Here's an interesting article about Dan Patrick and Olby.

http://www.dailynews.com/sports/ci_6363726

I wonder if Olby will be making a contribution to Cindy Sheehan's upcoming political campaign.

That would put him in bad standing with his Media Masters.

I have fecal matter on my teeth BU$HWIPES!

The comments section on the Newshole blog seems to be out of order. No updates since yesterday.

Johnny Dollar asks: "Why does Olbermann hate our troops".......

Hmmmm...lets ask some equivilent questions based on similar evidence:

1) - Why is Johnny Dollar a screaming liberal?

2) - Why does Johnny Dollar beat his wife?

3) - Why does Johnny Dollar hate George Bush so much?

4) - Exactly what is Dollar's beef with Rupert Murdoch?
5) Why is Johnny Dollar such an idiot?

J$,

Keith made yet another one of his references to the top brass at Fox news trying to set the agenda in the White House. Where is he getting that?

Actually, my question is taken from Keith himself, who has asked on more than one occasion why does Bill O'Reilly hate our troops. So Oralmann ought to be able to take the same heat he dishes out.

> Where is he getting that?

His usual source: out of his ass.

Johnny Dollar asks: "Why does Olbermann hate our troops".......

Hmmmm...lets ask some equivilent questions based on similar evidence: (Mike)

Evidence J$ presented that shows at least callous disregard for the marine involved:

1. He has insisted that, compared to the My Lai massacre, "there is a bigger ceiling for potential political impact with Haditha". (link provided).

2. Olbermann suggested that it wasn't really an isolated incident, and traced responsibility straight back to Rumsfeld. (link provided)

3. He used "preliminary findings" to declare that US marines "murdered two dozen innocent civilians".

4. We found seventeen separate entries in the MSDNC transcript bank where Edward R Olbermann fulminated about this incident. (I take his word because of the other provided links).

5. Where is the follow-up?

My own evidence: No WPITW nomination for John Murtha:
failure to publicly apologize for calling all of the marines involved in Haditha cold-blooded murderers before they had a chance to tell their side of the story.

I guess maybe J$'s question should be amended to why does KO hate the particular marines involved in Haditha whose charges have or will be dismissed. Would that amendment appease you?

What kind of evidence do you have for your questions about J$? Oh, I forgot. We can't read KO's mind to know what his reason is for spiking yet another story that he previously bellowed about and it is not newsworthy.

Forgot to add that a link was provided in (3).

Funny how Haditha gets spiked when it no longer serves the agenda of an angry hack. By far the most important recap of the night.

Dana Milbank and Michael Musto
Countdown's moonbat and village homo
The same crap each night
No one from the right
That's why Keith has a low-rated show

Sharon: I can't tell whether you're citing Olbermann or Murtha for "calling all of the marines involved in Haditha cold blooded murderers". I don't recall either one of them ever making that statement.

I believe that both Murtha and Olbermann believe like myself, that when you force thousands of young men into such brutal and stressful conditions....conditions in which they don't know who the enemy is, where the enemy is, or even if they will even recognize the enemy if they do see them, there is always the potential for this kind of thing. It has happened in every war of it's type, and will continue to happen as long as we have leaders who are foolish enough to put young Americans in these kind of situations.

Whether or not any of these men actually commited murder or not, a major share of the blame for the incident, real or imagined, belongs to those who put them in that hellhole.

Haditha is just another example of why America should never, EVER start an un-neccesary war of choice, which is exactly what we did in Iraq.

Sharon asks: "what kind of evidence do you have for your questions about J$?"

WOW, I'm surprised you would ask that question! It was an obvious spoof of Johnny's own question of "why Olbermann hates the troops".

Johnny got it right away and gave a very good reply. Obviously, Johnny is none of the things I inferred with those questions, just as Keith Olbermann doesn't really "hate the troops"...and that was precisely the point!

Mike got suckered. He recognized reprehensible propagandist tactic for what it was, however, Mike forgot where J$ gets these things. HA!

Olby's choice of guest each night
Never someone from the right
Cocksuckers preferred time after time
Milbank, Musto, John Dean are sublime
But Keith's fetish artist king, of course
Is Michael Moore, who can eat a horse

Nobodyloon continues to remain so shy
Still calls himself nothing; that's no lie
Says we are losing to Al Qaeda every day
But that's what he really wants anyway
His highest hope, to get blown up tomorrow
That won't give him any kind of sorrow
He hates God more than Bush it's obvious to see
When it all is ended he will be filled with glee

Haditha is just another example of why America should never, EVER start an un-neccesary war of choice, which is exactly what we did in Iraq.

Posted by: Mike at July 14, 2007 12:34 AM

1. Wrong!!!! Haditha is an example of why Murtha should be in prison. He is being sued by one serviceman, already. Hopefully the other 3 will join in. Hopefully, he will pay, dearly.

2. Why is it, "mike" that every tme I say something negative about your other hero, coward clark, you scream bloody murder."He's a decorated war hero!" says you. Olbermahn degrades a decorated war hero, McCain, and you don't say shit. Is it because he has a (R) after his name? Must be.

Here it is "mike." Spin it all you want. Might as well claim I'm splitting hairs while you're at it. This was taken right off the msnbc web site. Don't start screaming "fox."

Murtha, a vocal opponent of the war in Iraq, said at a news conference Wednesday that sources within the military have told him that an internal investigation will show that "there was no firefight, there was no IED (improvised explosive device) that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

"Is it because he has a (R) after his name? Must be."

NO, nothing at all to do with that.....but much to do with who is rabidly backing a disastrous un-necessary war in a far away land that is getting people killed and draining America's resources.....and who is not!

It's the WAR stupid....NOT the party!

As for Murtha....your assertion that an American "should be in prison" simply because he SAID something you find offensive is traitorous. When Americans start going to prison for something they SAID, we will no longer be America....and there will be nothing left to 'defend'!

There's another thing you don't understand Jeff. Nobody, including Olbermann, has ever questioned John McCain's impeccable war credentials as a veteran and prisoner of war. Nobody I know of has ever called him a 'coward' either.

That is exactly where YOU cross the line with Howard Clark. If you disagree with him, thats one thing...but it sure as hell doesn't make him a 'coward'. It does however, make YOU a hypocrite because he served honorably....and YOU didn't!

MIke,

Sharon: I can't tell whether you're citing Olbermann or Murtha for "calling all of the marines involved in Haditha cold blooded murderers". I don't recall either one of them ever making that statement.

You must not follow news well because Murtha's statement was covered extensively. And you must not have looked at any of the links posted by $ in the "evidence" section of $'s recap. Olbermann didn't use cold-blooded killers as Murtha but he certainly jumped on the bandwagon. When $ provides links, maybe you should take a look.

Murtha accused them of murder without any due process! Olbermann was all over it! No, he shouldn't go to jail but he should be sued. Al Sharpton eventually had to pay in the Tawana Brawley case for making public accusations.

Mike gets bent out of shape for being accused of posting under different names when he says he didn't. A Congressman accused others of cold blooded murder without due process for the accused. Oh but it's George Bush's fault! I think I'll have to agree with the term Bush Derangement Syndrome.

And, for some crazy reason, there was NO mention of the DOW's all time high this week!! Oh, that's right...this has no bearing on MOST people as if MOST people don't invest in anything!!

"mike" and the rest of theloons avoid Mad Man Murtha's statements like the bubonic plague! Then he attacks me because I said he should be in prison, which he should!

Variety
Cable stars keep it personal
News channels in front line of networks' clash
By MICHAEL LEARMONTH
Posted: Fri., Jul. 13, 2007, 4:19pm PT

Nowhere does the NBC-Fox feud burn hotter than on cable, where MSNBC battles Fox News Channel, and Fox is about to launch a business news network to take on CNBC.
One could argue that the feud has been good business for both networks. Keith Olbermann, MSNBC's top primetime host, broke through in the ratings when he started defining himself as the anti-Bill O'Reilly, his competition at 8 p.m.

O'Reilly, a dominant No. 1 during the hour, never refers to Olbermann by name, but frequently criticizes NBC News for everything from its coverage of the Iraq war to its bid to interview Paris Hilton.

He recently called out NBC U topper Jeff Zucker for directing his cable networks into "assassinating the characters of people they don't like for ratings."

Olbermann's ratings are up 67% in the second quarter to 682,000 a night, in part explaining the frequency with which he names O'Reilly "Worst Person in the World."

Just last week, Olbermann named his beloved "Bill-O" "worst person" once again for claiming NBC and the New York Times "don't want Iraq to become successful as a nation or to somehow become a wall against terror."

And if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, MSNBC is attempting to position Olbermann as its primetime tentpole -- what O'Reilly is to Fox News Channel.

But having NBC as a foil for his rants on media bias has also been good for O'Reilly, who beats all his cable news competitors combined at 8 o'clock, with its average aud of 2.2 million a 7% rise from last year.

The competition would no doubt be nastier if the networks were closer in the ratings. Launched months apart in 1996, MSNBC and Fox News took distinctly different paths, and MSNBC has a long way to go before it can seriously threaten in any hour of the day.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117968520.html?categoryId=2522&cs=1

Why,

My comment about BDS was specific to Mike being obstinate about the Haditha incident. Show me where I ever condoned any action about the Tillman case.
***
She keeps minimizing the deleterious effects Bush is having on all parts of our government and around the world. (Why)

And how do I do that? Yesterday I copied some comments made by a person currently on his second tour in Iraq. That was mainly my focus. About executive privilege, I noted the prez's right to do it. Clinton also invoked it to cover up. It is a necessary privilege (I think) that is going to get abused. Don't blame the world's problems on me. I have a busy day so if I don't respond to further attacks, don't consider it surrender.

"We are all part of the same hypocrisy, senator." Michael Corleone, Godfather II

again from Variety

NBC and Fox's corporate parents are even partnered, in one instance, to create an online video service (currently dubbed NewCo) to rival YouTube. And both corporations have a vested interest in making sure NBC's "House" is a hit on Fox, and 20th's "My Name Is Earl" thrives on NBC.

continues...
Ten years ago, NBC was the primetime power, while Fox was the fourth-place net and still not seen as much of a threat. A decade later, their positions have flipped, as the Peacock has resided in the basement for three straight years. That reversal of fortune upset the balance between the 80-year-old NBC and the 20-year-old Fox.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117968521.html?categoryId=14&cs=1

Okay you leftenista's follow this. This war is lasting forever for one reason and one reason only. YOU! Who whined like a baby without their binky over some terrorist having underware put on their heads? YOU! Who bawled like a spoiled two year old over GITMO? YOU! Who kicked and screamed like a 5 year old in the middle of the store over not getting their way in 2004? YOU! Who began banging their heads on a wall like a 12 year old because of the troop surge? YOU! Who is descending into puberty outraged and mad at all things because your mommies and daddies in the Concrap, aren't doing what you tell them to do? YOU! A simple soloution that was followed in all wars till this one, was to get as many innocents out as possible and to force the enemy into said town and obliterate the town and the enemy. Sadr city is a great place to start with the solution to the problem. So the answer to the problem with ending this war is? YOU!

simplesolution, you forgot one small detail......MOAB's!!!!!! Leaflets followed by MOAB's!!!!

I didn't forget the Mother, but one must keep something in reserve for the leftenista's in case the public school, demonnut unions get of control in their propaganda and then we can solve all the problems in this country with the simple solution. I guess since no leftenista's have shown their words they must be trying hard with TubALub to come up with a come back to the simple solution.

Off topic, be warned before you read!

That video and audio of Billary and Edwards (I'm for the little guy and I got my hedge funds, too) is pure gold. They have to be embarrassed beyond belief, shaking Kucinich's hand within 2 seconds of stabbing him in the back! I think it's safe to say that Eddy has hitched his hedge fund to Billary for the VP nomination. Gold, pure gold.

Why doesn’t Keith Olbermann blame NAACP if he really believe if someone left their mic open on Purposes. Oh that right if he did do that he would be so fired his head would spin.

I like how Keith Olbermann can come up with this crazy idea it was Fox News. Maybe Keith the mic just on and it was nobody fault. That can be it in crazy keith land.

Olbermann is egging on the terrorists to be smarter, more effective. Olby the terror cheerleader. Fuck him.

Mr. Name, I particularly agree with the equation:

If you run for president, you aren't permitted to work to help poor people, if you are rich.

And since every single candidate who is running for office, both Dem and GOP, are rich, you can't help poor people or bear the wrath of the right.

(Although I wish certain language had been omitted later.)

I have never understood the resentment the right has for Edwards. He's a good and decent guy who worked and works hard and who seems to love his family deeply. His committment to poverty, by all appearances is genuine. I am not supporting Edwards in the primary because I am not sure he has the requistie foreign policy experience (and with our current leadership, we know that can be a real problem) and I am not sure he has the disposition to President (again, we have been handicapped by that for the last 6 years). Still, I have tremendous respect for and fondness of Edwards.

Maybe, the RW'ers just can't understand someone who does work for interests beyond their own. It is odd.

Hey libnuts....I am poor.....and I know why.....I am LAZY...I would rather let my girl friend with her 4 kids take care of me..HUD, welfare, WIC, State health care, food stamps.

I would like to know what John Edwards can do for me

Oh yeah, I forgot the most important income stream..........child support, that keeps us in beer cigs and entertainment.

They're totally incapable of engaging them as human beings and how they stand on the issues. They're hatred for all democrats make this impossible !
It's so much easier putting them down with 5 second sound bites.

Posted by: Why do you care what my name is at July 14, 2007 7:33 PM

nobody cares wins for the most Hypocritical Post of the day and probably of the month! He takes the cake.......Just change democrats to republicans and he described himself to the "T."

You need a lot more help than John Edwards can provide.
Maybe ask the Wizard for a brain, for starters.

---

No, let's start with a vasectomy. We can deal with the defective brain later.

Johnny Dollar wrote regarding John McCain:

"Only Olby would dare to smear a decorated Prisoner of War..."

This is a joke, right???
Anyone ever hear of KARL ROVE???

Is this site supposed to be satire or what?
Apparently some people forgot all about Bushies tactics prior to the '00 election.

Some people really forget that we LIVED THROUGH IT.

"Why does Keith Olbermann hate our troops?"

What a stupid thing to type.

Okay you leftenista's follow this. This war is lasting forever for one reason and one reason only. YOU! Who whined like a baby without their binky over some terrorist having underware put on their heads? YOU! Who bawled like a spoiled two year old over GITMO? YOU! Who kicked and screamed like a 5 year old in the middle of the store over not getting their way in 2004? YOU! Who began banging their heads on a wall like a 12 year old because of the troop surge? YOU! Who is descending into puberty outraged and mad at all things because your mommies and daddies in the Concrap, aren't doing what you tell them to do? YOU! A simple soloution that was followed in all wars till this one, was to get as many innocents out as possible and to force the enemy into said town and obliterate the town and the enemy. Sadr city is a great place to start with the solution to the problem. So the answer to the problem with ending this war is? YOU!

Posted by: simplesolution at July 14, 2007 11:54 AM

This is possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read in my life. By far dumber than anything I've read out here, and that's saying quite a bit.

Lefties are to blame for the war still going on?
Lefties crying over the civil rights violations that happened under this administration is perpetuating the war?

I hope you're not driving until the booze wears off.

Iraq: Has America lost the will to win?

Even if the war is still winnable in Iraq, it is now being lost at home. Even some Republican senators are calling for troops to be withdrawn

The above is from Sunday's TIMES OF LONDON, generally considered a moderate to slightly right-of-center paper. The article includes an interesting snapshot of a GI and an interview with his mother. It is worth the read:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2076032.ece

This makes me want to run out and vote for the next muslim that runs for office, like Obama, not!

America's first Muslim congressman has provoked outrage by apparently comparing President George W Bush to Adolf Hitler and hinting that he might have been responsible for the September 11 attacks.

Addressing a gathering of ATHEISTS in his home state of Minnesota, Keith Ellison, a Democrat, compared the 9/11 atrocities to the destruction of the Reichstag, the German parliament, in 1933. This was probably burned down by the Nazis in order to justify Hitler's later seizure of emergency powers.

"It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that," Mr Ellison said. "After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it, and it put the leader [Hitler] of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted."

To applause from his audience of 300 members of ATHEISTS for Human Rights, Mr Ellison said he would not accuse the Bush administration of planning 9/11 because "you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box - dismiss you.

Mr Ellison also raised eyebrows by telling his audience: "You'll always find this Muslim standing up for your right to be ATHEISTS all you want."

A convert to Islam who was previously linked to the extremist Nation of Islam, Mr Ellison, 42, has cultivated a moderate image since being elected last November, concentrating on issues such as health and education.

He is an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq. But he angered his own anti-war supporters by voting for a budget bill that aims to end the war over the next 18 months. His followers want an immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

After his speech was reported, Mr Ellison said he accepted that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. But his demagogic comments threaten to plunge him in controversy.

Mark Drake, of the Republican party in Minnesota, said: "To compare the democratically elected leader of the United States of America to Hitler is an absolute moral outrage which trivialises the horrors of Nazi Germany."

Sharon,
I posted a reply to your posting of MGs response in the July 12th thread.

Does anyone have an antacid?

For those of you interested, here is some info on Mr. Ellison's friends, the "nation of islam."

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/4222/noi.html

On the positive side, let's hope that Rep. Ellison can help us better understand the Muslims that live around us and throughout the worlds. That would be useful. In any event, I doubt Rep. Ellison has close contact with more Muslims than the Bush family, and I also doubt that those Muslims Rep. Ellison knows have the same effect on United States foreign policy.

Spc. Vassell, 2nd Platoon Apache Company Strykers:

"We're supposed to be on the way home right now. We were supposed to be flying home in six days. Six days. But because we have people up there in Congress with the brain of a two-year old who don't know what they're doing. They don't experience it. I, I challenge the President or whoever has us here for fifteen months to ride along, alongside me. I'll do another fifteen months if he comes out here and rides along with me every day for fifteen months. I'll do fifteen more months. They don't even have to pay me extra. I just want him to come out here and ride with me another fifteen months."

I would like to see Sen Lindsay Graham - perhaps the President's only remaining Republican war-supporter - react to this invitation. He brags about his several day-trips to the Green Zone as war-zone experience, but he has no idea what he is talking about.

I hope its not too presumptuous of me to extend Spc Vassell's invitation to the unelected sycophants here at OW - cee, royalking, Cox, Dollar, Schatz, etc.

Bob Schieffer just pointed out that the Iraqi parliment is taking a month off due to 130 degree summer temperatures in Bagdhad, but that our soldiers are still there under extreme stress in full battle gear. Interestingly, I don't see Graham, Lieberamann, or McCain planning any of their field-trip photo-ops this season either.

Great time to "start" a "surge" though - that "political follow-up" coming behind the "surge" is going to have to wait at least a month until the climate ameliorates to the preferrences of people wearing silk suits.

The Republican philibuster of Senator Webb's bill requiring a humane interval between a soldier's combat deployments is a major component of the administration's public relations strategy in regard to this occupation.

They do not want a large number of soldiers and families to experience the occupation, so they have since the start maximized the recycling of those already in theater. Stop-loss extentions of tours; unprecedentedly ecellerated redeployments; two, three and four redeployments for some units. Its all to keep the demographic with intimate experience with the Iraq occupation to an abslute minimum. The "surge" is largely composed of such redeployed personnel, and is much smaller than it might have been.

You've seen how they marginalize the military families, the majority of whom now emphatically say the whole war/occupation was a horrible mistake; their proxies attack the most vocal anti-war vets and survivors (the Tillmans, Cindy Sheehan, Seargent Kokesh,...).

....and not one of you comfortable chickenhawks is ever asked in the mildest, least assuming terms to do anything at all to sacrifice for or participate in this "existential battle".

Bottom line: the greater the number of vets, the greater number of highly motivated and highly credible critics of Bush's forever-war. Simultaneously, the greater the number of flabby-assed right-wing war-loving chickenhawks who never find out what it is they are supporting...well, that's Bush's firm base.

This is possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read in my life. By far dumber than anything I've read out here, and that's saying quite a bit.

Lefties are to blame for the war still going on?
Lefties crying over the civil rights violations that happened under this administration is perpetuating the war?

I hope you're not driving until the booze wears off.

Posted by: The Truth at July 14, 2007 10:15 PM

Truth,

simpleton is merely aticulating explicitly an ages-old refuge of war-mongers whose course has run: the "stab-in-the-back" ("Dolchstoßlegende", to Hitler). Tacitus records its frequent use by the imperial Romans, American expansionists used it after the defeats of St. Clair and Custer, Hitler forged it into his Third Reich by convincing the German people that a WWI victory should have been theirs, if not for the communist Jewish pacifists, while the MIC and the right wing has blamed the hippie peaceniks for our defeat and humiliation in Vietnam.

The current quagmire in Iraq, and the bloodbaths to follow despite wat we do- was clinically indicated the day we invaded that country, and was carved in granite when Bremer was set loose to destroy the civic infrastructure of Iraq in a dozen irrevocable ways.

The pirates who designed this invasion to enrich themselves, their brainless but comfortable followers represented in microcosm here at OW, and a spineless "opposition party" in our legislature are to blame for it all.

Okay you leftenista's follow this. This war is lasting forever for one reason and one reason only. YOU! Who whined like a baby without their binky over some terrorist having underware put on their heads? YOU! Who bawled like a spoiled two year old over GITMO? YOU! Who kicked and screamed like a 5 year old in the middle of the store over not getting their way in 2004? YOU! Who began banging their heads on a wall like a 12 year old because of the troop surge? YOU! Who is descending into puberty outraged and mad at all things because your mommies and daddies in the Concrap, aren't doing what you tell them to do? YOU! A simple soloution that was followed in all wars till this one, was to get as many innocents out as possible and to force the enemy into said town and obliterate the town and the enemy. Sadr city is a great place to start with the solution to the problem. So the answer to the problem with ending this war is? YOU!

Posted by: simplesolution at July 14, 2007 11:54 AM

Bush had every single thing he wanted from the beginning of the war - a lazy and eagerly compliant republican majority in the legislature; a conversely dazed cowardly, and supine minority (with perhaps one or two individual exceptions), He got every scrap of funding he requested in his yearly budgets and multiple supplementals, he got a press the still bends over backwards to make him appear competent to drive a car, let alone run the free world. He got every nomination rubber-stamped almost without comment; he got to fire general after general as they developed experiences and opinions that contradicted his card-board diarama of the spread of democracy in the Middle East,.....

He got four and a half years to defeat a "gang of dead-enders" who attacked us with plastic box-cutters. All he has accomplished is to strengthen and increase our enemies - making a few up along the way.

You've got a lot of fucking nerve to blame the people who have been right and sane regarding this issue from the outset for the growing disaster you've blindly cheered on as your fetish/president has done as he has pleased.

Sir Loin: Thanks for some very good and very true responses to one of the most inane posts I have ever read by this 'Simpleton' character!

"he got a press the still bends over backwards to make him appear competent to drive a car, let alone run the free world."

SOB, would you mind elaborating on this comment? Who might you be referring to? Can' wait for this.........

Can't....

SOS, would you mind elaborating on this comment?"

Jeff, when have YOU ever 'elaborated' on anything????

sirloin of beef forgets it was democrats that talked many of us into supporting the war. jay rockefeller, joe biden, nancy pelosi were all for beating the war drums in 2002. here's the proof:

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002-Truth!
These were remarks from Senator Levin to a Senate committee on that date.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002-Truth!
This and the quote below was part of prepared remarks for a speech in San Francisco to The Commonwealth Club.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002-Truth!

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002-Truth!
Part of a speech he gave at Johns Hopkins.

More proof that it was Democrats who beat the war drums and convinced many of us it was a good idea:

The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998.
We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002-Truth!
On the floor of the Senate during debate over the resolution that would authorize using force against Iraq.
He was urging caution about going to war and commented that even though there was confidence about the weapons in Iraq, there had not been the need to take military action for a number of years and he asked why there would be the need at that point.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002-Truth!
Senator Kerry's comments were made to the Senate as part of the same debate over the resolution to use force against Saddam Hussein.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002-Truth!
Senator Rockefeller's statements were a part of the debate over using force against Saddam Hussein.

More fear mongering by Democrats just before we invaded Iraq:

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002-Truth!
Senator Waxman's contribution to the Senate debate over going to war.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002-Truth!
Senator Clinton acknowledged the threat of Saddam Hussein but said she did not feel that using force at that time was a good option.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003-Truth!
In a speech to Georgetown University.

Senator Waxman's contribution to the Senate debate over going to war.
-----
Waxman is a member of the House of Representatives from California. He is not a Senator. The Senators from California are Feinstein and Boxer.

Rather makes your entire argument suspect ....

The fact the poster said Waxinhisass is a Sen rather than a congressman changes nothing, Mrs. Philby. Quotes are quotes. Nice try at playing the "divert" card. I checked, those are all ACTUAL quotes made by your party members. Watch the olbyloons run full speed from those post.

"It's Bush's war!"
"Bush lied us into war!" says "mike" at least 20 times, now.

Another diversion by nobody cares! Who will be the first olbyloon to deny all of the above quotes?

This is really a point I made in an earlier post, that seems to have been proven now, to-wit: the RW'er Bushites are lost, devastated, looking for a gracious exit, but seeking grace without admitting sin and error. I don't think that is possible. Frankly, I don't blame them for being deceived by Bush any more than I blame some of the Democrats who were given doctored, tainted, deceptive "evidence". We all had the wool pulled over our eyes. The real test is not a "no" answer to the question, "Were you deceived?," but rather, how quickly did you analyze the true "evidence" as it finally oozed out, dribbled out, poured out and flooded out. If you were later than the dribblers, you probably should feel uncomfortable, ashamed of yourself but I don't think bellowing, barking and snarling ought to be the answer. Just admit that you were wrong, as we all have at different points, and help us all to move on and end the loss of American lives and the expenditure of billions and billions of dollars we have borrowed.

As President McConnell said, Senators are Congressmen, they're not Representatives, and Representatives are Congressmen, but they're not Senators, and I am nothing but Cheney's colorless, peronalityless parrot, so why listen to me? I looked up that quote, by the way, and I am certain McConnell never said that,

Realist,

Hey, I am proud of you for identifying yourself (unlike some anon(s?) but not so proud for lumping me in with everyone with whom you disagree. What I stated concerning the surge (or whatever term you want to use) is to give it until September. There won't be 155,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely. There is going to be a phased out withdrawal (not complete), in my opinion which I have stated numerous times. I completely agree that the troops cannot make any more of these extended tours without rest and if I am wrong about a phased withdrawal, then there should be a draft. Webb's proposal should come into play, soon. (about the rest). What has to be accomplished is so complicated but I disagree that nothing has been accomplished. You can call me the names that have been thrown at me for that opinion, but you'll have to apply them to people like CJ Grisham and Master Gunner. I am not speaking for them regarding withdrawal or a future draft, just in the number of successful missions they have reported and their general outlook.

Truth,

I read your response about Master Gunner and appreciate the tone, which is highly unusual for most here. You took the first half of his comment (about enlistment numbers) but did not appear to read it in conjunction with the second point. Re-enlistment is strong from service people who have experienced Iraq. Numbers are not as good for recruitment. (According to MG). I like to present the viewpoint of someone who is actually serving, not that others are not valid. I also know that a number serving are very disillusioned. If re-enlistment is still strong, morale must not be as low as some claim. I could be wrong.

"he got a press the still bends over backwards to make him appear competent to drive a car, let alone run the free world."

SOB, would you mind elaborating on this comment? Who might you be referring to? Can' wait for this.........

Posted by: royalking at July 15, 2007 3:04 PM

Your president is a fucking retard, that's what it means. Clear enough?

The dems weren't beating a war drum. They were acknowledging that Saddam was dangerous and seeking weapons.
No shit. Every leader in the world seeks weapons one way or another.

Acknowledging that Saddam needs to be dealt with is not the same thing as beating the war drum. War is not the only way to resolve the threat. It certainly wasn't the best way to do ANYTHING, the way that these nimrods in the admin handled it.

Posted by: The Truth at July 15, 2007 11:44 PM

...and they had the executive branch with its most powerful and extensive intelligence network in the world telling them lies about Saddam's associations, arsenals, and intentions.

Now, that's really not much of an excuse, because at the time it was possible to listen to Scott Ritter et. al. who were actually in Iraq saying exactly the opposite, and who have been proven correct on every point.

Basically, we have a legislature that is almost completely controlled by the Military Industrial Complex, and their myopic concerns rgarding re-election, and we need to get some real people with actual human concerns on Capitol Hill.

Truth- I saw a comment you wrote about something I wrote on another posting, so I thought I would post about it here. This is a site called Olbermann watch, I dont post on any site called fox news watch. I watch Olbermann strictly for the comedy faction, as one day its my hope he Howard Beales himself during one of his special comments. The incessant fox news drum that herr olbermannmeister beats is born from frustration, he can't beat them in the ratings, he never will beat them in the ratings, so he chooses to attempt to beat down his enemy with incessant name calling. I have no problem if you think Fox News is evil , if you think fox news is ruining the world you should adjust your tinfoil suit because your probably one of those people that think radiation is everywhere and little green men are coming for you

I have no problem if you think Fox News is evil , if you think fox news is ruining the world you should adjust your tinfoil suit because your probably one of those people that think radiation is everywhere and little green men are coming for you

Posted by: DAN at July 16, 2007 10:53 AM

Fox News isn't ruining the world - its merely the propaganda organ of the MIC that controls this country's foreign policy - that's what's ruining the world

Your president is a fucking retard, that's what it means. Clear enough?

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at July 16, 2007 9:20 AM

I was hoping for some evidence pointing to your original claim that "he got a press the still bends over backwards to make him appear competent to drive a car, let alone run the free world." Instead, I got the typical far left hate "answer." No surprise. Thanks!

And the Democratic Congress and leadership has ratings that in the low 20% range. Sounds like they are hated and despised as much as Bushie these days.

I'm not a big fan of what's happened yet, but they have been trumped quite a bit by the republicans that still vote along party lines.

Posted by: The Truth at July 16, 2007 2:53 PM

What do you call it when Democrats vote along Republican "party lines"?

Truthzilla-

runing the minds of alot of people to me implies that you think so little of the people of the US of A that they cant think for themselves, they need the evil FOX NEWS to do the thinking for them....Weak

The fact that you think so much of their mind control to me means you are paranoid, and live in fear of the little green men who are going to come and get you

If Fox news is so evil how come I see Al Sharpton dennis kucinich, ellis hedican, geraldine ferraro, kristin powers and any flameing person from the left on fox news on a nightly basis?

When do you see that on msnbc, especiially on countdown with keith olbermann

Ease your paranoia.....I like to think Americans are smart enough to think for themselves

Truthzilla-

runing the minds of alot of people to me implies that you think so little of the people of the US of A that they cant think for themselves, they need the evil FOX NEWS to do the thinking for them....Weak

The fact that you think so much of their mind control to me means you are paranoid, and live in fear of the little green men who are going to come and get you

If Fox news is so evil how come I see Al Sharpton dennis kucinich, ellis hedican, geraldine ferraro, kristin powers and any flameing person from the left on fox news on a nightly basis?

When do you see that on msnbc, especiially on countdown with keith olbermann

Ease your paranoia.....I like to think Americans are smart enough to think for themselves

Posted by: DAN at July 16, 2007 3:12 PM

hmmm. Dan.... Didn't you just attribute an entire "mindset" to the tv channel ESPN?...

ESPN is a suckhole of sexual harrasement policies and locker room mentalities.....I only know this because geez ive worked in pro sports broadcasting since 1988

I meant to write harrasement suits and not policies.....And alas im not one of the people here who believes there is a trigger in the fox news signal that causes people to espouse hate.....thats paranoia like my friend truth, sitting in his basement waiting for the little green men to come and get him

ESPN is a suckhole of sexual harrasement policies and locker room mentalities.....I only know this because geez ive worked in pro sports broadcasting since 1988

Posted by: DAN at July 16, 2007 3:26 PM

Great so attributing mindsets to tv channels isn't the equivalent of psychotic paranoia.... you owe The Truth an apology....

They report.....I decide Ha
Olbermann pontificates with no rebuttal,
Again folks the name of the website is Olbermann watch, I post here because Olbermann espouses more hate than anything ive ever seen on Fox News, thats My opinion

Again OLBERMANN WATCH NOT FOX NEWS WATCH.....

CECILIA- I tried to be nice, you are an idiot

Love,
Dan

They report.....I decide Ha
Olbermann pontificates with no rebuttal,
Again folks the name of the website is Olbermann watch, I post here because Olbermann espouses more hate than anything ive ever seen on Fox News, thats My opinion

Again OLBERMANN WATCH NOT FOX NEWS WATCH.....

Posted by: DAN at July 16, 2007 3:38 PM

That's convenient, Dan.

Next time, when bellying-up to agree with those who jump to the most heinous unfounded accusations of Olbermann being a sexual predator-- be sure you expound on the locker room mentality Olbermann could have acquired at Fox Sports.

Great so attributing mindsets to tv channels isn't the equivalent of psychotic paranoia.... you owe The Truth an apology....

Posted by: Cecelia at July 16, 2007 3:35 PM

Burn.

Posted by: The Truth at July 16, 2007 3:45 PM

Some people appreciate "the truth", some people merely name themselves "The Truth".

I gotta say Cecelia, I really don't have any clue where the hell you're coming from.

I was never rude with you, but if you want to start posting rude stuff to me be my guest.

I think I'll sleep just fine.

Posted by: The Truth at July 16, 2007 3:51 PM

"Rude"? Now that's harsh...

Yo Bro Truth- I am faaaaaaaaaaaar from a Bushie, another misnomer because one watches Fox News that makes him a Republican. I actually started watching Olberman because I was interested in what he had to say, and then Bill O was the worst person, Bill O was the worst person, Bill O was the worst person, Bill O was the worst person, Bill O was the worst person, Bill O was the worst person, Bill O was the worst person, Bill O was the worst person, Bill O was the worst person, Bill O was the worst person, ...u get the point, in 2004 I actually did not vote, heresy I know, when faced with the choice of choosing between two evils, I chose not to choose

Olbermann is out of his mind, plain and simple, unless I have always misread Robert Cox's mission statement, this is an anti Olbermann site. I dont post on anti Bill O Reily Sites because to be honest with you he to me is as not out of his mind as Olbermann

As for all the sexual Harrsement stuff, I will sum it up plain and simple, ESPN is a breeding ground ceasepool of it, always has been, look at the recent lawsuit coming of the Cold Pizza set as the latest example

Olbermann bashes women on his show with a locker room mentality....Again read the site, Mr Cox outlines it plain and simple.

That came from somewhere, plain and simple, I submit from working in this industry, Olbermann's female bashing was born at ESPN where everyone's was

There are things on FOX that are in defenseable, Sean Hannity is completely out of his mind, but I watch and I dont feel compelled that fox is controlling my mind, ha

Hey maybe I was out of line with my little green man crack, however, I cant take the paranoia that comes from Olbermann about Fox News, he cant beat them so in a world without end, Bill O reily will always be the worst person in it, ha

Dan

I submit you read ESPN UNAUTHORIZED HISTORY where every anchor on the air basically had an issue, including many who are still on the air today, includeing one who mans the MNF Mike

Anybody can think for themselves. I find it funny that people that complain how every graphic image Hollywood puts out is going to affect our kids, but to think that constant exposure to other images and opinions doesn't influence minds
****

There is a difference between children's minds and that of adults (I hope!).

I think we'd agree on the fact that Bill O causes his own set of problems that Keith has called him out on numerous occasions on. Including the Loofah incident. I think, Imo, what makes Keith more of an abject phony is his bashing is always hidden in between the lines of a Michael Musto for example. Keith has the same seven person set of talking Monkeys that are all there to agree with him, your Wolffies, Deans, anyone from the Best week in America, Air America and the skeeviest man on the planet Michael Musty.

I think theres a large part of this country that looks at a John Stewart and Colbert for their news and thats just frightening. I think Keith attempts to lift from that and IMO he cant have it both ways, be the snarky lockeroom guy and the serious political commentator if you will

Listen I never said Keith is pulling his pants down at the drop of a hat at every woman he sees. However, the ESPN history to me is telling and damming to him

Again I also feel compelled alot today to write this, I have no problem when people come here to defend Keith, this is not a site in the end for people who support Keith O. Keith has taken the issue format that O Reily started and just swung one side of it

Hey O reily is a weird dude on his tangents he gets off on, some I do agree with ( I do agree christmas is under attack in this country, it doesnt make me a religious zaelot btw) and some I dont (his saying the kid who was kidnapped "liked it")

I flip back and forth between the two shows, I usually come to Keith later in the shows in that his opening speil is the bush bash segment and ive had enough o dat

Truth,

I can only speak to how I am influenced. It's not brainwashing but analyzing and coming to a well-thought out conclusion. On some issues, I am set for life (abortion for instance).

Dan,

If it weren't for the fact that O'Reilly had previously taken up kids' causes, I would have had an extremely hard time finding any future efforts on behalf of kids genuine after that horrible comment. I know what his "reason" was but he should have publicly apologized and given a donation to the charity Hornbeck's parents established (he may have done that but I am not aware of any donation). If he weren't so popular, that comment would have killed him the same as the I-man was done in. He suffered damage but not destruction. Have to run...

The Truth, all the Dems need in the House to pass any and all legislation they propose is for only 93% of their own party to vote for it or vote against any amendments the leadership doesn't want. If they could get even a 90% Dem vote they would only need six Repubs to cross party lines and the Dems prevail.

You say you are not a big fan of whats happened so far and blame that lack on the the Repubs only voting party lines. The problem that you perceive, a good thing by my lights, is that not enough Dems are voting their party line.

The situation in the Senate is, because of the structure and the long term Senate rules, the same situation the Repubs had when they were the majority. The Senate structure and rules virtually guarantee that any action requires a great deal of compromise and bipartisan support. To the best of my memory nothing before the Senate so far has had 100% support of either party.

Both Cee and I, maybe some others I don't remember offhand, have consistently and sometimes loudly maintained that this lack of any sharp reversals in legislation and direction is the direct result of the character of the Dems taking control of both Houses earlier this year.

In most cases new seats gained and retention of some close reelections the winning Dem candidates were very moderate, and compared to the Dem leadership, probably more right leaning.

You said:

"I'm not a big fan of what's happened yet, but they have been trumped quite a bit by the republicans that still vote along party lines."

I get the impression that you want the Dem's 'party line' to prevail so Repubs voting their 'party line' are what? Whatever that is, are the Dem's voting their 'party line' the same thing? And when Dem's and Repub' don't vote their 'party lines' are they both the same thing?

I guess what I am asking is who gets the "Profiles in Courage" awards:

Is it Dems voting for their 'party line' and Repubs voting against their 'party line'?

Or is it:

Dems voting against their 'party line' and Repubs voting for their 'party line'?

Grammie

A very old, very tired argument from the days the Nixon Administration was on its downward spiral, Ms. Hawkins ..... The question does not involve strict party loyalty, a hallmark of the British system of governance, but not the US, rather what is best for the nation? You are going to have a very tough time convincing most people that the Republican party-line on Iraq, stem cell research, CHIPS and other crucial issues is anything other that pure self-serving pandering to the far RW elements of the Republican party. I'm not sure where you fit in the narrow spectrum of thought in the Republican party, your comments being so erratic, chaotic and sporadic, but I tend to think you are at the very, very far fringe of the RW. If that is correct, the nation may be on a seismic shift to the left, not ending up at what your cohorts would tritely and vacuously call a "San Francisco Democrat" position, but ending up much closer to a Jim Webb or a CLaire McCaskill than a Mitch McConnel or Saxby Chambliss. As such, I don't know anything to do with your analysis other than to dismiss it out-of-hand, and I do.

"Profiles in Courage" awards:

For the Republicans, Ron Paul. Although John McCain was once a contender, he slipped badly, and Susan Collins is not quite at the gate. No one else is close.

For the Democrats, a number of possibilities, although after Jim Webb took such a big bite out of the Graham Cracker, yesterday, I think he has to be the consensus winner.

As for Profiles in Cowering:

The award has to go to the Independent Republican ass kisser, Holy Joe Liebermann.

The Truth, lets get this off the table before we move on:

"I think its pretty weak to say that a lack of reversals so early shows a lacking of character."

You totally misread what I said, which was:

".......maintained that this lack of any sharp reversals in legislation and direction is the direct result of the character of the Dems taking control of both Houses earlier this year."

The first two definitions in the dictionary for 'character' is:

"1. the aggregate of features and traits that form the individual nature of some person or thing.
2. one such feature or trait; characteristic."

I made no assertions to character or lack thereof. I made note of the characteristics of some of the individual races that resulted in the Dem regaining control of the House and the Senate.

I did, though, question what characteristic you attribute to elected officials who vote the 'party line' and those who don't vote the 'party line'. You implied that voting the 'party line' is on its face reprehensible.

The thrust of the question I posed was is it ONLY Repubs voting the 'party line' that are reprehensible and Repubs voting against the 'party line' moral giants and how do Dems fall on this scale of yours?

We have serious questions facing us and men of good will have positions all along the scale. It does no good, and much damage to us, to keep insisting that those who have a different view are, based on just what I have been called here, stupid, ignorant, evil, inhuman, greedy, senile, selfish, murderous, traitorous and on and on and on.

I've been back and forth since I started this reply and I see you made a subsequent comment. I'm sorry, but if you really meant what you said last why would you make the first comment? I sometimes think that the overwrought hyperbole that is so common today coupled with the internet is as likely to do us in as anything else.

Grammie

Grammie,

I think of Joe Lieberman, who really isn't technically voting against party lines as an independent but caucuses with the Dems. Mr. Clucker made this comment:

As for Profiles in Cowering:
The award has to go to the Independent Republican ass kisser, Holy Joe Liebermann.

Lieberman (like Kucinich on the other end of the scale) has consistently held his position, even when it cost him the Democratic nomination.

Lieberman has consistently held his position, even when it cost him the Democratic nomination.

-----

I seem to recall the American essayist Emerson writing of such consistency.

You know Lieberman on that level? Wow!

Sharon, when it comes to Iraq Libermann is voting against 'party lines' as established by the Dem leadership.

I get all warm and fuzzy when I realize how close the Dems came to having the pariah Liebermann as the VP in a democratic administration. :)

Grammie

Of course, who is to say if Liebermann had become Vice President to President Gore we would be faced with the situation in Iraq. If the 9/11 attacks had proceeded, which is itself somewhat doubtful, I suspect a Gore Administration would have gone to Afghanistan and otherwise actually fought terrorists and terrorism instead of Iraqis. Certainly, if the Gore Adminstration had gone to Iraq, the Occupation would have been handled much, much better. Virtually any of our previous Presidents or the men they defeated would have handled Iraq much better than the current Administration. So, your warm and fuzzy might only be from picking up the hair dryer while your feet were wet.

I am glad you are back too, Ms. Hawkins, but it is bed for me now.

Speculation, Mr. Clucker.

Speculation, Mr. Clucker.

----------------------------

How could it be anything but. Still, reasonable and informed, I am sure. Unlike the Surge speculation. We could all be surprised, but the speculation is unreasonable and ill-informed as we go into it. Simply a desire, perhaps a desperate desire.

I haven't looked at the poll $ referenced today but if he has his facts, most people want to wait until September before pushing withdrawal. That is what I have been suggesting as well. Au revoir!

Sharon, don't worry about me when I don't show up for a time. As my young whipper snappers have said "Grammie is like bad grass. Nothing kills her!" :)

Grammie

LOL- I guess you and the roaches will still be around should the world go nuclear! I guess AAP would survive for a second to yell out "BU$HWIPES!"

"but if he has his facts, most people want to wait for September before pushing for withdrawal. That is what I have been suggesting as well."

Thats nice!.....I guess that means you along with "most people" are comfortable with the knowledge that approximately 200 additional young American troops will have to die between now and September?

Day 31 and we're still waiting for "mike" to tell us how he has been supporting our troops.

I guess that means you along with "most people" are comfortable with the knowledge that approximately 200 additional young American troops will have to die between now and September? (Mike)

****

"...Democrats want to pass legislation by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., that would order combat troops to begin leaving in 120 days..."

...http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070717/D8QE47L02.html

****

Your personal attack is offensive, unfounded and ridiculous. No one is coming home before September.

Sharon: Call it a "personal attack" if you choose to see it that way. It wasn't meant as such.

I have concluded a long time ago that the only way to change relatively ambivilent public opinion about the war is for people to see it as a morality issue, and for them to start caring about the loss of each and every additional life...not ONE of whom is worth losing for this incoherent 'cause'!

NOT ONE!!!!!!!

MIke,

Shouting at me won't make a difference (caps are shouts). I have no control over the outcome at this point. I don't want anyone to die today, tomorrow, or the next. I am just being realistic. Even if a troop withdrawal occurs, it won't happen until after September. Nothing is going to change that. You believe that the war shouldn't have been fought. It was. I will never stop thinking about the two missing soldiers from the 10th Mountain Division who probably are dead but whose ultimate fate we don't know. I can't imagine how their families feel with the thought that their loved ones will never be recovered.

Sharon: You are a good person and that comes through loud and clear in most of your posts. I is also very clear that neither you or myself can control the outcome.

In addition, you are also painfully correct that nothing can occur until September. However, come September, the politicians are once again going to put their fingers into the wind of public opinion, and my fear is that they will find still more reasons to continue to procrastinate about our role in the ultimate inevitable outcome.

If that happens, still more lives will be lost, more young Americans will become crippled for life....all in the pursuit of the identical ultimate end result.

And yes, I understand the caps are shouts. I would shout all day long that one more soldier's life is not worth pursuing this convoluted 'cause' in Iraq if I thought it would help...but painfully, you're right about that as well.

How's those "examples" coming, "mike?" Still can't find any? More spew you can't back? Indeed.