Liberals and Democrats would be much more convincing if they weren't such awful, hateful, lying bastards.

>>> He once confused Jessica Simpson with Jessica Lynch.

I wonder if the laughing stage hand got fired for the Alison Stewart debacle? Maybe a producer got the axe. HA! Not likely! Keith claims " It should never have happened". That putz won't admit that the slur was borne from the atmosphere he created.

What has 'Mr. Merlot' accused O'Reilly of now? Both were out Friday.

I'm rather impressed that Dick Cheney had no clue who Jessica Simpson was.

The Jessica simpson comment post is atributed to a namless putz from the previous thread, not Olby.
Brandon, excellent point!

Isn't interesting that Keith did an entire segment on a book about Cheney and the Administration...even to the point of having screens of text from the book.....but he couldn't actually have the author on to talk about the book!

Why? The author is Stephen Hays...a conservative writer for the Weekly Standard.

IOlbermann and the blue blogs think it's wrong to call women whores(who are second parties to prominent men) for the way they have dressed.

Isn't THAT a strange sentiment?

In the Harry Potter piece, anyone else notice that Olbermann's girlfriend, Katy Tur, was the person in line that he pushed out of the way?

I was flipping past MSNBC and I saw Dan Abrams talking about a reported who went to CNN. He then belittled her move to CNN and stated something to the effect that MSNBC beats CNN (mornings) in the coveted ratings demographic. Does bath-tub boy write from Abrams too?

The laughing stagehand was Denis Horgan. He left two weeks ago. He was an executive producer with the show. The Vitter "ho" comment was post-Horgan's departure from the show.

Looks like Dennis Horgan reads OW. HA!

If you spell "Dennis" "Denis", shouldn't it ryhme with "Penis"? Ask Denis Leary. HA!

Love seeing the Democrats argue over who can twitch their nose and wish the troops out of Iraq faster.
Question for the losercrats.
If running from Iraq with our tails between are legs is such a winning issued, why is the leading candidate, Billary Rotten, talking about keeping some of the troops in Iraq?
Dennis K the leader of the Lollypop guild says he can click his heels together and get the troops home tomorrow. Why isn't he winning?

The guy's name was Denis Horgan, Jr., not to be confused with his father who is a writer for a Ct. newspaper.

Cooped up inside tonight as a storm moved through, and I watched the debate .... A most interesting format, and Anderson Cooper did a commendable job. He is an odd one. I thought his Katrina coverage was fantastic, but I usually don't care for him. Tonight, he pleasantly surprised me, again.

One of the things that impresses me with the Democratic field is the depth of it. This is largely an intelligent, reasonable, articulate group. But, the field also has breadth. There is a surprising range of views on most subjects. In some sense, it seems the classic Democratic party is returning, a very, very big home housing a loud, cantankerous, sometimes disagreeable family, but a family nonetheless. That is a good thing as it gives room to so many different opinions and positions. Real dynamism.

Not surprisingly, I view the Republican field as incredibly shallow, but then it seems so do most Americans and, indeed, most Republicans. That is no particular criticism of the party as both parties from time-to-time have talent vaccuums. What is more troubling to me is that the party is so monolithic and lumbering at this time. As such, I understand the draw Fred Thompson seems to have to the party faithful. He is the poster child for a monolithic and lumbering party. Of course, it seems reasonable, as virtually all the pundits now suggest, his star will fade very fast when he actually becomes a candidate. I suspect the very, very nasty Rudy will tear Thompson to shreds. I still have to wonder if NOA will be the winner. But who? Clearly not the ueber-compromised Newt, to be sure. Maybe, we'll have a true dark horse in the race. That would be fun.

The debate was useful for me as I finally seem to be moving toward a candidate. That is an interesting experience for me, as I am usually more certain early in the process. But the luxury is, I could be happy with and willing to support and work for any of four (4) of the candidates.

What an odd and interesting political season lies ahead. What a joy when the season at last changes.

Clucker, nobody gives a shit.

Countdown's host is mentally ill
His manly obsession with Bill
Makes sane people cringe
Lunatic on the fringe
Keith's shrink should prescribe a strong pill

That was an **ueber-boring** post. HA!
Not sure if that would pass spell check.

"In the Harry Potter piece, anyone else notice that Olbermann's girlfriend, Katy Tur, was the person in line that he pushed out of the way?"

That's the only way she'll ever get on television.

Mrs. Philby sits with finger in the air, like most Democrats are doing, too cowardly to get behind a candidate knowing the Billary machine with her 100+ PI's on payroll are just waiting to attack like Great White's in a school of baby seals or Salmon. Too bad her "machine" has spent millions of dollars already and they can't find anything on Thompson. "Monolithic" as he seems to her, he will be the nominee for the (R)'s. Did I mention he wears boots?

Most Olbyloons, and various other assorted and sundry unhinged lefties are under the impression that the Democratic nominee for President will be able to waltz into the White House next year. Not gonna happen. Guliani, Romney, or Fred Thompson will make mincemeat of such nominee in any debate. Hillary couldn't beat anybody, so I pray that she will be the nominee. The fact is that she is not a "people person", and comes across as stiff. She's Richard Nixon in a dress(or pantsuit). No warmth. Obama looks good and occasionally sounds good, but other times he gives answers that one would expect from a sophomore at Wellesley. Won't be a problem, either. The 2008 Presidential election will be a 1000 times bigger version of the Fitzmas that didn't happen. The loons were hoping for the pony under the XMAS tree, and got a plastic pony(named Scooter) instead. Wait 'till the first Tuesday next November.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-c43wUn2VM

Thank God I didn't watch, again. Sounds like it was a repeat of his last 100 "news" shows. Not a peep about the dog fighter, huh? Not a peep about the basketball ref, huh? Mr. Sports Guy? The King O' the Tools, he is.

Yes, I saw little Katy. Maybe she begged Sugar Daddy to put her in the hour of spin.

ueber
-------
Sorry, Mr. Bull, but when you can't make an umlaut, you have to add an "e". The best I could do given the site limitations.

Rico:

Not too worried about anything I have seen from the Republicans so far, including the Big Grouch from Tennessee .... I rather hope you RW'ers do find someone, but you are a very tough group to appease.

Cooper did a far better job that I imagine Olby will when he hosts the upcoming AFL-CIO debate. Cooper at least is a real journalist, despite his family's wealth and background. No wonder Olbermann keeps making slams about him.

Whines Chicken Clucker:

"Not too worried about anything I have seen from the Republicans so far, including the Big Grouch from Tennessee .... I rather hope you RW'ers do find someone, but you are a very tough group to appease."

END QUOTE

Who are you to worry you spoiled shit. You are living in the safest country (unless you live in Detraq, Atlafrica - New Murder capiatal of the world or New Orleans) in the best economy we've ever had. It's idiots like you who think someone like Hillaryrea lly give a shit about you. They are only interested in taxing your ass but I'm sure what they get out of the check you make working the drive thru at Mickey D's would be enough to pay for the fuel to taxi a jet off the flight deck on a carrier.

You want to know what a Barak O'Sambo presidency would look like, go to Detroit, Atlanta, DC or New Orleans then get back with us.

The liberal media is putting the spin on the liberals. Just wait till after the conventions and the republican party starts to carve on Hillary and her running mate O'Sambo. The Republican party has not even started.

Moans Chicken Clucker:

"including the Big Grouch from Tennessee"

END QUOTE

Yeah? The same state Al Gore calls home. The same state where past generations of Al Gore's bought and sold slaves, owned, abused, beat, tortured, raped and murdered slaves. The same state that went for George W. Bush in the 2k election that so many blame on FL, the Supreme Court, Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris and Ralph Nader. And if Al had won his home state or Arkansas he would have been Pres. The same state just south of West Virginia where Robert Byrd, Head Klansman for the W. Va Knights of the South beat and hung blacks. Just east of where Bill Clinton raped and beat women.

But, when wouldas, shouldas, couldas, and ifs and buts are candy and nuts, then every day would be Christmas.

You know what? If a network is willing to give someone the freedom to express his opinions, Keith Olbermann has every right to do so.

It's a little comical for him to pretend that he's an unbiased journalist reporting the "news", but everyone -- both on the right and left -- know who he is and what he's about. The journalism tag is non-existent to virtually all but the naive.

Allow me to respond Robyn- KeithO claims to be impartial and not a democratic water carrier. Yet he is. He mocks other networks and anchors for being biased. Yet he is more so. So this website exposes his lies and hypocrisy.

Allow me to respond Robyn- KeithO claims to be impartial and not a democratic water carrier. Yet he is. He mocks other networks and anchors for being biased. Yet he is more so. So this website exposes his lies and hypocrisy.

Posted by: benson at July 24, 2007 9:50 AM

I don't care if Olbermann sounds like Hugo Chavez on his show, I just don't know how he can be a journalist and act like a radio talkshow host.

Most of us are here at OW because we want to hear competing ideas, be challenged, and to mix it up a little.

Olbermann could easily be the liberal that he is and also allow more than just liberal Jonathan Alter on to analysis Republican candidates! The could all be conducted in a dignified manner and he then could move on to entertainment segments of the show, including his snarks towards his cable competition.

Tim Russert on Meet the Press has dignified and balanced disscussion every Sunday, with opponents sitting side-by-side.

Countdown could be challenging the entire audience AND still stay very Olberesque...

In the Harry Potter piece, anyone else notice that Olbermann's girlfriend, Katy Tur, was the person in line that he pushed out of the way?
Posted by: Cecelia at July 23, 2007 10:45 PM

Goodness, she's made this comment on two other threads. Luckily she found someone else to be obsessed about besides Brandon.

Most of us are here at OW because we want to hear competing ideas, be challenged, and to mix it up a little.

Posted by: Cecelia at July 24, 2007 10:14 AM

So why are you here?

Open thread-
I will keep this lefty quote from Daily KOs whenever I hear lefties like Blindrat and Mike say that the liberals support our military. They don't like them period. "I support our troops but..." is a disclaimer they use before they start any of their anti-imperialistic rants. Its kinda as meaningless as "I am not racist but...." Now one of their left-leaning bloggers put it to ink and explained how he supports the people but not the cause. I see a lot of danger in the thinking in this link and am curious if it reflects your views?

He finishes- "So to sum up, I don’t like our troops, I don’t like what they’re doing, I don’t like their fat, whining families, and yet, I support them. Thank God I live in a free country. Thank You.”

Full anti military rant at-
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/23/114037/956#c222

Agree? Disagree?

I thought it was somewhat telling that Keith made Hannity his WPITW because he dismissed Carbon Assets while apparently the evil henchman Rupert Murdoch supports them....This is the ultimate in Olbyocrisy, in that he backhands a Fox guy for not goose stepping Nazi style with the rest of his bosses, the kind of thing Olby professes that its a test of your manhood to do....

I grow bored with Keith, I love this board, but I have to say I grow bored with him

And BTW, DO we NEED ANY MORE DEBATES , how many freaking times can these people answer the same questions over and over and over and over and over again, what is Monkeyassman Olbermann going to add to the fray other than a night of veritable ass kissing?

These democratic debates are loaded with soft balls and republican bashing. It is only softening the dems for the real campaign.

Most of us are here at OW because we want to hear competing ideas, be challenged, and to mix it up a little.

Posted by: Cecelia at July 24, 2007 10:14 AM

So why are you here?

Posted by: Hypocrite Brigrade at July 24, 2007 11:01 AM

For your instruction and general edification.

Yer welcome...

Dan opines: "I grow bored with Keith"

Why Dan? How could you possibly grow 'bored' with someone on TV you are bored with and are never required to watch? Most folks have literally hundreds of channels to choose from these days.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/story/18249.html

How can we "win hearts and minds", and promote our preferred political solution in Iraq, if we keep killing innocent families in their sleep?

This is why military occupations always grind on and on, despite whatever benificent rhetoric used to explain them.

"Most of us are here at OW because we want to hear competing ideas, be challenged, and to mix it up a little.
Posted by: Cecelia at July 24, 2007 10:14 AM"

You are here at an KO flame site because you want to be CHALLENGED and hear _COMPETING_IDEAS_?
You guys shout down anyone coming even CLOSE TO GIVING YOU THOSE IDEAS!

So why are you here?
Posted by: Hypocrite Brigrade at July 24, 2007 11:01 AM

For your instruction and general edification.
Posted by: Cecelia at July 24, 2007 11:17 AM

And to comment on numerous threads your obsession with Olbermann's girlfriend:

In the Harry Potter piece, anyone else notice that Olbermann's girlfriend, Katy Tur, was the person in line that he pushed out of the way?
Posted by: Cecelia at July 23, 2007 10:45 PM

And to comment on numerous threads your obsession with Olbermann's girlfriend:

In the Harry Potter piece, anyone else notice that Olbermann's girlfriend, Katy Tur, was the person in line that he pushed out of the way?
Posted by: Cecelia at July 23, 2007 10:45 PM

Posted by: Hypocrite Brigade at July 24, 2007 11:37 AM

I'm so fickle! I'm obsessed with Olbermann...then Brandon... now Katy Tur...

Meanwhile you're staying faithfully obsessed with me.

awwwwww..... :D

Macjoubert has a good point. JDollar screaming, THIS IS THE OLBERMANNWATCH, NOT O'REILLY WATCH comes to mind. As well as people questioning my motives for being here saying Im just a troll and that I should go away. Yeah, really sounds like a site looking for competing points of view.

Macjoubert has a good point. JDollar screaming, THIS IS THE OLBERMANNWATCH, NOT O'REILLY WATCH comes to mind. As well as people questioning my motives for being here saying Im just a troll and that I should go away. Yeah, really sounds like a site looking for competing points of view.

Posted by: StealThisOpinion at July 24, 2007 11:50 AM

Liberals and Olby fans are the majority here.

Call 911! These guys always need a wwaahhhhhhbulance!

KO is a loudmouth no doubt, but they all are, with more or less similarity.
I personally prefer BOR's antics than KO's and Mark Levin over Michael Savage but thats me.
Some ppl get too attached to this site and support the underlying cause no matter what as opposed to choosing topics and then deciding on a position depending on who articulates and debates the point best hitting closer to your understanding.
E.G. I like KO hammering the Global Warming cause, hate his incessant anti-Bush stance, like BOR and his pelting overt leftists but don't approve of his mini-G Gone Wild like clips, love Mark Levin but think he's wrong on opposing decreasing car sizes to economize fuel consumption or taxing oil companies(i support alternative fuel research), dont like Savage period. I agree with KO that Limbaugh is truly a comedian.... but you get the picture.

"Olbermann could easily be the liberal that he is and also allow more than just liberal Jonathan Alter on to analysis Republican candidates! The could all be conducted in a dignified manner and he then could move on to entertainment segments of the show, including his snarks towards his cable competition."

This will never happen for a couple of reasons. First, Olbermann has very serious mental problems. As a result, he has an unquenchable compulsion to be adored and genuflected to while at the same time attempting to take down his "enemies" with any means available (which usually means resort to lies, smears and manipulation). The far left fringe has adopted Olbermann as their god to be adored and genuflected to since Olbermann broadcasts political content served up and spun exactly as they want it . Olbermann wishes for this
loony left worshipping to continue so he simply recycles the same points with the same unhinged lefty guests night after night. Bringing on guests that would offer reasoned alternative views would spoil the Bush bashing party, would send Keith into apoplectic orbit and would turn off his genuflecting far left audience, who would brand Keith as a "sellout". So the same dreary format continues.

Further, Olby has already said that debate makes him "queasy". This is because he knows that he would wither if his criitcal statements were subjected to scrutiny by a reasonable guest like the afforementioned Stephen Hayes. I think Olby would have a mental breakdown if he ever made the mistake of allowing himself be challenged on his political views. And I think Olby knows this and is at least smart enough to avoid it.

No, were just calling you out on your bullshit.

sto, one of your fellow olbyloons "mike" has called me a troll at least 50 times in the past. Especially when I would expose his hypocrisies and lies. Hands wringing, "you're nothing but a troll!" Is what he would scream. It comes from both sides. When were you called a "troll?"

Benson sez: "I will keep this lefty quote from Daily Kos whenever I hear lefties like Blindrat and Mike say that liberals support our military. They don't like them period"....

Yea, yea, yea Benson!....Here you are spouting out the same old far right wing talking points crap AGAIN, ....and mentioning my name in the process, even though I haven't even been on this board in about 4 days.

It is astonishing how many of you Neocons verbally equate supporting an ill advised invasion and occupation with supporting our military, as if it were one and the same.....Earth to Benson; It's NOT! If you would tranfer that thought to whether or not I support our PRESIDENT or not? ....and BINGO! There you have it!

Benson, I like our military so much that I AM a war era Veteran myself and come from a family chock full of veterans. My sister resently buried her husband, who was a belated victim of Agent Orange in Vietnam.

I am personally very proud that I served my country and have no animosity whatsoever towards any branch of the military. Despite being Commander in Chief, President Bush is NOT a member of the military....and supporting his policies have NOTHING whatsoever to do with "supporting the troops".

You stated about me: ""I support the troops but..." is a disclaimer they use before they start any of their anti-imperialistic rants"! That is an outright LIE Benson. I have only made that 'disclaimer' only once or twice when someone like you has just claimed ot implied otherwise. Most of the time I simply assume it is understood that I "support the troops" as much as anyone else. In fact, I support them strongly enough to want to see them taken out of that mindless death trap and moved to reletive safety where they can recover and prepare for their REAL intended purpose....NATIONAL DEFENSE, which has nothing to do with Iraq!

By the way Benson....how does cheering them on as more and more of them are killed, maimed, demoralized, and scarred mentally for life in the pursuit of an impossible non-military situation qualify as "supporting the troops"?

And Benson, it's astonishing how many times I have my name and 'Daily Kos' mentioned in the same sentence by people like you, even though I never go there and have no idea what is being written there. No Benson...anti-war people do NOT think monolithically and come from all walks of life....and we are NOT all 'leftists' either....so stuff it with the 'Daily Kos' stereotypes!

Also, Benson, not supporting an invasion of and subsequent occupation of a country with an alien culture that did even not attack us based completly on totally false information.....is not at all a 'leftist' position. It is simply common sense!

Keep right on calling me a 'leftist' Benson! But as a capitilist businessman, who makes 100% of my income from a free market.... and not a dime from either an employer or the government, I say you are full of it. In fact, I have exactly one issue in which my position is 'leftist' in nature, not including the war....which we have already established is not REALLY a left/right issue.

But Benson, I'm quite certain you will keep right on believing all the stereotypical lies emitting from war supporters about the opposition...because that is exactly what you WANT to believe!

In the Harry Potter piece, anyone else notice that Olbermann's girlfriend, Katy Tur, was the person in line that he pushed out of the way?
Posted by: Cecelia at July 23, 2007 10:45 PM

"Liberals and Olby fans are the majority here.

Call 911! These guys always need a wwaahhhhhhbulance!
Posted by: Cecelia at July 24, 2007 11:59 AM"

Cecelia - are you sure you want to stick to your story of wanting competing views when you just wished all so called "Liberals" be whisked away in an "wwaahhhhhhbulance".
Grow up woman!

RK, i have comments I would like you to respond to http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2007/07/countdown_with_312.php#130712 there. Please respond, then Ill respond. thank you

No, were just calling you out on your bullshit.

Posted by: StealThisOpinion at July 24, 2007 12:02 PM

We love your adding your two-cents (or plug nickle, depending on the poster). We love the public discourse/debate!

It's our tangerine-hued Moai-like DNC-subsidiary "journalist" fixation here at OW who doesn't.

That's the point!

Fair question Mike, I like this board so I dive bomb into his show, but watching the whole 60 minutes? Can't do it, Olb is outta his mind

Ive been told to keep my two cents shut on this website by one of your contrubutors, JOHNNY DOLLAR, but he only does this when he is losing a debate.

In the Harry Potter piece, anyone else notice that Olbermann's girlfriend, Katy Tur, was the person in line that he pushed out of the way?
Posted by: Cecelia at July 23, 2007 10:45 PM

I'm so fickle! I'm obsessed with Olbermann...then Brandon... now Katy Tur...
Posted by: Cecelia at July 24, 2007 11:50 AM

I think you can manage to be obsessed with Tur, Olbermann and Brandon at the same time, you do not seem to have much else going on in your life.

Cecelia - are you sure you want to stick to your story of wanting competing views when you just wished all so called "Liberals" be whisked away in an "wwaahhhhhhbulance".
Grow up woman!

Posted by: Macjoubert at July 24, 2007 12:08 PM

I don't want you whisked away, I want you folks to dry your tears and act like men and women.

Perhaps, we can compromise and you guys can say you're only mistreated here on OW on Tues and Saturdays?

In the Harry Potter piece, anyone else notice that Olbermann's girlfriend, Katy Tur, was the person in line that he pushed out of the way?
Posted by: Cecelia at July 23, 2007 10:45 PM

Posted by: at July 24, 2007 12:07 PM

You noticed too!

Very observant... :D

And Remember, this is a space for people who agree with me, this board is to point out what we all know and what ive mentioned above, Olbermann needs to be called out for the fake phony he is

think you can manage to be obsessed with Tur, Olbermann and Brandon at the same time, you do not seem to have much else going on in your life.

Posted by: Hypocrite Bridgade at July 24, 2007 12:17 PM

I sure I "could" if that's what I did.

However, with your limited abilities you better just stick to obsessing on me.

Ive been told to keep my two cents shut on this website by one of your contrubutors, JOHNNY DOLLAR, but he only does this when he is losing a debate.

Posted by: StealThisOpinion at July 24, 2007 12:16 PM

Well, so what. He's not banning you or anything, is he?

I was told yesterday, by you, to go away because I commented on something you had written on a public board.

Just say what you wish, when you wish, and try to enjoy yourself for pete's sake...

I do love when dopes like Cecelia drag out the neocon playbook (blame the messenger). She posts this comment on three different threads, I, being amused by this fact, point it out to her, but I'm obsessed with her now. My what an overly inflated sense of self you have, Cecelia. Should we not respond to you as well. I thought you came here for the:

"Most of us are here at OW because we want to hear competing ideas, be challenged, and to mix it up a little.
Posted by: Cecelia at July 24, 2007 10:14 AM"

BTW: It was my accidental post from Posted by: at July 24, 2007 12:07 PM (I hit the post button before making my full comment, so yes, you really are alone in the Tur obsession here.

I do love when dopes like Cecelia drag out the neocon playbook (blame the messenger). She posts this comment on three different threads, I, being amused by this fact, point it out to her, but I'm obsessed with her now. My what an overly inflated sense of self you have, Cecelia. Should we not respond to you as well. I thought you came here for the:

"Most of us are here at OW because we want to hear competing ideas, be challenged, and to mix it up a little.
Posted by: Cecelia at July 24, 2007 10:14 AM"

BTW: It was my accidental post from Posted by: at July 24, 2007 12:07 PM (I hit the post button before making my full comment, so yes, you really are alone in the Tur obsession here.

Posted by: Hypocrite Brigade at July 24, 2007 12:31 PM

Well, page 3 of the Neocon playbook says "Be obsessed when a newscaster includes his a shot of girlfriend in a segment on his show."

Page 3 of your Obsessed with Cecelia Playbook says, Defend Brandon, not because you agree with him, or much care for him, but because you are obsessed with Cecelia.

I can live with that quite nicely. :D

BTW: It was my accidental post from Posted by: at July 24, 2007 12:07 PM (I hit the post button before making my full comment, so yes, you really are alone in the Tur obsession here.

Posted by: Hypocrite Brigade at July 24, 2007 12:31 PM

You mean it was really YOU reposting my post!

NO! I never would have guessed!....

Well, page 3 of the Neocon playbook says "Be obsessed when a newscaster includes his a shot of girlfriend in a segment on his show."

Page 3 of your Obsessed with Cecelia Playbook says, Defend Brandon, not because you agree with him, or much care for him, but because you are obsessed with Cecelia.
I can live with that quite nicely. :D
Posted by: Cecelia at July 24, 2007 12:38 PM

I glad you can live with being obsessed with Ms. Tur because she's on TV.

What does it matter what I think of Brandon or J$? ( just because they made threads about the "ho" grahic used on Countdown?) Again, thanks for making my point about "blaming the messenger"

glad you can live with being obsessed with Ms. Tur because she's on TV.

What does it matter what I think of Brandon or J$? ( just because they made threads about the "ho" grahic used on Countdown?) Again, thanks for making my point about "blaming the messenger"

Posted by: Hypocrite Brigade at July 24, 2007 12:46 PM

And since you spent so much time responding to me, over my remarks on a metter you say you didn't care about, thanks for making my point about your obsession with me.

Dan:

You just called Olbermann a "fake phony", if I read your post correctly.

Now if a 'phony' is really a "fake phony", then that must mean they aren't really a phony!

Good Dan!

Whines Hypocrit:

"I think you can manage to be obsessed with Tur, Olbermann and Brandon at the same time, you do not seem to have much else going on in your life."

END QUOTE

Then what are we supposed to call a liberal such as yourself visiting a board created to expose the lies of Olby, by you defending Olby and visiting a board whose foundation is contrary to your beliefs. SOunds like you have a lot going on in life also. WHy don;t you go on over to the Daily KOS, Moveon.org or HuffingtonPost with the other fags and girls.

Um, the best words I can come up with are loser and Simple Simon.

moving on from Cecelia...

I'm glad he made the apology for the "HO" graphic. (I wish he'd do that more often when picking on Paris, (some women in general), etc. But I will not hold my breath)

The nuanced point would be why did Olbermann apologize for a show he did not host?
A.) His sense of decorum.
B.) Doesn't want an IMUS debacle.
C.) He wasn't there so it's easier for him to apologize for someone else.
D.) His bosses made him do it.
E.) All of the above.

I LOOOOOOOOOVE Bill O'Reilly. He's so sexy. Why won't he pay attention to me? I keep kicking him the shins and running away and he still acts like I don't exist. I am so sad. :*-( *sniff*

Then what are we supposed to call a liberal such as yourself visiting a board created to expose the lies of Olby, by you defending Olby and visiting a board whose foundation is contrary to your beliefs. SOunds like you have a lot going on in life also. WHy don;t you go on over to the Daily KOS, Moveon.org or HuffingtonPost with the other fags and girls.

Um, the best words I can come up with are loser and Simple Simon.
Posted by: Laura Bush at July 24, 2007 12:57 PM

"Most of us are here at OW because we want to hear competing ideas, be challenged, and to mix it up a little.
Posted by: Cecelia at July 24, 2007 10:14 AM"

AAAAHHHHH, the "challenging" debate here at OW. At least Cecelia has the fine company of Laura Bush.

There are people all over the world monitoring chlorine levels in swimming pools looking for improper levels so that no child need have itchy eyes or green hair. I --- am one of those people.

Cries hypocrite:

"I do love when dopes like Cecelia"

END QUOTE

I do love it when fags like Hypocrite Brigade visit this board when they have time to swing by after jumping off the nut sack of Olby like monkeys on a monkey bar or ornaments on a Christmas tree. or falling out of the cracks of Mike Moore or Rosie.

Isn't it time to get down to some serious boozing, Ms. Bush? You must have been sober for what? An hour?

Mikey Mike- I asked for your opinion- not your slander - but I assume its because you didn't want to comment on the rant from Daily KOs.

Nothing wrong with me lumping you in with those freaks, as you lump me in with whatever neocon you care to attack each day.

But if you read the blog I posted above, as a veteran yourself, I would expect slander directed at them not me. i guess its party over country with you lately. Supporting the troops is different than supporting the war is different. Unfortunately that is lost in the translation when you have left people...
-acussing our soldiers as a whole of war crimes.
-calling THEM terrorists.
-calling them murderers.
-shall I go on?

Sure civilians are killed by individuals in this war. It is called collateral damage. It pails in comparison to the numbers killed by suicide bomber in and out of Iraq. But as a whole these troops feel they are making a strong effort at protecting us from whackos AND hopefully improving the situation on the ground.

But far too many liberals seem to think our soldiers are evil people that enjoy killing.

Now I expect a response that ignores my points- and attacks me for supporting a war and believing in the cause. Now beat your chest again!

Whines Hypocrite:

"AAAAHHHHH, the "challenging" debate here at OW. At least Cecelia has the fine company of Laura Bush."

END QUOTE

Answer the question. What do we call someone like you being on this board?

Are you related to Al Sharpton or Charlie Rangel you jive talking ass?

Remarks Chicken Clucker:

"Isn't it time to get down to some serious boozing, Ms. Bush? You must have been sober for what? An hour?"

END QUOTE

Totally shit faced I am more than any match for some dumbass liberal.

AAAAHHHHH, the "challenging" debate here at OW. At least Cecelia has the fine company of Laura Bush.

Posted by: Hypocrite Brigade at July 24, 2007 1:02 PM

Back to me again?

And you have the fine company of death and destruction wishing Bill O'liely.

Cheers!

Posted by Benson:

"Mikey Mike- I asked for your opinion- not your slander - but I assume its because you didn't want to comment on the rant from Daily KOs."

Mike is just a stoned out reject from the 70's. I can almost overlook him except I look at how I turned out.

O'Reilly said the KOS is calling for people to rise up with violence in our country. A few months ago th head of the New Black Panther Party said in so many words they are about to take up arms. Charles Barron, councilman from NY said at an ANSWER march in DC that if we didn't make reparations blacks would rise up. I like the way they threaten people like me. I've done nothing to them. My family came here from Germany in the 30's. I guess they'll overlook Al Gore and Robert Byrd when they start killing white people.

My question is, when are they going to start.

My answer is, make my day. I'm better armed than 90% of the police departments in this country and I've been shooting for 40 years and reloading for over 30. Can you imagine what would happen when a bunch of southern rednecks who have hunted all theirs lives got pissed off.

And you have the fine company of death and destruction wishing Bill O'liely.

Cheers!

Posted by: Cecelia at July 24, 2007 1:16 PM

(But it's my fine company you crave...)

Totally shit faced I am more than any match for some dumbass liberal.

----------

Lushes always hold a high opinion of themselves when they are under the influence. I bet you also believe you outsing Maria Callas in her prime.

I'm related to Al Sharpton AND Charlie Rangel. Wow, Laura how did you know. I better stop responding to you, you may think I'm obsessed with you and Cecelia may get jealous.

Totally shit faced I am more than any match for some dumbass liberal.

----------

Lushes always hold a high opinion of themselves when they are under the influence. I bet you also believe you outsing Maria Callas in her prime.

Posted by: Clucker at July 24, 2007 1:18 PM

Well, another truism is: beware the blogboard stereotype.

You can have a barely literate conservative Rudy Ramerez and a liberal professor of literature Mrs Philby... and find that they're both the same person.

e pluribus unum

Lushes always hold a high opinion of themselves when they are under the influence.

Yes and character disordered narcissists like Cluck hold high opinions of themselves (despite all contraindications of such an assessment) whether under the influence or not.

nice one Cecelia, responding to your own posts. Since I'm so obsessed, the least you can do is let me respond. Thanks again for pulling another thread completely off topic so that we can "talk" with you about your obsession with Tur.

I'm related to Al Sharpton AND Charlie Rangel. Wow, Laura how did you know. I better stop responding to you, you may think I'm obsessed with you and Cecelia may get jealous.

Posted by: Hypocrite Brigade at July 24, 2007 1:21 PM

By all means let Hypocrite Brigade move on to Laura Bush.

There's proably enough yous' to go around.

nice one Cecelia, responding to your own posts. Since I'm so obsessed, the least you can do is let me respond. Thanks again for pulling another thread completely off topic so that we can "talk" with you about your obsession with Tur.

Posted by: Hypocrite Brigade at July 24, 2007 1:25 PM

You're being modest.

Thank YOU for that.....

Posts Chcken CLucker:

"I'm related to Al Sharpton AND Charlie Rangel. Wow, Laura how did you know. I better stop responding to you, you may think I'm obsessed with you and Cecelia may get jealous."

END QUOTE

I figured that much since we are supposed to believe a man that still says Brawley was raped and that the Duke accuser was attacked woukld say his great grandfather was owned by Strom Thurmond.

Bwahahahahahaha. Sharpton probably doesn't even know who his own daddy is.

Rosie, "I not going to play with you anymore". And you are so fast to point out Neocon 101.

Liberals can not take it when you question them. That's a fact.

Laura is a tranny.

The angry tranny went from 'George' to 'Laura' after you libs started calling he-she 'Laura'
Every now and then he-she also uses 'Ann Coulter'

Benson, after you started out by lumping me in with every 'leftist' who ever lived, it was kind of hard to see your 'question' as anything but rhetorical in nature.

Obviously Benson, I don't agree with most of the opinions of that particular writer. Thats because stereotyping people based on polical views is almost always wrong, regardless of whether you or I are the one being stereotyped.

You have never read ONE word written by me saying our soldiers were 'evil', or anything of the sort. I believe very few anti-war people think that way...but yes, there are always the exceptions (and invariably, those are the ones you use to stereotype with).

Wow. I'll admit to a "tipping point" in my thinking. I realized today that my incessant whining about a war free world is nothing more than childish. It's clear that General Petreus new security measures are taking hold. I can deny it no longer. We have a chance of stablizing Iraq and no more will I call for our military to stop trying. Powell said it best: " If we break it, we have to fix it." I'll admit now that my previous thinking didn't take into account the results of a precipitious exit. God Speed USA!

Cries Chicken Clucker:

"Lushes always hold a high opinion of themselves when they are under the influence. "

END QUOTE

Um, you are right sir. I do hold myself in high regards. It comes from being a man and being confident. I'm proud of who I am and I am doing real damned good in this country inspite of what liberals say is supposed to be so bad. When a liberal tells me booooooo....global warming........boooooo..........National debt.........boooo........outsourcing.............booooooo.................salaries and pay raise are down...................boooo.........I just laugh. I learned long ago a liberal is a liar. One of my history teachers in the mid 70's would start writing a number on the left side of the blackboard. He said this is hte national debt. Then he started adding zeros until he was at the other end of the blackboard and he said we would be suffering for it. Bwahahahahahaha. Over 30 years later and it aint hurt me yet.

But you on the other hand and Hypocrite, Mike, baldheadedrat, codas, o'lielly, sir liar. That's a different story.

Being a man means not whining about something you can not control. George Bush and God are in control and there is nothing Reid, Clinton or any baby like Olby or any other liberal can do about it.

Wow. I'll admit to a "tipping point" in my thinking. I realized today that my incessant whining about a war free world is nothing more than childish. It's clear that General Petreus new security measures are taking hold. I can deny it no longer. We have a chance of stablizing Iraq and no more will I call for our military to stop trying. Powell said it best: " If we break it, we have to fix it." I'll admit now that my previous thinking didn't take into account the results of a precipitious exit. God Speed USA!

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at July 24, 2007 1:35 PM

Wow! Sir Loin of Beef Diamonelle(tm)...

As if by magic!

...I wish I was a tranny....
Oops. Did I say that out loud?

Posts anony:

"Laura is a tranny.

The angry tranny went from 'George' to 'Laura' after you libs started calling he-she 'Laura'
Every now and then he-she also uses 'Ann Coulter'"

END QUOTE

Um, how couldya tell. Brilliant.

Glad you could stop by AAP. At least I aint trying to fool nobody like Joe Biden and that bald head of his.

I only used Ann Coulter once dumbass when you started whining about the national debt, outsourcing and low income.

BOOOOOOO

For an extreme example of right wing stereotypers in action, take a look at the everyday lunchtime rants of one 'Laura Bush', the official site psycho:

- 'Laura' calls me a "stoned out reject from the 70s". Now why does this psycho do this? Is it because I'm in my 50's? That can't be it....unless he's just prejudiced against anyone over 50. Is it because I'm a druggy, or ever was one? No, not hardly. I missed the 70s drug and psychodelic drug culture of the period almost entirely. I know! ....it must be because I'm ANT_-WAR! To 'Laura', Anyone antiwar just HAS to have something wrong with them!

- "laura' has opined many times on this board about his 'net worth' even as he admits to being employed by others, therfore explaining his lunchtime appearances, and sudden disappereances. Now don't get me wrong....there is NOTHING wrong with working for someone else! But when you trash talk others who are themselves gainfully SELF employed, and therefore under the thumb of NO ONE else....about how fortunate you think you are and how 'poor' you think they must be....there's really is something screwy about that!

Laura's own hypocrisy knows no bounds, but he'll never see it.

As for what will happen "when a bunch of southern rednecks who have hunted all their lives got pissed off"? Not a damned thing Laura! You vastly overate yourself, and your abilities....as most psycho's do!

You've obviously watched 'Deliverance' too many times!

The site psycho sez: "Ye are the captain of ye own ship matey"

Straight from the poison pen of someone whos fate obviously rests in the hands of others.

Stange!

As expected, 'Laura' couldn't pu up a coherent argument or effectively refute ANYTHING I said.....so he resorts to calling me meaningless stereotypical names.

For someone who constantly accuses others of 'whining' and squeeling', you sure are doing a lot of it yourself child!

Now, was that your real 'last' post of the day before you have to clock back in, blue collar boy?

Olberman's been tapped to head the dem's debate...
Its the republicans and conservatives that inspire his hate.
Kissing up to Clinton and Libs, he uses much lube-
He just wants his face to be on YouTube!

Now, was that your real 'last' post of the day before you have to clock back in, blue collar boy?

Posted by: Mike at July 24, 2007 2:14 PM

Well, Mike it's good to see you don't buy into rightwing stereotypes as perpetrated by rightwingers.... but I do have a question.

Why are you putting down people who work for a living?

RK, i have comments I would like you to respond to http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2007/07/countdown_with_312.php#130712 there. Please respond, then Ill respond. thank you

Posted by: StealThisOpinion at July 24, 2007 12:12 PM

Ok, Ill get right on it. Right after "mike" tells us how he supports our troops as he has claimed countless times, yet, hasn't told us how. Except for banging "needless deaths" over and over on his keyboard.....

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

I get you Mike... just need to hear it.

Cecelia:

Do me a favor and CAREFULLY read my 1:57 post again, especially the part where I addressed the very thing you just criticized me about. I have no disrespect for anyone who works for a living, just one who keeps taunting me about how I should envy him because of it.

This 'Laura' psycho keeps bragging about how he thinks he has it 'made'.....and how us 'lazy' liberals are just 'whining' because we 'don't'.

I worked for someone else for around 25 years....and I eventually became one of the very ones who decided whether people like 'Laura' kept their job or not.

No Cecelia, it's not about me "putting down" anyone. It's about debunking someone who keeps lecturing me about life, while themselves being in the less than enviable position I was in many years ago.

I read it, you called him "blue collar boy," plain and simple, asswipe. Spin and wiggle all you want.

Mike- A.K.A JACKOFF

Get a life, anyone with half a brain who posts here knows Olbermann is a dickbag

"I read it, you called him "blue collar boy", plain and simple, asswipe. Spin and wiggle all you want."

And I'm calling you "moron bovine boy", you got a problem with that....special ed boy?

http://talkwisdom.blogspot.com/2007/07/daily-kos-outed-as-hate-website.html

Heres on for all you liberal loving leftist losers..........

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ypa75axdK6o

And there aint a damn thing you can do about it..........HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA

Dan sez: "Get a life, anyone with half a brain who posts here knows Olbermann is a dickbag"...

Maybe Dan, but anyone with a FULL brain who posts here knows that isn't the case. In fact, whether or not you think he's a 'dickbag' or not depends almost entirely on your politics.

It's funny when Cecelia gets a beat down here, and Laura Bush is her only defender. This site is a hoot!

http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/02/huffpo_erases_all_comments_at.php

Who "beat down" Cecelia?

No Cecelia, it's not about me "putting down" anyone. It's about debunking someone who keeps lecturing me about life, while themselves being in the less than enviable position I was in many years ago.

Posted by: Mike at July 24, 2007 2:53 PM

So you thought you'd convey the notion that blue collar workers aren't as good as the self-employed.

Did it ever occur to you that Laura Bush may be as legitimate as Rudy Ramarez?

He maybe doing a stereotype, what about you?

It's funny when Cecelia gets a beat down here, and Laura Bush is her only defender. This site is a hoot!

Posted by: at July 24, 2007 3:22 PM

I'd wager that impartial... Anonyloon referees... work for the NBA too... :D

Enough of the childish catfights. Let's talk about me. And how cute and sexy I'd look in a cute little cheerleading skirt. MMMMM. Tasty, I'm sure.

Who "beat down" Cecelia?
Posted by: royalking at July 24, 2007 3:27 PM

Most anybody here any day of the week. Its pretty easy when she offers up "gems" like these:

"Most of us are here at OW because we want to hear competing ideas, be challenged, and to mix it up a little.
Posted by: Cecelia at July 24, 2007 10:14 AM"

Well, page 3 of the Neocon playbook says "Be obsessed when a newscaster includes his a shot of girlfriend in a segment on his show."
Posted by: Cecelia at July 24, 2007 12:38 PM

Enough of the childish catfights. Let's talk about me. And how cute and sexy I'd look in a cute little cheerleading skirt. MMMMM. Tasty, I'm sure.
Posted by: Keith Olbermann at July 24, 2007 3:45 PM

Sounds good keify. Your girl is very cute! Although you would look cuter in the cheerleader outfit. Can Cecelia have Ms. Tur? She didn't like the way you treated her:

In the Harry Potter piece, anyone else notice that Olbermann's girlfriend, Katy Tur, was the person in line that he pushed out of the way?
Posted by: Cecelia at July 23, 2007 10:45 PM

Most anybody here any day of the week. Its pretty easy when she offers up "gems" like these:

Posted by: at July 24, 2007 3:45 PM

"Gems", huh.... well, coming from an impartial source like yourself.... thanks!

Sounds good keify. Your girl is very cute! Although you would look cuter in the cheerleader outfit. Can Cecelia have Ms. Tur? She didn't like the way you treated her:

In the Harry Potter piece, anyone else notice that Olbermann's girlfriend, Katy Tur, was the person in line that he pushed out of the way?
Posted by: Cecelia at July 23, 2007 10:45 PM

Posted by: at July 24, 2007 3:50 PM

Are we surprised? Sounds like Anonyloon, will settle for you, "Keify".... :D

Ooooh Mike Your rapier wit has cut me again.....

Say hello to mom upstairs as you are no doubt another loon trapped in his basement at 40 who has never moved out of his house

If you support this leftist idiot who tries to sell the world that hes a crusading journalist when he never leaves the comfort of his studio for anything, then you sir are an idiot

Viva Bob Cox for he gets it

Its unusually bitchy in here today!

"Most of us are here at OW because we want to hear competing ideas, be challenged, and to mix it up a little.
Posted by: Cecelia at July 24, 2007 10:14 AM"

Well, page 3 of the Neocon playbook says "Be obsessed when a newscaster includes his a shot of girlfriend in a segment on his show."
Posted by: Cecelia at July 24, 2007 12:38 PM

Posted by: at July 24, 2007 3:45 PM

Is that what you call getting "beat down?" You claim she was "beat down" and that's all you got? Weak.

Obviously Dan, you've accepted yet another right wing stereotype when you characterize me as 'living in my mom's basement'.

As with your characterization of Olbermann as a "fake phony", I guess you have also chosen to characterize me as a 'fake basement 40 year old basement dweller'

Dan, if it makes you feel better to stereotype anyone who would defend Olbermann as some kind of a loser who couldn't possibly make it in the world without mommy or a nanny state, go for it.....but it means you are doomed to continue to accept lies masquarading as 'facts'.

To deflate your silly little stereotype about me, I personally left mommy's bossum at the ripe old age of 18 to join the military during the Vietnam War, which makes me older than 40, and have never looked back. Now I partially support my aging mother, who still lives in her home (which has no basement, nor does it have any boarders, other than her cats).

You think Robert Cox gets it? ....Oh brother Dan, ....are you ever deluded! Well, whatever you want to believe! I have seen written examples of Robert Cox's politics, and it is just about as right wing as politics ever get.

As I've already explained to you Dan....whether or not you like Olbermann is almost exclusively based on your politics....and this board reaffirms it each and every day.

Sorry benson. I have the tendency to raise the estrogen level of any room/board I enter.

"but it means you are doomed to continue to accept lies masquarading as 'facts'."

Pretty much describes anyone who watches my show and defends it as news.

Cecelia: "Did it ever occur to you that Laura Bush may be as legitimate as Rudy Ramirez?"

Yes it has Cecelia!

However, I always take people's words at face value until they prove to me their words can't be trusted. I see no other way to be.

I'm not the claivoyant Jeff claims to be.

Mike says:

"As I've already explained to you Dan....whether or not you like Olbermann is almost exclusively based on your politics....and this board reaffirms it each and every day."

Wrong, Mike.

Go to this link (a decidedly liberal website) and tell me that you have to be a Bush supporter to dislike Keith.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/02/23/everyone_loves_keith_olbermannexcept_me.php

Mike-

Robert Cox's courage comes in establishing this board in giving a voice to those such as I, who see Olbermann for the fraud that he is

I could care less about what you think my political views are, you couldnt begin to know what my political views are, its idiots like you that I cant stand, because I disagree with you about Keith Olbermann that you paint me into some corner

Well get this ahab, I watch Fox News, OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHH I said it, that makes me a flame throwing gay hating ready to string up black people kind of guy in your world......which is not the case

I could care less what your politics are, I post here because the fraud broadcastor that Keith Olbermann is needs to be called out on a daily basis.....and OOOOH You caught me forgetting to use a comma, so Ill spell it out for you as you are sitting there

Keith Olbermann is a fake,a phony, and a fraud, much like you, and I will not be bullied by people in a fog such as yourself, if you dont want an opposing view, Like Keith who never wants an opposing view, go post on Huffington, or the Daily Kos

And btw, Love to your mom and her Cats

I don't think I like the tone directed towards me right now. I think I'm going to cry.
:*-(
*sniff*

"Kieth" sez: "Pretty much describes anyone who watches my whow and defends it as news."

Ah yes 'Keith'! And this precisely where you have missed the point. Nobody defends Countdown as 'news'! .....We defend it as sorely needed "news commentary" and counter commentary.....from a perspective unlike all the administration butt kissers out there, mostly on Fox 'News'.

Mike,
Excuse me? MSNBC calls my program a news program. I call myself a newsman. And my little blog spot on msnbc.com is called the "News Hole." That's a lot of newses but no commentaries. So yes, I do the NEWS.

First off Dan, you want to try explaining what you think makes me a 'phony' or a 'fraud'? You can't, because their is nothing fraudulent or phony about anything I say or post.

Dan....Do you even know what the words 'fraud' or 'phony' mean?

Now that you have looked up the word 'fraud', Dan, tell me what makes Olbermann a 'fraud'? I believe he means and believes every word he says.

Now, prove to me that he doesn't.....or we'll just have to accept your original label of "fake Fraud" as being correct.

Once again Dan, the hatred for Olbermann is 99% POLITICAL in nature.

Prove to me I'm wrong Dan....or keep throwing insults....your choice?

'Keith': "Mike, excuse me? MSNBC calls my program a news program"

I could care less what MSNBC or Captain Kangeroo 'calls' 'your' show. It is clearly a News commentary show, and 'your' viewers are certainly smart enough to pick up on that themselves, unlike many viewers of Fox, who apparently actually believe they are watching real news.

Ah yes 'Keith'! And this precisely where you have missed the point. Nobody defends Countdown as 'news'! .....We defend it as sorely needed "news commentary" and counter commentary.....from a perspective unlike all the administration butt kissers out there, mostly on Fox 'News'.

Posted by: Mike at July 24, 2007 5:01 PM

Well, as conservative as FOX hosts are, they invite liberal guests.

Couldn't liberal host Olbermann invite conservatives on to voice a counter argument, since balance seems to be an issue with you too?

I'm gonna go home now Mike, see, I unlike you have a life, all best and goodspeed to you and your superior intelligence and razor sharp wit, you were too deep for me to keep up with

Go drink your Cool Aid, I'll hopefull live to do battle with you another day

You and Olbermann, forever

An olbyloon calling Dan "deluded!" You can't make this stuff up!

Mike,
I count on my viewers NOT knowing what my little propaganda show is all about. I prefer they lap it up like good little leftist parrots. Thank you for being one of my minions. Nice attack on "Fox Noise" in your post as well. You have learned well. Your check is in the mail.

I don't think I like the tone directed towards me right now. I think I'm going to cry.
:*-(
*sniff*

Posted by: Keith Olbermann at July 24, 2007 5:00 PM

Johnny, can we give this guy a car? :D

Cecelia,
While I appreciate your offer of a car. I'd have to turn it down. I can't drive. Something about hitting my head on a subway or something. Or was I decapitated by a subway? I'm not sure. Either way, I have lost the function of most of my brain. Most specifically motor skills and thought.

Bill-O claims to be impartial and not a republican water carrier. Yet he is. He mocks other networks and anchors for being biased. Yet he is more so, and we at OW are even more so. So this website DOES NOT expose his lies and hypocrisy.

Posted by: benson at July 24, 2007 9:50 AM

Wow. I'll admit to a "tipping point" in my thinking. I realized today that my incessant whining about a war free world is nothing more than childish. It's clear that General Petreus new security measures are taking hold. I can deny it no longer. We have a chance of stablizing Iraq and no more will I call for our military to stop trying. Powell said it best: " If we break it, we have to fix it." I'll admit now that my previous thinking didn't take into account the results of a precipitious exit. God Speed USA!

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at July 24, 2007 1:35 PM

The above highjack post demonstrates the only way a right-winger can hope to win a debate - crude deciet. Consider this sneakery as analogous to a Bush "recess appointment".

If we break it, we have to fix it." I'll admit now that my previous thinking didn't take into account the results of a precipitious exit. God Speed USA!

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at July 24, 2007 1:35 PM

Fix it yes, fake SLOB - but how does a situation in which we continually kill innocent families in their sleep do that?

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/story/18249.html

What you petulent children fail to recognize is how the apportionment of responsibility and consequences to the BEGINNING of this quagmire is an essential component of FIXING it.

A phased withdrawal, with sequntial replacement by an international force from Isalmic countries - paid for by US (your pottery barn rule) - accompanied by our investigation and prosecution of the Bush-administration conspirators would go a long way to settling this ginned-up "Clash of CIvilizations", and would begin to repair our international presitige as well.

"well, as conservative as Fox hosts are, they invite liberal guests."

And here we are back at the beginning of the circular argument that never ends.

The fact that Fox invites 'liberals' to appear on otherwise extremely biased shows is the one little caveat we can't ever put to bed. It somehow makes those shows 'balanced' when an ultra conservative host controls the subject matter, the direction, the tone, the microphone. and the air time each commentator is allowed.

Yes Cecelia, these kind of shows dominate the cable 'airwaves', and their not just on fox, and they're not even ALL conservative either. Hardball, with far fewer viewers than Countdown is a very good example of a very good liberal to moderate 'debate' show that doesn't generate near the numbers Countdown does. In light on that reality, why would a sane Keith Olbermann try to emulate that format?

I think I know..... Maybe we don't ALWAYS want to see one talking head try to overtalk another talking head in a faux attempt to simulate 'balance' in an otherwise very biased show. I grow tired of seeing an irritated Bill O'Reilly, or similar ilk overtalk, end, or otherwise try to misdirect a conversation just when the commentator is starting to make the point I would like to see them make.

But it's obvious Cecelia, we can never get away from this thoroughly overly debated issue on this blog.

But it's obvious Cecelia, we can never get away from this thoroughly overly debated issue on this blog.

Posted by: Mike at July 24, 2007 6:19 PM

Well, I thnk what we can't get away from here is that despite your alluding to biased FOX News in every discussion about Countdown, you're fine with a show that is completely unbalanced, as long as it is leftwing.

Mike, you seem not to like the fact that the liberal guests on Fox news/comment shows are not allowed to completely take over the show. It seems nothing short of this will make you happy.

Your argument is really stupid. The point that Cecilia is making is that on Fox news/comment shows (which are designated as such), whether you agree that liberal guests are getting as much time as they should get to make their points, they are GETTING A TURN to challenge the view of the conservative host. Whereas on the Olbermann "news" program (which is deceitfully labeled as such) no conservative EVER GETS A TURN to challenge Keith. That is the difference and there is simply no answer to this fact.

Besides, Mike on important facet you are missing-- when different viewpoints are allowed, it creates an opportunity for the person with the differing viewpoint to act as a check on the host and make him accountable for anything he/she might say that is wrong or misleading, or for sloppy research. Olbermann would never allow a person w/ a differing opinion on his show because he would be quickly exposed for these reasons.

Cecelia: I'm fine with an 'unbalanced' Countdown because it is one of the only high profile counterpoints to a rogue administration that is literally ruining this country, it's ideals, and mortgaging it's future.

If there were no blatantly right wing media, such as Fox, I would be the first to condemn any blatant counterpoint on the left, ....but that would be a perfect world, wouldn't it?

Hank, what YOU are 'missing' is that I'm not 'missing' anything.

If Countdown were the only news commentary show on television, this WOULD be a the travesty you and others on this blog imply. However, I SERIOUSLY doubt if there are many Countdown watchers who do not get their news from a variety of sources. By the time Countdown comes on, I have already heard the days news through several sources.

The simple fact is, most Americans who are pretty much uninterested in politics almost never watch political shows of either persuasion.

As for me, I want to see the anti-war, anti-administration viewpoint explored a little deeper and with more detail that it is being done anywhere else short of Air America....and this is ONLY being done on Countdown, which I think is the real problem for most anti - Olbermann posters.

If there were no blatantly right wing media, such as Fox, I would be the first to condemn any blatant counterpoint on the left, ....but that would be a perfect world, wouldn't it?

Posted by: Mike at July 24, 2007 6:45 PM

Well, you admit that the "blantantly rightwing media" allows liberals to voice their opinions, though you object to the fact that the hosts (and liberal Chris Matthews) control the show and show their disagreement via facial expressions and interruptions.

What you won't admit is that Olbermann could easily do the same thing, as you argue, Chris Matthews does do.

Again, despite your constant allusions to biased FOX News whenever Countdown is mentioned, you admit that leftwing Keith goes completely beyond what FOX does and that you're quite happy that this is the case.

"It somehow makes those shows 'balanced' when an ultra conservative host controls the subject matter, the direction, the tone, the microphone. and the air time each commentator is allowed."

Posted by: "Mike" at July 24, 2007 6:19 PM

Replace "ultra conservative" with Olbermahn and you have Countdown. But, that's ok in "mike's" world.

I don't disagree with your analysis, Cecelia, except your labeling Chris Matthews as liberal. If you will recall, until Katrina, Mr. Matthews was fawning all over Bush. Like many Americans, Mr. Matthews seemed to have an epiphany from the light reflecting off the flood waters and the tears. It was only then that he began to see problems with the strategy and management of the Occupation, with the DOJ, with the strategically placed leaks and with the host of other Bush debacles. While Mr. Matthews may not be as far out on the fringer as so many of the RW'ers on this site, he may well be characterized as slightly right-of-center.

The above [highjack]sic post demonstrates the only way a right-winger can hope to win a debate - crude [deciet]sic. Consider this sneakery as analogous to a Bush "recess appointment".

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at July 24, 2007 5:56 PM

But it's ok when AAP does it time and time again? Did you criticise him? Is that how "left wingers" win debates, too?

Any suspicious website postings today, Monsieur Royale? Did you get to snitch on anyone? How's the Medal of Freedom deal coming?

BTW: I was tinkering with some Google postings. If I type: your Mrs. Philby, your Mr. Ramirez, Brandon, Cecelia, Janet Hawkins, Grammie, etc. + Olbermann, I get hits. If I type royalking + Olbermann, I get two (2) hits, one (1) of yours truly talking about you, and one (1) of someone else talking about you. So, you suppressed the search, I gather?

I could care less what MSNBC or Captain Kangeroo 'calls' 'your' show. It is clearly a News commentary show, and 'your' viewers are certainly smart enough to pick up on that themselves, unlike many viewers of Fox, who apparently actually believe they are watching real news.

Posted by: Mike at July 24, 2007 5:13 PM

In other words, Countdown is comparable to WWF. They say it's real, but, it's really not.

Cecelia I told you to go away yesterday in that public debate because you were muddying up the debate with extraneous data not because I wish to censor you. I even responded to what you said about all the hateful things Liberals say.

and RK, Nothing to say? Ill assume you are wrong and too much of a chickenshit to aknowledge it. Thanks.

— Al Qaeda in Iraq was founded not by an Iraqi, but by Jordanian-born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who had deep relations with Al Qaeda leaders. The president said Zarqawi, who was killed by U.S. forces last year, set up operations with terrorist associates in Iraq long before U.S.-led forces arrived, and that in the violence and instability following Saddam Hussein's fall, was able to expand the "size, scope and lethality" of his operation. Zarqawi formally joined Al Qaeda in 2004 and pledged allegiance to bin Laden, he said.

— The merger of bin Laden and Zarqawi in Iraq fostered "prestige among potential recruits and financiers." Intelligence says the merger also gave Al Qaeda senior leadership "a foothold in Iraq to extend it's geographic presence and to plot external operations and to tout the centrality of the jihad in Iraq to solicit direct monetary support elsewhere."

— Zarqawi was replaced by another foreigner, an Egyptian named Abu Ayub al-Masri, who has deep and long-standing ties with Al Qaeda senior leadership. The president said that before Sept. 11, 2001, al-Masri spent time with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan where he taught classes indoctrinating others in Al Qaeda's radical ideology.

— Many of Al Qaeda in Iraq's senior leaders are foreign terrorists. They include: a Syrian, who is Al Qaeda in Iraq's emir in Baghdad; a Saudi who is Al Qaeda in Iraq's top spiritual and legal adviser; an Eqyptian who fought in Afghanistan in the 1990s and has met with bin Laden; and a Tunisian, who is suspected of playing a key role in managing foreign fighters.

— Most of Al Qaeda in Iraq's rank-and-file fighters and some of its leadership are Iraqi, but Al Qaeda in Iraq is led largely by foreign terrorists loyal to bin Laden. "Our intelligence community concludes that `Al Qaeda and its regional node in Iraq are united in their overarching strategy' and they say they that Al Qaeda's senior leaders and their operatives in Iraq `see Al Qaeda in Iraq as part of Al Qaeda's decentralized chain of command, not as a separate group.'"

If we run from Iraq, we are running from the true Al Qaeda but that is fine for the coward liberals on this blog. To liberals, Al Qaeda are freedom fighters and heros.

As for me, I want to see the anti-war, anti-administration viewpoint explored a little deeper and with more detail that it is being done anywhere else short of Air America....and this is ONLY being done on Countdown, which I think is the real problem for most anti - Olbermann posters.

Posted by: Mike at July 24, 2007 6:59 PM

Well, that maybe the case for FOX viewers too, Mike. Perhaps they want to hear their views explored in a way the MSM does not.

However, in doing that, FOX does not act as though a counter arguments don't exist and they shouldn't.

I don't understand how anyone could be interested in that.

BTW: I was tinkering with some Google postings. If I type: your Mrs. Philby, your Mr. Ramirez

Posted by: Mrs. R Philby at July 24, 2007 7:20 PM

Mrs. Philby, I can't take credit for "Mrs. Philby" or "rudy ramirez" those are your babies.

Factor, could we have some sources on that mindless drivel?

And I take GREAT offense at "to liberals, Al Qaeda are freedom fighters and heros." That could not be any further from the truth. Dont think for a second we havent forgotten who ACTUALLY attacked us here in the U.S. It was Al-Qaeda, it wasnt Iraq. Im cool with a "War on Terror" if only it was against those who ACTUALLY ATTACKED US, not those who kind of maybe said something mean to us once.

The point remains, Osama Bin Laden does not directly contact with Al-Qaeda in Iraq, ya know, the guy that attacked us? Remember how president Bush claimed he would catch him...Where is Osama now? Oh yeah, hes very free. What about Saddam, didnt take us long to find and kill him, if only we had put the same effort into the REAL War on Terror those people that ACTUALLY ATTACKED US might have been brought to justice by now. Instead we sit here debating whether the Al-Qaeda thats in Iraq, which wasnt there til a year after we attacked them, is actually related to the whole body of Al-Qaeda.

Way to really help out the political discourse. Thank you for that tidbit of information that Al-Qaeda in Iraq is kind of sort of almost maybe related to Osama Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda.

Now with that said. Redeploy the troops to areas that are actual threats to us.

don't disagree with your analysis, Cecelia, except your labeling Chris Matthews as liberal. If you will recall, until Katrina, Mr. Matthews was fawning all over Bush. Like many Americans, Mr. Matthews seemed to have an epiphany from the light reflecting off the flood waters and the tears. It was only then that he began to see problems with the strategy and management of the Occupation, with the DOJ, with the strategically placed leaks and with the host of other Bush debacles. While Mr. Matthews may not be as far out on the fringer as so many of the RW'ers on this site, he may well be characterized as slightly right-of-center.

Posted by: Clucker at July 24, 2007 7:15 PM

Actually, Clucker, Mike characterized Hardball as "liberal to moderate" and Mathews is most certainly liberal. He describes himself that way and his prior career working for Tip O'Neil would certainly support that. Matthews himself talks about the days when he used to formulate the official counterpoints to Reagan policy.

Perhaps the problems lies in the difference between the old liberal -- God, country, Union, Dems of then and liberals today.

BTW-- it wasn't Katrina that made Matthews less than optimistic about Bush, it was the Iraq War. He was a vehement opponent of it from the start.

Perhaps the "fringers" are those Americans who feel they only have one person who voices their side in the whole of the network and cable media.

They also seem to be the people who argue that it should remain undiluted by any other view.

Rk, Still ignoring me?

So you didn't uncover a terrorist plot today, I take it, Monsieur Royale?
------------------------------
Well, enough witty repartie. Tuesday. Softball & Sonic night. I'm thinking a two run double and a Bacon Cheeseburger with a Route 44 Lime Slush.
------------------------------
TTFN. Better hunting tomorrow.

Looks like patsy has another case of the "scours."

Posted by: Why do you care what my name is at July 24, 2007 7:48 PM

Source was the inteligence report released today coward.
Great Thanks.

Factor, no response to what I had to say about your pointless bullshit?

Olbermann made a rather telling comment the other day.

Keith said that if Rupert Murdoch could have made more money with a liberal FOX News, he would have done that instead.

In which case then, "the fringe" would have been the conservatives-- the minority pop who did not watch the money-making liberal FOX.

Since FOX is not liberal and does make money, I'm sure Olbermann does not refer to those members of the population who don't watch FOX as "the fringe".

I'm sure he thinks of them and himself as the elite.

More news the GOP candidates don't want to hear:

According to a new American Research Group poll, just 25% of Americans approve of the way President Bush is handling his job as president and 71% disapprove. These are record lows for the survey.

When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 23% approve and 73% disapprove.

The wingnuts think that the country is going to go from 25% republican president approval rating to voting another republican in the White House.

I think even the Royalqueen can figure this one out.

Posted by: Why do you care what my name is at July 24, 2007 8:13 PM

So we'll have a Democratic president for 4 to 8 years and the pendulum will swing again.

Or we won't.... The first Bush had an 89% favorability rating going into the election and lost.

You're such a needy putz to engage in silly garbage like this.

If we run from Iraq, we are running from the true Al Qaeda but that is fine for the coward liberals on this blog. To liberals, Al Qaeda are freedom fighters and heros.

Posted by: The Factor at July 24, 2007 7:37 PM

Foreign fighters in Iraq - called "Al Qeada in Iraq" by Orwellian lumpers - are and have for the duration of the occupation been discounted by all credible and verifiable accounts and studies in regard to the proportion they represent of the entire opposition faced by our military in Iraq. I've never seen an estimate, even by Pentagon leaders, that put this proportion at greater than 7% - and most are lower by half.

The latest US government assessment, in fact, put Al Qeada dead last in regard to challenges our forces face there.

Your post, factor, listed a few notorious names we've been hearing now for years (some, like Zarqawi, who have even lost and regrown limbs!), and you present as given associations that have been credibly discounted in general. But what are the numbers? How many foreign fighters - whether identifiable as "AL Qeada" or not - are fighting us in Iraq?

...and how many of this small number are there BECAUSE we are unjustifiably occupying an Arab country? We know where Osama is - why is left all alone while we continue to kill innocent Iraqi families who get in the way of our bombs and bullets?

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/story/18249.html

stooge, this was three posts up from the dailykos is a hate site link. Since you're mentally challenged, I reposted it for you.

http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/02/huffpo_erases_all_comments_at.php

Posted by: royalking at July 24, 2007 3:24 PM

Maybe Cecelia can explain to us why that is.

( PS: She doesn't have the guts !)

Posted by:COWARD at July 24, 2007 8:34 PM

She has more guts than you do balls, COWARD!

Hey, Buddy. Already debunked the dailykos hate site thing. So Drop It.

And RoyalKing, the fact that they delete hateful comments off their site goes a very long way to prove they are, in fact, NOT a hate site.

Do you think before you post?

"She has more guts than you do balls, COWARD!"

Damn Jeff...you're more protective of Cecelia than you are of yourself! Whats going on here buddy?

stooge, you didn't debunk anything, ok? Lets get that straight. One more indoctrinator bites the dust, read it and weep.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/education/article/0,1299,DRMN_957_5642486,00.html

who stepped down for marital infidelities, was right to step down because those who hold values to cheat on their wives do not deserve a spot in congress. Oh hypocrisy.

Posted by: StealThisOpinion at July 24, 2007 11:55 AM

Were you calling for BJ Clinton to step down for cheating on his wife, or was that "different?"

Posted by: royalking at July 24, 2007 2:33 PM

And since you spent so much time responding to me, over my remarks on a metter you say you didn't care about, thanks for making my point about your obsession with me.
Posted by: Cecelia at July 24, 2007 12:50 PM

I'll try one more time. You don't seem to get the point that this is a blog, where people respond to one and other. I didn't say your topic didn't matter or that I didn't care about it, I just found it odd as I read here that you posted the same question about Tur in quite a few threads. It is just odd that someone who constantly chastises others about Tur would ask about her in numerous threads and then not want responses. Save your breath about the obsession rant, its an old neocon tactic, and kind of a whimpy way out of a discussion.

Notice that Cecelia nor the Royalfraud nor anyone have the guts to explain their failures to us.
(Wonder why each of the top 3 democratic candidates are leading in a head to head race with any of the GOP candidates.)

Posted by: Why do you care what my name is at July 24, 2007 10:31 PM

Because admiting failure is not possible to those who still think they are right, and because the most of the rest of the country knows there wrong.

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

Perfect topical song for our discussion: Living in a Glass House !

Posted by: Why do you care what my name is at July 25, 2007 12:18 AM

And you just know someone like Tosh is just what "they" would despise. They hate us for our freedoms you know. Oh, that's right, there the ones protecting our freedoms. The freedom to abuse power and wealth and blame the poor for everything is in their playbook, and their coach is a kook.

Attack of the college freshmen...
Good lord, what are you idiots jabbering about now? Oh, please please don't make me say that Republicans aren't popular because the war has gone badly!...

It's been royally FUBARed by the Administration.

I'm wondering why I'm so supposed to be so terrorified. My "team" might lose? Royalking and NSA?

I was out during Olbermann tonight, and I hope to catch it later. However, I saw several clips of Gonzales today. Such unabashed lying, contempt and lack of concern for the DOJ and the nation. I have watched Gonzales' career from some distance for a number of years, and he has always been a feather weight. I thought his only talent and skill was shameless groveling. I would like to say I was wrong, that he is an accomplished liar, but he doesn't even do that well. Repetition has not bred ability.

My thanks to Senators Leahy (D-Vt), Feinstein (D-Ca) and Specter (R-Pa) for so adroitly nailing Gonzales (R-Ba)*.

-----

*BA = Bush's Ass

I'll try one more time. You don't seem to get the point that this is a blog, where people respond to one and other. I didn't say your topic didn't matter or that I didn't care about it, I just found it odd as I read here that you posted the same question about Tur in quite a few threads. It is just odd that someone who constantly chastises others about Tur would ask about her in numerous threads and then not want responses. Save your breath about the obsession rant, its an old neocon tactic, and kind of a whimpy way out of a discussion.

Posted by: Hypocrite Brigade at July 24, 2007 9:51 PM

Oh, you didn't find it "odd" that I spotted Tur and commented on a couple of different threads to see if anyone else had too.

The fact that we had been talking about her here and there she is on the air, is of course worth commenting on, but you know that.

No, you didn't find it odd, what you did find it.... was a silly opportunity to suggest that I'm obsessed with her so you can try and insult me.

I don't find you "odd" at all, just lame. Now get over me.

Or don't... But get real and don't bore me with the -- I just found it odd stuff.

Your team has not only lost, but have showered and gotten on the bus.

Posted by: at July 25, 2007 12:49 AM

When you get old enough to graduate from college, you're going to find out that the earth keeps on revolving after such things and fortunately the country keeps ticking on.

Lapdog, Cee just disowned Cecilia.

Too damn funny !

Posted by: Why do you care what my name is at July 25, 2007 12:51 AM

Cee, has read that comment from me several times.

I know you can't imagine that he wouldn't throw me out of the tree house club and take back my decoder ring, but trust me... he merely disagrees.

When you get old enough to graduate from college, you're going to find out that the earth keeps on revolving after such things and fortunately the country keeps ticking on.

Posted by: Cecelia at July 25, 2007 12:59 AM

Your right to an extent Cecelia. It is my sincere hope that this country keeps ticking on and way past the horrors of the leadership that we have, and that has been supported by human beings who were raised to know better i'm sure than to support clowns like the ones running this circus we call the Bush administration.

Not surprising that Cecelia doesn't know good music either.

Posted by: Why do you care what my name is at July 25, 2007 12:46 AM

What is that? A script from The OC?

Your right to an extent Cecelia. It is my sincere hope that this country keeps ticking on and way past the horrors of the leadership that we have, and that has been supported by human beings who were raised to know better i'm sure than to support clowns like the ones running this circus we call the Bush administration.

Posted by: codas at July 25, 2007 1:05 AM

Yes, keep hope alive, Codas!

In the meantime, there's got to be a copy writing job at the National Enquirer with your name on it....

Must make you proud, Cecelia, that you had your own small contribution to it all.

Posted by: Why do you care what my name is at July 25, 2007 1:06 AM

I haven't finally touched on it, I've said it before.

You betcha I'm proud. I think going into Iraq was the right thing to do and I still believe that.

But frankly no adult who really cared about the casualties in Iraq or for our country as opposed to ideology, would stoop to the sort of opportunism inherent in your comment.

You're a creep.

at least he works, Cece.

He's not living off his rich spouse like some people.

Posted by: at July 25, 2007 1:12 AM

No chance of that, I'm sure....

Chilling !

I pity you.

Posted by: Why do you care what my name is at July 25, 2007 1:23 AM

Who are you kidding. You've never felt pity in your life.

You're a wretched angry cockroach pretending to have human feelings.

Cecelia,

I now work in an assisted living center, feeding and cleaning what is left of "the greatest generation" and I am proud to do it. You better believe I earn every cent. I know that they wouldn't approve of a lot of my likes and dislikes, but they were bold enough and brave enough to fight against the very kind of puritan extremists that would like to rule our country now if they could. No. They are not Nazi's, but they are something like them.

( Not to mention 3600 lives with nothing gained or accomplished)
Must make you proud, Cecelia, that you had your own small contribution to it all.

Posted by: Why do you care what my name is at July 25, 2007 1:06 AM

patsy, do me a favor. Tell this to a parent of a fallen soldier and have someone take a picture of your face after you get decked and we can post it here, ok? You are a disgrace.

Cecelia,

I now work in an assisted living center, feeding and cleaning what is left of "the greatest generation" and I am proud to do it. You better believe I earn every cent. I know that they wouldn't approve of a lot of my likes and dislikes, but they were bold enough and brave enough to fight against the very kind of puritan extremists that would like to rule our country now if they could. No. They are not Nazi's, but they are something like them.

Posted by: codas at July 25, 2007 1:30 AM

Get a grip, Codas...

Aren't you one of the folks who was here the other night complaining about Royalking callling you traitors and jihadist.

Good lord! You guys make RK look like a hippie!

Even when Cecelia is nailed with truth, she will always come back with her usual vicious putdowns.

You can add to the list....
The woman has no shame.

Posted by: at July 25, 2007 1:34 AM

The usual putdown have never included implying that someone is a fascist who is guilty of murder.

You're pretty selective with your outrage here....

Legalize it..ye-ah....ye-ah....ye-ah.....

Don't crit-i-cize it.

Posted by: at July 25, 2007 12:32 AM

Shocker, the olbyloons are into drug music. That answers a few questions.......

patsy, do me a favor.

Posted by: royalking at July 25, 2007 1:34 AM

RK, that's not right. That sick creep cannot be AAP!

Shocker, the Olby haters have no soul or appreciation for the arts. AT least the Nazi's did when they heisted all they could get. And by the way, although I no longer smoke it, Legalize it..ye-ah....ye-ah....ye-ah.....

Don't crit-i-cize it.

Her hypocrisy knows no limits.

Posted by: at July 25, 2007 1:48 AM

Your ruthlessness knows no bounds.

Shouldn't you be busy sticking pins into wax dolls with the names of folks who don't see everything as you do?

3600 dead, thousands maimed, and Cecelia thinks it was all worth it.

Please tell us how it was worth it.

Posted by: at July 25, 2007 1:56 AM

It was a political move, made to show the country how strong Republican leadership was. They had visions of Iraq kissing the feet of American soldiers and thanking us. They were wrong, of course. They made us look weak. Now all they can do is blame others.

RK, that's not right. That sick creep cannot be AAP!

Posted by: Cecelia at July 25, 2007 1:43 AM

Trust me, it's him.

just for the hell of it, here is another sweet tune.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyEP_st9csI&mode=related&search

RoyalKing, You're so dumb. Lets lay this out.

- You claim that HuffPo and MediaMatters are hate sites.
-- I challenge you to prove that they are hate sites on more than just the word of some Senile Fox News Anchor.
- You respond with a blog that just links to the O'Reilly claims that have been debunked*
--I call you out on it
- You respond with a link that says that the HuffPo ERASES hateful comments as proof that the Huffington Post is a hate site.
-- I laugh at you
- You ignore the HuffPo issue completely then claim: "stooge, you didn't debunk anything, ok? Lets get that straight. One more indoctrinator bites the dust, read it and weep."

Just because you say you win doesnt mean that you do. Lets get that straight. Go read a book.

* The comments that O'Reilly mentions in his slanderous hackjob against DailyKos are not representative of the majority of the DailyKos users. The comments in question were troll-rated, meaning that the majority of the DailyKos community does not agree with the remarks, thus these few rogue comments can not be chosen as a representative sample of the views of the DailyKos community.

If you dont know what troll-rated means, just ask.

"Please tell us how it was worth it."

###
Gladly.....with facts......

"There's a debate in Washington about Iraq, and nothing wrong with a healthy debate. There's also a debate about al Qaeda's role in Iraq. Some say that Iraq is not part of the broader war on terror. They complain when I say that the al Qaeda terrorists we face in Iraq are part of the same enemy that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001. They claim that the organization called al Qaeda in Iraq is an Iraqi phenomenon, that it's independent of Osama bin Laden and that it's not interested in attacking America.

"That would be news to Osama bin Laden. He's proclaimed that the 'third world war is raging in Iraq.' Osama bin Laden says, 'The war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever.' I say that there will be a big defeat in Iraq and it will be the defeat of al Qaeda.

"Today I will consider the arguments of those who say that al Qaeda and al Qaeda in Iraq are separate entities. I will explain why they are both part of the same terrorist network -- and why they are dangerous to our country.

"A good place to start is with some basic facts: Al Qaeda in Iraq was founded by a Jordanian terrorist, not an Iraqi. His name was Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Before 9/11, he ran a terrorist camp in Afghanistan. He was not yet a member of al Qaida, but our intelligence community reports that he had longstanding relations with senior al Qaida leaders, that he had met with Osama bin Laden and his chief deputy, Zawahiri.

"In 2001, coalition forces destroyed Zarqawi's Afghan training camp, and he fled the country and he went to Iraq, where he set up operations with terrorist associates long before the arrival of coalition forces. In the violence and instability following Saddam's fall, Zarqawi was able to expand dramatically the size, scope, and lethality of his operation. In 2004, Zarqawi and his terrorist group formally joined al Qaida, pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden, and he promised to 'follow his orders in jihad.'

"Soon after, bin Laden publicly declared that Zarqawi was the 'Prince of Al Qaida in Iraq' -- and instructed terrorists in Iraq to 'listen to him and obey him.' It's hard to argue that al Qaida in Iraq is separate from bin Laden's al Qaida, when the leader of al Qaida in Iraq took an oath of allegiance to Osama bin Laden.

"According to our intelligence community, the Zarqawi-bin Laden merger gave al Qaida in Iraq -- quote -- 'prestige among potential recruits and financiers.' The merger also gave al Qaida's senior leadership -- quote -- 'a foothold in Iraq to extend its geographic presence ... to plot external operations ... and to tout the centrality of the jihad in Iraq to solicit direct monetary support elsewhere.' The merger between al Qaida and its Iraqi affiliate is an alliance of killers -- and that is why the finest military in the world is on their trail. Zarqawi was killed by U.S. forces in June 2006. He was replaced by another foreigner -- an Egyptian named Abu Ayyub al-Masri. His ties to the al Qaida senior leadership are deep and longstanding. He has collaborated with Zawahiri for more than two decades. And before 9/11, he spent time with al Qaida in Afghanistan where he taught classes indoctrinating others in al Qaida's radical ideology.

"After Abu Ayyub took over al Qaida's Iraqi operations last year, Osama bin Laden sent a terrorist leader named Abd al-Hadi al Iraqi to help him. According to our intelligence community, this man was a senior advisor to bin Laden, who served as his top commander in Afghanistan. Abd al-Hadi never made it to Iraq. He was captured, and was recently transferred to the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay. The fact that bin Laden risked sending one of his most valued commanders to Iraq shows the importance he places on success of al Qaida's Iraqi operations.

"According to our intelligence community, many of al Qaida in Iraq's other senior leaders are also foreign terrorists. They include a Syrian who is al Qaida in Iraq's emir in Baghdad, a Saudi who is al Qaida in Iraq's top spiritual and legal advisor, an Egyptian who fought in Afghanistan in the 1990s and who has met with Osama bin Laden, a Tunisian who we believe plays a key role in managing foreign fighters. Last month in Iraq, we killed a senior al Qaida facilitator named Mehmet Yilmaz, a Turkish national who fought with al Qaida in Afghanistan, and met with September the 11th mastermind Khalid Shaikh Muhammad, and other senior al Qaida leaders.

"A few weeks ago, we captured a senior al Qaida in Iraq leader named Mashadani. Now, this terrorist is an Iraqi. In fact, he was the highest ranking Iraqi in the organization. Here's what he said, here's what he told us: The foreign leaders of Al Qaida in Iraq went to extraordinary lengths to promote the fiction that al Qaida in Iraq is an Iraqi-led operation. He says al Qaida even created a figurehead whom they named Omar al-Baghdadi. The purpose was to make Iraqi fighters believe they were following the orders of an Iraqi instead of a foreigner. Yet once in custody, Mashadani revealed that al-Baghdadi is only an actor. He confirmed our intelligence that foreigners are at the top echelons of al Qaida in Iraq -- they are the leaders -- and that foreign leaders make most of the operational decisions, not Iraqis.

"Foreign terrorists also account for most of the suicide bombings in Iraq. Our military estimates that between 80 and 90 percent of suicide attacks in Iraq are carried out by foreign-born al Qaida terrorists. It's true that today most of al Qaida in Iraq's rank and file fighters and some of its leadership are Iraqi. But to focus exclusively on this single fact is to ignore the larger truth: Al Qaida in Iraq is a group founded by foreign terrorists, led largely by foreign terrorists, and loyal to a foreign terrorist leader -- Osama bin Laden. They know they're al Qaida. The Iraqi people know they are al Qaida. People across the Muslim world know they are al Qaida. And there's a good reason they are called al Qaida in Iraq: They are al Qaida ... in ... Iraq.

"Some also assert that al Qaida in Iraq is a separate organization because al Qaida's central command lacks full operational control over it. This argument reveals a lack of understanding. Here is how al Qaida's global terrorist network actually operates. Al Qaida and its affiliate organizations are a loose network of terrorist groups that are united by a common ideology and shared objectives, and have differing levels of collaboration with the al Qaida senior leadership. In some cases, these groups have formally merged into al Qaida and take what is called a "bayaat" -- a pledge of loyalty to Osama bin Laden. In other cases, organizations are not formally merged with al Qaida, but collaborate closely with al Qaida leaders to plot attacks and advance their shared ideology. In still other cases, there are small cells of terrorists that are not part of al Qaida or any other broader terrorist group, but maintain contact with al Qaida leaders and are inspired by its ideology to conduct attacks.

"Our intelligence community assesses that al Qaida in Iraq falls into the first of these categories. They are a full member of the al Qaida terrorist network. The al Qaida leadership provides strategic guidance to their Iraqi operatives. Even so, there have been disagreements -- important disagreements -- between the leaders, Osama bin Laden and their Iraqi counterparts, including Zawahiri's criticism of Zarqawi's relentless attacks on the Shia. But our intelligence community reports that al Qaida's senior leaders generally defer to their Iraqi-based commanders when it comes to internal operations, because distance and security concerns preclude day-to-day command authority.

"Our intelligence community concludes that --quote -- 'Al Qaida and its regional node in Iraq are united in their overarching strategy.' And they say that al Qaida senior leaders and their operatives in Iraq -- quote -- 'see al Qaida in Iraq as part of al Qaida's decentralized chain of command, not as a separate group.'

"Here's the bottom line: Al Qaida in Iraq is run by foreign leaders loyal to Osama bin Laden. Like bin Laden, they are cold-blooded killers who murder the innocent to achieve al Qaida's political objectives. Yet despite all the evidence, some will tell you that al Qaida in Iraq is not really al Qaida -- and not really a threat to America. Well, that's like watching a man walk into a bank with a mask and a gun, and saying he's probably just there to cash a check.

"You might wonder why some in Washington insist on making this distinction about the enemy in Iraq. It's because they know that if they can convince America we're not fighting bin Laden's al Qaida there, they can paint the battle in Iraq as a distraction from the real war on terror. If we're not fighting bin Laden's al Qaida, they can argue that our nation can pull out of Iraq and not undermine our efforts in the war on terror. The problem they have is with the facts. We are fighting bin Laden's al Qaida in Iraq; Iraq is central to the war on terror; and against this enemy, America can accept nothing less than complete victory.

"There are others who accept that al Qaida is operating in Iraq, but say its role is overstated. Al Qaida is one of the several Sunni jihadist groups in Iraq. But our intelligence community believes that al Qaida is the most dangerous of these Sunni jihadist groups for several reasons: First, more than any other group, al Qaida is behind most of the spectacular, high-casualty attacks that you see on your TV screens.

"Second, these al Qaida attacks are designed to accelerate sectarian violence, by attacking Shia in hopes of sparking reprisal attacks that inspire Sunnis to join al Qaida's cause.

"Third, al Qaida is the only jihadist group in Iraq with stated ambitions to make the country a base for attacks outside Iraq. For example, al Qaida in Iraq dispatched terrorists who bombed a wedding reception in Jordan. In another case, they sent operatives to Jordan where they attempted to launch a rocket attack on U.S. Navy ships in the Red Sea.

"And most important for the people who wonder if the fight in Iraq is worth it, al Qaida in Iraq shares Osama bin Laden's goal of making Iraq a base for its radical Islamic empire, and using it as a safe haven for attacks on America. That is why our intelligence community reports -- and I quote -- 'compared with , al Qaida in Iraq stands out for its extremism, unmatched operational strength, foreign leadership, and determination to take the jihad beyond Iraq's borders.'

"Our top commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, has said that al Qaida is "public enemy number one" in Iraq. Fellow citizens, these people have sworn allegiance to the man who ordered the death of nearly 3,000 people on our soil. Al Qaida is public enemy number one for the Iraqi people; al Qaida is public enemy number one for the American people. And that is why, for the security of our country, we will stay on the hunt, we'll deny them safe haven, and we will defeat them where they have made their stand. (Applause.)

"Some note that al Qaida in Iraq did not exist until the U.S. invasion -- and argue that it is a problem of our own making. The argument follows the flawed logic that terrorism is caused by American actions. Iraq is not the reason that the terrorists are at war with us. We were not in Iraq when the terrorists bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. We were not in Iraq when they attacked our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. We were not in Iraq when they attacked the USS Cole in 2000. And we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001.

"Our action to remove Saddam Hussein did not start the terrorist violence -- and America withdrawal from Iraq would not end it. The al Qaida terrorists now blowing themselves up in Iraq are dedicated extremists who have made killing the innocent the calling of their lives. They are part of a network that has murdered men, women, and children in London and Madrid; slaughtered fellow Muslims in Istanbul and Casablanca, Riyadh, Jakarta, and elsewhere around the world. If we were not fighting these al Qaida extremists and terrorists in Iraq, they would not be leading productive lives of service and charity. Most would be trying to kill Americans and other civilians elsewhere -- in Afghanistan, or other foreign capitals, or on the streets of our own cities.

"Al Qaida is in Iraq -- and they're there for a reason. And surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaida would be a disaster for our country. We know their intentions. Hear the words of al Qaida's top commander in Iraq when he issued an audio statement in which he said he will not rest until he has attacked our nation's capital. If we were to cede Iraq to men like this, we would leave them free to operate from a safe haven which they could use to launch new attacks on our country. And al Qaida would gain prestige amongst the extremists across the Muslim world as the terrorist network that faced down America and forced us into retreat.

"If we were to allow this to happen, sectarian violence in Iraq could increase dramatically, raising the prospect of mass casualties. Fighting could engulf the entire region in chaos, and we would soon face a Middle East dominated by Islamic extremists who would pursue nuclear weapons, and use their control of oil for economic blackmail or to fund new attacks on our nation."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070724-3.html

###
So, the left will have to get a veto proof majority before 1/2009 (impossible), or impeach and remove Buah/Cheney (near impossible) or simply not fund the war to change George Bush's policy (ABSOLUTELY POSSIBLE!)........

No "censure" or "no confidence votes" will change anything....

No resolutions fro troop withdrawl will change anything.....

No other impotent actions contrived by the left's ruling class will accomplish it.....

The left will have to put their money where their mouth is and either remove the administration or cut their funds.....

I predict they will not even try to do either.......

Why? Because power for their own is more important to them than the continuing war.....

2008 is going to be very interesting!

stooge, just because you post the words of some senile dailykos contributor doesn't prove anything.

who stepped down for marital infidelities, was right to step down because those who hold values to cheat on their wives do not deserve a spot in congress. Oh hypocrisy.

Posted by: StealThisOpinion at July 24, 2007 11:55 AM

Were you calling for BJ Clinton to step down for cheating on his wife, or was that "different?"

"Our action to remove Saddam Hussein did not start the terrorist violence -- "

In Iraq? It most certainly did.

Wow. Is that really all you've got to say? You're going to say I took the word of one senile contributor?? You really do like making slanderous, baseless claims. I'm taking the words of hundreds of thousands of fellow Kossaks and making use of their troll-rating system to denote what the general public agrees with.

Believe it or not, the DailyKos community is the foremost expert on what the DailyKos community thinks, feels, and believes. Not some right-wing pundit who is trying to put a slanderous name to a website he does not agree with. O'Reilly's only claim against DailyKos now is "Why do they let people post this stuff?" Its simple, free speech.

So, I'm right then? Was that you making your best attempt at a comeback? If thats the case then I'm right, You're wrong, thank you for playing.

And I wasnt calling for BJ Clinton to step down. I think that was nothing but politics by the Right-Wing and I think its incredibly hypocritical for anyone who cheered for clinton's impeachment to say that impeaching Dubya is pointless and a waste of time. Where did you get that I supported the Clinton impeachment? I support bad people getting what they deserve, not a good president getting tarnished for getting a BJ.

Do you think Vitter should step down for paying a hooker so he could put on a diaper and shit in his pants? Or is that less of a removable offense than getting a BJ?

For that matter, Do you think Dubya should be impeached for desecrating the constitution with his exectutive orders and his promotion of warrantless wiretapping, torture, suspension of habeus corpus, leading us into a wrong and damaging war, not listening to the America people on wanting out of that war, or running up the national debt? Or is one BJ a more impeachable offense than all of this?

Call me crazy but I'd bet a good sum of money that RK will either ignore the above question or spin it another way to answer it in a way that allows him to live in his little bubble.

Sir Loin of Milquesotast,

In the context of the paragraph, it is obvious The President is speaking in terms of ideological and organizational connections with the use of terrorism as a tactic.....Presently, Iraq has terrorists, who are part of Al Queda both organizationally and ideologically, and our engagement of them PRESENTLY, THERE is a laudable, national security goal. A goal that is "worth it."

The only thing obvious from the context of the paragraph - let alone the context of the past sx years - is that the president is spinning new fairy tales for you jokers to echo, and to make you forget the things he said and did yesterday and the day before.

Anybody he wants to call "Al Qeada" suddenly is "Al Qeada", and represents firm justification to you and the other foreign-policy circle-jerk auxillaries for whatever he says he wants to do.

I've asked repeatedly, but no one has answered: how many "Al Qeada" are in Iraq?

Your opinion, Loin....the FACT remains that foreign born members of Al Queda are engaging our American troops in Iraq, killing and injuring them and innocent civilians and you and yours want to abandon them to their terrorist tasks.....

Fine, it still may happen in the next 3 years, but George Bush will not be the one to allow Al Queda to claim victory....that will be the choice of another yet unchosen executive....

And that is what the left's ruling elite fear....they will have to actually take responsibility for a policy that hands Iraq over to radical islamic terrorists.

I've asked repeatedly, but no one has answered: how many "Al Qeada" are in Iraq?

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at July 25, 2007 12:43 PM

Why don't you go on a "fact" finding mission for us. If we're lucky, you come across a couple members.

"Al Qaida is in Iraq -- and they're there for a reason."

Mr. President; what IS that reason? does it have something to do with your next statement:

"And surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaida would be a disaster for our country. We know their intentions. Hear the words of al Qaida's top commander in Iraq when he issued an audio statement in which he said he will not rest until he has attacked our nation's capital."

So; all I can glean from your leader's bullshit above is that Al Qeada is in Iraq to attack America. Right? - part and parcel of the "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" scare tactic.

So right out the window goes any of your devious, amoral side's arguments that we are there to help the Iraqi people. The Pres makes clear his position that we are there to ATTRACT destructive murderers to that country so we dont have to deal with them here.

Do you people think that this logical inconsistency does not occur to the Iraqi people?

who stepped down for marital infidelities, was right to step down because those who hold values to cheat on their wives do not deserve a spot in congress. Oh hypocrisy.

Posted by: StealThisOpinion at July 24, 2007 11:55 AM

Were you calling for BJ Clinton to step down for cheating on his wife, or was that "different?"

Posted by: royalking at July 25, 2007 11:31 AM

And I wasnt calling for BJ Clinton to step down. I think that was nothing but politics by the Right-Wing and I think its incredibly hypocritical for anyone who cheered for clinton's impeachment to say that impeaching Dubya is pointless and a waste of time. Where did you get that I supported the Clinton impeachment? I support bad people getting what they deserve, not a good president getting tarnished for getting a BJ.

Posted by: StealThisOpinion at July 25, 2007 12:00 PM

Olbyloon hypocrisy, exposed.

...and Pentagon war-games just indicated that "Al Qeada in Iraq" would survive our departure from that country. Did Jesus tell you and Bush something different?

oops -

...and Pentagon war-games just indicated that "Al Qeada in Iraq" would NOT survive our departure from that country. Did Jesus tell you and Bush something different?

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at July 25, 2007 12:57 PM
NOT

For that matter, Do you think Dubya should be impeached for desecrating the constitution with his exectutive orders and his promotion of warrantless wiretapping, torture, suspension of habeus corpus, leading us into a wrong and damaging war, not listening to the America people on wanting out of that war, or running up the national debt? Or is one BJ a more impeachable offense than all of this?

Call me crazy but I'd bet a good sum of money that RK will either ignore the above question or spin it another way to answer it in a way that allows him to live in his little bubble.

Posted by: StealThisOpinion at July 25, 2007 12:00 PM

Answer, no. No ignoring, no spin. Wrong, again, stooge.

No, to the first question, yes, to the second question. Don't want to confuse ya.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/War_games_show_postwithdrawal_not_bloodbath_0723.html

"CNN spoke on Monday with Marine Colonel (ret.) Gary Anderson about possible scenarios the US military has been war gaming for conditions in Iraq following a US pullout.

"You would definitely see an attempt by Shia elements ... to ethnically cleanse ... the central area," Anderson said. "I don't think it's going to be necessarily the bloodbath that conventional wisdom predicts, because the Sunnis really can't generate enough mass to make it a Bosnia type fight. ... Once they're out there [in Anbar Province], I think the Shia will forget about them." He also downplayed any threat from al Qaeda, saying, "I think the other Sunni states in the region would step in to try to help the tribal sheikhs out there fight the al Qaeda."

Anderson sees the greatest potential for violence as between pro- and anti-Iranian Shias, which "could be a very bloody, very troublesome thing." He expects the Iranians would definitely get more involved in Iraq but said that "the danger would be ... from their standpoint, for them to get in there and for them to get bogged down in a quagmire."

cee, your cut-an-paste of Bush's cut-and-paste speech shows that he is totally full of shit and out of touch with the components of his military that still perform their functions.

A retired Colonel is nice, and he is entitled to his opinion, Loin, but General Petraeus has a different assessment of the current situation, and guess who's opinion really matters?....

So who is right?

Unless Colonel Anderson becomes the new commander in charge, General Petraeus will continue to dictate what the administration does. You can cut and paste anyone or any link you want as well, Loin, but the fact remains.....

Al Queda is in Iraq and the present engagement in Iraq is against radical islam and their ideology. Trying to change that fact (lying) is simply a sad attempt at propaganda and shows the weakness of your argument.

Perhaps the next executive will hire Colonel Anderson and he will make the decision to withdraw and we'll see if he is right.

Gary Anderson is a frequent guest on NPR, PBS and many other far left outlets.

And, to think. PBS is the most respected television news source in America, and NPR the most respected radio news voice. Americans are so easily fooled!

Pay attention, cee,

Anderson was commenting on PENTAGON WAR GAMES that resulted in these conclusions.

- one more time, just so you get it:...PENTAGON WAR GAMES that resulted in these conclusions.

But of course we all know that Bush "listens to the military" - or at least the one general who hasn't yet given him reason to fire him for disagreeing with Bush mythology.

"General Petraeus will continue to dictate what the administration does."

- exchange the word "administration " with "Empirium" and your statement could have been uttered in 1st century Rome - right before its fall to its own colonies and mercenaries. Since when do general dictate squat in this country?

Petraeus - whose recent prominence I have always attributed to his Roman-sounding name (very attractive to the vanity of people who work behind marble pillars) must be getting very uneasy as his increasing role as sole pivot-man in this quagmire. Bush and congress are more than happy to hide behind him for protection against decision-making, and as an eventual scapegoat for the final bodycount.

"Al Queda is in Iraq and the present engagement in Iraq is against radical islam and their ideology. Trying to change that fact (lying) is simply a sad attempt at propaganda and shows the weakness of your argument."

I've never said that weren't Al Qeada in Iraq - I've merely stated that all reliable indicators suggest that they represent a minor and epiphemnomenal component of problems there.

Calling my citation of the results of Pentagon War Games that reached exactly these conclusions "lying" is pretty desparate of you.

Not desperate, Loin, read it again....You are trying to minimize, as much as possible, the role Al Queda has played and presently plays in Iraq. Using words like, "minor" try to make it seem like the conflict is not about forces that seek the destruction of democracy in Iraq. It is 100% about an ideology that uses suicide bombers, attacks on civilians and use of IED's as a tactic....terrorism....Theocracy versus democracy.

Just like Vietnam....the Iraq War is an ideological conflict NOT a nationalism/imperialism clash that your myopic view just cannot see.

Allowing Al Queda to establish a successful entity in Iraq is the policy of the left and the democrats....they may just get what they want....Just like the democratic defunding of the Vietnam War lead to the success of the leftists to destroy freedom in South Vietnam previously, the democrats will have to step up and lead to force such defeat again. Supporting the goals of the enemy is a choice perfectly allowed by our democracy....and I will be glad to let those who want to choose it.

Defund the war....bring the troops home now.

But I will guarantee George Bush will not give the left an easy way out for their real policy....and at least that is something. Our national security is being protected by our helping our ally in Iraq and when the left's ruling elite ever address this simple fact then I will believe they have the nation's best interest at heart.

And, to think. PBS is the most respected television news source in America, and NPR the most respected radio news voice. Americans are so easily fooled!

Posted by: Clucker at July 25, 2007 1:30 PM

Among journalists? The pubic?

What is there poll for this?

I've heard a lot of criticism on the left too about the corporate funding behind both PBS and NPR.

Here we go debating Vietnam again. Look, we lost Vietnam because we had no business being there muddling in the affairs of Asians. If they want to be communists and try to take over the world, that's their business. We also lost because our solders were so vindictive and cruel, far worse than the vietcong who were heroic freedom fighters. Didn't you hear my hero John Kerry, who personally strapped electrodes on gooks nuts?

Here we go debating Vietnam again. Look, we lost Vietnam because we had no business being there muddling in the affairs of Asians. If they want to be communists and try to take over the world, that's their business. We also lost because our solders were so vindictive and cruel, far worse than the vietcong who were heroic freedom fighters. Didn't you hear my hero John Kerry, who personally strapped electrodes on gooks nuts?

And the madness continues...

At least you show your true colors now SLOB. The defeatocrats simply want to destroy America. They so hate George Bush, who has lead us with a sane and rational plan for total victory, that they are willing to devour all of our blood and treasure to get him. It's personal. For us, it's not personal. It's rational. We need to be in Iraq because we need to win. We need to win, because losing is not an option. It would embolden our enemies, who are currently kept from attacking us from a healthy timidity and a fear of dying. And the more we lose, the more we need to be there to win. We've already won, of course, and the media didn't report that, but we need to win more and more and more. The defeatocrats will not rest until we are all dead or enslaved to the muslim hordes.

Alahooo ackbar! We're coming for you!

"Allowing Al Queda to establish a successful entity in Iraq is the policy of the left and the democrats"

That's funny; because, if true, it is also a direct result of Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq. Every single rational assessment conducted by panel after panel and intelligence community analysis after intelligence community analysis has reported clearly that the occupation in Iraq has worsened our position in regard to what you call the "war on terror", and has allowed. Is Bush a "leftist"?.

As for Iraq being and "ideological conflict". well; we all know its certainly nothing more than that for you, but the facts surrounding the occupation strongly indicate otherwise.

Also, I strongly agree that we need to "defund the war and bring the troops home now". Cowardly corporate slaves on both sides of the aisle make this difficult, but we will persevere.

You still haven;t answered my question regarding the number of "Al Qeada in Iraq". Do you lack such data; or is it just that your conviction regarding the "ideological" component prompts you to ignore such banal details?

Perhaps you cold answer if I asked "how many Al Qeada IDEAS are in Iraq?

At least you show your true colors now SLOB. The defeatocrats simply want to destroy America. They so hate George Bush, who has lead us with a sane and rational plan for total victory, that they are willing to devour all of our blood and treasure to get him. It's personal. For us, it's not personal. It's rational. We need to be in Iraq because we need to win. We need to win, because losing is not an option. It would embolden our enemies, who are currently kept from attacking us from a healthy timidity and a fear of dying. And the more we lose, the more we need to be there to win. We've already won, of course, and the media didn't report that, but we need to win more and more and more. The defeatocrats will not rest until we are all dead or enslaved to the muslim hordes.

Posted by: Cee at July 25, 2007 3:48 PM

I know this is not really the pasty little chickenhawk called "cee", but it is a marvelous synopsis of his arguments; minus his occasional careless ventures into his true beliefs that Jesus craves a bloody "clash of civilizations".

Here we go debating Vietnam again. Look, we lost Vietnam because we had no business being there muddling in the affairs of Asians. If they want to be communists and try to take over the world, that's their business. We also lost because our solders were so vindictive and cruel, far worse than the vietcong who were heroic freedom fighters. Didn't you hear my hero John Kerry, who personally strapped electrodes on gooks nuts?

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at July 25, 2007 3:37 PM

No. false SLOB, we lost because our forces had no mission beyond killing, policing, and killing. You are right, however, that we had no business messing around in the form of government chosen by Asian nations.

However, your gratuitous attribution of "..and take over the world" to the Vietcong's motives - our primary casus belli in that quagmire - is demonstrated as horribly mistaken by history. They won; remember? Vietnam became one country again, became communist, and invaded and took over abslutely nobody.

We have fake Cecelias, Brandon's, Mikes, SLob's, Cee's, ... and now I see from the other thread, we now even have a fake RoyalKing...

"Oh, when will it ever end...when will it ever end"

We have fake Cecelias, Brandon's, Mikes, SLob's, Cee's, ... and now I see from the other thread, we now even have a fake RoyalKing...

"Oh, when will it ever end...when will it ever end"

Posted by: Mike at July 25, 2007 5:41 PM

Read the general tenor and invective. RK has got it right.

desecreting the Constitution, torture, leading us to war under false pretenses etc etc.

Posted by:mama mia at July 25, 2007 7:09 PM

None of these happened, so, yes. Abusing the Oval Office is much worse, deplorable, to be exact.

How could any human being be so fucked up ?

Posted by: at July 25, 2007 7:19 PM

I really don't know or have any explanation how Keefy turned out to be so f'ed up. I did my best.

Do you actually say these things in public and around real people, or only at this site?

I think it would be a hoot to compose a short film of real people reacting to Jeff's insane ideas.

Posted by: Why do you care what my name is at July 25, 2007 7:21 PM

I would like to see you drive up in your volvo, get out of it and start defending terrorists in my local tavern like you do here. Your lips would never make it to your glass to get your first sip. Then again, we don't serve kool aid.

[desecreting]sic the Constitution, torture, leading us to war under false pretenses etc etc.

Posted by:mama mia at July 25, 2007 7:09 PM

Anxiously awaiting evidence......

in my local tavern
--------------------
No, no, Monsieur Royale. Drunkeness is not a defense. The People have proven their case. You are a nitwit, beyond a reasonable doubt. Case closed! Call the next case!

No, no, Monsieur Royale. [Drunkeness]sic is not a defense. The People have proven their case. You are a nitwit, beyond a reasonable doubt. Case closed! Call the next case!

Posted by: Clucker at July 25, 2007 8:20 PM

I already knew you were a hypocrite, you didn't have to tell us again. As you retire to your "media room" with your french wine and cheese.......

Jeff, how about defining for us exactly how and where Clucker called or showed himself to be a 'hypocrite' in his 8:20 post?

Do you actually know the meaning of words Jeff, or do you just throw anything out there that sounds good to you?.....Kind of like one of those pull string dolls!

As you retire to your "media room" with your french wine and cheese.......
--------------------------------
Wrong, again, Monsieur Royale, on three (3) counts:

I was on my deck watching a storm break to the east, not in my media room.

Tonight I had a a hyper-chilled Halb-Trocken. That is a German wine, a Riesling to be exact, not a French wine.

I had tomato, cucumber and and water crackers, not cheese.

Do you ever, ever tire of being wrong, wrong about everything, everything? I would think with all your connections in the intelligence community, you would have better information. Are you the one who told Cheney Iraq had WMD's? Wrong, again. Cheney should have known better.

The point is, hypo, you drink alcohol. I mention "tavern" and you call me a drunk. As far as the "fench wine and cheese" that was a quote from you when you called yourself Mrs. R. Philby. Are you done with your desperate reaches to claim I was wrong?

What is "fench" wine? Did you mean "finch" like the bird or "French," with an uppercase "F" like the country. I have never had finch wine. Is it good? I have had French wine. It can be very, very good. Did you ever drink finch wine with your Mrs. Philby? Is she your significant other or do you just drink wine and roll in the hay with her? You talk about her all the time. If you were a Democrat, I'd say she must be the person with whom you're in a significant, durable, loving relationship, perhaps, even marriage. Since you're a Republican, I guess she is just some tramp on the side. I'm right, am I not?

If you were a Democrat, I'd say she must be the person with whom you're in a significant, durable, loving relationship, perhaps, even marriage. Since you're a Republican, I guess she is just some tramp on the side. I'm right, am I not?

Posted by: Clucker at July 25, 2007 10:10 PM

Since Mrs Philby was simultaneously a Democratic academic and a barely literate Republican prole, you're right on both counts...

Since Mrs Philby was simultaneously a Democratic academic and a barely literate Republican prole, you're right on both counts...

Posted by: Cecelia at July 25, 2007 10:58 PM

Good call, Cecelia. Notice how she is trying to deny she was philby/rudy? Playing the divert card, going after the typos, too.

RoyalKing.

You're missing a small little point about the Vitter thing. The man got office running on a restoring family values platform. Its not only that he cheated on his wife with a woman that he paid to put him in a diaper so he could shit himself, its that he completely went against a major campaign issue that got him elected. Olby-Hypocrisy...negated.

On the blog thing. I thought I asked you to recant your statement about those blogs being hate sites, ya know, since you dont have ANY evidence to back it up. On second thought, I would like an apology issued to the members of the DailyKos, HuffPo, and MediaMatters communities...if thats not too much to ask?

"desecreting the Constitution, torture, leading us to war under false pretenses etc etc.

Posted by:mama mia at July 25, 2007 7:09 PM

None of these happened, so, yes. Abusing the Oval Office is much worse, deplorable, to be exact."

None of these happened?

1) Desecrating the constitution
--Suspension of Habeus Corpus
--Limiting free speech in that he only allows protestors to show up to rallys if they will be fenced off about a mile away from where he is speaking.
--Completely ignoring the idea of seperation of powers in that he has turned the justice department into the strong arm of the republican party

2) Torture
--Waterboarding
--Abu Ghraib

3) Leading us to war under false pretenses
--Saddam has weapons of mass destruction that he wishes to use against us
--Saddam is determined to attack us
--He is a central front on the war on terror

None of these happened? What kind of delusional fool are you?

And one last note. You say that Bill Clinton shoudl have been impeached because he got a blowjob from an intern but you defend George Bush against impeachment despite the actual crimes he has committed? Wanna talk hypocrisy?

Paging Dr. Kettle, you have a call from Dr. Pot. He says you're black.

You disgust me.

Jeff has his head up his morass again.

I'd like to offer two definitions of morass:

1.) any confusing or troublesome situation, esp. one from which it is difficult to free oneself; entanglement.

(Like what is going on simultaneously in Iraq and the Oval Office)

or

2.) the Ass of a Moron

Either one fits Royal Douche to a 'T'

One more desecration of the constitution by this administration:

http://cliffschecter.blogspot.com/2007/07/man-walked-up-to-dick-cheney-calmly.html

--Suspension of Habeus Corpus

1. They are war combatants, no brainer. I know you love the terrorists and would love to set them free, ain't happening.

--Limiting free speech in that he only allows protestors to show up to rallys if they will be fenced off about a mile away from where he is speaking.

2. News flash to olbyloons; all presidents do this, it's called SECURITY from loons like you.

Completely ignoring the idea of seperation of powers in that he has turned the justice department into the strong arm of the republican party.

3. Then why did they let Sandy Burgler off with a slap on the wrist?

2) Torture
--Waterboarding
--Abu Ghraib

4. Stacking up some terrorists in a pyramid and taking their pics is NOT torture. Having your throat slashed, now, that's torture. Being shoved feet first in a wood chipper, that's torture. Waterboarding? Far from torture. That's called a nice long cool drink of water after a little interogation session. I'm sure the terrorists appreciate a little drink of water. I know I would.

Leading us to war under false pretenses

5. 9/11 didn't happen? The Cole didn't happen? The Marine massacre didn't happen?

P.S. You disgust me.......

"They are war combatants, no brainer. I know you love the terrorists and would love to set them free, ain't happening"

So you take GWB at his word when he says that everyone in there is a tried and true criminal? Then why do so many people leave there without being tried with any crimes? They were just held for months or years without explanation or discussion. In some instances we even torture those that he detain, including torturing a few innocent foreign citizens. I am not for "setting terrorists free" however I do feel that every human being, even those that want to hurt us, deserves to be treated fairly.

"2. News flash to olbyloons; all presidents do this, it's called SECURITY from loons like you.

Please show me evidence of other presidents setting up "Free-Speech Zones". From what I've found, NO president has ever set up free speech zones, however there have been a few isolated incidents where free-speech zones have been instituted, how many to be exact? Four, in the history of the united states. One of them by the RNC during George's time in office. All presidents do this, huffpo is a hate site...God you like making things up.

"4. Stacking up some terrorists in a pyramid and taking their pics is NOT torture. Having your throat slashed, now, that's torture. Being shoved feet first in a wood chipper, that's torture. Waterboarding? Far from torture. That's called a nice long cool drink of water after a little interogation session. I'm sure the terrorists appreciate a little drink of water. I know I would.

What about shitting on terrorists? Holding vicious dogs so that they can get within a few inches of ones face? Putting someone on a bucket then handcuffing their hands between their legs so that if the bucket falls the person will suspend by their hands? None of this sounds, oh, Cruel and Unusual to you?

"Having your throat slashed, now, that's torture"
Thats murder, btw, not torture.

A COLD DRINK OF WATER? What kind of sick individual are you? Does http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2Xd0Q2Auz4 look like a "cold drink of water"

"5. 9/11 didn't happen? The Cole didn't happen? The Marine massacre didn't happen?"

Im not sure what you are refering to with "marine massacre" but Osama Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 and the bombing of the US Cole, so thank you for not making any sort of statement refuting against what I said about leading us to war under false pretenses against Iraq. And furthermore, I mentioned false pretenses, I didnt ask for a reason that we went to war, George Bush makes up new reasons every day. I was talking about the verified fact that just about every reason that George W. Bush said we needed to go to Iraq is and was wrong.

I like how you completley ignored the whole blog issue again...No Apology? Nothing to say?

P.S. durrrrrrrrrrrr

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=1997083

Go Guantanamo Bay! Really fighting those bad guys

RoyalKing, after you respond to the points in my previous post I have another question for you. Do you think Lobbying and Ethics reform in Washington is necessary, or a waste of time?

Completely ignoring the idea of seperation of powers in that he has turned the justice department into the strong arm of the republican party.

3. Then why did they let Sandy Burgler off with a slap on the wrist?

????????Nothing?

Monsieur Royale:

plea bargain - Plea Bargain - PLEA BARGAIN - P L E A B A R G A I N.

Happens all the time, especially when the prosecutor, exercising prosecutorial discretion, believes he or she has a weak case and might get nothing if he or she doesn't agree to the plea bargain. Also, when there is some matter that the government would just as soon not have disclosed in open court. The fact is, the government had some reason for this. We may never know what it is. For the Love of the Almighty man, let something soak in to that pea brain of yours. Stop harping about this rather insignificant and closed matter.

Indeed, Mrs. Philby. National Security is "rather insignificant" to socialists, like yourself. It's no secret. You would much rather focus on income re-distribution, welfare and "important issues" of the such.

Why hasn't our favorite cut n paster, why/patsy posted this? This won't make the dems happy, one bit.

BAGHDAD - Washington's top diplomat in Iraq said Thursday that increased U.S. troop strength had brought down violence, but it was impossible to rush political reconciliation or to predict when conditions would allow the United States to begin reducing its involvement.

With less than two months remaining before Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, were to report to Congress about progress in Iraq, the top envoy also told The Associated Press that political reconciliation was going to be "a long, hard pull."

"The surge (increase of 30,000 American troops) has done very well indeed in making a difference in security conditions. There's no question, in the Anbar (province) and Baghdad area. But it's not a light switch. You don't just flip something up and everyone is reconciled," Crocker said in an interview in his office in Saddam Hussein's Republican Palace.

Monsieur reminds me of the "King and I": et cetera, et cetera, et cetera .... Same thing, over and over, world without end. Amen.

Everyone realizes that if we committed 1,000,000 troops and were willing to accept 100,000 deaths, we could control Iraq. Most rationale people just realize Iraq isn't worth it.

Case closed. Jury dismissed. Clear the courtroom, Bailiff.

Move onto something else or just go on slandering people, please. As it is, you're just trashing cyberspace.

1;56 coming from the queen of the defeatocrats, thanks, philby!

RK, thats all you have to say? Why did they let a white-collar criminal off with a slap on the wrist? Isnt that what they ALWAYS do. What about the fact that the DOJ has been doing the republican parties bidding in stacking the US Attorneys?

Are you going to ignore the other 4 points I made in my post? Does that mean that you're surrendering the debate?

Monsieur Royale is in contempt of court for uttering tripe after the courtroom was cleared. Be careful in lock-up, Monsieur Royale. Not everyone your meet will have your complexion. Even some of your fellow inmates will not be uptight honkies.

Not everyone your meet will have your complexion. Even some of your fellow inmates will not be uptight honkies.

Posted by: Clucker at July 26, 2007 7:43 PM

Keep telling yourself your not a racist, ok? I knew it was just a matterof time your true colors would show.

Yes, I didn't think you would do at all well when you were in the minority. It is never easy. Perhaps, that taught you a valuable lesson. And, if you are a better man for that, there is no need to thank me. Of course, you did have to interject color into the discourse, but I sense some real progress. What I'd like you to do for next week is to keep a diary. At least once a day, write how you feel when you are in a place where you find yourself, Taco Bell, the John Birch Society Meeting, the proctologist, even in front of your radio with your Wiener, wherever you are. Then, as soon as you finish, write how you would feel if you were in that same place at the same time as an immigrant from Haiti who has just been granted political asylum in the United States and driving a taxi to try to bring his family here. Then bring your diary to Group next week, and be prepared to share.

"For Bush and his minions, the question to the American people has become: Who you gonna believe, Petraeus or the facts --Bush is so gung-ho about listening to Gen. Petraeus not because he is an expert but because he is an expert who agrees with Bush."

If Petreus is such a lying lapdog sack of shit, then why did the Senate unanimously approve him as commander? Oh, did the Dems get "snookered" again, i.e. "if I had known then what I know now, blah blah, blah . . . HA!

http://www.startribune.com/587/story/961794.html

There are suicides in every war "Name". Nothing unique to this war or any war. But I guess the suicides in Vietnam when Johnson was president don't matter to you huh?

WDYCWMNI says:

"About half of the public thinks the Supreme Court is generally balanced in its decisions, but a growing number of Americans say the court has become "too conservative" in the two years since President Bush began nominating justices, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll."

I am more interested in knowing whether the Supremes are correctly interpreting the law, not inventing new rights in the name of giving the appearance of "balance" . God help us when we appraise the job that the Supreme Court is doing based on a poular opinion poll!

God help us all and save us all from the worst administration in our country's history.

Posted by: Why do you care what my name is at July 29, 2007 1:19 AM

How soon you forget about Carter.

Here's something for WDYCWMNI, lurker, anon and Joe Citixen re: how history will remember Pres. George W. Bush. It's pretty easy to find a university academic willing to go on the reord with a statement that George Bush is the worst ever. This sort of reactionary evaluation should be tempered with some sobering factual considerations:

"Because academics tend to be far to the left of the general population, conservative presidents, especially recent ones, usually get short shrift.

In 2000 the Federalist Society came up with a way to remedy [this] flaw[] . It asked 78 scholars in history, law and politics to rate the presidents on a five-point scale. "We tried to choose approximately equal numbers of scholars who lean to the left and to the right," explains Northwestern University's James Lindgren, who analyzed the data. "Another way to express this is that we sought to mirror what scholarly opinion might be on the counterfactual assumption that the academy was politically representative of the society in which we live and work."

"Mr. Lindgren averaged the ratings for each of the 39 presidents (George W. Bush was not yet elected, and William Henry Harrison and James Garfield were omitted because they died shortly after taking office) and divided them into six categories: great, near great, above average, average, below average and failure."

"Three presidents made the cut as "great": George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt. They are the top three finishers in most surveys of scholars."

"Eight presidents were judged "near great," including Mr. Reagan, who finished eighth."

"Among recent presidents, only Mr. Reagan ranked as "near great." JFK (18th) and LBJ (17th) were "above average," George H.W. Bush (21st) and Bill Clinton (24th) "average," and Richard Nixon (33rd), Gerald Ford (28th) and Jimmy Carter (30th) "below average."

"An obvious question is how the current President Bush would fare if such a survey were conducted today. Arguably, it's too early to take the measure of Mr. Bush's presidency, since its success or failure will largely be determined by what happens in Iraq and whether he is re-elected in November."

"George W. Bush could eventually end up joining the ranks of the greats. The three great presidents have three things in common: All faced unprecedented challenges, all responded to them boldly, and all ultimately were successful. Mr. Bush so far meets two of these criteria: History dealt him an unprecedented challenge in the form of the 9/11 attacks, and no one can deny that he answered it with boldness. If he is able to overcome the current troubles in Iraq, and if he succeeds in his mission of combating Islamist terror by promoting democracy in the Middle East, history will be far kinder to him than are his contemporary critics."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/pl/?id=110005196

I must admit, Joe Citizen AKA Nom du Jour, I don't know the answers to your questions, all eight of them.

I'm all ears!

I assume when one asks a question in a debate one has the answer, as they see it, to the question.

As I said, I'm all ears.

Grammie

It was interesting to hear snippets of Pelosi's talking about homeland security in her radio address yesterday.

I had been wondering, with all the criticism leveled against the Bush Adm., when some Dem would get a clue and start talking security.

She seems to have gotten the clue that if there's another terrorist attack, the Adm will take the heat for failing to successfully protect the country, but all these "scandals" are going to turn into questions about why she was so worried about the "missteps and stumbles" in dealing with something we haven't had to deal with before, rather than than being worried about the damn country.

If they're smart (and they ususally aren't) we're going to hear more from the Dems about this and hopefully it will open up the discussion and take it out of the realm of hyperbole.