 2007 3:15 PM

What does your local mexican news tell you? Donkey show times? Porno/soap opera times? I won't even justify your question with an answer. You claim to be SO informed and ask asinine questions like that. Unbelievable, even coming from an olbyloon.

Posted by royalking at June 30, 2007 9:16 PM

-----

Simply amazing.

I cannot even feel empathy for He of Many Names' ignorance, nor can I feel anger for his blatant bigotry and wicked racism.

Still, I have to scratch my head and wonder how any human being could be so loathsome, so willing to slander an entire culture, the people in a neighboring country.

Donkey shows and porno? Where? Nuevo Laredo? Tijuana? Border towns? Guess who all the customers are? White men scooting back across the Border to get to the polls in time to vote in the Republican Primary?

Mexico is a land of deep faith and strong family values. A land whose faith is tested and family values strained by a sputtering economic system. But, still, a land whose faith is unbroken, whose people cling to and cherish their values. We have much to learn from Mexico even as Mexico has much to learn from us.

But what kind of ignorant, petty bigot denies this?

Nonethless, thanks Ye of Many Names. Your post will be included in next Sunday's lesson. We have been studying the concept of foreigners in a foreign land for some time now, with emphasis on Numbers and Ephesians. This "contribution" ties in wonderfully. So many in the Church have struggled for so long with the sanctuary, family values, culture of life v. culture of death issues and some have even voted Republican thinking somehow these values are upheld by Republicans (and, indeed, they are by many Republicans). However, I believe many will find your remarks so offensive they will recoil. It's not that you are bringing about some paradigm change, it is simply you are another swipe of icing. The question will be: Can I support a party or the candidates of a party who give home to such views? And, I do have to say, that the reputable Republicans who post on this site could not be bothered to take He Of Many Names to task. Shame on you!

This vile utterance, along with a comparison of the Bush who could not be bothered to be lenient of Ms. Tucker's truly harsh sentence but felt this surge of compassion for Scooter's handful of months, should help us create a wondrously detailed picture of those to whom we do not wish to be compared, i.e. the early 21st century Republican core. It should be a wonderful, fruitful discussion with promising results.

Thank you, Ye of Many Names for creating such a strong, negative image. You have done me and many a great service.

By Sir Loin of Beef on July 4, 2007 3:24 PM

Can someone please alert the media: not every issue fits your cherished right/left paradigm. Indeed, that way of looking at the world is becoming less and less relevant -- and more and more absurd.


Posted by: at July 4, 2007 2:19 PM


This relates to my main jeremiad of late: Why would any rabid rightie support the accretion of unwarranted, unconstitutional powers to an executive branch which in all liklihood will soon be in the hands of Democrats?

Checks and balances are in everyone's best interests - except for power-hungry aspiring usurpers of whatever party.

By royalking on July 4, 2007 3:29 PM

Olbyloon Ed 101.a Todays student is Clucker
Subject-Sandy Burglar

The AP (via the San Diego Union-Tribune)provides the details on Berger’s CONVICTION. Note Berger also lied. In April he pleaded guilty. Perhaps that’s why the government lawyers asked for a lenient sentence– a plea bargain was involved. Clinton CIA Director John Deutch also got away with a serious security breach when he was caught with classified material on a personal computer. Investigation indicated Deutch was grossly negligent. Berger was criminal.

Key grafs in the AP report:

A judge on Thursday ordered Sandy Berger, President Clinton’s national security adviser, to pay a $50,000 fine for illegally taking classified documents from the National Archives.
The punishment handed down by U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson exceeded the $10,000 fine recommended by government lawyers. Under the deal, Berger avoids prison time but he must surrender access to classified government materials for three years.

“The court finds the fine is inadequate because it doesn’t reflect the seriousness of the offense,” Robinson said, as a grim-faced Berger stood silently.

By royalking on July 4, 2007 3:33 PM

clucker, what are my "many names?" I'm sure the people you are accusing me of being would be amuzed at your stupidity.

By Clucker on July 4, 2007 3:42 PM

"Pled guilty" is the important distinction, as is "misdemeanor" which you have omitted.

Yes, it is a conviction, albeit a misdemeanor, and I was careless in my earlier statement. It was a conviction on a plea bargain, which means remorse is shown. Scooter did force a trial, as is his right, and has never shown even the slightest remorse. If one studies our system of federal courts, one knows a guilty pleaa always results in a substantially reduced sentence. Judges and prosecutors don't like trials, and they love remorse. It is not a system of which I heartily approve, but it is the system we have.

I ought to have said that Mr. Berger is not a convicted felon (as is Scooter) and threfore was not sentenced to prison. Thank you for calling this to my attention Ye of Many Names.

By Clucker on July 4, 2007 3:43 PM

the people you are accusing me of being would be amuzed at your stupidity.
-----
At the least "amused," if such people existed outside your mind.

By Sir Loin of Beef on July 4, 2007 4:48 PM

The court finds the fine is inadequate because it doesn’t reflect the seriousness of the offense,” Robinson said, as a grim-faced Berger stood silently.

Posted by: royalking at July 4, 2007 3:29 PM


Great. Sounds legitimate - $50,000 does seem a bit light for a serious infractiuon committed by a high level public servant. Was the fine raised? If so; how high? If not; why not?

By D-ranged on July 4, 2007 5:31 PM

The context of this tirade has no bearing on reality. Bush and Cheney are not going to resign nor will they be impeached. So the only reason anyone would watch such a spectacle would be for simple pleasure. Simple emotional pleasure.....I can help....On the next special comment Keith should give the speech from a podium where he has freedom of body movement. He should be raising his hands and shaking them as his voice rises to a crescendo in the midst of a pointless tirade, then letting them fall as he shakes his head and lowers his voice and grabs the podium. He then leans back does a hip hop 2 step raises his arms an starts again up and up, louder and louder spewing forth hatred and castigating all that is BUSH and all said Amen and Amen. It would of course be his choice to use the Hitler style or the Reverend Hathaway stile or even a take off of the Blues Brothers revival style, heck bring in some trampolines have some stage hands put on Bush masks and call the show "Keith and the bouncing Bushies"......I would pay good money to watch that.

By Clucker on July 4, 2007 6:07 PM

Great. Sounds legitimate - $50,000 does seem a bit light for a serious infractiuon committed by a high level public servant. Was the fine raised? If so; how high? If not; why not?
-----
Usually capped at US $100,000.00, for a misdemeanor. Costs and restitution can be added. I believe Berger paid US $50,000.00, plus about US $7,000.00, in costs. There was no pecuniary loss, so no restitution.

By royalking on July 4, 2007 6:11 PM

1) Why isn't Sandy Berger in Jail?
2) Why didn't Bubba get sent to jail for lying to a grand jury?
-----
A mere guess: They were never convicted of a crime.

Posted by: Clunker at July 4, 2007 2:50 PM

The back pedal. Smokin' em in reverse!

I ought to have said that Mr. Berger is not a convicted felon (as is Scooter) and threfore was not sentenced to prison. Thank you for calling this to my attention Ye of Many Names.

Posted by: Clunker at July 4, 2007 3:42 PM


By royalking on July 4, 2007 6:23 PM

"Still, I have to scratch my head and wonder how any human being could be so loathsome, so willing to slander an entire culture, the people in a neighboring country."

Posted by: Clunker at July 4, 2007 3:15 PM

UNbelievably, clunker goes on to say this:

Donkey shows and porno? Where? Nuevo Laredo? Tijuana? Border towns? Guess who all the customers are? White men scooting back across the Border to get to the polls in time to vote in the Republican Primary?

Posted by: Clunker at July 4, 2007 3:15 PM

Who's the racist? Loathsome? Slanderous? That would be clunker.

By Anonymous on July 4, 2007 6:53 PM

Bill Clinton and the porn industry.

http://www.uncorrelated.com/2007/05/democrats_good_for_porn.html

By The Truth on July 4, 2007 6:56 PM

"Hey liberal, the reason people get rich is because they are morfe educated, went to school and studid and work harder than you. All attributes one would hardly associate with a liberal."

Hmmm...
I thought colleges are where they "make" liberals?
Surely an intelligent conservative should be able to type a sentence without 10 or 11 typos.


By The Truth on July 4, 2007 7:02 PM

"Flip this around: If we had a Democratic Administration and a "news anchor" was calling it a "form of Communism" and called for the impeachment from office of the President and VP, wouldn't Media Matters and other liberal media groups question the appropriateness of that "news anchor" covering Democratic debates or matters involving that White House."


Sounds like EVERY talk show that came on when Clinton was in power to me.

I'd love YOUR version of who should and should not cover the news.
All Rush, all the time.


By Anonymous on July 4, 2007 7:02 PM

Yes some are "made" in college. I work at a sewer plant, we make them on the nite shift.

By The Truth on July 4, 2007 7:06 PM

"Treason requires that the individual both gave aid and comfort to the enemy while adhering to that adversary."

I know you are likely a constitutional scholar, but I think you'd like to defer to Bush41 who declared the act TREASON.

He must be an Olbyloon too.

By The Truth on July 4, 2007 7:09 PM

"For some strange reason, you have not called for the head of Richard Armitage, the traitor who outed Valerie Plame. He told Bob Novak, who printed it. I say hang them both. You don't even talk about this. Instead, you Olbyloons keep talking about somebody else, this little Scooter person, who outed no one. Don't even pretend that you care who outed Plame. Even Valerie doesn't care that much about those who really outed her. She's too busy being unhinged about Bush, Cheney, etc. You dingbats sure are strange people. Never concerned with the person who did the bad thing. Always upset with somebody else, instead. Suicidal Leftist Dingbats, Baby!"

You people just continue to spout out BS as if it is fact.

I'm pretty sure Valerie Plame DOES care who outed her.
I'm reasonably sure her husband has HER interest in mind when he goes to the media with his disdain for what this administration has done.

I'm also pretty sure that they would want the proper people punished for what they did.

By Anonymous on July 4, 2007 7:12 PM

To put this entire story into context, this nonsense started because of Richard Armitage. Armitage was the deputy secretary of state under Colin Powell. He spoke casually to Robert Novack about Valarie Plame, a CIA employee. There was no evidence from the conversation that anything malicious took place. It was more careless than anything else. Subsequently, Novack mentioned what Armitage told him in a July 2003 column, which resulted in a major inquiry into whether or not any laws were violated.

After the Valarie Plame inquiry started, Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, was overzealous and exceeded what was required for the investigation. Fitzgerald knew there was no underlying crime; there was no violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Moreover, he continued the investigation after he knew that Richard Armitage was the source of Robert Novack’s story, not Scooter Libby. This is not to say that what Richard Armitage did was not careless, but keep in mind that it has nothing to do with why Scooter Libby was going to jail.

Second, although a jury concluded that Libby lied about how and when he learned that Valerie Plame was a CIA employee, one of the jurors who convicted Libby demonstrated that he did not even know what the Scooter Libby case was about. In fact, after the Libby case commenced, he stated that all the jurors were wondering if they would ever see Karl Rove. He also made other statements proving his abject ignorance about why Fitzgerald was prosecuting Scooter.

This is not to say that Libby’s perjury should not be punished. Perjury is a serious crime, but how is what he did any different from Bill Clinton? In fact, Bill Clinton was investigated for an actual crime of sexually harassing Paula Jones. He even paid Jones $850,000 to settle the case. After Clinton’s misconduct, he decided to remove himself from the roll of attorneys rather than get disbarred. What Clinton did was objectively worse than Libby since Clinton told countless subordinates to lie for him. Since that time, Bill Clinton has made millions of dollars through speeches and lobbying, all while his wife is a United States Senator.

By The Truth on July 4, 2007 7:20 PM

"But my main point is that you never even mention Armitage unless somebody else reminds you about him. You totally have zero interest in this man. None."

Someone reminds you?
Like that hasn't happened every 3 seconds on this site?

Please. Sounds like the right wing got their talking points memos, and they're all on the same page with this.

Gotta say one thing, you people definitely follow the company line.

If you are all so bent out of shape re:Armitage, how come NOT ONE of you has taken the time to answer your questions about him yourself?

Because an open-ended question helps to muddy the waters.

Deception, deception, deception...


By Anonymous on July 4, 2007 7:20 PM

Richard Armitage has said to anyone who will listen that he and he alone is the cause of this stupid event. No one here would even know who Valarie Plame was if not for Armitage. Now it is up to Plame to make as much money off of the fame handed to her as she can. It should be far more than she would have ever made at the CIA.

By Sharon on July 4, 2007 7:25 PM

Clucker,

I am not a strong proponent of the death penalty, but you cannot compare the case of a woman who bludgeoned people to death with an ice pick with Scooter Libby's case.

By Sharon on July 4, 2007 7:26 PM

Actually, not bludgeoned but stabbed

By Anonymous on July 4, 2007 7:29 PM

Wilson is a hack, his only interest in this matter is to play the role of the victim and to cause as much hate and discontent with in his party as possible. Thats politics,

By The Truth on July 4, 2007 7:38 PM

In case anyone still has any doubts over whether or not Ms. Plame was covert, SHE WAS.

Here is Fitzgerald's statement after the trial, declaring as such:

"While assigned to CPD, Ms. Wilson engaged in temporary duty (TDY) travel overseas on official business. She traveled at least seven times to more than ten countries. When traveling overseas, Ms. Wilson always traveled under a cover identity — sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias — but always using cover — whether official or non-official cover (NOC) — with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.

At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson's employment relationship with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."

So please, enough with the right wing BS slant that she wasn't covert.

Please find a different talking point.

The truth is that Fitzgerald didn't have enough evidence to prosecute the leak.
This is partly because of the OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE and perjury.

That doesn't mean it never happened or wasn't a crime.
It means that like millions of other cases that never go to trial, the prosecution knew it couldn't win in court.
NOT THAT IT NEVER HAPPENED OR WASN'T A CRIME.


By But she had not been "covert" for some time on July 4, 2007 7:41 PM

Prior to her "outing"--get your facts straight "The Truth" or change your name to "The Truth according to another stupid liberal".

By Sharon on July 4, 2007 7:42 PM

Here is Fitzgerald's statement after the trial, declaring as such:

You need to check the other thread. Even Clucker admits that what Fitzgerald says off the record holds no weight. What he said on the record is this:

"We have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly or intentionally outed a covert agent. We have not charged that. And so I am not making that assertion," he said."

By The Truth on July 4, 2007 7:48 PM

Since Armitage is the scapegoat du jour, could someone please tell me why it is that this is not ALSO an outrage against this administration? He was in fact working for Bush when this happened, was he not?

I don't know if he is a republican or dem or whig or whatever, but he did leak the name to the press.

I think there are enough rooms in federal prisons for ALL of these scumbags.

By The Truth on July 4, 2007 7:55 PM

"I'm not sure if anyone here checks out "Morning Joe" (with Joe Scarborough) or Tucker Carlson's show but both men have started taking Keef to task lately. Scarborough makes fun of Keith (in a somewhat light-hearted way, but at least he's pointing out what a frothing loon the guy is) and his no facts, all-hyperbole style quite often. You can tell he wants to really rip on him, but holds back since they?re colleagues. Tucker seemed quite pissed off on Tuesday night's show regarding Olby's interview w/ Joe Wilson. Tucker even implied that Keith (without specifically using his name) is a left-wing fanatic."

Scarborough holds his finger to the wind before he gives his "opinions" and Tucker is a f'ing TOOL.

By Rico on July 4, 2007 8:01 PM

Truth,

"The truth is that Fitzgerald didn't have enough evidence to prosecute the leak."

Wrong!

The leaker, Richard Armitage, confessed. That's more than enough to convict. But I do give you credit, as the only lefty on this blog who even cares a little that Armitage ain't in jail.

By The Truth on July 4, 2007 8:22 PM

"This relates to my main jeremiad of late: Why would any rabid rightie support the accretion of unwarranted, unconstitutional powers to an executive branch which in all liklihood will soon be in the hands of Democrats?"

Because they are mostly hypocrites and will choose to complain about it only when the next president is a dem.

Gee, that was an easy one.

By The Truth on July 4, 2007 8:29 PM

Typical Dem question, "Is it wrong that someone in the administration outed a CIA agent?"

Typical Rep answer, "Hey, Clinton's people did blah blah blah..."

Typical parent to a 6 year old, "Did you break the glass and leave the milk on the floor?"

Typical 6 year old answer, "Mommy, mommy, Billy swore!"

In other words, don't be mad at many republicans because they can't say that this administration should have some accountability. Its in their nature to try to change the subject and get the heat off.

Many of them just behave like kids that way.

By Edward Schatz on July 4, 2007 8:31 PM

I appreciate the concern for my alcohol intake, Cee. Unfortunately, Olby has been even more abusive to my psche than usual. I will temper it.

By Sharon on July 4, 2007 8:34 PM

"Is it wrong that someone in the administration outed a CIA agent?" (The Truth)

Fitzgerald:

We have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly or intentionally outed a covert agent. We have not charged that. And so I am not making that assertion," he said."

Even if Fitzgerald came on this board right now and said that Plame was a covert agent who was outed, it would not matter. He has to be like Greta van Susteren, "On the Record."

By The Truth on July 4, 2007 8:40 PM

"Prior to her "outing"--get your facts straight "The Truth" or change your name to "The Truth according to another stupid liberal".

Posted by: But she had not been "covert" for some time at July 4, 2007 7:41 PM

Maybe you need a reading comprehension course. SEE BELOW DUMMY...

"At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson's employment relationship with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."


THIS WAS FITZGERALD'S STATEMENT AFTER THE CONVICTION OF LIBBY.
Please show me where it says that she hadn't been covert for some time. It actually says just the opposite.

BTW, Fitzgerald is hardly an Olbyloon or even a dem.
Maybe you should change your name to "another VERY stupid republican".


By The Truth on July 4, 2007 8:44 PM

"We have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly or intentionally outed a covert agent. We have not charged that. And so I am not making that assertion," he said."

Saying that Mr Libby didn't knowingly out a covert agent DOES NOT MEAN SHE WAS NOT COVERT.

It means that they did not charge him with outing her. I thought everyone knew that.

One does not necessarily mean the other.

By The Truth on July 4, 2007 8:49 PM

"The leaker, Richard Armitage, confessed. That's more than enough to convict."


You are right on this Rico.
I was referring to trying Libby for more crimes and should have been more clear.
I guess the actual crime committed fell short of treason, but it was still a crime.

Like I said, the jails should have enough room for ALL of these scumbags, Sandy Berger included.




By The Truth on July 4, 2007 8:55 PM

"Even if Fitzgerald came on this board right now and said that Plame was a covert agent who was outed, it would not matter. He has to be like Greta van Susteren, "On the Record."

Sharon, with all due respect, I think you're missing the point. He never said that Plame was not covert, in fact he said the opposite. What he said was Libby wasn't tried for outing a covert agent.

His charges were different. It doesn't mean Plame wasn't covert.

By Sharon on July 4, 2007 10:34 PM

I understand what your point is. If she was covert and Armitage outed her, why did nothing happen to him? It is either because she was not covert after all or there was something else. I learned from the other thread that Armitage said it was just "gossip" (i.e., no intent). Don't you question that at all? I don't understand the logic of not pursuing the person who gave her name to Novak, regardless of whether or not Libby should have been convicted.

By Anonymous on July 4, 2007 10:43 PM

The Loons at DU are so ecstatic over the speshul komment they want to send Olbermann a tie. Don't they know he'll only wear it if a fan emails him and promises "speshul favors"? Head there if you want to contribute.

Right now they're worried he won't wear a tie if it's given to them by Dems, "given that his principled stands transcend (by necessity, as a journalist) partisanship." Yeah, right.

By Anonymous on July 4, 2007 11:06 PM

LOL! Oh yeah, he's a "principled" and "unbiased" journalist alright. Hell, let 'em part with their hard won cash to buy him presents. He'll only be interested if they are hot, young, and willing to become his next underage girlfriend.

By Janet Hawkins on July 4, 2007 11:40 PM

Every other argument aside if Fitsgerald has that proof some think has that Plame was covert and, as we all know, Armitage outed her to Novak why have there been NO INDICTMENTS and evidence presented to prove it.

Have we come to trial and conviction by press conference for some of you?

Grammie

By Anonymous on July 4, 2007 11:57 PM

Olby has never worn the ties the DUmmy nutcases have sent to him in the past. I don't think he wants to encourage them. They're scary.

By Janet Hawkins on July 5, 2007 12:03 AM

The Truth, you are not concerned that Fitspatrick totally ignored Armitage's CONFESSED part, crime, and instead went after a bit player in the entire play?

Grammie

By Anonymous on July 5, 2007 12:18 AM

"I understand what your point is. If she was covert and Armitage outed her, why did nothing happen to him? It is either because she was not covert after all or there was something else. I learned from the other thread that Armitage said it was just "gossip" (i.e., no intent). Don't you question that at all? I don't understand the logic of not pursuing the person who gave her name to Novak, regardless of whether or not Libby should have been convicted."

From how I understand it, Fitzgerald was looking into who leaked the identity and if it constituted a crime in that way.
In the investigation it was learned that he didn't have enough evidence to prosecute on those grounds.
During that investigation Libby broke the law and was prosecuted (for different charges).

I say prosecute Armitage as well, but apparently Fitzgerald didn't think that would work.


By The Truth on July 5, 2007 12:22 AM

"Every other argument aside if Fitsgerald has that proof some think has that Plame was covert and, as we all know, Armitage outed her to Novak why have there been NO INDICTMENTS and evidence presented to prove it."


Just because Plame was covert and exposed doesn't mean someone will be prosecuted.
The law takes intent amongst other things into account. Those are not easy things to prove, but it doesn't mean there was no crime or that it wasn't a shitty thing to do.

BTW, Karl Rove confirmed for Novak that Plame was an agent of the CIA before the article was published.

He's a real friggin scumbag too IMO.

By The Truth on July 5, 2007 12:32 AM

"The Truth, you are not concerned that Fitspatrick totally ignored Armitage's CONFESSED part, crime, and instead went after a bit player in the entire play?"

Yes I am.
I think there's enough room in jail for all of the criminals involved.

I don't think he totally ignored anything though. Sometimes you just don't have enough to prosecute.

And please, can we be a little more realistic about this whole incident?
If you think for ONE SECOND that this incident was isolated from the REAL players in this administration I would have to say you're being very naive.

I think the thing most people are upset about (Reps and Dems) is that as this was all happening Bush vowed to bring the offenders to justice.
Remember? "A full investigation (pt.425 of his administrtation).
He stated that Rove had NOTHING to do with it, which was false. When the truth came out, he pardoned the guilty party as opposed to bringing anyone to justice.

For the most part Americans see through this BS now. If you think Bush and Cheney didn't know what was going on we'll have to disagree. I doubt much goes on in that inner circle that they don't know about.

And if they didn't, what does that say about them being in charge? They are either part of the problem or not informed when such serious incidents are occurring. Neither explanation is anything less that disgraceful and embarrassing to the country.

By Rico on July 5, 2007 12:35 AM

Dumfuck Olbyloons,

How fucking stupid are you people? Richard Armitage, the traitor who committed the crime of outing Valerie Plame, has confessed to the crime.

When the guilty party confesses you already have "enough evidence to prosecute".

And what is this "...and if it constituted a crime in that way" supposed to mean? If you commit a crime and confess to that crime, you get to plead guilty to that crime.

By The Truth on July 5, 2007 1:10 AM

"How fucking stupid are you people? Richard Armitage, the traitor who committed the crime of outing Valerie Plame, has confessed to the crime."

SHITHEAD, IT DIDN'T CONSTITUTE A CRIME.
The investigation was to determine who leaked the name and if there was a crime.

During the investigation it was found out that the leak didn't meet the criteria of a crime based on the evidence.
Libby did violate OTHER laws during the investigation and was prosecuted for them.

WHAT THE HELL DON'T YOU GET?

Simply spouting "ARMITAGE, ARMITAGE, ARMITAGE" like a broken record doesn't make ANY fucking point or prove that what he did amounted to something that could be prosecuted.

If he had evidence to prove what Armitage did WAS a crime he would have prosecuted him.

What is it that you don't understand about that?

Please consult Limbaugh or Savage and let me know.

By butcher99 on July 5, 2007 1:56 AM

If I rob a bank can I get off if there is no underlying crime? I go to court accused of robbing a bank and I get off because I did not shoot the guard? Why does there need to be an underlying crime? He was never accused of an underlying crime. He was accused of perjury and obstruction of justice. He was found guilty of it. He was never accused of any underlying crime. He was accused of making it impossible to determine if there was an underlying crime by lying under oath and obstructing justice. That is the only crime of which he was accused and found guilty of.
Will Bush now throw out the jail terms for the over 3000 other people who have applied for clemency for the exact same crime saying the punishment is too harsh?

By n15pca on July 5, 2007 2:05 AM

Yes I don't anything. I love fact when someone doesn’t agree with your say about something they start name calling.

By Janet Hawkins on July 5, 2007 2:08 AM

The truth, you said:

"The investigation was to determine who leaked the name and if there was a crime."

You also said that

"During the investigation it was found out that the leak didn't meet the criteria of a crime based on the evidence. "

Just a few points. Armitage confessed. Once he leaked her name and her position and role no one else could be the 'virgin', so to speak.

So Armitage committed no crime. How does one cover up for a non crime.

My point is that Fitspatrick went on a witch hunt and bagged one hapless man, Libby, and was hunting out of season.

Grammie

By Scott on July 5, 2007 7:37 AM

The Truth wrote:
"When the truth came out, he pardoned the guilty party as opposed to bringing anyone to justice."

I must have been under a rock somewhere the last couple years...who got pardoned?

By CLucker on July 5, 2007 7:52 AM

one hapless man, Libby
---------------------------
Please, a bit of objectivity. Hapless? I don't think so. Much of the lying and stonewalling from Cheney's office was directed by Libby, and his ass has been very well covered not only by Cheney, but also Your Boy and the Divorce King of Tennessee. So, let's not be so dramatic. Hapless? What an odd choice for Libby.

By blindrat on July 5, 2007 8:17 AM

Libby must've made some pretty substantial threats to lil Bush to get off this quickly. Funny how "law and order" Republicans have nothing to do with either...

By Brandon on July 5, 2007 8:53 AM

Rat's been hitting the kool-aid again I see. If Libby was threatening Bush as you claim don't you think that Bush would had coughed up a full pardon?

By Anonymous on July 5, 2007 8:54 AM

Throw "Libby was freed after he made a deal not to talk" into all the pile of great lefty conspiracies. Place it right next to "tower 7 was brought down by Bush" Losers get a life.

You live in a twisted surreal world. Blindrat is a tag that makes sense. open your eyes!

By Anonymous on July 5, 2007 8:56 AM

Scott- you couldn't have been under a rock for the past few years. If you had been- you would be clueless and appropriately labeled a liberal.

By Anonymous on July 5, 2007 9:01 AM

Brandon- Its the latest conspiracy being thrown around by blue blogs. It makes these lefties feel good if they spead rumors about everything the Bush presidency does is underhanded and malicious. It makes them feel good about their loser lives.

Bring on the hearings congress about the commutation. The only people that will buy that bullsh-t is Blindrat and his uninformed freaks.

They should try dealing in facts.

By blindrat on July 5, 2007 9:17 AM

brando,

The man lied to obstruct justice in an investigation into the outing of a CIA agent, son. Now, I know that you neocons are the biggest traitors on the planet and that you'd sell your country to the highest bidder...

...but, even you have to realize that once you set up a fall guy, he has to fall or you lose all credibility, boy...

By Anonymous on July 5, 2007 9:29 AM

Got proof delusional blind one?
This is america where you need proof to back up a hunch....
No? Than shadddup.... what a freak

By Anonymous on July 5, 2007 9:39 AM

Do you guys even care you did it? Armitage did it. Because it doesn't fit your grand conspiracy theory and that would send a clinton lackey to the pokey, you'd rather chase a huge coverup. Read the trial transcript. There was not a huge conspiracy, just a lot of muddled memories and vagueness. Libby is free. Libby is free. And you libs are still miserable. Glory be!

By blindrat on July 5, 2007 9:39 AM

Wow! It's just great to see the spineless neocons justifying perjury after years of screaming about it when they were instructed to...

Libby did not leak the name of Valarie Plame to Novak, o' ignorant ones; however, he DID leak her name to a reporter who had the self-control not to print it.

Try not being stupid, neocons. As for Truth's "underlying crime"...someone explain to her that perjury IS a crime...

By Anonymous on July 5, 2007 9:41 AM

Ask clinton you idiot.... no one said its not a crime. Its just not deserving of two years in prison. Your hatred blinds your reason. LOSER

By justice on July 5, 2007 9:43 AM

BY the way- I hear libby is going to sleep in today and then grab lunch with his homeys. Man its nice to be a free felon in the US! Fly Libby Fly!

By blindrat on July 5, 2007 9:47 AM

Anon 9:41,

When was Clinton convicted of perjury, son?

By Anonymous on July 5, 2007 9:52 AM

Oh i forgot lying under oath isn't perjury.. my bad.
I thought it was.

By blindrat on July 5, 2007 9:56 AM

anon is too stupid to realize that Clinton was never convicted of perjury...

...guess why not! He never committed perjury.

Nice sarcasm, son. But, sarcasm usually belies someone with nothing substantial to say...

By Anonymous on July 5, 2007 9:57 AM

Sounds like you are just still pissed off that Libby is free. Now THAT is funny.

By benson on July 5, 2007 9:59 AM

truthy- the problem with the 1/2 hour comedy hour is that it is not funny. And hopefully the ratings will squash it. The problem with Countdown is that it is not funny or factual. And hopefully the ratings will squash it too.

By Anonymous on July 5, 2007 10:01 AM

Old man rat... please cut and paste where I said clinton was convicted of perjury? My keyboard must be kicking out something different than i type. Or get your spectacled checked. Just another liberal seeing wht he wants to see.

By blindrat on July 5, 2007 10:09 AM

Truth,

Perjury is seldom the crime that is being investigated when the charge is brought; however, investigating a crime would be a lot more difficult without perjury laws...or do you have an alternate theory?...

As for Anon, you never stated that Clinton committed perjury...

>>Ask clinton you idiot.... no one said its not a crime. Its just not deserving of two years in prison. Your hatred blinds your reason. LOSER

I'll just chalk this up as a non sequitar from an idiot, then...

By Anonymous on July 5, 2007 10:11 AM

Berger- stole classified documents to obstruct an investigation- No jail
Libby- perjusry during a trial- No jail

Sounds tit for tat... whats the difference?
Then why are you in a bunch?

By blindrat on July 5, 2007 10:15 AM

anon,

Berger's sentence was not communted; moreover, since the documents inquestion had already been cateloged and copied, there was no way that they could've done anything but harm Berger...

By cee on July 5, 2007 10:23 AM

Today's democrat party main points on foreign policy.....

1) There is no war on terrorism
2) The war in Iraq is only a civil war

Today's AP.....

"Al-Qaida's deputy leader sought to bolster the terror network's main arm in Iraq in a new video released Thursday, calling on Muslims to rally behind it at a time when the group is on the defensive, faced with U.S. offensives and splits with other insurgent groups.

"Ayman al-Zawahri defended the Islamic State of Iraq - the insurgent umbrella group headed by al-Qaida - against critics among Islamic militant groups, saying it was a vanguard for fighting off the U.S. military and eventually establishing a 'caliphate' of Islamic rule across the region.

"Al-Zawahri, the top deputy of Osama bin Laden, called on Muslims to follow a two-pronged strategy: work at home to topple 'corrupt' Arab regimes and join al-Qaida's 'jihad,' or holy war, in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia to fight and train 'to prepare for the next jihad.'"


###
No, there is no honorable or useful mission for American troops in Iraq right now....pull them out!

Iraq has nothing to do with Al Qaida and is not worth our effort. Pull those troops out!

Terrorism is just a law enforcement issue. The car bombs, IED's, etc. just need to be handled by the police.....nevermind the ideology behind it and the expressed goals of their leaders.....what was it again?.....oh yeah.....

"establishing a 'caliphate' of Islamic rule across the region."

Oh and I am sure due attention will be given to the statements, "[Al Qaida] was a vanguard for fighting off the U.S. military and eventually establishing a 'caliphate' of Islamic rule across the region," and "[Muslims] must join al-Qaida's 'jihad,' or holy war, in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia to fight and train 'to prepare for the next jihad,'" by our friend, Keith Olbermann after he repeats his silly call for President Bush's resignation.

I really want the "head-in-sand" democrats like Edwards, Obama or Clinton running our foreign policy....it would be just a wonderful sight to see. No fear in me, folks.....just a statement that I would like to hear opinion about this fine day after our nation's birthday.

By Anonymous on July 5, 2007 10:23 AM

According to Berger some were copied...
We should believe him huh?

By Anonymous on July 5, 2007 10:26 AM

Wall Street Journal Report: January 2007, "there are substantial questions concerning the truth of Berger's statements and that other documents may have been removed. They now argue that Berger's taking of multiple copies of the same document contradict his statement that he took them only for his personal research, since they note that he could have simply taken one copy.[29][30] Mr. Berger continues to insist that he took the copies of the same document for personal convenience, and thought them overclassified (i.e. the information they contained was not actually sensitive to national security)."

By cee on July 5, 2007 10:29 AM

This was a nice statement too.....

"[Al-Zawahri] said Muslims should 'rush to the fields of jihad' in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia 'to defeat the enemies of the Islamic nation' and for 'training to prepare for the next jihad.'"

I wonder what he means by, "the next jihad." I wonder why he links Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia, too?

I wonder why the left ignores these facts?

By Rico on July 5, 2007 10:42 AM

Truth,

Either outing Valerie Plame was illegal or it was not. The way to find out if something is illegal is to examine the statute. If outing her was not illegal, then there is no reason for any special prosecutor.

If it was a crime and the culprit became known, then you prosecute that person and go home. End of case. Armitage/Novak.

Instead, Fitzgerald sought to implement an entrapment conspiracy. He decided to create a crime. Unhinged leftists supported Fitzgerald in doing so, in order to attack the Bush administration. Leftists don't even care about Armitage, the leaker, which means this case was never about Valerie Plame.

So Fitzgerald did create a crime: he committed it. He should be the one facing time behind bars. Fitzgerald did a Nifong.

But let us give credit where credit is due.
Bush and Gonzales, the two stupidest people in human history, hired and allowed Fitzgerald to do all of this.

By blindrat on July 5, 2007 10:44 AM

anon,

Wall Street Journal, eh? Guess you can give me a link, eh son?...

By Anonymous on July 5, 2007 10:47 AM

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009522

By blindrat on July 5, 2007 10:50 AM

Here's a tip, anon: When posting a link, make sure what you attributed to it is in there, son...

What you posted at 10:26 is NOT in the editorial, child...

By Anonymous on July 5, 2007 10:53 AM

Read it- it is their editorial board recanting an earlier pro-berger article.

You posted Berger testimony as fact earlier. How is that more reliable?

Acording to blindrat "since the documents inquestion had already been cateloged and copied, there was no way that they could've done anything but harm Berger"- That is verbatim how Berger himself catagorizes the event. Hardly a fact.

By Janet Hawkins on July 5, 2007 10:55 AM

From:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/19/clinton.lewinsky/

"Under an agreement with Independent Counsel Robert Ray, Clinton's law license will be suspended for five years and he will pay a $25,000 fine to Arkansas bar officials. He also gave up any claim to repayment of his legal fees in the matter. In return, Ray will end the 7-year-old Whitewater probe that has shadowed most of Clinton's two terms.

"I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal and am certain my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false," Clinton said in a written statement released Friday by the White House. "

Grammie

By Sharon on July 5, 2007 10:58 AM

I found this comment from another board to be quite disturbing. Let's hear what Olby has to say tonight.


I hate to be Johnny Raincloud here but I wouldn't send flowers and sympathy cards to these sleaze bags just yet. What is disturbing to me is an eerie echo of the past. It was June 2001 when a State Department warning (advisory) went out suggesting a heightened probability of an impending attack. Back then it was assumed that it was to take place abroad. There are videos of Bin Laden himself using the same terminology "There will be good news soon", just prior to those attacks that is being parroted TODAY. The recent reports that there is a palpable sense of impending ":spectacular attacks this summer", combined with the terminology Al Queda is again using, and the release of this tape are all ingredients of a recipe for disaster that we were 'blindsided' by before. The push to overthrow Musharef should be watched very carefully as it would seem to parrallel Al Queda's attack on the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan just prior to 911. From what I've been able to read from the limited transcripts of the new tape, there also appears to be a call to arms to overthrow the Saudi Government. Though most, if not all, of these pleas have been voiced before, they seem to be, to me at least, packaged in a way that demands our attention and vigilence, lest we resign ourselves to once again say, "What went wrong!". I am looking forward to reading the entire transcript of this latest tape, and I'm not so sure that we shoudn't EXPECT Bin Laden to follow up with a message after a "Spectacular Attack" is carried out. Let's face it, after the failed attacks in the UK and Scotland, Bin Laden on video would appear as impotent as Zawahiri does right now. To regain his idol status in the muslim world, I think he just may be holding back until he can be the one to once again lay claim for killing the infidels.

Posted by: Billy at July 04, 2007 09:26 PM
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/

By blindrat on July 5, 2007 10:59 AM

Grammie,

Hardly a conviction. The Arkansas Bar is not a court of law by any stretch...

Nice try, though...

By Anonymous on July 5, 2007 11:02 AM

I think it is known as a plea bargain.... admitting to doing wrong. Or does the (D) exhonerate him?

By ro770ck on July 5, 2007 11:04 AM

m686k

By blindrat on July 5, 2007 11:08 AM

I read the link that you posted, anon. Let me help you out here, son...

1. Don't take an op-ed page as fact. I can post op-eds from the same publication that say the opposite...

2. If you don't have a link for what you posted, find a different source, child...

By blindrat on July 5, 2007 11:12 AM

anon,

>>I think it is known as a plea bargain.... admitting to doing wrong. Or does the (D) exhonerate him?

Now, we've jumped from "illegal" (perjury) to "wrong". Neoocons jump around like fleas on hot bricks. It is difficult to keep up with the number of arguments that they actually lose in a discussion...

And, tell me son, what were the exact words of Clinton's that constituted perjury?

By Anonymous on July 5, 2007 11:14 AM

you are such a weenie... you should try and counter other posts rather than lecturing old man. As posted above I gave you the link from the WashPost editorial staff to shed light on how ridiculous your orginal post was claiming that Berger's actions were innocent. Spare me your indignation. You are truly blind. Thanks for the old man advice though.

By Anonymous on July 5, 2007 11:14 AM

That child thing makes me hot.

Say it again...slower

By Anonymous on July 5, 2007 11:15 AM

additionally... i'd love to see a link from some editorial board that feels berger is innocent. Put up or shut up old man

By blindrat on July 5, 2007 11:22 AM

"...After a long investigation, however, Justice says the picture that emerged is of a man who knowingly and recklessly violated the law in handling classified documents, but who was not trying to hide any evidence..."

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006521

Note that I didn't say "innocent", child. I stated that the op-ed would say the opposite.

Note also that my link actually CONTAINS what I quoted. Enjoy, son!

By Anonymous on July 5, 2007 11:30 AM

typical olbermann loving liberal-
The editorial I tagged was two years later by the same staff after the whole investigation was completed. It was made to contradict the earleir post, because they felt Berger's statements contradicted his own- "I did not take the documents" "I took them by accident" "I took them for personal reasons"

The editorial from Jan of 2007 documents each Berger lie. You still feel these documents were taken for innocent reasons?

By blindrat on July 5, 2007 11:35 AM

>>The editorial from Jan of 2007 documents each Berger lie. You still feel these documents were taken for innocent reasons?

I feel that he did it for the reason that he stated: To use them in testimony. He was convicted as he should've been...

But, he was never pardoned. I'm sure that you think that Berger revealed the name of Valarie Plame for innocent reasons, eh son?

Here's a question for ya: What exactly would Bush have to do you lose the support of imbeciles, such as yourself? He's committed treason, lied, deserted and you girls come back with empty plates for more. And you wonder why America laughs when neocons call themselves "patriots"...

By royalking on July 5, 2007 11:36 AM

No, he wasn't trying to hide anything. Stuffing docs in his pants, stashing them on a nearby construction lot, going back later to get them, shredding them in a shredder. No, he wasn't trying to hide any evidence................

By blindrat on July 5, 2007 11:44 AM

rk,

We both know that all of the information that he took was backed up and is still in the archives, son...

But, thank you very much for the usual useless input, child...

By Anonymous on July 5, 2007 11:48 AM

How do you read my hatred for KeithO and desire for Libby to go free as blind support for Bush? Wrong. You have a blind devotion for the dems. Pelosi, Reid, and Schummer are the point-men for your party and equally considered a joke among the public.

By royalking on July 5, 2007 11:51 AM

A high ranking official from the DOJ has stated that we "will never know" since Burglar was never forced to admit anything, exactly what he took, some documents in the archives are never copied for security reasons. Nice apology for one of the biggest crimes of our time, blindbat.

By Anonymous on July 5, 2007 11:53 AM

Royal king- read my link.... It shows that there was much self-restraint on the prosecution investigating Berger. Nice change compared tro the fitzgerald investigation.

The editorial that reviewed the facts shows that 3/4 of what blindrat is spewing is conjecture. The duplicated files is a claim made ONLY by berger's staff and does not cover all the documents that were taken. Not gray.


By cee on July 5, 2007 11:56 AM

"What exactly would Bush have to do you lose the support of imbeciles, such as yourself? He's committed treason, lied, deserted and you girls come back with empty plates for more."


###
The premise of your question is flawed, blindrat.

There has been no treason. You still have not proven anyone purposely mislead anyone prior to the Iraq invasion and desertion?.....I guess you mean the nonstory from 60 MINUTES prior to the 2004 election?

I would argue that less then 20% of the population believe the hyperbole after your question, blindrat.

Only in your own mind does Keith Olbermann's take on the Libby commutation demanding impeachment or resignation continue to be the view of the average American. That point of view is of a minority, I would say a radical/hateful/self-serving leftist minority but that is only my opinion.

I will say it again like a broken record.....IF there was such popular support for Bush's removal we would see the demorcats already holding impeachment hearings and NONE of the leaders would still be dismissing impeachment out-of-hand....

ala Pelosi and most recently, Obama.

This is why I keep agreeing with Loin in calling for impeachment hearings.....

Lets put our cards out on the table and see what ya' got......

Do the democrats have the courage to play their hand?

I still am guessing....no.

By Janet Hawkins on July 5, 2007 12:00 PM

This is the URL to Berger's proffer to the plea bargain:

http://unbillablehours.typepad.com/unbillablehours/files/bergerproffer.pdf

The document will not allow any copy and paste. It is only several pages.

I am simply copying this. Caps are mine:

"On October 2, 2003, after another document review, the defendant concealed and removed four copies of classified documents.....After reviewing the documents that night, the defendant CUT THREE OF THE DOCUMENTS INTO SMALL PIECES AND DISCARDED THEM.

Grammie

By blindrat on July 5, 2007 12:07 PM

cee,

Treason is an act of disloyalty against the USA by a citizen of that nation. Bush has committed the following treasons:

1. Supplied China with a U.S. spy plane.

2. Kept the intelligence of an imminent attack from the general public while using the same information to pull Ashcroft off of commercial flights.

3. Allowed the treason of Dick Cheney and his corrupt allies from Haliburton who have been caught multiple times defrauding the government...

4. Either revealed the name of or has allowed others to reveal the name of a covert agent.

5. Violated his own executive orders.

6. Usurped the constitution and took legislative authorities...

7. Violated U.S. treaties by using chemical weapons.

8. Falsified government documents (EPA etc)

I could go on but you girls will accept anything the man does, won't ya?

That is why neocons won't answer the question: What could Bush do to lose your support?

By blindrat on July 5, 2007 12:10 PM

Grammie,

The documents are still backed up. Again, if you think that I justified his actions, you should read my previous posts...

By Anonymous on July 5, 2007 12:14 PM

LOOOONIE!
You must be wearing a hat made of aluminum foli to pull in all those facts and signals. It takes all types ratman... it takes all types.

By Anonymous on July 5, 2007 12:15 PM

You forgot - took down tower 7 blinbat.

By Sharon on July 5, 2007 12:16 PM

Blindrat,

If there is evidence of everything you claim, then no president will ever be impeached and convicted, ever.

By cee on July 5, 2007 12:17 PM

Well blindrat, I look forward to Representative Conyers presenting, in open hearings and with the chance for those accussed to respond, the evidence that will prove, beyond reasonable doubts, that your list is true.

Let me know when those impeachment hearings are scheduled, will you?

By EVILLIBERALS on July 5, 2007 12:19 PM

sorry 21%ers, America agrees with Olberman, over half the nation supports impeachent, sorry con sh*ts, defending treason has only made you more irrelevant...

Olberman= American hero

you= con sh*t Anti-American treasnous scum


80% of America despies the radical right

lib media, lib media

you are all mentallt sick party over country enemies of America

If you defend libby, you are a traitor to this nation.

A Con waving an American flag? You no longer are even considered Americana

irrelevant
marginilized
insane

the party over country wing of the Republican party is rejected by the thinking 80% of this country

You are the enemies of America.

80% of this nation knows exactly what you are


bu bu bu clinton
bu bu bu lib media

America would love to see con sh*ts locked up for treason. You defend libby, you hate America, now

GET THE F*CK OURT OF OUR COUNTRY

moonbat scum..... you are no longer relevant in this country. You continue to take party over country. WE THE PEOPLE REJECT YOU SCUM BAGS.

Try showing your neo-con face's in public, try speaking highly of libby in public, the people would slit your throat.

America is angry, America is sick to death of CONS. Understand you are very close to starting a civil war, we are ready to remove every last neo-con scum from this nation.

you will not stand a chance. You take a criminal regime over your own nation.

America rejects YOU, you are the terrorists.


You started this garbage 20 years ago, America has spoken, you are the enemies of this nation

watch your back, con scum

By blindrat on July 5, 2007 12:21 PM

Sharon,

There is evidence of all of it. I tried to stick with the provable stuff...

By blindrat on July 5, 2007 12:22 PM

cee,

Why pretend that the current democrats have spines?...

By Anonymous on July 5, 2007 12:23 PM

you poor powerless liberals... must suck to be marginalized!

By DEPORT CONS on July 5, 2007 12:24 PM

I would argue that less then 20% of the population believe the hyperbole after your question, blindrat.


hey con sh*t, you are totslly out of touch with America, over 60% of America is against what Bush did with Libby......

It is not 2001 anymore con scum


you are the moonbats, you are irrelevant,

the American people agree with Olberman , scum bag con sh*ts, deal with it


YOU TOOK PARTY OVER COUNTRY FOR THE LAST TIME, YOU ARE NOT REJECTED BY WE THE PEOPLE


YOUR POSITION IS THAT OF THE 20%

YOU ARE TREASONOUS SCUM

IN A JUST WORLD, YOU WOULD BE HUNG JUST FOR DEFENDING LIBBY

YOU FILHY MURDEROUS SCUM BAG


HOW MANY BREWSTER JENNIGS CIA AGENTS DIED FROM YOUR TREASONOUS ACTIVITY?


YOU FITLHY COCK SUCKERS

AMERICA REJECTS YOUR VIEW

BIG TIME

DEAL WITH IT 21%ERS


YOU CAN'T TWIST REALITY ANY LONGER

RIGHT WING RADIO DOES NOT REPRESENT WE THE PEOPLE
YOU DEFEND REPUBLICANS
WE DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION AND THE RULE OF LAW

SAVE THE CLINTON REFRENECE SCUM BAGS

WE THE PEOPLE CONSIDER YOU TRAITORS

By Anonymous on July 5, 2007 12:27 PM

Double up on your pills DeportCons. The pain will go away.

By hawkeye guy on July 5, 2007 12:33 PM

haven't posted in here in forever but just had to post after seeing that rant by Olberman the other night.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Thats the hardest ive ever laughed while watching the news. A newscaster asking a sitting president to step down. good stuff.
How diluted has this guy gotten?

By Sir Loin of Beef on July 5, 2007 12:36 PM

"Al-Qaida's deputy leader sought to bolster the terror network's main arm in Iraq in a new video released Thursday, calling on Muslims to rally behind it at a time when the group is on the defensive, faced with U.S. offensives and splits with other insurgent groups.

"Ayman al-Zawahri defended the Islamic State of Iraq - the insurgent umbrella group headed by al-Qaida - against critics among Islamic militant groups, saying it was a vanguard for fighting off the U.S. military and eventually establishing a 'caliphate' of Islamic rule across the region.

"Al-Zawahri, the top deputy of Osama bin Laden, called on Muslims to follow a two-pronged strategy: work at home to topple 'corrupt' Arab regimes and join al-Qaida's 'jihad,' or holy war, in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia to fight and train 'to prepare for the next jihad.'"


###
No, there is no honorable or useful mission for American troops in Iraq right now....pull them out!

Iraq has nothing to do with Al Qaida and is not worth our effort. Pull those troops out!

Terrorism is just a law enforcement issue. The car bombs, IED's, etc. just need to be handled by the police.....nevermind the ideology behind it and the expressed goals of their leaders.....what was it again?.....oh yeah.....

"establishing a 'caliphate' of Islamic rule across the region."

Oh and I am sure due attention will be given to the statements, "[Al Qaida] was a vanguard for fighting off the U.S. military and eventually establishing a 'caliphate' of Islamic rule across the region," and "[Muslims] must join al-Qaida's 'jihad,' or holy war, in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia to fight and train 'to prepare for the next jihad,'" by our friend, Keith Olbermann after he repeats his silly call for President Bush's resignation.

I really want the "head-in-sand" democrats like Edwards, Obama or Clinton running our foreign policy....it would be just a wonderful sight to see. No fear in me, folks.....just a statement that I would like to hear opinion about this fine day after our nation's birthday.

Posted by: cee at July 5, 2007 10:23 AM


cee certainly seems to put a lot of stock in the self-serving statements of mob-bosses like Osama, Zawahiri, and George Bush. Its all Bullshit, cee; we are not "fighting Al Qeada in Iraq; Al Qeada has merely capitalized on the chaotic hatred-farm we have broken ground on there - they cite their loose connections with the tiny handful of foreign zealots who have gone to Iraq to kill and die for their god as representing their major role in fighting the world's only superpower. cee is only one of the rubes that falls for this, and shrielks that our civilization is in peril because of a string of goofed-up individual terrorism attempts here and there.

The Bush Administration and their media ass-puppets have recently been using the term "Al Qeada" instead of the accurate "secular Iraqi Insurgents" to describe the people we are fighting, but that does not make it true.

If we were really fighting AL Qeada we should invade the fuck out of northern Pakistan and actually catch the leaders of that crew. But we wont because its all Orwellian bullshit

By Janet Hawkins on July 5, 2007 12:42 PM

I copied this from an article by Christopher Hitchens:

"Faced with a complete beast like the late Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi, who has been trying to kill us for several years, millions of Americans appear to believe that he only appeared in Iraq because in some way we made him upset. Well, even if this was true — which it is not — it wouldn’t be such a bad thing. (What would you say to a policy that made him contented, instead?)."

Sorry, I forgot to keep the link. It was, I think, from a piece in Vanity Fair.

I thought the ending question says a lot in very few words.

Grammi

By blindrat on July 5, 2007 12:49 PM

Anyone who thinks that we are helping fight against Al Qaeda by being in Iraq thinks that we were fighting the Soviets when we were in Vietnam or the Chinese when we were in Korea...

By Sir Loin of Beef on July 5, 2007 12:51 PM

Janet, in answer to Hitchens question - if zarqawi was contented,m but remained marginalized and largely irrelevant, that would be just just fine with me, What the drunken Hitchens and people on your side faile to recognize is the irrefutable evidence that our occupation of Iraqw has strengthened the Al Qeada "dead-enders" beyond their wildest dreams. One more time: mestimated 20,000 AlQeada in 2003 - 50,000 in 2006. All I know about their numbers today are reports that their recruitment continues to escallate.

I think part of Bush's capitulation agreement with Osama (When he satisfied bin Laden's only demand of us following 9/11: that we remove all of our troops and bases from Saudi Arabia) must have been that he serve as a public relations office for Al Qeada.

By Anonymous on July 5, 2007 12:52 PM

good point blindrat... but we are talking about an ideology that crosses borders. If we are in Iraq AlQueda comes to us. Not true of your analogy.

By blindrat on July 5, 2007 12:57 PM

anon is too young to remember that they used the same arguments about China and the USSR that they do about terrorism today. Look up the "domino theory", son...

By Anonymous on July 5, 2007 1:00 PM

okiedokie gramps

By royalking on July 5, 2007 1:02 PM

SLOB, do you realize, what credibility you had, went out the window when you lump President Bush in with bin laden and al zawahiri? Of course not, you're an olbyloon.

By Anonymous on July 5, 2007 1:03 PM

Or how about calling for Bush's head for treason?
Its all good stuff when you poop on the left.
Have you no shame loons?

By royalking on July 5, 2007 1:08 PM

slob, we aren't in pakistan because they won't allow us in there, last I heard.Olbermahn won't tell you that, though, that's REAL news. Would it be ok for us to just invade pakistan, in your book?

By blindrat on July 5, 2007 1:08 PM

Back to topic: Bush jr pardoned a felon that could've caused him a lot of trouble if he'd talked...

...reminds me of Bush sr pardoning the particulars of Iran/Contra BEFORE THERE WAS EVEN A TRIAL...

Neocons are traitors...

By royalking on July 5, 2007 1:13 PM

www.usdoj.gov/opa/pardonchartlst.htm

blindbat, if you want to see some interesting info on pardoning felons, check out this list! Puts your list of ONE to shame. I know facts are hard for you to swallow, but, Bush didn't pardon Libby, see what happens when you get your news from a liar like Olbermahn?

By blindrat on July 5, 2007 1:18 PM

rk,

Still trying to talk to the adults, eh son? Libby is as good as pardoned. Like father like son...

By royalking on July 5, 2007 1:25 PM

blindbat, you lost the burglar debate by claiming all the docs he stole were copied. I proved you wrong and you back pedaled. Now, you lost the libby debate by claiming he was pardoned. 2 to zip for today. Next?

By blindrat on July 5, 2007 1:30 PM

Sorry I can't just take your word for it, rk. You need a source if you want to talk with the grownups, child...

By Erie Bob Olberloon on July 5, 2007 1:33 PM

Jeeeeeeeeeezus! You guys are still here!?! Honestly, you never fail to surprize me. Please tell me Cecelia washed her hands of you clowns. I don't see any posts, so I'll assume the best.

I can't read over all your comments...I just took a little sampling because I wanted to see what the most reliable pool of Bush pus has to say on the commutation issue. Predictably, you say nothing on the issue. Couching it in the comfortable-if-cowardly mold of attacking an obscure cable commentator, the moral relativism flows thick and gooey once more. Clinton pardoned somebody for something once (who was the lawyer on that one again?), it's O.K. to lie to a grand jury if you don't lie about a crime or they can't find a crime, other people have committed crimes and gotten away with it, and hey, we have to forget all this and try harder to win in Iraq.

You guys are slipping into Nazi bunker mode. But feel free. The longer you hitch your wagon to this intractible ass, the more muddy ditches you will fall into. Witness the crop of "conservatives" you are offering up for the '08 sacrifice to the Gods of Delayed Accountability.
And as you slop your way out of ditch after ditch, you can continue your Pythonesque accusations of the shadowy "MSM." "He's oppressing me."

Personally, I think Bush played a horrible hand rather well. The legal appeal goes on, so "no comment on ongoing cases" is still in effect, Scooter avoids jail so he has no incentive to roll over on anyone, names like Feith and phrases like "Nigerian forgeries" stays comfortably off the map... and in all this Bush looks like he "split the difference" as a true unitificator should-- not pardoning, but just commuting.

Well done. Of course, when you're a serial obfuscator and general incompetent, you tend to get a lot of bad hands to play-- more and more as time goes on. And pretty soon, people notice that you just always have crap hands and good excuses and strategies for dealing with crap hands. Gosh what an unlucky 'ol straightshootin' cowboy that Bush is. Can't catch a break. Must be that 'ol MSM again...bunch of darned Goldsteins!

Well, obviously I'm just so consumed with irrational hatred that I can't see the new logic that is at play here, so I'll return you to your regularly scheduled echo chamber. Go King George! Loyalty uber alles!

By royalking on July 5, 2007 2:03 PM

Washington, D.C. – Oversight and Government Reform Committee Ranking Member Tom Davis released the following statement today on a committee report that sheds important new light on Sandy Berger’s theft of classified documents from the National Archives. The report makes it clear that the full extent of Mr. Berger’s document removal can never be known, and consequently the Department of Justice could not assure the 9/11 Commission that it received all responsive documents to which Mr. Berger had access.

I know you will discount this, too, blindbat. You are as predictable as an olbyloon can be.

By tom! on July 5, 2007 2:08 PM

heh... amusing to read the scholarly comments from sycophants of autocrats. You may want to check that Koolaid you're drinking for traces of Strychnine.

By blindrat is a racist on July 5, 2007 2:24 PM

blindrat is a racist fuck. kill yourself.

By Anonymous on July 5, 2007 2:24 PM

"The Justice Department says it is unaware of any new facts to support a call by the former chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee for a new investigation into the theft of National Archives documents by former National Security Adviser Samuel R. Berger..."

Washington Times 21 Feb 2007...

That would be Bush's Justice Department...


By blindrat on July 5, 2007 2:27 PM

The above was I!

By Anonymous on July 5, 2007 2:42 PM

Ouch- Bush's economy has turned out to be stonger than the even chosen-one Clinton's. How we gonna spin that Olby?

http://www.ism.ws/ISMReport/NonMfgROB.cfm?navItemNumber=12943

By royalking on July 5, 2007 2:46 PM

“The Justice Department’s assertion that Mr. Berger’s statements are credible after being caught is misplaced. One wouldn’t rely on the fox to be truthful after being nabbed in the hen house. But the Justice Department apparently did.”

I rest my case.

By blindrat on July 5, 2007 2:49 PM

Yeah, rk...

The REPUBLICAN oversight committee's remarks are so respected they can't even get Bush's justice department to look into it...

While you're resting your case, you might want to rest your brain, son. I'll bet smoke is coming out of it at this point, child...

By Anonymous on July 5, 2007 2:54 PM

you missed a "son" or two in your last post old man

By blindrat on July 5, 2007 2:57 PM

I distribute them according to whim, son...

By SB_Mich on July 5, 2007 3:07 PM

OlberLimp's Special Comment was funny. Does anyone actually believe he is really angry. That guy is just pandering to the loons who watch him. Come on, he knows he has about 16 viewers and he's actually asking the President to step down (for doing something actually written in the Constitution- pardon.) This whole special comment was two things: an attempt to keep the loons on board; and two, him dropping to his knees and begging the other mainstream media to prop up his disgraceful ratings.

All you dolts who actually believe this guy is serious, I pity you for being manipulated so easily.

By royalking on July 5, 2007 3:22 PM

blindbat, what did you think of the clinton pardon list I posted the link to? Or, are you so in denial and hypocritical you couldn't bear to look at it? There is at least 150 felons on that list and you were crying your eyes out at one, that wasn't even pardoned! Comical, indeed.

By blindrat on July 5, 2007 3:40 PM

It is comparable to recent presidents' pardon list, child. Quit whining like a dummy, son...

By royalking on July 5, 2007 3:51 PM

Back to topic: Bush jr pardoned a felon that could've caused him a lot of trouble if he'd talked...

...reminds me of Bush sr pardoning the particulars of Iran/Contra BEFORE THERE WAS EVEN A TRIAL...

Neocons are traitors...

Posted by: blindrat at July 5, 2007 1:08 PM

This would be the blindbat crying over a "pardon" that wasn't a pardon.

By Rico on July 5, 2007 4:35 PM

Truth,

The leakers, Armitage and Novak, needed to be in trouble with the law. Too bad their not. I still say hang the both of them. Since they had no other accomplices, there was no reason to investigate anything or anyone else.

By Janet Hawkins on July 5, 2007 4:52 PM

SLOB, I think you misunderstood the question that Hitchens actually asked and the meaning behind it. The caps are mine to illustrate what I think the question meant:

"(What would you SAY TO A POLICY that MADE HIM CONTENTED. instead?)."

In other words, what US POLICY would it have taken to make Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi, and by extension all his ilk, content?

Should we abandon a decades old promise and policy re Israel and throw them to another Holocaust. They demand that.

Should we withdraw completely from any attempts to influence The Middle East and leave control of the world's essential building block, energy, to the likes of The Taliban, Syria, Iran and Al Qaeda. They demand that.

The following points are all taken from:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html

This document, Osama bin Laden's "letter to the American people", was printed in its entirety in The Guardian. It is quite long so I wouldn't just do a copy and paste. So, I am just going to pull the salient points from it. So, please forgive if I make any typos.

The theme is based on two questions:

"(Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you?
Q2)What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?"

The answer to the first question is pages of polemic using phrases such as :

"....and you are the leaders of its criminals.... The creation of Israel is a crime ...Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its*price, and pay for it heavily."

"The blood pouring out of Palestine must be equally revenged."

It goes on to say that we "have attacked them in Somalia, supported atrocities in Chechnya, Kashmir, and Jewish aggression in Lebanon, etc ...It is commanded by our religion and intellect that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge."

There is so much let me paraphrase:

We Americans claim we elect our leaders so every dollar in taxes paid, every man or woman who votes, serves our government, pays taxes are all as guilty as our leaders.

Back to actual quotes:

"This is why the American people cannot be not innocent of all the crimes committed by the Americans and Jews against us."

This madman finally got to question two, what do they want from us.

"The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam."

"It is the religion whose book - the Quran - will remained preserved and unchanged, after the other Divine books and messages have been changed. The Quran is the miracle until the Day of Judgment.

"We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest."

The rest is a litany of all our sins and No 4 on the list is "Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?"

And it goes on for several more pages. Pithy and OBL can not be used in the same sentence.

He seems to have several conclusions. So, let me just pick a few:

"We also advise you to pack your luggage and get out of our lands. We desire for your goodness, guidance, and righteousness, so do not force us to send you back as cargo in coffins."

"....If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for fight with the Islamic Nation."

Reading this maniacal madman's screed would gag a maggot. I only touched on part of his rantings and I feel sick.

I left out, of necessity, a great deal. But I hope it puts in perspective what Hitchens' rhetorical question meant. Which was:

"(What would you SAY TO A POLICY that MADE HIM CONTENTED. instead?)."

One last quote from OBL that I think sums it up:

"THE NATION OF MARTYRDOM; THE NATION THAT DESIRES DEATH MORE THAN YOU DESIRE LIFE"

Grammie

By royalking on July 5, 2007 5:05 PM

What the drunken Hitchens and people on your side [faile] to recognize is the irrefutable evidence that our occupation of [Iraqw] has strengthened the Al [Qeada] "dead-enders" beyond their wildest dreams.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at July 5, 2007 12:51 PM

Janet, as soon as slob saw "Hitchens" in your post to her, she immediately discounted it, based on this comment.

By Janet Hawkins on July 5, 2007 5:34 PM

I know my last post was overlong. I did my best to condense it while not altering both the meaning and context.

Believe me, I left out a lot.

One thought and image kept coming back to me while I worked on this.

Hitler speaking to the Reichstag pre 1939 checking off his laundry list of countries to be invaded. With very few exceptions, Winston Churchill being the most notable, the Western Power Structure ignored Hitler's own words in favor of their more genteel analysis that HE REALLY DIDN'T MEAN IT.

When psychopaths such as Hitler and OBL so forcefully declare their intentions I believe we ignore them at our peril.

Does anything OBL and his sycophants say and/or do raise any doubts in your minds that GWB is NOT the ultimate threat to us that this maniacal madman and his countless followers are?

Grammie


By Janet Hawkins on July 5, 2007 5:36 PM

RK, did you follow the link/url that i gave and read it?

Grammie


By STC on July 5, 2007 5:43 PM

Good timing for Olbermann's book, the day after Christmas:

Truth and Consequences: Special Comments on the Bush Administration's War on American Values (Hardcover)
by Keith Olbermann (Author)
List Price: $25.95
Price: $17.13

Pre-Order Price Guarantee! Order now and if the Amazon.com price decreases between your order time and release date, you'll receive the lowest price. See Details

Availability: This title will be released on December 26, 2007. Pre-order now! Ships from and sold by Amazon.com. Gift-wrap available.


By Edward Schatz on July 5, 2007 5:47 PM

STC, thanks for giving me heartburn again.

By STC on July 5, 2007 6:05 PM

Sorry Ed, I was kind of shocked that he specifically is focusing on Bush related Special Comments. I thought he was just going to slap together ALL his special comments (Katrina, Dem Congress).

Now it is clear that he is doing these Bush rants to fill a future book, and build future book sales. Yeah! Checkbook Journalism! Yeah! Checkbook Ratings Rants!

By Sharon on July 5, 2007 6:39 PM

So now there are going to be a hearing on the Libby commutation. This Libby controversy has just occurred. ("it is imperative that Congress look into presidential authority to grant clemency, and how such power may be abused," Conyers said.) Where are the hearings for impeachment for the "obvious" treasonous acts committed by Bush for years now? It should be pretty easy to set up a hearing. Just ask Blindrat, he is keeping score.

By Clucker on July 5, 2007 8:03 PM

Has anyone noticed, save and except for the Harpy Trio (in bitter denial) and He of Many Names (in total ignorance), how very shrill Bush, Snow, the Bushies and the Bushites have become in just a couple of days? The Libby situation seemed to be some sort of excruciating jab when their boy was already on the ropes. With the Surge not having worked some miraculous and elusive transformation and the Administration again gearing up for a "More Time" encore, the less than dazzling Putin Summit, the bursting housing bubble, the tanking of the dollar against major European currencies, the inertia in filling appointment vacancies and the general disdain of and malaise in the Administration, Scooter seems to have been one toke over the line. I suppose it is the case of rising expectations going unmet. The long-awaited turning point, just another dead-end.

Spending most of the day in airports, I read a stack of newspapers and volumes of periodicals. Scooter seems to be playing out like a Katrina Redux by actors who put the "in" in "incompetent". The actual conservatives, as opposed to the boy's groupies are not happy, and they seem to be falling into two (2) camps: those whose sense of law and order has been sorely violated vs. those who think anything short of a fall pardon was disgraceful. Both groups seem to feel betrayed, as well they should. The boy may be playing out the rest of his malevolent and miserable term with just his usual groupies and hangers-on and the disgraced neo-cons. I notice even the Limbaugh and FOX-favored Rasmussen poll now has the boy knocking on Nixon's worst president ever rating. I wouldn't be surprised to see Nixon knocked out of the game before too much time elapses.

The Bushies and Bushites are reminding me of of a school whose football team just went down to a huge, humiliating loss and whose disappointed fans are flailing and screaming: "We won the half-time." Of course, it doesn't seem to help that almost everyone among what some you would mistakenly consider and maliciously label my rabid Left Wing Pinko Traitor Freaks is excited beyond words by the negative Libby fall-out. And, I do have to admit, it was a welcome but surprising gift by an Administration which just keeps giving.

The Republican candidates are all going to be forced to distance themselves even further from their boy to hope to win even the nomination. Can you imagine the general election campaign? The Republican candidate is going to be more anti-Bush than the Democratic candidate will be. It will be great, great fun to watch the tarandella.

Thanks to so many of you for making my day brighter as I have read you squeak, squill and stammer through a series of "facts" you realize amount to squat. I feel really, really good about America's future for the first time in a long, long time.
This is a good time to invite you into the light, although, Ye of Many Names, please remain cowering in the darkness. When the writing becomes the wall itself, climb over the wall. I don't expect anyone to be converted, but it might be very good indeed for you to realize it's time to abandon this false and faltering cabal know as the Bush Administration. I can assure you, you will be welcome. And, it may prove to be a strong alliance for a stroner America.

By STC on July 5, 2007 8:27 PM

Turely brings up the Clinton pardon as examples of "grossly abused pardon authority" and Olbermann completely ignores those comments.

excerpts from the Countdown Transcript from July 3, 2007:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19618673/

OLBERMANN: And to that point, nobody questions the president's constitutional power of clemency in either a pardon situation or a commutation situation, but when you start commuting the sentences of your own employees, is the mere appearance of a quid pro quo enough to say that this is beyond even a president's ranks?

TURLEY: Well, it is. All this business of saying he does have an unchallengeable right, that doesn't mean anything. Just because you have this authority doesn't mean you can't abuse it. You're subject to the view of history and the view of citizens.

And for example, Bill Clinton grossly abused pardon authority when he gave a pardon to his own brother and used the power of his office to benefit his family. And pardoned Marc Rich, that nobody on Earth thought deserved a pardon.
.....
OBERMANN: Constitutionally, did not the founders foresee this possibility of this? Your own administration's employee gets the sentence commuted while the administration is still in progress?

TURLEY: Well you know, the framers did talk about the abuse of inherent authority by a president. They were very concerned about the president. They threw over a king and every privilege, every power given to a president was subject to this concern.

But they believed that Congress would check the president and ultimately, there is the power of impeachment. But there have been abuses in history. I am a bit surprised that Bush did not learn from Bill Clinton. You know, Bill Clinton took what was remaining unbesmirched in his term and ruined it in the last few days with his abuse of this power and now I think that the legacy of this presidency has been damaged in the same way.

OLBERMANN: Constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley, as always, Jon, great, thanks for your time.

By Clucker on July 5, 2007 8:28 PM

STC, thanks for giving me heartburn again.

-----

I hope it's not acid reflux which can tear away at the lining of the esophagus. I have no personal experience, but members of my family are experiencing the heartbreak of RLS as I write, so I can sympathize, albeit only in a general fashion.

For what it is worth: I do not know anyone who has actually bought an Olbermann book. Of course, I do not know anyone who has bought an O'Reilly or Hannity book either. I did once see someone throw a Coulter book in the East River, however. Not one of these is worth the pulp and the ink, it it?

By Sharon on July 5, 2007 8:30 PM

Great example STC.

By homjett on July 5, 2007 8:32 PM

I think its time for some Committee in Congress to start investigating Keith an Chris Matthews. They both sound like spokesman for the DNC. These are NOT reporters are they??? MSNBC has gone so far left, it rivals CNN.

By Clucker on July 5, 2007 8:38 PM

I think its time for some Committee in Congress to start investigating Keith an Chris Matthews.
-----
Excellent point.

When we are doing away with presumption of innocence, perhaps we could do away with free speech as well. Maybe, we could attached it to a bill to build a causeway across the Gulf of Arizona. I am sure every Republican and (the actual) Holy Joe would support it.

By STC on July 5, 2007 8:47 PM

Great example STC.
Posted by: Sharon at July 5, 2007 8:30 PM

It took them a while to post the transcripts. I was really shocked when Turley spoke (very matter-of-factly) of the Clinton pardon abuse. I felt Turley's comments really diminished Olbermann's Special Comment. To hear something "against" Clinton on Olbermann's show, was very jarring. I wonder how long before Turley is invited back.

By Scott on July 5, 2007 11:24 PM

Truth, please quit now.

In your post addressed to me, you write "You're right, Scott.
Semantics ARE really important right now...
I should have said "commuted", but does it really matter?"

Yes, it does. Your previous posts have been rife with errors, some of which I addressed previously (e.g. your Pentagon Papers post) with as yet no response from you. After all the many posts and comments on this board regarding the commutation, pardons, and the President's clemency powers, it is hard to believe anyone would make a "semantic" error confusing the two.

Additionally, in what I can only assume is a feeble attempt to label me as a partisan, hypocrite, or God knows what in your mind, you write "Since it appears to be a big deal that I said pardoned, will you be any less in love with W if he pardons Libby? Will it matter to you at all?"

Do you actually read these threads? I made a rather lengthy post Tuesday night/Wednesday morning outlining my disgust with the President, culminating in the commutation of Libby. Therefore, the question you posit seems rather moot, but I will refer you to this thread, my post at 1:19am, as an answer. You don't have to go far, its right on this page. In fact, you'll only have to read the first 3 paragraphs to get an answer.


By pappa on July 5, 2007 11:58 PM

just take your ass raping blindrat. your everyone's biatch now.

By Brandon on July 6, 2007 3:39 PM

Again, at least Matthews program is correctly labeled as a political-opinion show, not news like the liberal-opinion fest that is Olbermann's "News" show.

By The Truth on July 6, 2007 3:41 PM

"Your previous posts have been rife with errors, some of which I addressed previously (e.g. your Pentagon Papers post) with as yet no response from you. After all the many posts and comments on this board regarding the commutation, pardons, and the President's clemency powers, it is hard to believe anyone would make a "semantic" error confusing the two."

First of all, for someone so interested in the details of my writings and thoughts, maybe YOU should take a course in reading comprehension yourself, asshat.

Please point to my post where I mentioned "pentagon papers" even once.

I didn't. Someone else did.

As far as your other "points" go,

1. I did not "as yet" respond to your posting about my comments because they were not MY comments. Also, I do actually have obligations outside of this website which entail me being away from the computer, sometimes even for a day or two.

2. The error I made calling the commutation a pardon was just that, an error. I wasn't trying to subliminally make the point that it was a pardon.

3. I did not read your post from days ago, as sometimes there are HUNDREDS of posts to read and I am not able to read every keystroke every person with an ISP enters. Sorry about that.

4. You might want to get YOUR info straight before you go around accusing other people of the same shit, dummy.


By The Truth on July 6, 2007 3:43 PM

"Truth, please quit now."

I forgot to say that I will not be quitting now.
Please do a little better if you intend on in any way embarrassing me.

By cee on July 6, 2007 4:52 PM

The latest trial balloon from the left's ruling class......

"Commuting Libby's sentence is nothing short of political quid pro quo, and Congress must go on record in strong opposition. It is fitting that Congress step forward to express the disgust that Americans rightfully feel toward this contemptible decision. Censuring the president makes the unequivocal statement that this abrogation of justice will not be tolerated."

Congressman Robert Wexler


###
Not be tolerated? What exactly is the result of censure?....Nada....No punishment, just like the other pathetic nonaction, "no confidence vote."

Again, constitutionally the left's ruling elite have all the needed tools at their disposal.....why oh why are they not using them?

And this is my post today, the 1,527th 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