Damn its quiet here.................

See, that preview/recap (which can really be one in the same) was genius.

OLBERMANN: Bwahaahaaahaaa! Har, har, Haaaaaaaaa! Man, that's just hilarious stuff. Bwahaahaahaaaaa!! Fox Noise! Hahahaaaaaaa!

Now if someone can just get the AP writer the memo that 8:00 PM isn't "dominated" by O'Reilly AND Olbermann.

Keith's attacks on O'Reilly won't end
A true journalist could not defend
Idiotic bashing
Sophomoric tongue lashing
And "news" on which moonbats depend

JD you know I love your wrap-ups but come on, we know Olbermann doesn't put that kind of THOUGHT or effort into his shows. Although hitting on the intern sounds about right.

HAHAHAHA "White House in Crisis" was he trying to make it look like an MSNBC special? You could tell the Voiceover Guy was thinking "Do I really have to read this?"

Plus when I flipped over from O'Reilly during the first 15 minutes it actually said "Breaking News." Wow Keith is right, he really is a newscaster, it said so right on the screen!

Democrats/Liberals would be far more convincing if they weren't such creepy, hateful, lying bastards.

Keith would be far more convincing if he wasn't such a creepy lying bastard.

It does appear the Gonzales situation took on an entirely different dimension yesterday and overnight. I suspect that substantial evidence of perjury has been gathered, and I think Specter may be the driving force. If that is correct, that would be terribly, terribly damning for Gonzales and bothersome for Bush. Snow can't go before the gaggle and complain about the Democrats going after poor, hapless Gonzales. After the information came out today, I reread Specter's questioning. Gonzales, of course, answered nothing. But, I think Specter had all of his information yesterday and was trying to give Gonzales a chance to do the honorable thing and tell the truth. Go back and read it yourself. It is most interesting and revealing. This may be far more interesting than any of us first imagined. Gonzales may have turned himself into a huge liability for Bush yesterday. Much speculation, to be sure, but it seems to be founded.

Spector marches to his own drummer and I admire the hell out him.

Specter*

I also used to admire Phil Spector, but no more.

Mandy needs to go hide in the subway, where Keith won't go after her, before it's too late.

Specter - Spector ....

I can't tell you how many times I ask, which is it.

For lawyers, statute - statue is a nightmare.

The final indignity
--------------------
That is appalling. It goes right to the gut and turns. I suppose anything goes if it serves as some sort of denial of what is really happening. These services are for families and friends who have already suffered and sacrificed greatly. To deny them this special moment of reflection and closure is crass and cruel.

Apparently WDYCWMNI missed this. Next time a lefty tells that Dems are serious about the security of our country, save this:

Feckless majority leader Harry Reid had a homeland security appropriations bill on the floor for debate, and thought the day was going to go rather smoothly, until the Republicans showed him up once again by offering an amendment to tie border security elements of the immigration bill to it.

The Republicans showed they not dropped the parts of the bill that conservatives by and large have been clamoring for, namely funding for the fence, more border patrol agents funded, etc. Senators Lindsey Graham, Jon Kyl, Judd Gregg and Jeff Sessions all worked on today’s amendment to put teeth to some of the good planks of border security reform, and attached it to the funding bill for homeland security, putting the Democrats in a box. Politically speaking, this was a brilliant move. You knew this to be the case because Ted Kennedy, the author of much of the language in the failed immigration bill this year, came down to the floor and read the riot act.

Harry Reid certainly didn’t want to have this measure voted on, because he didn’t want to look foolish and have the Republican parts of the immigration bill passed around him on an end run, so he asked the chair for a ruling that the Graham amendment be stricken because it wasn’t germane to the original bill. That’s right, the Democratic leader of the Senate wanted a ruling that border security funding has nothing to do with homeland security funding. All eyes turned to the chair, currently occupied by Barack Obama. Here is what he had to say.

HR: We have to have a ruling here first.

BO: The chair is not aware of an arguably legislative provision in the House bill, HR 2638 [the homeland security funding bill], to which Amendment number 2412 offered by the Senator from South Carolina [the border security funding amendment] could conceivably be germane.

Judd Gregg: So the amendment is germane?

BO: No, that the chair does not believe that the defense of germaneness is appropriately placed at this time.

So there you have it. Senator Barack Obama, the man who is trying to win your vote to be the president of the United States, the commander-in-chief, the man whose primary mission is to protect and defend the country, can’t see how border security has anything to do with homeland security. Unbelievable, but true.

Using a lot more than inference
Keith demonstrates transference
"White House in crisis!"
Olby's mind in psychosis
Too bad OW no deterence

Hehe. Did you see? I attacked Bill O'Reilly again. I have such a crush on him. Oh, how I wish he would pay attention to me. I keep kicking him in the shins and running away, but he pretends I don't exist. He is making me feel like I am not pretty enough for him. Someone please help me. What can I do to make my crush pay attention to me? Please? Anyone.

Hehe. Fox noise. That one makes me giggle.

Just when you thought the Bush Administration couldn't be more of a disgrace .....

Posted by: Why do you care what my name is at July 26, 2007 12:15 AM

Never underestimate the ability of this administration to sink lower than a snails nut. They are teaching us and future generations everything one needs to know about disgrace. No shame.

WASHINGTON - Documents indicate eight congressional leaders were briefed about the Bush administration's terrorist surveillance program on the eve of its expiration in 2004, contradicting sworn Senate testimony this week by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Oh what a tangled web they weave...

Oh what a tangled web they weave...

Posted by: Doh! at July 26, 2007 1:58 AM

He who diggeth a pit, let him fall in it.

Just when you thought the Bush Administration couldn't be more of a disgrace .....

Posted by: patsy at July 26, 2007 12:15 AM

You could give a rats ass about our troops, dead or alive, why did you post that? Oh, it makes Bush "look" bad. I get it.

Has anyone seen the e-mail going around in regards to the muslims taking over London? Marching in the street with signs that say "Europe, you will pay, 9/11 is on it's way" "be prepared for the real holocaust" "freedom, go to hell" "exterminate those who slander islam" "europe is the cancer, islam is the answer" "behead those who insult islam," Ahh, yes, the religion of "peace." It is unbelievable, to say the least. It's no wonder they get hit every other month, they're asking for it by letting it go on.

Has anyone seen the e-mail going around in regards to the muslims taking over London? Marching in the street with signs that say "Europe, you will pay, 9/11 is on it's way" "be prepared for the real holocaust" "freedom, go to hell" "exterminate those who slander islam" "europe is the cancer, islam is the answer" "behead those who insult islam," Ahh, yes, the religion of "peace." It is unbelievable, to say the least. It's no wonder they get hit every other month, they're asking for it by letting it go on.

Posted by: royalking at July 26, 2007 2:52 AM

You fearmongering piece of shit. You wish evil on them, don't you. You want a bombing so you can say "I told you so". You need help. Maybe you should start praying God will enlighten you. You wish revenge for something that hasn't even happened yet. Ask for wisdom from God instead of revenge. You remind me of my pitbull. She is scared of everything, which makes her a danger to anything. She is a dog. You have no excuse. Chicken.

Olbermann's man crush on Bill O'Reilly will never end

Has anyone seen the e-mail going around in regards to the muslims taking over London? Marching in the street with signs that say "Europe, you will pay, 9/11 is on it's way" "be prepared for the real holocaust" "freedom, go to hell" "exterminate those who slander islam" "europe is the cancer, islam is the answer" "behead those who insult islam," Ahh, yes, the religion of "peace." It is unbelievable, to say the least. It's no wonder they get hit every other month, they're asking for it by letting it go on.

Posted by: royalking at July 26, 2007 2:52 AM

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

Absolute, pure lunacy. The man will believe anything as long as it supports his warped, hate-filled personal agenda. No wonder our nation has turned into a land of knee-knockers and bed-wetters.

For those of you not watching right now (and judging by the ratings, none of you are), I have Morning Joe on TV right now, and guest Craig Crawford is sporting just the lovliest bolo tie.........and, when asked, he said it was sent to him by one of his bloggers....whom he referred to as a "Great American by the name of Colorado Bob".

Our old friend from Olbermann Watch got some pub....in front at least 10-20 viewers nationally......courtesy of Olby's Brain.

>>Has anyone seen the e-mail going around in regards to the muslims taking over London? Marching in the street with signs that say "Europe, you will pay, 9/11 is on it's way" "be prepared for the real holocaust" "freedom, go to hell" "exterminate those who slander islam" "europe is the cancer, islam is the answer" "behead those who insult islam," Ahh, yes, the religion of "peace." It is unbelievable, to say the least. It's no wonder they get hit every other month, they're asking for it by letting it go on.

Just when you think that rk's sources can't get any dumber, he starts using unsolicited Emails as his source...

Laura,

Just because the Bushies stonewalled in those cases, doesn't mean that crimes weren't committed, child...

I thought you republicans were the party of law and order; in fact, you are the biggest crooks we've ever had in office...

In short, you are just a blind dumbass so ate up with hate, liberal bias and no faith you are just a rotting piece of flesh waiting to be processed. Too bad they don;t make bone mill becuase of mad cow because that's about all you liberals are worth, thrown into an oven whole, cooked for 3 hours till done and ground into bone mill. I doubt you've ever worked on a farm so you aint got a clue.

Posted by: Laura Bush at July 26, 2007 9:05 AM

Good thing Laura isn't "ate up with hate" or anything. And that "faith" of hers's must be a sublime joy to Jesus.

>>Listen to yourselves. Listen to Olby. All these investigations and nothing. Nada. Zich. Squat. Squat.

Amazing what you can get away with when you can withhold evidence, refuse testimony under oath and bar ex-employees as witnesses...

The only time that Bush has ever testified, he had to sit on Cheney's lap the whole time.

You neocons are limp-wristed faggots, son. No wonder most of America hates your stinking guts...

...and scince you're apparently Mr. Green-jeans and all - and a big important purchaser and operator of big machines -I'm sure you are aware the the substance you want us to be reduced to is called "bone meal", which is manufacured via a "bone mill".

I'm sure the fact that you made this error twice in your post in no way indicates any ignorance on your part regading the things about which you constantly pontificate.

Johnny - excellent recap, funniest thing I've seen in a long time - more interesting than that pathetic show and even more pathetic host. Thanks

PRODUCER: Um, sir, we're going to start out with the biggest news of the day: Gonzales and the subpoenas.
OLBERMANN: Good choice. It's on the lips of every American. Can I call him a liar?
PRODUCER: Yeah, that's expected by now.

Damn right it is. What else would you call him, after his string of pathetic displays - a "retard" pehaps? - but that is not supported by his ability to have gotten through law school.

He is a perjurer who should be sqatting in that jail cell Specter threatened him with yesterday.

Hopefull our senators can gather the courage to ignore the implicit death-threats with which the Bush cabal has kept them at bay to date, and will begin to indict every rotten soul in this administration.

Well, it looks like the hoi poloi are just giddy with their new pony, Gonzalez's slip up after 26 hours of lawyerly grilling. I wonder if anyone could sit up there for that length of questioning and not open themselves up to "purgury."

One might dare to remind the cast and crew of this fine reality show that nothing has yet been proven against any of these people. Oh, but I guess the president is at 25% approval, so that means everyone has to go to jail. I forgot when the Berlin Wall fell all those soviet ethics whooshed out 3000 miles to the west.

I did NOT write the post above.

Cecelia,

perjury is proven against Gonzales merely by comparing his various statements against one another. Also, the recent documentary evidence identifying the reason for leaning on Ashcroft also proves Gonzo to be a liar to the congress.

"He is a perjurer who should be sqatting in that jail cell Specter threatened him with yesterday."

Ah. Right, like Scooter's cell you mean? One hallmark of a liberal is that they always bring a knife to a gun fight.

Cecelia,

perjury is proven against Gonzales merely by comparing his various statements against one another. Also, the recent documentary evidence identifying the reason for leaning on Ashcroft also proves Gonzo to be a liar to the congress.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at July 26, 2007 10:49 AM

Sir Loin,

I didn't write the post that you're responding to, but I do want to remind you that Gonazales can go back within a certain period of time and clarify his testimony. If the clarification is reasonable, it's doubtful anything will really come of this.

Ugh. It looks like the loons are up early today. Most of that I can endorse, but I can't forgive missing Berlin by 1000 miles. Is that a Kassam in your pocket, or are you just really inaccurate?

Berlin to DC, 4,169 beautiful cocktail-filled miles.

"Well, it looks like the hoi poloi are just giddy with their new pony, Gonzalez's slip up after 26 hours of lawyerly grilling. I wonder if anyone could sit up there for that length of questioning and not open themselves up to "purgury.""

The answer is "yes". It has frequently been accomplished - more often than not, in fact.

Ah. Right, like Scooter's cell you mean? One hallmark of a liberal is that they always bring a knife to a gun fight.

Posted by: Hank at July 26, 2007 10:49 AM

Kind of like David v Goliath, I guess? But you are right. Hopefully congress will start packing the US Constitution when they expect to face the Republican gunmen.

That wasn't me, Sir Loin. I've been usurped, although I do agree with it in spirit. The Dem congress is going fishing a lot lately. Guess they failed to fill their creel during their 100 day agenda, so now it's open season.

I didn't write the post that you're responding to, but I do want to remind you that Gonazales can go back within a certain period of time and clarify his testimony. If the clarification is reasonable, it's doubtful anything will really come of this.

Posted by: Cecelia at July 26, 2007 10:53 AM

Please inform us what a reasonable reconcilliation of his self-contradictory gibberish could be constructed.

Iguess he could say "duhhh...I forgot what I was talking about" yet again.

Johnny!!! I'm having a personality crisis!

> perjury is proven against Gonzales merely by comparing his various statements against one another.

Oh really? Where did you get your law degree from, a Cracker Jack box?

"You neocons are limp-wristed faggots, son. No wonder most of America hates your stinking guts..."

Behold the fable tolerance of the left. But Blindrat, you forgot, some of us are women, so shouldn't you go with a more gender-neutral kind of vulgarity? My own wrists are delightfuly supple and I like it that way!

"The Dem congress is going fishing a lot lately."

Arrrr! Cut Bait!

"I'll get you the head; the tail; the whole damn thing."

In short, you are just a blind dumbass so ate up with hate, liberal bias and no faith you are just a rotting piece of flesh waiting to be processed. Too bad they don;t make bone mill becuase of mad cow because that's about all you liberals are worth, thrown into an oven whole, cooked for 3 hours till done and ground into bone mill. I doubt you've ever worked on a farm so you aint got a clue.

Posted by: Laura Bush at July 26, 2007 9:05 AM

Cecelia,

I see your offense to a "limp-wrist" slur from the left with one call from the right to shove liberals into ovens. Even? can we talk issues?

perjury is proven against Gonzales merely by comparing his various statements against one another.

Oh really? Where did you get your law degree from, a Cracker Jack box?

Posted by: johnny dollar at July 26, 2007 11:04 AM

Wow, $; I'm stunned by your clarity and the precision of your fact-based defense of the Attorney General.

Sir Loin, once again proving good taste in movies, if bad taste in politics.

"On the water?"
"Well, if we're looking for a shark we're not gonna find him on the land."

Methinks the dems once again have the wrong element.

Please, please, please. All this fighting and name calling makes me cry. *camera change* All name calling should be reserved for Chimpy McHilterburton. Not between each other. I want the world to be puppy dogs and rainbows. *camera change* Except for you, sir. You, Mister Bush, do NOT get any puppy dogs.

Cecelia,

I doubt that you would call yourself a "neocon"; and, tolerance does not extend to the subversion of my constitution.

"Limp-wristed" and "Faggot" deal more with their total ineffectuality, in our economy, the "war" on terror, the war on Iraq and the war on the nation's children (actually, they are winning that one). Frankly, ALL the homosexuals that I know would be far more effective than the republicans have been in the past six years...

>>perjury is proven against Gonzales merely by comparing his various statements against one another.

Oh really? Where did you get your law degree from, a Cracker Jack box?

Dollar,

That's what convicted Libby...

"Sir Loin, once again proving good taste in movies, if bad taste in politics."

Cecelia,

If you like good movies with relevance to the Gonzales afair, I suggest you view "Judgement at Nuremburg", with Burt Lancaster and Spencer Tracy. Its a chilling expose of the self-delusions of a justice system turned into a political weapon by a single party.

I'm not homophobic, mind you. I just think that being a "faggot" or being "limp-wristed" is equated with being an ineffectual liar. And I took pains to say that even a lousy faggot could do better than this president.

I rest my case.

ALL the homosexuals that I know

Posted by: blindbat at July 26, 2007 11:21 AM

Isn't this against your religion?

Also, if I happen to call this administration a bunch of niggers, I don't mean to demean black people, just to say that they are all lazy and like to sit around in the hot texas sun eating watermelon.

Looks like the truthbug has bitten blindrat. Well, even a blind rat finds a nut now and again.

Just when you think that rk's sources can't get any dumber, he starts using unsolicited Emails as his source...

Posted by: blindrat at July 26, 2007 8:36 AM

I could give a rats ass what you think about my "sources" assrat. The pictures WERE REAL! Your buddies.

10:49 and 10:53 are the only posts written by me, gentlemen.

Excuse me. For obvious reasons, I take great offense (not great thanks) to the terms 'faggot' and 'limp-wristed.' I would appreciate it if you people would refrain from such terminology.

Methinks the dems once again have the wrong element.

Posted by: Cecelia at July 26, 2007 11:17 AM

If the post above is a highjacker, I suspect that its cee. That fruitcake has a thing about saying "methinks".

> I'm stunned by your clarity and the precision of your fact-based defense of the Attorney General.

That was no defense of the AG. That was an indictment of your complete ignorance of what perjury is, and what is necessary to prove it. Here's a hint: two conflicting statements, even under oath, do NOT prove perjury--in any court in this country.

It's a testament to the gullibility of the Olbyloons that as soon as David Shuster says something--despite his record of being wrong, uninformed, and ignorant--they all think it's true. But Shuster is just as ignorant about perjury law as SLoB.

10:49 and 10:53 and 11:39 and this are the only posts I've written here, Sir Loin.

Cecelia,

Yeah? Well how do you know that the 11:49 you is really you?

[cue up Twilight Zone music]

"That was no defense of the AG. That was an indictment of your complete ignorance of what perjury is, and what is necessary to prove it. Here's a hint: two conflicting statements, even under oath, do NOT prove perjury--in any court in this country."

....but what do you get when you add a document that Gonzales had prepared to have Ashcroft sign during that "meeting" in his hospital room?

Let's see. Two sworn statements, under oath, that contradict are insufficient to prove perjury. So SLoB has the answer: toss in a document, NOT sworn to or under oath, and THAT proves perjury!

When it comes to perjury, you don't have the faintest idea what the elements are that have to be proved, let alone whether they may or may not exist in this instance. Maybe you should stick to insults and name calling. A man's got to know his limitations.

I think that dollar's slant is going to be that Gonzales did not KNOWINGLY lie. Bushies like that one because they think that it allows them to lie as often as they like...

> I think that dollar's slant is going to be that Gonzales did not KNOWINGLY lie

Do Olbyloons have reading comprehension problems? I haven't said anything about what Gonzales did or did not do. I don't have a slant. It just so happens that I know what constitutes perjury, and SLoB, Shuster, and apparently the aptly named blindrat, do not.

Cecelia,

Yeah? Well how do you know that the 11:49 you is really you?

[cue up Twilight Zone music]

Posted by: blindrat at July 26, 2007 12:20 PM

You'll just have to take my word for it, Blindrat.

But be aware that when you read posts where writing skills seem to have dramatically improved, it's probably a namejacker and not mean ole obsessive, lazy, gold digging, brandon-bashing, and martini-swilling me. :D

dollar,

Neocons tend to talk about WHAT they know rather than give specifics. Contradictory testimony convicted Libby. If you've got something, spill it...

If not, keep being ambiguous...

JUST LIKE THE RATINGS STATE, O'REILLY ATTACKING OLBY WOULD BE BENEATH HIM.

Minja,

O'Reilly has attacked a teenage boy whose father had just been killed in the 9/11 attack.

Nothing can be considered beneath him...

You're welcome...

> Neocons tend to talk about WHAT they know rather than give specifics

Really? And who would htat be? Am I a neocon? Why don't you give us the specifics on that point? Hm, if you don't give specifics, does that make YOU a neocon? Man, logic can really get twisted up when you personally attack people based on nothing but your own imagination.

Let's see. Two sworn statements, under oath, that contradict are insufficient to prove perjury. So SLoB has the answer: toss in a document, NOT sworn to or under oath, and THAT proves perjury!

I think my origninal statement suggested that it proves that Gonzo lied to congress; or that he is mentally retarded. Since Republican perjury apparently cannot exist in Dollar's epistemology; what about just plain lying?

...and then what does it mean when a Republican lies to congress?

..and I understand how a docment can be "sworn to", but how do you put a document "under oath"?

> I think my origninal statement suggested that it proves that Gonzo lied to congress

Wrong! Your original statement said, not suggested, that it proved perjury. Now that you are attempting to change what you wrote, does that mean you are admitting you were wrong, that his statements do not in fact prove perjury? That I was correct all along? I accept your concession.

> Since Republican perjury apparently cannot exist in Dollar's epistemology

Are you on drugs? What do you base that on? Please explain how "Republican perjury" cannot exist, when there is a Republican who was just convicted of perjury? Do you just make up stuff as you go along and toss it out because you think it's (haha) funny, regardless of how mindlessly stupid it is? Are you just back from the Tourette's convention?

> how do you put a document "under oath"?

Did you ever fill out a federal tax form? Gad, there is no greater waste of time than trying to educate people who don't want to learn.

>>Really? And who would htat be? Am I a neocon? Why don't you give us the specifics on that point? Hm, if you don't give specifics, does that make YOU a neocon? Man, logic can really get twisted up when you personally attack people based on nothing but your own imagination.

Thanks, johnny...

You've shown us that you have nothing...

> how do you put a document "under oath"?

Did you ever fill out a federal tax form? Gad, there is no greater waste of time than trying to educate people who don't want to learn.

Posted by: johnny dollar at July 26, 2007 1:14 PM

Well, when I fill out such forms I am put under oath in regard to the document; the document itself has no capacity to take an oath.

But on another matter; Dollar is a twitchy little bitch, isn't he?

> Dollar is a twitchy little bitch, isn't he?

I see you've taken my advice and have resorted to name calling and personal attacks. Very good. Nobody can top you there.

I do so hate to agree with Señor Dollares, and I do find Gonzales repugnant on many, many levels. However, perjury is very difficult to prove. Not every lie, much less every conflict is perjurious. Basically, we would have to establish a FALSE STATEMENT OF A MATERIAL FACT, INTENTIONALLY MADE, UNDER OATH.

If I understand what we have now: one or more documents differing from testimony before Congress. So, you see, we do have a way to go. To be sure, in Leahy, Schumer and Specter, we have three (3) very good, perhaps even excellent, attorneys with trial experience. They seem to think they have something that smells really bad. I suspect what they have is an apparent conflict which needs to be resolved. The resolution of that conflict would provide an opportunity or mechanism for Gonzales to perjure himself. Before we start assuming we have perjury, I suspect Gonzales gets called in again and be given the opportunity to either resolve the conflict or recant. If he answers, substantively, and if that answer is truthful, we may well have a chronic liar, but probably not a perjuror. However, if he uses this opportunity to lie, we probably do have a perjuror then. Of course, Gonzales may chose not to answer, claiming some form of privilege, either executive or attorney-client if the time frame goes back to his White House Counsel days (he can’t claim attorney-client privilege with reference to Bush during his tenure as Attorney General, since Bush is not his client, although I am not sure either understand that). He might also take the 5th Amendment. On the privilege claim, Gonzales could probably ride things out although he would be (even more) thoroughly compromised in his position. On the 5th Amendment matter, I don’t see Gonzales being able to remain in office, even with Bush’s support. The public outcry would be too great, and the damage to the party too much.

It may very well be that Gonzales and Bush are in a real vise now. I do think Gonzales made a couple of devastating errors in his testimony, and I don’t think his ignorance claim is believed by anyone, except, perhaps, the most blind and strident Bushie in utter denial. I also think that Gonzales, a weight on the Administration for some time now and a festering sore for the DOJ, may now have become too much of a liability. He is without credibility. Wholly. Bush can be stubborn beyond all reason. He most often is. But, I do not think he has a fatal attraction here.

In summary, at this point, I believe Gonzales is not a perjuror, but is highly compromised and vulnerable. He is perceived by most as incredible and inept. The flight of talent from the DOJ is likely to accelerate. Damage is occurring.

By the way, I recognize that, if Leahy, Schumer and Specter are each very good, perhaps excellent attorneys, Gonzales is mediocre, perhaps poor. Even a poor attorney, however, recognizes the line which, when crossed, enters perjury territory. The most common way to avoid crossing the line is the don’t know/don’t recall/some else did it explanations. The fact that Gonzales explains, albeit surprisingly poorly and woodenly, may well attest to the fact that he knew where the line is. He ran right up against it, straddled it even, but I don’t think he crossed it yet. Have heart, however, the damage was substantial, legally and politically.

> Since Republican perjury apparently cannot exist in Dollar's epistemology

Are you on drugs? What do you base that on? Please explain how "Republican perjury" cannot exist, when there is a Republican who was just convicted of perjury? Do you just make up stuff as you go along and toss it out because you think it's (haha) funny, regardless of how mindlessly stupid it is? Are you just back from the Tourette's convention?

..are you saying that you support Libby's conviction of perjury? I said that Rep. perjury does not exist within your epistemology (i.e. "world view"), you seem to be proving me wrong by attesting to the validity of Libby's conviction.

If this is the case; I will wait for your concession when Gonzales is convicted, (and summarily pardoned by Bush, sadly).

Clucker,

Thank you for the interesting analysis. I assume $ will agree with your assessment.

...so how does this definition reflect on the right-wing's bloody shirt of Clinton's "perjury"?

I don't have a slant.

Posted by: johnny dollar at July 26, 2007 12:47 PM

"Hundreds of anti-Fox slanders and lies exposed and debunked!"

Doh!

> ..are you saying that you support Libby's conviction of perjury?

Support it? How? The jury reached a verdict. Unless it's overturned he's a perjurer. Years of experience have taught me that it is unwise to second-guess a verdict, particularly if you haven't been in court to hear all the testimony yourself.

> However, perjury is very difficult to prove. Not every lie, much less every conflict is perjurious.

Mr Clucker differentiate himself from SLoB and his ilk in that Clucker actually seems to understand some aspects of the perjury law. I would add another consideration: it is not sufficient to prove perjury because someone gave coflicting statements. You must select one of those statements, allege it to be false, and then prove it's false. You can't just say, well one of them has to be false. And that's on top of the other elements Mr Clucker elucidated.

The only thing J$ is good at exposing is himself.

Hide the children....

> Doh!

Only an Olbyloon would think publishing facts = "a slant".

right-wing's bloody shirt of Clinton's "perjury" ---------
------------------------------
Obviously, if Starr, the classic RW suck-up thought he'd be able to prosecute Clinton for perjury, he would have. On the surface, the perjury count looks plausible. Starr knew something we did not. This may simply be perjury for lying about a sexual encounter is rare, indeed. It may be that that the evidence was just too weak.

Mr Clucker differentiate himself from SLoB and his ilk in that Clucker actually seems to understand some aspects of the perjury law. I would add another consideration: it is not sufficient to prove perjury because someone gave coflicting statements. You must select one of those statements, allege it to be false, and then prove it's false. You can't just say, well one of them has to be false. And that's on top of the other elements Mr Clucker elucidated.

Posted by: johnny dollar at July 26, 2007 1:32 PM

OK; have you been watching our Attorney General?

Olbyloon = Someone so obsessed with Keith Olbermann they exhibit signs of dementia.

Only an Olbyloon would consider their slant 'publishing facts.'

So, if you could overcome your obvious dyslexia, you'd be right a heckuva lot more often!

Johnny-

I realize you're not the sharpest tool in the shed, but c'mon, even you should know EVERYONE here sees through your 'slant.'

Even the folks who dislike Olbermann as much as you.

So, Johnny, if Fox is as 'fair and balanced' as you believe them to be, and as fair and balanced as they keep reminding us they are, where is the opinion show with a lone liberal host?

Would that be Shepherd or Hume?

Coming from someone that would be envious of Olby when he dropped his drawers and exposed his two lethal inches is big talk.

Posted by: Laura Bush at July 26, 2007 1:43 PM

So you've seen it then?

I guess Keith will sleep with just about anyone.

> Would that be Shepherd or Hume?

I'm not sure who "shepherd" [sic] is, but what does this have to do with Olbermann, Shuster, and the nightly propaganda fest that is The Hour of Spin? This is Olbermann Watch, not Shepherd [sid] Watch.

One more question from a legal neophyte, CLucker;

this business about permitting Gonzo to come back and clarify his statements - is it requisite? or is it merely a level of good-sportsmanship that the judiciary committee has the option of extending?

Yes sir, 'Laura'...just keep right on calling people supid and idiots using your chicken english with maximum profanity....and that'll make it so!

And Laura...Nobody but nobody on this site gives a tinkers damn about your employer's plant, what you do there, or how many people your inflated ego tells you are hanging on your every move.

If you took an accurate poll, I think you would find most people on this blog, right AND left, are better off than you are. So why don't you can it with your boorish bragging about something nobody on this blog feels even the slightest pang of envy for?

Hey All,

If you would like to see an electrifying, fire and brimstone speech from a Democrat check out no other than:

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1768559

His assualt on decorum and discourse in Congress is... Barbaric!

Laura,

I didn't post what you quoted, dumbass...

YOU probably did, son...

Blindrat,

You drunk? You just called a chick, "son."

I think you meant:

cunt, whore, slut, gooch, cumspout, or dirtbox.

Ultimately if you want to insult a woman just call her fat.

You fearmongering piece of shit. You wish evil on them, don't you. You want a bombing so you can say "I told you so". You need help. Maybe you should start praying God will enlighten you. You wish revenge for something that hasn't even happened yet. Ask for wisdom from God instead of revenge. You remind me of my pitbull. She is scared of everything, which makes her a danger to anything. She is a dog. You have no excuse. Chicken.

Posted by: codas at July 26, 2007 5:04 AM

Which "church" are you a member of? I only ask so that I make sure as not to ever enter one.

I don't understand why John Gibson isn't the most famous talking head on FOX.

I've started watching his show lately and he's terrific!

He's seems to be conservative, but he'll point out any bad business in the Administration and has liberal guests to do that too.

From what I've seen he has the brains, experience, temprament, and humor to be one of the best on cable.

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Federal Communications Commission has no intention of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine imposing a requirement of balanced coverage of issues on public airwaves, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said.

When did firing attorneys become illegal? '

And if Gonzalez did lie to investigators he's only guilty of being stupid for trying to muddy the waters while they investigated a legal act.

Thank god we have democrats in the congress so we can finally get something done. (cue the sarcastic zinger niose)

Viva Robert Cox for establishing this board giving voice to those who believe this wingnut fool Olbermann needs to be called out for all his dooshbaggery

Viva Robert Cox for allowing those in here who disagree with this point of view, such as mr sexyback Mike, who for some reason lives here to tell people Olbermann is worth defending

Viva Robert Cox for exposeing Olbermann for the loon that he is

And a pox on every idiot in here who believes Fox News is the cause of all evil in the world today

PS- And Im not even a FNC fan, ha, that tired song and dance Olbermann spewes is just that, a tired song and dance because he cant beat them

Oh and Leahy (D) is heading up this demand for an investigation. Is there a more bizarre and less credible senator than Leahy since Cynthia Mckinnley was sent packing?

And a pox on every idiot in here who believes Fox News is the cause of all evil in the world today

Posted by: DAN at July 26, 2007 3:33 PM

Here's to a pox-free world! Fox News is merely staffed with mercenery sycophants for those promoting evil.

PS. Cynthia Mckinnley (D) is currently campaigning to raise money to 'retire' the debt she accrued in 2006 'campaigning for all of us.' Hardy-har-har. Just another stand-up democrat from the party that likes to investigate.

"And a pox on every idiot in here who believes Fox News is the cause of all eveil in the world today."

Don't be silly Dan.....Fox is not the cause of ALL the evil in the world!

If it wasn't for fox news there would be no balance in this world. Hooray and kudos to my uncle Robert Murdock, fighting the good fight against a sea of liberal bias.

"dooshbaggery"??....LOL!

"fighting the good fight against a sea of liberal bias."

Your imaginary "liberal bias" notwithstanding Benson, it's sounds as if your argument is that two wrongs make a right?

dooshbaggery"??....LOL!

Posted by: Mike at July 26, 2007 3:44 PM

...a term stolen directly from Jon Stewart - who probably spelled it right on his teleprompter.

I personally can't wait for the Democrats to win the White House.All the problems will be solved.No more war,no more terrorists,open borders,all the other countries in the world will just love us,no oil problems,no global warming,and oh I almost forgot free health care for everyone.One more thing and this is very important no more Keith Olbermann because he will have nothing to bitch about.All of the problems of the United States will be solved.Ahhhhhhh

Then get off this board and write a letter to Olbermann and get him to stop the farting into the wind of fox noise, fix news, ha it is the equivelent of the little brother running along side of the car yelling notice me to an older brother

Loin of Beef, You make my point for me, John Stewart, there's a serious newsman for you, and alas I have never watch John Stewart start to finiish with the exception of seeing him host a night for defeating autism on CC, which is a cause near to me that I will not elaborate more on

Viva Bob Cox

In "300" the said that in Sparta an austic child would have been thrown off a cliff.

You remind me of my pitbull. She is scared of everything, which makes her a danger to anything.

Posted by: codas at July 26, 2007 5:04 AM

Do you live in N. Carolina? The dog fighting capitol of the world? Owning a dog that is a danger to "anything?" That sounds nice and "responsible."

Mike- Liberal bias is as true as the sky is blue. Countless research shows it to be. And a large majority of reporters, newcasters and writers have also admitted to being democrats. if you truly don't think the media is biased, you don't have the smarts to debate most issues. Do I really have to post a link to prove your "imaginary liberla bias" is an assinine statement?

So having one network that doesn't report the same slant that BBC, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC and MSNBC is not a bad thing. Its balance. Its funny how Fox News is your whipping boy when it comes to poor journalism standards, yet you are blinded by your belief that mainstream news is even handed.

Loin of Beef, You make my point for me, John Stewart, there's a serious newsman for you, and alas I have never watch John Stewart start to finiish ....Viva Bob Cox

Posted by: DAN at July 26, 2007 4:08 PM

You had a point? well, if it involved me considering Stewart to be a "serious newsman" then you'd better rethink it. He is, however, an absolutley brilliant political satirist.

You should try to watch him "start-to-finish" sometime - you might realize how ridiculous your side truly is.

Time Magazine- the gold standard for unbiased reporting had a nice long article this week that droned on and on about Iraq actually being BETTER OFF if we left. It was presented as fact- not commentary. The assumptions it made were as shortisighted as I have seen. Islam is a religion of peace, yadda, yadda ya.

When we leave the people will put down their suicide vests and embrace each other while the dried out lakes will fill with clean water and the oil will flow, and women will rise to become president, and all the heads of the hostages that had been lopped off will be reattached, and.... (sorry- i got lost here)

SLOB- he likes to whip up on your Pelosi and Reid too, so lets not pretend Stewart sees comedy only in this administration. And he truly would have had fun with Clinton too.

STAT-
Since 1964-
81 percent of the journalists interviewed voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election

Hopefully this will put the "MEDIA IS NOT BIASED" debate to rest. Its a non starting point!

-More than half of the journalists surveyed (52%) said they voted for Democrat John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election, while fewer than one-fifth (19%) said they voted for Republican George W. Bush. The public chose Bush, 51 to 48 percent.

-When asked “generally speaking, do you consider yourself a Democrat, Republican, an Independent, or something else?” more than three times as many journalists (33%) said they were Democrats than said they were Republicans (10%).
While about half of the journalists said they were “moderate,” 28 percent said they thought of themselves as liberals, compared to just 10 percent who said they were conservative.

-One out of eight journalists (13%) said they considered themselves “strongly liberal,” compared to just three percent who reported being “strongly conservative,” a four-to-one disparity.

-When asked about the Bill of Rights, nearly all journalists deemed “essential” the right of a fair trial (97%), a free press (96%), freedom of religion (95%) and free speech (92%), and 80 percent called “essential” the judicially-derived “right to privacy.” But only 25 percent of the journalists termed the “right to own firearms” essential, while 42 percent called that right “important but not essential,” and 31 percent of journalists rejected the Second Amendment as “not important.”

Yeah- its real important trying to find out what is behind the attorney firings. It is Bush's legal rights AND duty to place attorneys. He is the head of the Executive branch.

Like it was real important finding out how Plame got outted... yet the person (armitage) is free, while they dragged Scooter in for perjury.

Stinks more of politics, not justice. So if the Dems are going to waste their chance to do something substantial - have at it. Their legacy is currnetly shit-poor, unless of course the Truth is making minimum wage. They did up your salary. Kudos

gotta love the truth thinking invetsigations into gonzalez are a good use of senate time. why not hearings on how bush lied us into war.... oh thats right... he didn't. thats just the bullshit you eat up. hearings on that would prove you idiots have been spewing bullshit for 4 years. sad sad people.

democrast are blowing the 2008 election faster each day.

J$, Very funny recap tonight, even a lefty like myself has to give you kudos.

MISTER Bush. Hahahahaha. I love that one. FOX NOISE! Hehehehe. Tipping point, tipping point. Hohohohoho. NIXON! DICK Cheney! Dick. I love saying Dick on the air. It is so funny. Hededehe. Bill ORALLY. Oh, God, I slay me. OH. MY. GOD. I think I just tinkled myself.

A Bush supporter actually typing:

"Their legacy is currnetly shit-poor..."

about the Democrats, with a straight face!

That would be funny if it wasn't so partisan and moronic.

-When asked about the Bill of Rights, nearly all journalists deemed “essential” the right of a fair trial (97%), a free press (96%), freedom of religion (95%) and free speech (92%), and 80 percent called “essential” the judicially-derived “right to privacy.” But only 25 percent of the journalists termed the “right to own firearms” essential, while 42 percent called that right “important but not essential,” and 31 percent of journalists rejected the Second Amendment as “not important.”

Posted by: at July 26, 2007 4:36 PM

Perhaps that's because a disproportionate number of conservatives decide to go into other fields (like say being a Catholic Priest for instance) instead of journalism.

Most Republicans aren't cut out to be journalists, since being a good journalist would entail exposing the truth, not running from it.

moronic- perhaps you could list the accomplishments your peeps? Kettle is that you

"When did firing attorneys become illegal?"

When you lie about it, then try feebly to cover up your lies.

That should be so easy even a Cox-Man could do it.

Here is a nice litmus test on your democrat senate- action or conjecture.

They were sworn in and THEN vowed to have 5-day workweeks. Wow... now you are showing your minions you mean business. Guess how many they have had in the last 4 months. Thats right none! They decided they were too taxing.

You democrats eat this shit up. For months you slammed the republican congress. Use it to get elected and now do absolutely nothing. Thats quite a legacy for the 2008. elcetions.

I repeat... ZERO 5 day work weeks since march, and 2 prior. Wow!

THank you, Joe.

>moronic- perhaps you could list the accomplishments your peeps? Kettle is that you

Posted by: at July 26, 2007 5:40 PM

The original post I cited was a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. Yeah, I'm sure the Democrats are a lot more concerned about their 'legacy' than Bush is.

The post I cited above is more of the same. Open the window and get some fresh air, would you.

Brains need oxygen every once in a while.

From what I've seen he has the brains, experience, temprament, and humor to be one of the best on cable.

Posted by: Cecelia at July 26, 2007 3:14 PM

...And the spray-on hair. Don't forget the spray-on hair.

Loin the funny thing its the left that automatically paints you into a corner or a side such as you just did, my side, what if I told you I have no side? In 2004 I actually did not vote, heresey indeed, faced with the choice of the lesser of two evils i chose not to choose..

I actually began watching Olbermann with great hope, I thought he spoke with passion. And then Bill O Reily was the worst person, And then Bill O Reily was the worst person, And then Bill O Reily was the worst person, And then Bill O Reily was the worst person, And then Bill O Reily was the worst person, And then Bill O Reily was the worst person, And then Bill O Reily was the worst person, And then Bill O Reily was the worst person, And then Bill O Reily was the worst person, ,,,,You get the point, and i began to wonder, is this just because he cant beat O Reily that he needs to do the proverbial run along side the car like a little brother yelling notice me to get O Reily to notice him?

Then, I came here and Bob Cox pointed me towards Media Matters, and the Daily Kos, and it became apparent over time to me Olbermann was crafting a leftist talking point program under the guise of being a "newsman", which makes him no better than anyone ANYONE on FNC, he just speaks to the left

I think Olbermann believes the things he speaks about, he kills me with the DNC talking points and the O Reily bashing, like hes some sort of great crusader, which is bspt

I come here because Olberamann crusades like hes doing some great journalistic effort every night when in fact he constructs his show off of the internets like the lazy sack he is.....

I promise you go to Media Matters, if theres a Bill O reference that Olb hasnt talked about yet, it will make him the WPITW...Which at one point was an original feature, now its just Doooshbaggery, ha

Thats ZERO- 5-Day workweeks. Bet its Bush's fault in your feeble mind. ZERO! They are worthless.

> Would that be Shepherd or Hume?

I'm not sure who "shepherd" [sic] is, but what does this have to do with Olbermann, Shuster, and the nightly propaganda fest that is The Hour of Spin? This is Olbermann Watch, not Shepherd [sid] Watch.

Posted by: johnny dollar at July 26, 2007 1:57 PM

Because it exposes your blatant partisan double standards regarding your view of what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' with cable news programming.

I'm not saying Fox can't be partisan (which they are). I'm not even saying Fox can't lie (which they do). Whatever. If people are dumb enough to believe something solely designed to make them feel good about their political allegiances, great...Republicans need SOMETHING to feel good about.

But when you go after someone who you claim does the same thing, and pretend Fox news doesn't, and pretend it's not for PARTISAN reasons, I'm afraid the only one you are fooling is yourself.

What does it have to do with Olbermannwatch?

In short, everything.

(PS IF you don't know who Shepherd is, how do you know it's spelled wrong?)

You are a partisan Douche Bag.

And as transparent as hell.

Direct Question:

So, Johnny, if Fox is as 'fair and balanced' as you believe them to be, and as fair and balanced as they keep reminding us they are, where is the opinion show with a lone liberal host?

Non-Answer:

What does it have to do with Olbermannwatch?

Over the last few weeks, there's been at least 10 DIRECT QUESTIONS I've asked of johnny, cecelia, Grammie, Sharon, Royal Douche, and the rest of the Cox Nazi Choir.

All I get is either silence, a change of subject, or a question asked back.

Fair and Balanced?

I report. You decide.

WHY ARE YOU SECULAR PREGNESIVESS SUCKULARISTS TALKING ABOUT GIBSON OR SHEPPERD?!!
WHY!!
WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!

THIS IS OLBERMANN WATCH!!
THIS IS OLBERMANN WATCH!!
THIS IS OLBERMANN WATCH!!

Ooooops... I've just mentioned his name...

You people gotta calm the fuck down with all the spelling cracks....geez what is this 7th grade inglish? ha ha

I mean you Nazi Huter....

You people gotta calm the fuck down with all the spelling cracks....geez what is this 7th grade inglish? ha ha

I mean you Nazi Huter....

Posted by: DAN at July 26, 2007 6:19 PM

And where was I correcting someone's spelling?

It was actually the other way around.

I mean you DAN...

I report. You decide.

Posted by: Hunter of Nazis at July 26, 2007 6:11 PM

I've decided you're an olbyloon. A strange one, at that. You have yet to criticise another olbyloon. Even ones that claim Chavez is a good man, not a dictator, etc. Even ones that claim Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11. Even ones, who's sole purpose, is to disrupt this blog. You claim to be a conservative? You being too ashamed to admit you're an sp is almost as funny as blindbat being too ashamed to admit he's muslim.

…. this business about permitting Gonzo to come back and clarify his statements - is it requisite?

That’s a good question, Mr. Loin, and one which I tend to think can be answered only by Leahy, Schumer and Specter at this point.

On a hypothetical level, it may not be strictly required. On a practical level, I tend to think it will be required. It’s not a question of good sportsmanship, although I suppose it is always a sound policy to take the high road. Instead, it is cultivating the most convincing evidence. It tends to make a conviction far more likely.

In some sense, that already happened today, when Leahy issued a letter to Gonzales give him eight (8) days to correct “mistakes and misstatements” in his testimony. This is probably a prelude to additional testimony.

Also, I am hearing, and there is no way for me to know this with certainty, that the question is not if this chance to recant will be offered, but when it will happen and how it will play out. Schumer and Specter are a rump caucus working out the details. And, Specter is the driving force. He is truly aggravated. That could be very important, because a number of Republicans are heavily indebted to him for his support on matters, such as some nominations, where he was a swing vote. It may well be payback time.

Feinstein is indignant as well. Since she is more moderate than some Democrats and since she is a force to be reckoned with, the Democrats will all fall in line on this one. Biden will be given an opportunity to posture, and I am sure he will, articulately, reasonably and effectively, and Feingold will be able to play to his base. In other words, this is going to be loud.

Specter will probably be able to pull in Grassley and Graham. If the evidence suggests what I think it might, Hatch may even fall in line. Sessions is a bit of a wild card (and he owes Specter). If Brownback sees this in ethical and moral terms, he may even come around.

Coburn is such a total crackpot, á la our own Monsieur Royale, I’m not sure anything he says will matter in the least. He, like Kyl and Cornyn, however, will never leave Bush’s kennel.

So, I’m counting on 12 hard votes, 3 soft votes, 1 fence setter and 3 boot lickers begging Bush to kick them.

Of course, this still doesn’t mean we’re heading towards a perjury conviction. It may not even mean we’re moving towards removal or resignation, although I think that far more likely today than yesterday, or, indeed, ever in this epic saga of Gonzo-Gone-Ghastly. With the FBI Director’s information today, that is even more likely, notwithstanding Snow’s feeble spin attempt. What is almost sure to happen is more piling on of doubts about Bush’s honesty, integrity and competence. He may not be able to fall much further, but it is going to be even harder to climb out of the hole he keeps digging. That’s a good thing because, even if Bush is incapable of growth and change, his unbridled amassing of executive power has ended, for him and for his immediate successors. The balance the Founders sought may not be thwarted after all.

"if Fox is as 'fair and balanced' as you believe them to be, and as fair and balanced as they keep reminding us they are, where is the opinion show with a lone liberal host?"

Why does this matter? Fox provides a platform for libs to get their turn to challenge conservative views.

Now that I have answered your question about something that is NOT the subject of this website, Hunter it's your turn to answer my question about Olbermann, the person who IS the subject of this website: On Olbermann's "news" show when is an opportunity provided for a conservative to answer Olbermann's far left rhetoric?

And because so many of the 'Clear Thinkers' doubt my claims of being politically independent, let me make one thing clear...

I am NOT an apologist for the Democrats. Nor am I a Liberal, Nor am I an Olbyloon.
I can think of ZERO Democratic candidates that hold the same political views I do. Democrats frustrate me ALMOST as much as Republicans do. I think most politicians are filled with as much hot air as the talking heads on cable news that opine about them.

I would actually take a couple of the Republican candidates over some of the Democratic candidates. But again, I disagree with some of the positions held by those Republicans as well.

Why do I trash on conservatives here? I really don't. I trash on people who support our idiot president and his dumb-ass policies. And believe me, there are hundreds of thousands of conservatives that feel the exact same way I do (according to current polling), and more being added to the ranks everyday.

KO isn't guilty of anything Fox isn't guilty of. They both can and should exist in my opinion. It just smells of blatant partisanship when the Cox Nazi Choir would have you believe Fox is true journalism and Countdown isn't. Neither are, unless you work for Double Standards, Inc.

Mainly I just like to get the Cox Nazi Choir singing. Their hypocritical hymns are like music to my ears.

Sing on suckers...

... only 25 percent of the journalists termed the “right to own firearms” essential ....

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

Of course, it could be that journalists, most of them being literate and educated, some of them very well educated, might have read the prefatory clause to the grant in the 2nd Amendment (lacking from the 1st Amendment) and asked: Why is this here, and why is there no condition precedent in 1st Amendment? They might well have answered, the 1st Amendment must be an unqualified right. The 2nd Amendment must be qualified, or this language wouldn't be there. In other words, they might have a perfectly plausible reading of the 2nd Amendment that says: I don't think this means every drunken fool ought to be able to go around shooting guns.

Yes, I know, every gun owner in America is responsible, knows and practices gun safety and used guns to be environmentally and ecologically prudent or to protect their families and their property (from boogeymen hiding in the fields), blah, blah, blah .... If guns are made illegal, blah, blah, blah ....

You call:

"Why does this matter? Fox provides a platform for libs to get their turn to challenge conservative views."

Answering my question?

No, Hank, sorry, asking me why it matters is not answering the question. It's called dodging the question.

>Now that I have answered your question about something that is NOT the subject of this website, Hunter it's your turn to answer my question about Olbermann, the person who IS the subject of this website: On Olbermann's "news" show when is an opportunity provided for a conservative to answer Olbermann's far left rhetoric?

Posted by: hank at July 26, 2007 6:37 PM

I'll answer yours just as soon as you ACTUALLY answer mine!

Okay, Hank, let's forget about Fox for a moment. You obviously get defensive about someone leveling the same claims against Fox that you level against Olbermann.

Let's try this:

Imagine a brand new network. They mainly do cable news programming. They decide to promote themselves as 'Fair and Balanced.' Nowhere do they say they are 'The Answer to the Left Wing Media.' Nowhere do they say they are, 'There to support the Republican administration.' Nowhere do they say they 'Exist to counter the mainstream media.'

All they say over and over again that they are "Fair and Balanced.'

Okay, wouldn't you expect such a cable channel to have about as many liberal shows as conservative?

No? Okay, how about just ONE?

And if you wouldn't expect that, why not?

> Over the last few weeks, there's been at least 10 DIRECT QUESTIONS I've asked of johnny

And where does it say I have to answer your inane, off-topic, diversionary questions? Hmm, I don't see that anywhere. OK, next loon.

>I've decided you're an olbyloon. A strange one, at that. You have yet to criticise another olbyloon. Even ones that claim Chavez is a good man, not a dictator, etc. Even ones that claim Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11. Even ones, who's sole purpose, is to disrupt this blog. You claim to be a conservative? You being too ashamed to admit you're an sp is almost as funny as blindbat being too ashamed to admit he's muslim.

Posted by: royalking at July 26, 2007 6:33 PM

Royal Douce, you are an Olbyloon (somone obsessed with Olbermann to a point of dementia) and I criticize you all the time!

You remind me of the ignorant notion that if you aren't with us, you're against us. That there can no neutral players. If you don't hate Olbermann, you must love him.

I would hate to live in the world you live in Royal Douche!

>You claim to be a conservative?

I'm sure you'll be providing proof of that about as soon as never!

I've said cecelia considers me a conservative based on some of my views I've expressed here.

Read much?

> Over the last few weeks, there's been at least 10 DIRECT QUESTIONS I've asked of johnny

And where does it say I have to answer your inane, off-topic, diversionary questions? Hmm, I don't see that anywhere. OK, next loon.

Posted by: johnny dollar at July 26, 2007

Very stand up of you johnny.

And for all to see, too.

Do you actually think people don't notice that you only start with the 'This is OlbermannWatch' off topic bullshit when someone calls you on your hypocrisy.

About half of the posts made here are regarding Iraq, Bush, the Media, and Politics in General.

Remember Cox's thread about why he thought Bush's mug should be on Rushmore?

I thought this was OlbermannWatch!

HYPOCRITES!

C'mon johnny, Hank, and Jeff:

Can't all three of you keep up the 'debate' with me?

I'm getting bored here....

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

SLOB- he likes to whip up on your Pelosi and Reid too, so lets not pretend Stewart sees comedy only in this administration. And he truly would have had fun with Clinton too.

Posted by: benson at July 26, 2007 4:27 PM

Of course. Yet the left loves him and the right hates him. Funny; isn't it?

> About half of the posts made here are regarding Iraq, Bush, the Media, and Politics in General.

Not by me. I am focused on the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann and the overwhelming, one-sided bias seen nightly on The Hour of Spin.

Of course, it could be that journalists, most of them being literate and educated, some of them very well educated, might have read the prefatory clause to the grant in the 2nd Amendment (lacking from the 1st Amendment) and asked: Why is this here, and why is there no condition precedent in 1st Amendment? They might well have answered, the 1st Amendment must be an unqualified right. The 2nd Amendment must be qualified, or this language wouldn't be there. In other words, they might have a perfectly plausible reading of the 2nd Amendment that says: I don't think this means every drunken fool ought to be able to go around shooting guns.

Yes, I know, every gun owner in America is responsible, knows and practices gun safety and used guns to be environmentally and ecologically prudent or to protect their families and their property (from boogeymen hiding in the fields), blah, blah, blah .... If guns are made illegal, blah, blah, blah ....

Posted by: Clucker at July 26, 2007 6:43 PM

Well, you really have to know more about what is meant by must take the cake for stupidiest argument of the day.

What you seem to be saying is that people who are smart and educated understand what the Framer's had in mind with the 2nd Amendmend and those who are not as smart and as educated do not.

That completely overlooks the fact that there are great many smart and well educated people who don't agree with 75% of journalists. They are part of the majority pop who do not concur with 75% of today's journalists.

Which is the anonyloon's point in the first place.

Not by me. I am focused on the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann and the overwhelming, one-sided bias seen nightly on The Hour of Spin.
Posted by: johnny dollar at July 26, 2007 7:18 PM

Thanks Johnny BU$HWIPE.
Nobody had noticed your sick obsession.

I do wish you would write with a bit more care, Cecelia, instead of just hammering out gibberish. I haven't a clue what you are saying. I'll presume the best, however, so we can move on: Excellent post, Cecelia. Cogent, sound analysis. Thank you.

do wish you would write with a bit more care, Cecelia, instead of just hammering out gibberish. I haven't a clue what you are saying. I'll presume the best, however, so we can move on: Excellent post, Cecelia. Cogent, sound analysis. Thank you.

Posted by: Clucker at July 26, 2007 7:38 PM

Well, I screwed up the first sentence, but you should have been able to see the point in the last.

Most people -- the majority pop.--- which includes very smart and very educated people do not concur with MOST journalists.

If you wanted to break it down among professions requiring bright and highly educated people-- I think you'd be hard pressed to prove that such a large number (75%) of them differed with the rest of general population, as so many in the field of journalsim do.

The balance the Founders sought may not be thwarted after all.

Posted by: Clucker at July 26, 2007 6:33 PM

Well, we need some blood out of this administration pretty quick (purely metaphorically, of course, Special Agent Spy Cadet Royalking), because I am convinced they intend some shennanigans prior to the next election. Bush's May Executive Order makes it clear that they intend the executive branch ALONE to "preserve the constitution" (i.e. martial law) in the event of a "wide-reaching emergency". How hard would it be for these heartless bastards to contrive a "wide-reaching emergency"? Some region logs 135 cases of "bird flu" and a few prods of their media echo chamber would be on 24-hour freak-out mode; and people would start thinking the sky was falling.

Also. Ann Coulter might be successful in getting Justices Kennedy and/or Ginsberg killed, and we've got a Supreme Court capable of god knows what.

Thank you, Cecelia. I understand the point now. I don't think it has much relevance, but I do understand it.

"I can count them [foreign fighters] as a total I have engaged, dead or alive, in the 10 months I've been here on one hand," says Col. David Sutherland, the U.S. commander of coalition forces in the hotly contested area of Diyala province, an insurgent stronghold region some 35 miles northeast of Baghdad. There, Sutherland says, those involved in al Qaeda are largely dispossessed locals, not jihadists who have come from elsewhere. "The recruiting program is [that] al Qaeda may send five or eight individuals into a village. They recruit from those who have no power base, no place in society," including, he adds, former male prostitutes and the mentally ill."

http://www.rojname.com/index.kurd?nuce=209120

I've said cecelia considers me a conservative based on some of my views I've expressed here.

Read much?

Posted by: Hunter of Nazis at July 26, 2007 6:54 PM

nazi, you "claimed" to b a conservative back when you were calling yourself LMAO, remember? Or does all that go away with a new personality, as does with aap/why/anon? Change your name, change your views and stance? At least clucker/philby hasn't changed her views, she's still the same ol socialist she always was, except when she was rudy ramirez.......

Arise, ye prisoners of starvation.
Arise, ye wretched of the Earth.
For justice thunders condemnation.
There's a new world at birth.

So, come comrades rally,
And, the last fight let us win.
The "Internationale"
Unites the human race.

[From your friend, Clucker. U b ok!]

Thank you, Cecelia. I understand the point now. I don't think it has much relevance, but I do understand it.

Posted by: Clucker at July 26, 2007 8:06 PM

Of course it is relevant to compare the number of journalists with the rest of the nation's population, and based upon your criteria, with their well-educated peers in other professions.

It is NOT relevant or even logical to claim that a field composed of well educated people would be more likely to have read the whole of the 2nd Amendment and that they therefore WOULD interpret it just as YOU do.... because....well.... they are highly educated and had read it...

THAT coupled with your interpreting the other side as believing that "any drunk should own a gun"... completes the irrelevantly self-referential nature of what you have argued.

SLOB thinks Bush caused Katrina, was behind 9/11, and burnt millions of acres with drought and spark. A finely timed "earthquake" would not be out of the realm of possibilities. God help America. It's all true!

You're so busy spiting out your hatred that you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

Posted by: Why do you care what my name is at July 26, 2007 8:15 PM

This has GOT to be the MOST hypocritical post of the year, by far. Thanks, patsy!

After reading the sad, lame posts by Laura and other right wingers, it's very obvious that there is no such thing as right and wrong to them.
It's what Bush/Gonzales etc can get away with.

Funny how it doesn't sink in that there are both republicans and democrats appalled over the Gonzales lying, not to mention that he works for us, the citizens of the US, but instead is being used for Bush's personal lawyer.

These antiamerican wingnuts posting here are as big a disgrace as the people they make excuses for.

Posted by: Why do you care what my name is at July 26, 2007 8:21 PM

Well, that's choice coming from the likes of you.

An argument on what constitutes perjury is solely an apologetic for what Gonzales can get away with...

THIS from a guy who is already utterly convinced of nothing less than that every registered Democrat in the nation, making an overseas call, is targeted and taped by the NSA....

Hunter asked:

"if Fox is as 'fair and balanced' as you believe them to be, and as fair and balanced as they keep reminding us they are, where is the opinion show with a lone liberal host?"

I answered:

"Why does this matter? Fox provides a platform for libs to get their turn to challenge conservative views."

Hunter got pouty and whined that I had not answered his question.

Yes, I did answer your question, I just didn't give you the answer you wanted. I'll amplify my answer to show you are wrong.

The assumption you make is that Fox must have at least one opinion show with a lone liberal host in order to be "fair and balanced". You are entitled to that belief. On the other hand others would say that libs get plenty of opportunities as guests and hosts to get their shots in and hold accountable persons who express conservative opinion. I am one who thinks that this is the case.

Now, Hunter you may disagree which is fine. You will not be happy unless Fox either stops saying "Fair and Balanced" or until they get a lib host who has his or her own opinion show. That is your perspective. It is not my perspective as I explained in my answer above. We disagree about this matter which is NOT the subject of this website.

Now that I have held your hand and walked you through this, Hunter, now you can turn your attention back to the question I asked you which you promised to answer when I answered your question (your mommy taught you to keep your promises didn't she?):

"On Olbermann's "news" show when is an opportunity provided for a conservative to answer Olbermann's far left rhetoric?"

This is really the nut of the issue right here Hunter, which, for all your blather about how Fox and Olbermann are the same, shows that you are wrong. Follow me here: On Fox opinion shows, libs get their turn to challenge the opinion of conservatives. On Olbermann, conservatives are always denied the ability to answer the far left opinions of Olbermann and his lefty guests.

bob loves to announce dead americans . sick fucker.

I'll let my alter ego, WDYCWMNI and AAP( and others) carry on the

Posted by: Bob at July 26, 2007 9:40 PM

How many times did your sorry ass deny you were all of these psycho posters all bottled into one big olbyloon? Sick, indded.

THIS from a guy who is already utterly convinced of nothing less than that every registered Democrat in the nation, making an overseas call, is targeted and taped by the NSA....

Posted by: Cecelia at July 26, 2007 8:45 PM

This is the same whackodoodle that calls us "paraniod bushwipes!" I hope his state assistance will pay for a good shrink.

AAP must be hittin the sauce, still........He must be an overweight freshman in college, can't get a date, no car, no life. Probably was molested as a teenager, too. Poor guy.

bob loves to announce dead americans . sick fucker.

Posted by: at July 26, 2007 10:01 PM

Indeed, he lives for the day to scour the web and finding out that we have had more casualties at WAR, which happens, unbeknownced to him. I'm am convinced nothing makes him happier. Sick, indeed.

Cecelia, I think this perfectly dovetails with your arguments here. The Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Clinton url:

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

Just a few excerpts:

"While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998."

"And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them."

"So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed."

Let me pull one sentence from the partial quotes from above with emphasis:

"BUT IF WE GET A CLEAR REQUIREMENT FOR UNFETTERED INSPECTIONS (which we did) I BELIEVE THE AUTHORITY TO USE FORCE TO ENFORCE THAT MANDATE IS INHERENT IN THE ORIGINAL 1991 UN RESOLUTION, AS PRESIDENT CLINTON RECOGNIZED WHEN HE LAUNCHED OPERATION DESERT FOX IN 1998.

Seems to me that if we are going to impeach GWB then Senator Clinton could be at risk for impeachment too.

Grammie

This sentence is also pertinent to the overall question.

"And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war."

Would the real HRC please stand up!

Grammie

Seems to me that if we are going to impeach GWB then Senator Clinton could be at risk for impeachment too.

Grammie

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at July 27, 2007 4:23 AM

Janet, contrast this rhetoric with the stuff you read here...

"While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions,..."

It seems almost saintly in its well-intended rationality.

It's incomprehensible to conclude that this woman (who had lived on the other end of Pennsylvania Ave...) got snookered by the Bush Administration.

You've got to conclude she acted with full conviction based on what she and husband knew since the early '90s, or that she took her chances and did what was politically expedient.

Considering the sort of all black-no possible shades of gray mentality we see around here, no wonder Obama seems like such a breath of fresh air. It would be hard for them to embrace HRC and the most negative of conclusions.

Cecelia, I grew up with the wise old adage "that men of good will can disagree". It seems that that idea would be a startling concept to many today.

There are numerous quotes from both President Clinton and Vice president Gore made over the years, when they held those offices, that are indistinguishable from those of GWB et al and elected officials from both sides of the aisle.

I think that this unreasoning all encompassing hatred has its roots in the 2000 election. I didn't vote for President Clinton and he was elected both times by only a plurality of votes, not a majority, in both elections. He was still the President and my President and he had my allegiance if not my approval of his policies.

I used to feel bad because I had virtually no respect for him and his administration. Elected officials are first and foremost POLITICIANS, a scurvy (hey, goes with wench) lot at best. All we can hope for is that if the time arises they will dig down deep and become statesmen. President Clinton was not in office when that time came.

The 'time came' when he was out of office for eight months. So far I haven't seen anything more from him than Bill the Politician. It makes me wonder if there was any statesman deep down within him to draw on.

Grammie

Good post about the bitterness and rancor Grammie. Although I think the roots of the deep anger and hatred within the Democratic party may have begun a little earlier, with the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

The Fox derangement syndrome, the hatred of Christians, is all part of their bitterness and hatred. They blame Christians in this country for voting for Bush (yeah, like EVERY Christian in America voted for him?--oh that makes sense-not). They blame Fox for allegedly pushing the GOP party-line. So therefore they hate any and everything they hate that they possibly think is connected to support for the GOP or Bush. I think the time for statesmanship on both sides was gone long ago and it ain't coming back.

"They blame Fox for allegedly pushing the GOP party-line."

...well, apparently so does Ann Coulter. Did you not notice her rookie slip that Olberman ridiculed last night?

You two please get serious. "Democratic rancor" is the problem? Republicans issued over 1000 spurious inditments against Clinton's administration compared with the handful the Dems have pushed on Bush - and the Dems are getting convictions. That nastly little troll Gingrich started this rancor.

Now you are just whining.

Cecelia, I grew up with the wise old adage "that men of good will can disagree". It seems that that idea would be a startling concept to many today.

Democrats almost universally respect Chuck Hagel, Ron Paul, and (with reservations) Arlen Specter, but we disagree with them on almost every national policy issue. We respect them because they appear to respect the process - the constitution - by which civil disagreement can be turned into governance.

But Bushies clearly demand the right to make up their own rules and their own facts, and will not "cooperate" with the other side unless that is comprised of total acquiessence by the Democrats.

There is not a man or woman of "good will" left within the Bush administration.

SLOB, a few questions about your posts.

Over a 1,000 indictments and no convictions? I can think of several convictions off the top of my head but could you point the way to your source for this. The number of indictments seems staggering.

And who are the we in "We respect them because they appear to respect the process "

And who encompasses the not of good will group? All Repubs with your three exceptions or just those that are party officials and hold office or everyone who doesn't agree with you?

And where does Joe Lieberman fit on this rather exclusive list of yours? It seems to me that he would be pretty close to sharing some of your views with the exception of the War. He can't be guilty of taking his position out of personal expediency. If that were the case he would still have a D after his name?

Grammie

Grammie

SLOB, you probably missed this post.

I really would like to know the details and meaning of it.

BTW, I've been meaning to ask how your wife, you and your family are doing. I hope everything is going well for you all.

Grammie

SLOB, this is really scary.

You are starting to look like middle America Main Street bourgeoisie tonight.

SLOB, "say it ain't so". :)

Grammie