Let me beat AAP to the punch here, we may be paranoid but we're not the only ones who detect a certain pattern where Countdown and Mister Olbermann are concerned.

Brandon, AAP is a fag, nowhere to be found. Moron ,paranoid Clinton wipe!

I'm so glad you're all for detecting double standards, Brandon.

Let me do just that.

We all know you had no difficulty with a political opponent's love interest being slandered in a hateful way, and even joined in by waxing eloquent upon your assumption that she is a sort of "ho" in her own right by selling her young self for financial gain via Olbermann.

When I criticised you for being so mean and unfair you used the circular and illogical argument that:

Tur deserved it because she is what you accuse her of being.

You argued that her innocence as a mere second party and as a human being in her own right is not a guage for rerstraint in treating her differently from Olbermann... but that Olbermann himself was all the permission you need to slander his girlfriend. If HE mentions her then she's fair-game.

You argued that Tur made herself public for abuse for having the terimity to have a website of her work and for having a famous boyfriend.

By YOUR own standards there's more than enough reason here for anyone to crticise Mrs. Vitter and to have your nodding approval while doing it.

Mrs Vitter put herself on public record after the Lewinsky scandal by volunteering the infomation to a reporter as to how she would never do a stand-by-your-man "Hillary".

Mrs Vitter willingly appeared on television with her husband in order to support her husband against his critics and thus made herself a public person.

In other words--- all you merely ASSUME about Katy Tur.... are actual FACTS in the case of Mrs Vitter.

I'm so gratified to see good liberals decrying the treatment of Mrs. Vitter and rejecting the sort of opportunisticly partisan and illlogical justifications for treating a second party badly, that you babbled out and embraced.

They're fairminded folks and should be respected in this matter.

You on the otherhand are no better than the Olbyloons here that you label as hypcrites.

Well, actually, you're a little worse. You're not nearly as bright.

Just wanted to spread around Victor Davis Hanson's VERY good article today on NRO.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTM2NGNmMTFjMTM4MTg4ZGRiNmU1M2FmOWZiMjMyMTY=
May Sir LOB, Mike and the nameless ones at least consider these golden points before they spout off about Iraq again.

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

But the Left is probably correct — cf. the July 8 editorial in the New York Times — that we could probably redeploy without significant casualties. And it is likewise prescient to anticipate that mass killings in Iraq would probably follow — if not a Cambodia-like holocaust, at least something akin to the gruesome fate of the Harkis, those Algerians loyal to France, but left behind to be disemboweled after the French flight across the Mediterranean.
...
What would the effect be of all this televised carnage and chaos on the United States? Anti-war critics would turn on a dime — disclaiming their prior assertions that our presence ipso facto had been the chief cause of the violence in Iraq. Instead, when the mass beheadings of female reformers and serial shootings of “collaborators” appeared on our screens, American and European leftists would almost immediately blame our fickleness for the carnage. Theirs would not be entirely a humanitarian critique — that our withdrawal was not handled sensibly or with proper concern for civilian security — as much a damning indictment of our military incompetence, far greater than the 1990s furor during the no-fly-zone years over the Shiite and Kurdish massacres that resulted from our failure to go to Baghdad in 1991. Just as our resolve and stubbornness are now alleged to have resulted in the deaths of thousands, so our irresoluteness would soon be cited for the murders of tens of thousands.

A second effect would be a sort of psychological devastation of the U.S. military, particularly the army. Critics of the Iraq war allege that once out of Iraq, we would not have precious assets exposed in Iraq (where the enemy is), and thus enjoy better options in dealing with, for example, Iran. But what precisely is the point? That our military would flee the messy encounter with al Qaeda to reengage al Qaeda on supposedly better terrain and with better odds? As in Afghanistan? The Pakistani borderlands? Or that a Shiite Iran should be fearful of an America freed up through defeat by Sunni terrorists?
...
So we forget that armies are living, breathing organisms in which, as Napoleon warned, the moral is to the physical as three is to one. In other words, an exhausted American public and a defeated U.S. military would not for some time be either willing or capable to face another enemy — any more than France after 1962 could be a reliable NATO ally, or Argentina was a renewed threat to the Falklands in 1985, or Britain after Suez could play a prominent role in the Middle East.

Militaries that are beaten and flee take decades to reconstitute and regroup. Command, the mood of the rank-and-file, an army’s self perception — all that is recast in the shadow of recrimination, no more capable of quick resurgence than a boxer recapturing the championship after a surprised, terrible beating.

Indeed, even after the five-year withdrawal from Vietnam, the American military took twenty years to regain its own confidence. If we blame a Jimmy Carter for the Iranian hostage crisis, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the unchecked Cambodian genocide during 1977-79, or the communist infiltration of Central America, he can at least claim he was a mere epiphenomenon of the times — that a war-weary American public and a demoralized military were in no shape to engage in another disastrous foreign adventure.
...
It is not easy securing Iraq, but if we decide to quit and “redeploy”, Americans should at least accept that the effort to stabilize Iraq was a crushing military defeat, that our generation established a precedent of withdrawing an entire army group from combat operations on the battlefield, and that the consequences will be better known even to our enemies than they are to us.

None,

Of course the effort to stabilize Iraq is a stunning defeat. How do you step into the middle of a civil war and stop it? It was an idiotic idea in the first place...

...Actually, it wasn't an idea, it was an excuse, after WMDs weren't found...

None, you obviously need to add blindbats name to your "consider these points" list. Although, he discounts info directly from The Pentagon as well as other very credible sources where I get some of my info from so, I'm not surprised by his response to your post, either. I doubt if he reads anything.

rk,

You are being sarcastic, son. You NEVER post a source. I always find your cut and pastes in a blog somewhere, child...

Very funny...

Cecelia is upset that Brandon authors a "vitters/Ho" thread. But no "outrage" when Johnny$ posts a near identical thread a day earlier? HUH?!? Hypocrites say "what" YIKES.

Really Cecelia, step away from the keyboard, your obsession has really gotten ridiculous. You got people feeling sorry for Brandon. Double YIKES!

"This ain't business this IS personal" from the bizzarro world of Cecelia...

Countdown called Ms Vitter a "ho"
Every day they reach a new low
But Mister man-on-fan
With the apricot tan
Has his own trashy skank in tow

None,

What you fail to learn from your own historical examples is that colonialism itself breeds decades of strife and bloodshed. And don't regale me with arguments that we are not a colonial power - "spreading democracy" is Bush-speak for "the white man's burden".

You seem to be of the "its too late to worry about why we're there" school of thought, which eschews attributon of seminal responsibility for region instability in favor of persisting with more of the same destructive policies. The war-mongering rigt wing has intentionally, once again, created a situation in which we have essentially two options: we can stay for 10 or 15 years, during which Iraqis and Americans will continue to die in the fairly robust trickle in which they have been for the past five years; or we could precipitously depart now and probably witness a "surge" in the violence from afar.

In either event, a lot of people will die who need not have died, and the fault lies firmly on the shoulders of the napoleonic American neoconservatives and the droves of bumblefucks who voted them into power.

Have you ever thought that there is a large segment of peace-loving, honorable Iraqis who hated Saddam and desire self-determination - and who for this very reason refuse to step up and support the initiatives of a provenly decietful occupying power? I submit that these people, if any remain alive or in the country today, may assert themselves following our departure and "AlQeada in Iraq" (such as it is) will be history. This senario is just as likely as your "Pol Pot" jeremiads. (which, by the way, ignore the fact that the US destabilized Cambodia by illegal bombings during the war, and actually supported Pol Pot against the Vietnamese communists following our defeat).

As for one of your other points:

Armies are crushed by retreating from grinding clusterfucks rather than by sitting for years in the grinding clusterfucks themselves? You can't really believe this. Please be more serious.

Armies are crushed by retreating from grinding clusterfucks rather than by sitting for years in the grinding clusterfucks themselves? You can't really believe this. Please be more serious.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at July 20, 2007 12:35 PM

...to elaborate on my point here, None: remember; American soldiers were killing their own junior officers at an alarming rate well before the eventual retreat. That's a pretty clear sign of a crushed military.

You are being sarcastic, son. You NEVER post a source. I always find your cut and pastes in a blog somewhere, child...

Very funny...

Posted by: blindrat at July 20, 2007 11:31

That's an outright lie, blindbat, remember the 20,000 muslims you claimed were in the service? I posted the info from the Pentagon that proved there were only 4000 muslims in the service and you discounted it's accuracy? Is the Pentagon website just a "blog" to you? You're buried up to the frame, blindbat.

SLOB,

Well the end of another week. Please reveal the number of hours you've spent on this board and the exact number of people whose opinion or political philosophy you have changed.

Leave.

You are not wanted here. You don't understand us. Your toil here costs you time and treasure.

The ending to this war will have some adverse effect on our population. Once we have left Iraq, the information surrounding the reasoning for war will surface, and independent experts and journalists will start analyzing why we went there, and why we had to leave. In that, they will realize George Bush mislead the public with faulty intelligence that Dick Cheney had steamrolled through the intelligence agency. At this time we obviously do not have time to look into all of this, which is in fact good for everyone associated with the war. And, supporters like yourselves believe in the president so whole-heartedly that you are willing to suspend the use of any facts to prove his point. The reasoning for war was a sham. The ensuing chaos we are seeing was reported time and again by federal agencies. Just not picked up by a vice president, or cia director, or president. This war will be blamed on the Bush administration and all the leaders in that time. We, the american public, have more to worry about then morale. We will be wondering if we can ever trust an american president again.

This war will be blamed on the Bush administration and all the leaders in that time. We, the american public, have more to worry about then morale. We will be wondering if we can ever trust an american president again.
-------------------
But, they are still going to put Bush on Mount Rushmore? Right?

But Mister man-on-fan
With the apricot tan
Has his own trashy skank in tow
Posted by: Katy Turic at July 20, 2007 12:08 PM

Hopefully, Cecelia will be as outraged at Katy Turic as she is with Brandon. Doubt it though. Again, hypocrites say "what" :D

rk,

You posted something from the Pentagon that said that 4000 people who stated what their religion was were Muslim.

Why lie, child?

Thanks for proving my point, blindbat.

Why am I not surprised to hear that she had nothing to say when JD blogged about this but was ready to pounce on me when I did? Obsessed doesn't even begin to cover it. She's actually posted lies here claiming Bob Cox told her something when I know for a fact he didn't. But whatever. With every post she makes like this, it just reveals her to be what she is: obsessed and hey, if I'm winning supporters in the process, however reluctant they might be, then I'd say this is a win-win situation for me no matter what she posts.

I submit that these people, if any remain alive or in the country today, may assert themselves following our departure and "AlQeada in Iraq" (such as it is) will be history.

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

Just like how once Isreal got out of the way the Palestinians became peaceful and stopped fighting?

Or like all those African nations that have been paragons of peace since Europe left them to their own fates?

Your problem Sir LOB is that your entire premise ignores centuries of human nature and actions and is based more on wishful thinking than any wisdom. I'm sure all those foreign fighters in Iraq are just going to pack up and leave when we do.

Your problem Sir LOB is that your entire premise ignores centuries of human nature and actions and is based more on wishful thinking than any wisdom. I'm sure all those foreign fighters in Iraq are just going to pack up and leave when we do.

Posted by: None at July 20, 2007 2:26 PM

No; in all liklihood native Iraqis will kill and drive them out.

Below is a cut and paste from A Soldier's Perspective. It contains a top ten list and then a great story. I copied the story not to make a political statement but as a human interest matter.

I got this in an email from a Soldier in an Aviation unit in Iraq:

10 Ways Camp Striker is better than Las Vegas.

1. Less chance of getting shot.
2. The weather (Give me 115 degree weather over 119 any day)
3. The food: have you actually been to the buffet at The Tropicana? Yuck.
4. Money (I will probably walk away with more money in my pocket after 15 months here than I would in the same time from L.V.)
5. There are no bums/vagrants/prostitutes at Camp Striker…at least that I've seen.
6. Physical Fitness. I've lost ten pounds since being here. I'd gain that in a weekend in L.V.
7. Better Entertainment. We got Toby Keith. They have Carrot Top.
8. The non-skilled laborers speak better English.
9. The Mob doesn't have unilateral control of the infrastructure. Unless you consider Halliburton organized crime.
10. Nevada has Harry Reid. We don't.

I hope all is well wherever you may be. Another week down, countless to go. I guess I could count the weeks, but no one can say with certainty how long we are going to be here. 15 Months? More? Less? I can't wait for the rumors to start flying around this time next year, whenever everyone and their brother will have "inside knowledge" on when we are actually re-deploying. I choose not to dwell on exact dates. We are going to be here for a while. "Well I guess we'll get back on the horse and get back out there." That was a quote from an OH-58D pilot who interviewed with the press after being shot down this week. You may or may not have heard about this amazing story because everyone survived and no one's civil rights were violated. Our "if it bleeds, it leads" media is more interested in fatalities but I'm not telling you anything new.

For those of you who don't know, my battalion is in an aviation brigade. The aviation brigade has the following aircraft in it: UH-60s: carry stuff CH-47s: carry a lot of stuff AH-64Ds: shoot stuff OH-58Ds: look at stuff

One of the OH-58Ds was engaged by enemy fire earlier last week. The OH-58D is the smallest aircraft we have and the most vulnerable. Add the fact that they typically fly at the tree top level and that they're made out of empty cans of "New Coke", you've got yourself a hairy situation if engaged. The Apache is heavily armored and if engaged in the same fashion as the OH-58D was, would just sneer back and unleash the Kraken on the poor mislead Sunni/ Shia/Kurd/Al Qaida/Irani/Syrian/Lebanese/Egyptian/Saudi (I can't keep track who hates us) who dared to annoy it.

So the OH-58D was shot multiple times and miraculously the pilots were not hit despite the fact that they fly with their doors off. Nonetheless, the aircraft could no longer fly and they had to make a crash landing whereby the aircraft ended up on its side. Again, no noticeable injuries. Well the pilots' wingman was also hit and had to come back home leaving them alone in Indian country. Normally, if your wingman is shot, you stay with him. Remember Viper's quote in Top Gun? "You never leave your wingman, Maverick." Side note: this is every military aviator's favorite pilot movie; be it Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines. Nobody likes Firebirds. Nobody.

So these guys were on the ground in the vicinity of the very dudes that shot them down. So they hightail into a canal thinking they would be able to make a quick get away. They get stuck in the canal because it it too deep and muddy. So the bad guys start shooting into the canal. The bad guys couldn't see them in the canal because of the dense reeds, but they knew they were there. For 15 minutes or so the bad guys were aimlessly shooting hoping to hit the pilots. They never did. The bad guys started moving down the canal to find them when an Apache who was aware of the incident came on seen. The bad guys knowing they didn't stand a chance with an Apache in the area decided it was time to go home.

The Apache landed near the downed aviators. They were able to communicate with them through a radio all pilots carry on them for these types of occasions. Knowing they couldn't wait for a rescue helicopter to come pick them up (My battalion had a team ready to take off) because of the bad guys in the immediate area, the Apache took them home. For those of you who don't know, there's is no room in the Apache to take anyone home. The only thing Apaches transport are ammunition to expedite the none-democracy-wanting insurgents' rendezvous with Allah.

So the front seater of the Apache got out and put one of the OH-58D pilots in the front seat. While not hurt, the guy was pretty shook up, hence the decision to give him a little more comfortable ride. The Apache guy strapped himself to the right side of the aircraft, and the other OH-58D guy strapped himself to the left side. Again, on the outside of the aircraft. The back- seater flew them all the way back to Baghdad. This was about a 10 minute flight at 120 knots (about a 135 miles per hour). I've actually done this drill before. We did this training in Germany once, but I think we only went about 45 miles an hour. Imagine going 135 miles an hour on a motorcycle without a windshield or helmet. The noise alone is deafening. The OH-58D guy didn't have his helmet or ear protection. One might forgive him for not collecting all his valuables before leaving his crashed aircraft when people were trying to kill him.

The Apache guys were not even from our brigade, but from another brigade in theater who just happened to be in the area at the time of the shoot down. The OH-58D pilots had some cuts and bruises despite being shot at in the air, crashing, being shot at at on the ground, and riding the side of an aircraft out of badguyland with zero protection. I don't know if they are believers, but Providence brought them home that day.

It brings a tear to my eye to think of the extraordinary things done by ordinary people on a daily basis in Iraq. When asked by the interviewer what they were going to do now, the younger pilot said "Well I guess we'll get back on the horse and get back out there" in a couple of days. Amazing. Tiger Woods isn't a hero. These guys are.

God Bless, Dan

Oops, forgot this http://www.soldiersperspective.us/

No; in all liklihood native Iraqis will kill and drive them out.

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

Oh... you mean like they HAVE been doing since the surge began?
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWEwYzEyMmE4YjFjNDM5YjQ4NGNjODRjZWUwZWZjOTA=
"The most spectacular success has come in Anbar, where Sunni tribes formerly allied to the insurgents have been working alongside local security forces to destroy al Qaeda nests in the part of Iraq that not long ago was safest for them. Al Qaeda is taking a fearsome onslaught against its leadership and rank-and-file in Iraq. We know who they are; we’ve already captured 80 percent of their senior leaders in a matter of months; and hardly a day goes by without the announcement that another senior al Qaeda figure has been killed or captured."

There are real problems and issues with Iraq Sir LOB, enough that you don't have to make up fantasies.

BTW Sir LOB, a NEW YORK TIMES reporter disagrees with you that all would be peace with us leaving.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2842592140042311047&q=John+Burns+and+Charlie+Rose&total=61&start=0&num=10&so=1&type=search&plindex=0

He says there's NO debate that our leaving would lead to catastrophic violence.

They are crying like diaper-rashed babies over at Daily Kos. O'Reilly kicked em in the ass with the JetBlue sponsership. Olby is gonna be experiencing another "tipping point" of exasperation over this. HA! Check out the whining horde: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/20/125838/015

BTW Sir LOB, a NEW YORK TIMES reporter disagrees with you that all would be peace with us leaving.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2842592140042311047&q=John+Burns+and+Charlie+Rose&total=61&start=0&num=10&so=1&type=search&plindex=0

He says there's NO debate that our leaving would lead to catastrophic violence.

Posted by: None at July 20, 2007 3:30 PM

You're a lazy one, None.

All I will say is that your synopsis of this article suggests to me that the author is completely full of shit; as there most definitely is a debate in this regard. Not having read it, however, I have no way of knowing if you are accurrately representing the piece.

Secretary Powell said it best: " If we break it, we have to fix it." Chuckleheads like blindbrat and Sir Lob couldn't care less about the mess left behind after cutting and running.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070720/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_us_troops

Commander pleads for time to secure Iraq

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer 2 hours, 18 minutes ago

BAGHDAD - If the U.S. troop buildup in Iraq is reversed before the summer of 2008, the military will risk giving up the security gains it has achieved at a cost of hundreds of American lives over the past six months, the commander of U.S. forces south of Baghdad said Friday.

Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, mentioned none of the proposals in Congress for beginning to withdraw U.S. troops as soon as this fall. But he made clear in an interview that in his area of responsibility south of Baghdad, it will take many more months to consolidate recent gains.

"It's going to take through (this) summer, into the fall, to defeat the extremists in my battle space, and it's going to take me into next spring and summer to generate this sustained security presence," he said, referring to an Iraqi capability to hold gains made by U.S. forces.

Lynch said he had projected in March, when he arrived as part of the troop buildup, that it would take him about 15 months to accomplish his mission, which would be summer 2008.

He expressed concern at the growing pressure in Washington to decide by September whether the troop buildup is working and to plan for an early start to withdrawing all combat troops.

Under Lynch's command are two of the five Army brigades that President Bush ordered to the Baghdad area in January as part of a revised counterinsurgency strategy. As part of that "surge" of forces, Lynch's command was created in order to put added focus on stopping the flow of weaponry and insurgents into the capital from contentious areas to the south.

The three other brigades are in Baghdad and a volatile province northeast of the capital with the purpose of securing the civilian population in hopes that reduced levels of sectarian violence will give Sunni and Shiite leaders an opportunity to create a government of true national unity and to pass legislation designed to promote reconciliation.

Lynch said that Iraqi security forces are not close to being ready to take over for the American troops. So if the extra troops that were brought in this year are to be sent home in coming months, the insurgents - both Sunni and Shiite extremist groups - will regain control, he said.

"To me, it would be wrong to take ground from the enemy at a cost - I've lost 80 soldiers under my command — 56 of those since the fourth of April - it would be wrong to have fought and won that terrain, only to turn around and give it back," he said in an interview with two reporters who traveled with him by helicopter to visit troops south and west of Baghdad.

He said there is a substantial risk that al-Qaida in Iraq, a mostly Iraqi Sunni extremist group, will try to launch a mass-casualty attack on one of the 29 small U.S. patrol bases south of Baghdad in hopes of influencing the political debate in Washington on ending the war.

Lynch visited one of those outposts Friday, near the village of Jurfassakhar along the Euphrates River. He was told by the officer in charge, Lt. Col. Robert Balcavage, that the camp was in "the deepest bad-guy country around," with threats from multiple insurgent groups.

Near Jurfassakhar, just west of the larger town of Iskandariyah, al-Qaida elements have recently been fighting another Sunni extremist group but could be preparing to resume attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces.

"And that's why we've got to continue offensive operations," he said. "I worry about this talk about reducing or terminating the surge," using the military's term of deploying the five extra combat brigades to the Baghdad area, as well as extra Marines to Anbar province west of the capital.

"We've got him on the run," Lynch said, referring to the insurgents. "Some people say we've got him on the ropes. I don't believe that. But I believe we've got him on the run."

Lynch said he thinks too much focus is being placed on the military part of the solution to Iraq's problems and too little on the need to promote progress toward a functional central government.

Lynch said he thinks too much focus in being placed on the military part of the solution to Iraq's problems and too little on the need to promote progress toward a functional central government.

"We can continue to secure the population here and secure terrain, but until you get a government (that) is of the people, for the people and by the people, and you have an economy where people actually have employment, this place is going to continue to struggle," he said.

Lynch also said the Iraqi government needs to put about seven more Iraqi army battalions and about five more Iraqi police battalions in his area in order to provide the security now provided by U.S. forces.

In a reference to the sectarian tensions that have stalled progress toward stability in Iraq, the general said he has submitted to the Shiite-dominated national government a list of about 3,000 names of Sunnis who have volunteered to join the government security forces south of Baghdad. None of the 3,000 has been approved for addition to the government payroll.

"If they (the central government) just say `No, we ain't gonna do it,' then we've got a problem because (then) we've got nothing but locals who want to secure their area," he said, adding later that this would amount to a "Band-aid" fix rather than a lasting solution.

Ultimately, Lynch said, success or failure will be determined by the Iraqis themselves, and the outcome will not come quickly.

"This is Iraq. Everything takes time," he said.

All I will say is that your synopsis of this article suggests to me that the author is completely full of shit; as there most definitely is a debate in this regard. Not having read it, however, I have no way of knowing if you are accurrately representing the piece.

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

Yeah Sir LOB, I can tell you didn't "read the article" BECAUSE IT'S AN F'IN VIDEO CLIP. (here's a towel to wipe the egg of your face)

Now the following quotes are pasted from a transcript I was able to hunt down of it.
"CHARLIE ROSE, HOST: We begin tonight with Iraq and the question that is on everyone`s mind. What would happen if U.S. troops were to withdraw from the country in the near future?

Joining me now from Baghdad is John Burns, bureau chief there for "The New York Times." Welcome.

JOHN BURNS: ...But the one thing I think that virtually all of us who - who work here or have worked here for any length of time agree is that the levels of violence would eclipse by quite a long way the bloodshed we`ve seen to date.

CHARLIE ROSE: Can you give me more understanding of what you mean by that?

JOHN BURNS: Well, I think, quite simply that the United States armed forces here -- and I find this to be very widely agreed amongst Iraqis that I know, of all ethnic and sectarian backgrounds -- the United States armed forces are a very important inhibitor against violence. I know it`s argued by some people that they provoke the violence. I simply don`t believe that to be in the main true. I think it`s a much larger truth that where American forces are present, they are inhibiting sectarian violence, and they are going after the people, particularly al-Qaeda and the Shiite death squads, who are provoking that violence. ...And the price would very likely be very, very high levels of violence, at least in the short run and perhaps, perhaps - perhaps for quite a considerable period of time."

Just be a man and admit that you got pwned sir LOB. In fact, can anyone find a clip from anyone claiming Sir LOB's point of view that's OVER IN IRAQ?

One more quote i forgot from John Burns:

"Tariq Al Hashimi asked this senior American official, "is your Congress really serious about withdrawing troops?" And the American official said to him, "you`d better believe that it may be. This is a serious debate and it`s very finely balanced, and it could - it could fall in favor of withdrawing those troops and withdrawing them on a fairly rigorous, tight schedule." Tariq Al Hashimi responded to that by saying "then we will all be slaughtered," then we will all be slaughtered."

The Truth here is that Brandon didn't mention Tur in his post but Cecelia did. For someone who claims she's just trying to protect the rights of Katy Tur she doesn't see that she's just as guilty of using Tur's name as she claims Brandon is even though Brandon didn't use Tur's name in his post and Cecelia did.
Olbermann's pattern of insulting and slandering women is so clear that libs are calling him out on it now. and it was a perfectly legit topic for Brandon to blog about as other websites are also blogging about it. It was something that Johnny Dollar had already talked about here and that didn't set Cecellia off but Brandon talking about it did. What's more hypocritical and more of a double standard than that? That's the TRUTH, even though Cecellia can't see it. She should either get help with her issues or just get over it or just don't read anything he writes. Better yet let's get Cox to ban both Brandon and Cecellia so I don't have to wade through this BS any more.

Real Truth, I would never advocate banning Cecelia or Brandon. They (mainly Cecelia) provide a much needed "break" from the endless ongoing pointless extra long cut & paste diatribes posted by both left & right regarding this ugly war & administration.

Yes, Cecelia always takes it too far and she does have an overly obsessive sense of self & very obsessive compulsion concerning Brandon & Katy Tur. But I agree with you, I wish she would just not read Brandon's posts since they upset her so much. Sometimes she's funny because she completely misses the irony of it all, but most of the time I feel sad for her.

Olbyloooonatics, youll see a bill o slammerino tonight, bill o write up on media matters

olby stizinks, so lazy, i could do his show

What does "stizinks" mean, Dan?
--------------------------------------
An irony of sorts: Bill-o seems to be rotting away from the middle, not an implosion, but a slow, notcieable deterioration. He keeps refining his appeal to the nut cases, not politically nutty RW'ers, but the trailer trash sorts, a la Maury Povitch and Jerry Springer. Perhaps, he senses, wisely, the demise of the RW as a political and moral force in America. When the RW was at its zenith, he would goose-step with the best of them, but now he is reaching out to the White Girl Gone Missing/What Do You Think About this Sexual Perversion set? To some extent, we see O' Hannity doing that as well, but I am not sure he realizes as intuitively as Bill-o that the shift is not only occurring, but that it is taking on seismic proportions. I shouldn't be surprised if in the end Bill-o doesn't actually increase his audience. Jerry Springer is certainly popular. The corollary to this may be a new legitimacy for Olbermann. I know that is not deserved, and I suspect that is a bad thing, but Olbermann is likely to be seen as mainstream and Bill-o as fringe. All very interesting, to be sure, but I don't think the Media Matters article does much other than to underscore the prurient interest angle in Bill-o's new shtick. Well, more hummus with that falafel, Miss?

"but Olbermann is likely to be seen as mainstream and Bill-o as fringe"

Posted by: Mrs. Philby at July 20, 2007 7:04 PM

Here you go lamo, your "fawning" of Olbermahn. The most recent example. Tear it up.

The corollary to this may be a new legitimacy for Olbermann. I know that is not deserved, and I suspect that is a bad thing ....
----------
You have a most odd definition of "fawning," Monsieur Royale, but then, again, we all know you have only rudimentary reading comprehension. Have you given any thought to an adult literacy class? It is nothing to be ashamed of, and I am sure it is a great place to meet women.

Mrs. Philby, you're right. It isn't a perfect example of "fawning." It's more along the lines of "delusional."

Clucker, by virtue of Olbermann NOT being on Fox News gives him legitimacy by the mainstream media. If Olbermann's contract was not renewed and he went to CNN, count on the folks at MS-NBC being WPITW just as much as Fox.

I do find it somewhat creepy in the obvious way he is doing a multitude of special comments lately when he has a book coming out (Truth and Consequences: Special Comments on the Bush Administration's War on American Values (Random House, to be released December 26, 2007). On the other hand, this war & admistration are an utter nightmare & complete failure and his special comments are getting even better and for the 8-10 minutes they really are very moving.

Personally, I am torn. Olbermann's a blowheart, pompous, mysoginistic and definately misleads or doesn't cover certain news stories---a lefty version of Limbaugh or O'Reilly---but he's OUR Limbaugh/O'Reilly. Like I said, I'm torn. Don't like sinking to the right-wing media tatics, but it's kind of nice having someone yell back.

I am in complete agreement with you, Joe.

7:54, more "fawning" for ya, lamo. Tear it up. Like you would!

Royal Douche-

You think this:

Olbermann's a blowheart, pompous, mysoginistic and definately misleads or doesn't cover certain news stories---a lefty version of Limbaugh or O'Reilly---but he's OUR Limbaugh/O'Reilly.

Is 'fawning' over Olbermann?

LMFAO!

I actually agree with pretty much all of that post. I guess you'll have to 'shred' this one yourself. Let me know how it turns out.

I guess eventually you'll have to come to terms with the fact that I am objective, politically independent, see Olbermann for what he really is, not what you wish him to be (the embodiment of all that is wrong with this country).

I'd give that honor to you, Royal Douche.

Why am I not surprised to hear that she had nothing to say when JD blogged about this but was ready to pounce on me when I did? Obsessed doesn't even begin to cover it. She's actually posted lies here claiming Bob Cox told her something when I know for a fact he didn't. But whatever. With every post she makes like this, it just reveals her to be what she is: obsessed and hey, if I'm winning supporters in the process, however reluctant they might be, then I'd say this is a win-win situation for me no matter what she posts.

Posted by: Brandon at July 20, 2007 2:16 PM

That's a very honest way not to address me, Brandon... It's up to your usual level of maturity. :D

No, sweety, I'm afraid it's not a psychological disorder to hold Brandon accountable for his own arguments and statements about others when he blogs on a blogboard. It's the same treatment we aim at Olbermann here everyday. Grow up and act like a man.

Did Johnny call Tur a gold digger and say that she is only with Olbermann in order to benefit from him financially or did he only comment on the fact that Olbermann is robbing the cradle?

If Johnny implied that Tur is the equivalent of a "ho" -- selling herself for personal gain to Olbermann and second quessing her as to her as to how she REALLY feels about this old geezer... then I'm more than happy to jump his case too.

And yes, Bob did tell me that he wished commenters did not make nasty comments about Tur, but that she IS a public figure and this is a noncensored board.

But you've not begun to address the fact that you're chiding MSNBC for doing what you defended when you did it to Tur and you're calling folks hypocrites for not agreeing with you about Mrs. Vitter's treatment, when by YOUR own arguments she's fair game. You get that yet? Everything you said to justify making Tur the public butt of your own negative jokes and assumptions works the same way for Mrs. Vitter and then some, but here you are deploring it. If you were any more partisan and hypocritical you would be Olbermann!

I know there's not much in your arsenal other than calling me names, but how about addressing some of your own statements and arguments, Brandon.

The Truth here is that Brandon didn't mention Tur in his post but Cecelia did. For someone who claims she's just trying to protect the rights of Katy Tur she doesn't see that she's just as guilty of using Tur's name as she claims Brandon is even though Brandon didn't use Tur's name in his post and Cecelia did.
Olbermann's pattern of insulting and slandering women is so clear that libs are calling him out on it now. and it was a perfectly legit topic for Brandon to blog about as other websites are also blogging about it. It was something that Johnny Dollar had already talked about here and that didn't set Cecellia off but Brandon talking about it did. What's more hypocritical and more of a double standard than that? That's the TRUTH, even though Cecellia can't see it. She should either get help with her issues or just get over it or just don't read anything he writes. Better yet let's get Cox to ban both Brandon and Cecellia so I don't have to wade through this BS any more.

Posted by: The Real Truth at July 20, 2007 5:26 PM

Well, unless someone is holding a gun to your head in order to get you read something other than comic books, you don't have to wade through anyone's post.

Feel free to skip mine and go have a V-8...

Brandon must certainly did use Tur's name in a blog he did about her website, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

I have no issue whatsoever with anyone talking about how Olbermann writes rude and nasty things about any woman or how Olbermann is a jerk in general. I've been doing that myself for a bit.... I don't think Olbermann has an inherent hatred of women (mysogyny) he's just as rude and nasty to men, but frankly, I can hold that opinion and not be guilty of treason, I hope...

What I do take issue with, is talking about how nasty Olbermann is to women, and then being nasty to HIS woman. And THAT because she is his woman. Oh, Brandon and company had a field day talking about how Tur was only with him for his money ( a ho, in other words) and about how dumb and talentless she is...

So yeah, my friend, it's a bit disgusting to find him yelling about the hypocrisy of other folks for engaging in or excusing the same sort of treatment to Mrs. Vitter.

As for all those liberal sites that have been nonpartisan enough to find Olbermann's remarks demeaning to women IS the point. They've argued THAT despite the politics or the companions of the women involved. So it's certainly right to call attention to that. And it's certainly right to call attention to someone who doesn't have that sort of integrity.

But then you aren't really defending THAT guy... you can't. You're just here to try and bust me. When it comes to calling others hypocritical, you and Brandon should look in a mirror.

But Mister man-on-fan
With the apricot tan
Has his own trashy skank in tow
Posted by: Katy Turic at July 20, 2007 12:08 PM

Hopefully, Cecelia will be as outraged at Katy Turic as she is with Brandon. Doubt it though. Again, hypocrites say "what" :D

Posted by: at July 20, 2007 1:38 PM

With that logic, it would be "hypocritical" for any war supporter not to address every anti-war commenter on the board simply because they regularly blasted Sir Loin or Mike.

The president vowed to keep us safer and, according to 16 intelligence agencies, he has failed. Period. End of story

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

Yeah, and I"m sure all the leaking efforts of his sp00k programs, wire tappings, the Patriot act... I'm sure that the constant undermining of EVERYTHING the president has tried to do. Each of you castrates the horse then condemn it for being unfruitful.

Personally, I am torn. Olbermann's a blowheart, pompous, mysoginistic and definately misleads or doesn't cover certain news stories---a lefty version of Limbaugh or O'Reilly---but he's OUR Limbaugh/O'Reilly. Like I said, I'm torn. Don't like sinking to the right-wing media tatics, but it's kind of nice having someone yell back.

Posted by: joe at July 20, 2007 7:54 PM

God help me if I ever utter anything similar about Michael Savage or Brandon...

Your justification for your professed soft spot for Olbermann logically serves to explain the REAL reason for your dislike of O'Reilly and Limbaugh.

O'Reilly and Limbaugh are THEIR O'Reilly and Limbaugh...

nazi, the fact you don't like me (or what I post) tells me you actually like Olbermahn. It's not rocket science. Ok? Plain and simple.

Cecellia you're turning this site into Brandonwatch. Your obsession with this subject is getting way overblown and your reaction to it is way out of bounds deal with your own personal issues with a shrink or something. On behalf of us all here who are sick of reading your rambling ever increasingly incoherent posts please follow your own advice you gave about your own posts and skip over Brandon's or are you too much of a hypocrite to take your own advice?

Just be a man and admit that you got pwned sir LOB. In fact, can anyone find a clip from anyone claiming Sir LOB's point of view that's OVER IN IRAQ?

Posted by: None at July 20, 2007 5:08 PM

Hey look! I found an opinion that contradicts None's selected opinion!

http://www.upi.com/Security_Terrorism/Briefing/2007/07/20/expert_alqaida_cant_conquer_iraq/3090/

I guess None has just been "pwned", whatever the fuck that means. what a child.

Cecellia you're turning this site into Brandonwatch. Your obsession with this subject is getting way overblown and your reaction to it is way out of bounds deal with your own personal issues with a shrink or something. On behalf of us all here who are sick of reading your rambling ever increasingly incoherent posts please follow your own advice you gave about your own posts and skip over Brandon's or are you too much of a hypocrite to take your own advice?

Posted by: The Real Truth at July 21, 2007 9:36 AM

Well, since it's not like you'd be much concerned if started in with back and forth insults about "Jeff" or "Bovine Queen", I'm able to take your pleas in the spirit you give them.

However, I will make a suggestion and in suggesting the obvious, it becomes necessary that I state the obvious. That's something you seem to need...

How about your agreeing that you should read and respond to the posts that you wish to read and respond to and that I should do the same.

This way if you again engage in the vapors over being forced to see someone else's posting, you'll possibly realize just how contrived you sound...

I guess None has just been "pwned", whatever the fuck that means. what a child.

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

yeah... too bad you didn't read to the end of the sentence when I said "over in Iraq". No no, you have to rely on yet another "expert" which I find no sign of having been over there.

Oh, and I notice he does NOT say anything about the blood shed that'd follow in Iraq, just that "Al-Qaeda" couldn't conquer Iraq.

Hint Moron (and yes, having to resort to crude language makes you a moron) The NY Times reporter never said that Al-Qeada would take over Iraq, he said the blood shed would be enormous. You still fail.

===============================

None disagrees with Bush's own government that says he has not made us safer.

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

Wow, the reading skills of these "leftists" is lacking. Are you importing illegals to help write your talking points now? Or like so many leftists are you just a habitual liar?

I did NOT disagree with the report. I AGREED with the report. And then said: "What other result would you believe when everyone on 'the left' has been fighting against whatever Bush tries to do."

Your strawman is now going to come and beat the tar out of you. But then again, I guess lies and illusions are the only thing you leftist liars are capable of arguing against.

none,

Your exclusive faith in "the New York Times reporter" is laughable. Take a wider view and try to put things together logically for yourself.

And by the way, way back up the thread I acknowledged that a spike in violence would very likely occur upon our departure; but that we are faced with that or a decade of attrition should we stay that in all likelihood would excede your "Pol Pot" scenario. I also mentioned the need to call to account the piratical idiots who started this scam.

Your position requires that the American presence will some how improve conditions in Iraq; and while your side continually points to isolated "successes" involving pacifying individual neighborhoods or killing yet another "AL Qeada Number Two", all reliable data and credible experts (i.e someone who has been right at least ONCE in the last five yesrs) indicate worsening conditions and many imminent compications along Iraqs borders.

Now sit back and take this in: regional destabilization has always been the result of agressive occupations lacking aims or ends. "More of the same" which is all the Bushies have ever offered, only brings such situatons to tragic ends.

Fuck.

But then again, I guess lies and illusions are the only thing you leftist liars are capable of arguing against.

Posted by: none at July 21, 2007 12:17 PM

No, but they tend to be the only options available when confronting righties, so I can see how you would get that impression.

...and what problem do you have with "arguing against lies and illusions"? I thought that was what a rational person was supposed to do?

Shit.

yeah... too bad you didn't read to the end of the sentence when I said "over in Iraq". No no, you have to rely on yet another "expert" which I find no sign of having been over there."

OK, none, if that (having been "over there")is your current criterion, then take a look at what Newsweek reporter Michael Ware (Google him; I don't have time to spoon-feed you) has to say about the "surge" and the occupation in general. Ware essentially hasn't left the region for four years, and does not waste his time in the Green Zone when in Iraq. He also has presented a consistant case that a growing, deepening quagmire is all that s resulting from the puriently-supported occupation.

Your guy; Burns, says: "I know it`s argued by some people that they provoke the violence. I simply don`t believe that to be in the main true. I think it`s a much larger truth that where American forces are present, they are inhibiting sectarian violence, and they are going after the people, particularly al-Qaeda and the Shiite death squads, who are provoking that violence. ..."

Firstly; he says "I know some argue..." where as you at first presented his position as saying "There is no argument" - this in itself is what prompted me to ignore your lazilly offered link. Not surprisinly, I find now that you misrepresented his statements. In fact, I find that he offers solely his own opinion and "in-country" credentials in his argument ("I think" and "I simply don't believe" were closest of his mrthodlogies to emiricism that I could find). Well, Michal Ware's opinion makes a lot more sense to me than does Burns', and I suspect his "in-country" credentials are superior as well.

An where is the concensus, or even empirically-supported contention, that "Al Qeada is provoking the violence", as Burn's confidently asserts? I am not saying tat such does not exist, its merely that the media seems unable to come up with any. And proffessionals whose opinions I integrity I trust (e.g. Michael Ware), and whose records stan for themselves look for it and cannot find it.

Tell, me, what is your position on Iran? If your star-reporter Burns claims that Al Qeada is sparking the violence, do you deny the administrations attribution of this role to Iran?

Poop.

Cecellia you're turning this site into Brandonwatch. Your obsession with this subject is getting way overblown and your reaction to it is way out of bounds deal with your own personal issues with a shrink or something. On behalf of us all here who are sick of reading your rambling ever increasingly incoherent posts please follow your own advice you gave about your own posts and skip over Brandon's or are you too much of a hypocrite to take your own advice?
Posted by: The Real Truth at July 21, 2007 9:36 AM

AMEN to that!

Nothing could be more contrived than the bullshit Cecelia spouts. She's more annoying that Olbermann and that's really saying something.

>>>>I've spent several years here detailing how I don't' like Olbermann,

Holy grey goose! Let's read that again.

>>>>I've spent several years here detailing how I don't' like Olbermann,

Aunt Jemimah's Bombay Safire!! There is no way someone should be able to say that without having some kind of epiphany.

>>>>I've spent several years here detailing how I don't' like Olbermann,

Sorry to repeat it, but honestly, if you people think it's possible for an honest concerned citizen to read past a sentence like that without making comment, you're crazier than you seem. Let's check the replay once again:

>>>>I've spent several years here detailing how I don't' like Olbermann,

Yup, that's what she said, and she meant it. Literally. How awful is that? But it's really way worse, if you contemplate the fact that Cecelia actually spent years and years of constantly detailing how she hates Olbermann.

I'm a sucker for charity cases, but it's increasingly clear that no amount of cajoling is going to trigger the kind of soul saving soul searching that I'm aiming at. I would have told you that if I could have gotten Cecelia to come to the realization that she's

>>>>...spent several years here detailing how I don't' like Olbermann,

my job would be done and she'd adopt an child who lost it's parents, and do something with thoses years and years, beyond detailing her dislike of a particular arrangement of phosphors. But no. Children go to bed hungry, scared and alone, and Cecelia marches on,

"detailing how I don't' like Olbermann,"

But if she can say that and still hang onto the obsession, she can't be helped either ...She may as well start a site to defend FoxNews.

So anyway, either she's already cured and that was her last post, or a real lost cause. Hopefully, I played some small part in the crisis of conscience that caused Cecelia to acknowledge the truth. But where will she go from here? Sadly, no one will ever know.

>>>>I've spent several years here detailing how I don't' like Olbermann,

Repent!Repent. You don't enjoy being here, you mostly aren't good writers, your subject is moronic, no one else in the goddam world even knows who or what an Olbermann is, and your whole being is a lie. Repent! Reform! Do something.

Toodaloo. As always, I am Drunk, Waiting, Erie Bob Olberloon.

Posted by: The Angel Maroni at July 11, 2007 1:42 AM

Has his own trashy skank in tow
Posted by: Katy Turic at July 20, 2007 12:08 PM

Cecelia you defend J$ (as some strange justification for your obsession with Brandon), who do think writes the Katy Turic limericks? (I'll give you a hint, it ain't Brandon or Bob Cox).

reporter Michael Ware (Google him; I don't have time to spoon-feed you) has to say about the "surge" and the occupation in general. Ware essentially hasn't left the region for four years, and does not waste his time in the Green Zone when in Iraq.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at July 21, 2007 2:04 PM

You're kidding, right? Mike the traitor Ware? The guy who PAID insurgents for the video of them sniping our troops and put it on CNN while he so proudly narrated it? He should have been put in front of the squad for that, among other things. Get a clue, slob. You are clearly on the side of the enemy.

Has his own trashy skank in tow
Posted by: Katy Turic at July 20, 2007 12:08 PM

Cecelia you defend J$ (as some strange justification for your obsession with Brandon), who do think writes the Katy Turic limericks? (I'll give you a hint, it ain't Brandon or Bob Cox).

Posted by: at July 21, 2007 3:41 PM

When have you insisted that any poster with a particular point of view, address EVERY other poster on the board with an opposite point of view.

Am I supposed to assume that Katy Turic is Bob or Johnnny and blast them? You'd be the first to type "paranoid" over that.

But let me address what is the central implication of your post--- that is that I would not criticise Bob or Johnny were they to make nasty comments about Tur because I'm somehow obsessed only with men named Brandon or more pointedly because I'm afraid of Johnny or Bob.

Let me remind you that I had several exchanges with Bob about his enabling Tur to become a topic here. We are still not in agreement on that, but Bob hasn't made another ruling in some way that contradicts the argument he made to me. Bob or Johnny aren't calling Tur names... at least not under the screen names of Robert Cox or Johnny Dollar. They have called other posters here "hypocrites" for condoning negative comments on MSNBC about Mrs. Vitter's wardrobe, while blithely agreeing wtih all negative comments made about Olbermann's girlfriend.

I wouldn't have the least bit of hesitation to criticise them if they did. They don't ban for opinions or haven't you heard. I don't hesitate to debunk the silly specious liberal trash thinking of "mysogyny" charges agasint Olbermann and if I cared about being in their good graces, I would have dropped the issue long ago.

So spare me the Cecelia is afraid of Bob or Johnny accusation or Cecelia is afraid of being banned charge.

You're going to have to come up with yet another personal charge against me, rather than to explain Brandon's own words.

But let me address what is the central implication of your post--- that is that I would not criticise Bob or Johnny were they to make nasty comments about Tur because I'm somehow obsessed only with men named Brandon or more pointedly because I'm afraid of Johnny or Bob.
Posted by: Cecelia at July 21, 2007 4:30 PM

Sadly, again that IS NOT the central ISSUE with the post. But I am done wasting time on you, I agree with Erie Bob, you are beyond the point of repenting. All hope is lost.

BTW this is worse than anything Brandon has ever said:
Has his own trashy skank in tow
Posted by: Katy Turic at July 20, 2007 12:08 PM

Monsieur Royale thinks Michael Ware is an American, presumably because he is on CNN. CNN is international, unlike FOX, and has reporters of various nationalities. I would think Mr. Ware's accent might tend to indicate he isn't from Iowa. So, we are going to shoot someone who is not an American for being a traitor to America? That is a very broad interpretation of "traitor," indeed, both in susbtance and in scope.

Of course, Michael Ware has an impeccable reputation as a journalist, throughout the world, and to my knowledge, he has never run afoul of roving gangs of militant Lesbians, nor has he ever reported on a "White Girl Gone Missing" story.

I am thankful that CNN has the type of reporters who are actually brave enough to cover the story, even when the story takes them to dangerous places, and that CNN helps give us a perspective about how we fit into the world at large.

I am sure that, on reflection, Monsieur Royale will see the error in his bombast and correct his statement. Monsieur Royale has consistently shown himself to be a person of great integrity and fairness, as we all well know.

we are going to shoot someone who is not an American for being a traitor to America? That is a very broad interpretation of "traitor," indeed, both in susbtance and in scope. slob

slob is also a defender of the enemy defender, nice! You're building yourself a nice reputation. I suppose you like Puko Chavez, too.

sorry, that post was directed to Mrs. Philby, not slob. Sorry, slob. Mrs. Philby jumped in to defend the enemy embolder/warey. I would assume you both have no problem with him paying for insurgent video of them shooting our troops, snce you both jumped on his band wagon with glee.

The truth about mickey ware.

http://www.keshertalk.com/archives/2006/03/speaking_of_mic.php

slob is also a defender of the enemy defender, nice! You're building yourself a nice reputation. I suppose you like Puko Chavez, too.

Posted by: royalking at July 21, 2007 5:04 PM

Viva Chavez! Every Venezuelan I know - and I know a large number of well-educated people from that country on work or student visas in a number of states across the US - express support for him. Some more than others, due to specific differences, but all feel he has the best interests of his country at heart,and laugh at the US media's moronic labeling of him as a "dictator".

A reporter paid for information/footage!? OMG!

I have no proplem and nothing but respect for the reporting of Ware.

Your link is ludicrous; what am I supposed to get out of a character assassination from a washed-up drunk (hitchens); a farcical historian (Hanson); and an O'Reilly wannabe (Hewett - HAH!). I saw no proof or even discussion of regarding Ware paying terrorists for anything.

Hanson said that "everything Ware said was factually incorrect", but I don't see where he backed that up in any way. To get back to None's criterion for such matters; how much combined time have VDH; CH, and HH spent in the Iraqi war-zone compared with Ware?

A bitch-session by hard-core neocons is RK's idea of an argument - what a waste of time.

Sadly, again that IS NOT the central ISSUE with the post. But I am done wasting time on you, I agree with Erie Bob, you are beyond the point of repenting. All hope is lost.

BTW this is worse than anything Brandon has ever said:
Has his own trashy skank in tow
Posted by: Katy Turic at July 20, 2007 12:08 PM

Posted by: at July 21, 2007 4:47 PM

Of course the central issue is that I wouldn't take on Bob or Johnny. That's why you implied that Katy Turic is one of them.

Did you take disingenous lessons in school?

I took on Brandon now because we had argued THEN. He issued insults against Tur THEN. He gave reasons for why she was fairgame THEN. He then argued something differently for Vitter NOW.

BTW this is worse than anything Brandon has ever said:
Has his own trashy skank in tow
Posted by: Katy Turic at July 20, 2007 12:08 PM

Posted by: at July 21, 2007 4:47 PM

By "trash skank" I assume he means Craig Crawford...

Did you take disingenous lessons in school?
Posted by: Cecelia at July 21, 2007 6:02 PM

I think we are getting quite a good "disingenous" lesson from you. It's over, Cecelia, it has been for a long time now.

I think we are getting quite a good "disingenous" lesson from you. It's over, Cecelia, it has been for a long time now.

Posted by: at July 21, 2007 6:13 PM

Well, move along then, sweety... Next!

A reporter paid for information/footage!? OMG!

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at July 21, 2007 5:55 PM

You don't think that gives the terrorists more incentive to go out and video themselves sniping our troops knowing that scumbag Ware will be there to pay them for it? Of course, you dont', why do I even bother.

By "trash skank" I assume he means Craig Crawford...
Posted by: Cecelia at July 21, 2007 6:05 PM

Craig Crawford is "trash skank" because he appears on Countdown? WOW Cecelia. Kind of like calling someone a Ho just because she's with a newsguy. I'm sure Craig is somebody's loving partner.

I think a better question than Cecelia's obsession with Brandon is Cecelia's obsession with defending Katy's honor.

Katy is a below-average, hopeful journalist (don't believe that? check out the Al Gore site, the one that lets people put up videos in hope of getting them on tv, for some of her work) who has parlayed her relationship into several "Los Angeles correspondent" spots on CD.

Cecelia, maybe take a step back on this one. Your posts read almost as if its OK for KO, and CD in general, to make any kind of derogatory remarks about women, because people make fun of Katy Tur.

Some more than others, due to specific differences, but all feel he has the best interests of his country at heart,and laugh at the US media's moronic labeling of him as a "dictator".
Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at July 21, 2007 5:40 PM

I wonder what SLOB's reaction to Bush would be if he suddenly shut down a media outlet. After all, he claims all the time to have the country's best interests at heart.

wow, sir LOB has now really shown how much of a double standard infects the left.

A majority of people support Bush? (once upon a time anyway) Oh they are all just sheep who are being tricked and lied to so he can become our new dictator.

A majority of people support Chavez? Why that's real proof of democracy down there with the all knowing and wise poplace and he has the country's best interests at heart anyway.

Too bad they never think to apply the thinking of one to another just to get an idea how other people might see it.

OH wait, I see in his post that he says "well-educated" people there. Of course that makes all the difference, it's all the "right" people that support Chavez that matters. George Orwell's animal farm was right, "Some people are more equal than others."

Your exclusive faith in "the New York Times reporter" is laughable. Take a wider view and try to put things together logically for yourself.

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

Yeah Sir LOB, i have, including testimony from family that I have over there right now. But since EVERY other source that anybody cites you like to dismiss as "right-wing" or bias or "I just don't like that source" I thought MAYBE (a fool's hope really) that hearing a source from your much beloved NYTimes might get you to concede a danger.

This is exactly what's screwed up about political discussion within America today. Two sides can't even agree upon a basic starting point and instead everything breaks down into arguments about what "reality" is WHICH ACCOMPLISHES NOTHING.

Of course, when Sir LOB admits that the ends always justifies the means (including lying) what else can we expect. Nothing's more important to them than "winning", consequences be damned. You sir, are a very poor human being.

"Cecelia, Your posts read almost as if its OK for KO, and CD in general, to make any kind of derogatory remarks about women, because people make fun of Katy Tur."

No her posts here make it read as if it's okay for Johnny Dollar and Bob Cox to post about Tur and any misygony against females displayed by Olbermann but NOT for Brandon to post about it. See it takes the attention away from her and we all can see how much she likes the attention. She's singlehandedly turned this site into Brandonwatch with her own quirky obsessions and her posts into Hypocritewatch but she's too much of a hypocrite to admit she's a hypocrite.

Actually, I do work but I work when I wish. I'm in a field and personal situation where I can do that.
Posted by: Cecelia at July 21, 2007 6:15 PM

Is this another one of your "satirical" comments? Or is this one "true" and later you'll claim it "satire".

Posted by: at July 21, 2007 6:58 PM
Like this one:

Let me clue you into something, although we aren't living in the Trump Tower, to say the least.... I fell in love with my husband partly for the same reasons, and I have admired his zeal and god given abilities more every year of our marriage. Gold-digger that I am, I even took advantage of them by letting him support me through my last year and a half of college. I've exploited him even more by largely living off his income, even though I could support myself and were I start start a business, I wouldn't fail to exploit every connection he has... I even think his love handles are cute...
Posted by: Cecelia at May 13, 2007 12:44 PM

SLOB, why do you live here in the US if you hate it so much? I hear Puko calling you, maybe Ahmahdidajihadist would welcome you with open arms, too. Think?

SLOB, why do you live here in the US if you hate it so much?
------------------
Perhaps, he has only disliked the last 6 1/2 years. In that regard, he is certainly atypical. A full 30% of Americans think this has been a proud, special moment in the American experience.

What Clucker won't tell you is that the approval rating for the Democratic-led Congress is even lower than Bush's approval rating.

What Bradon fails to mention is that almost 50% of the Congress is Republican, and it is plausible that 46% of those polled approve of the Democrats while only 11.5% approve of the Republicans. Sorry, Brandon, but even the uber Bush apologist Fred Barnes admitted on the "Beltway Boys" things are looking really, really bad for your kind right now. "None of the Above" leading in the polls and fund raising in the tank. Blame it an unpopular war of simple incompetence and arrogance, but your boy is having disastrous condequences on the entire party. I suggest you learn how to deal with it.

OH wait, I see in his post that he says "well-educated" people there. Of course that makes all the difference, it's all the "right" people that support Chavez that matters. George Orwell's animal farm was right, "Some people are more equal than others."

Posted by: none at July 21, 2007 7:46 PM

No, none, its just that the Venezuelans that I personally know in the United States have, or are working on, their post-graduate degrees. Chavez' main support, if you knew anything at all about the situation beyond the FOX News crawls that label him an "autocrat" or "dictator", primarilly rests in the lowest economic classes of that country. He is the first leader of Venezuela to come from the indigenous population, and his policies have demnstrably mroved their conditions and prospects.

"Some people are more equal than others" is indeed a wise warning from the past, but in today's corporate world this refers to MONEY rathier than position within a political party, which Orwell was illustrating in regard to the Soviet Union. The money that made the Euro-Venezuelans ties to US oils and fruit companies the lords and masters of the indigenous Indios, prior to Chavez' efforts to more equitably distribute his country's welath.

What Bradon fails to mention is that almost 50% of the Congress is Republican, and it is plausible that 46% of those polled approve of the Democrats while only 11.5% approve of the Republicans. Sorry, Brandon, but even the uber Bush apologist Fred Barnes admitted on the "Beltway Boys" things are looking really, really bad for your kind right now. "None of the Above" leading in the polls and fund raising in the tank. Blame it an unpopular war of simple incompetence and arrogance, but your boy is having disastrous condequences on the entire party. I suggest you learn how to deal with it.

Posted by: Clucker at July 22, 2007 10:37 AM

Well, I don't know what's "plausible" in your mind, but there has been a 9% drop in the approval of congress since May, and the change has largely been among those citizens who identify themselves as Democrats.

It's difficult. The Dem leadership has to walk a tightrope between doing what their base wants and doing what they think will help them in '08.

It's difficult. The Dem leadership has to walk a tightrope between doing what their base wants and doing what they think will help them in '08.

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

Fortunately, Cecelia, with the help of Bush & Co., that tightrope is quickly becoming a boardwalk and may well be a super highway by next Spring.

"and it is plausible that 46% of those polled approve of the Democrats while only 11.5% approve of the Republicans.

Mrs. Philby

Olbyloon logic, gotta love it.....

Olbyloon logic, gotta love it.....

-----

Call it what you will, Monsieur Royale, but you wailing and flailing merely drive home your hopelessness and desperation as the political situation in which you find youself worsens by the minute. It is such an ugly sight, that I actually feel sorry for you and your kind.

Fortunately, Cecelia, with the help of Bush & Co., that tightrope is quickly becoming a boardwalk and may well be a super highway by next Spring.

Posted by: Clucker at July 22, 2007 11:51 AM

Well, there are several ways to look at that statement. On way is that the Democrats don't want to do anything to dash any sort of chance of a turn around in Iraq, in which case they are odds with their base who feel that it's a total FUBAR and the best thing to do for our troops is to do anything possible to end it and cut our losses in the long term.

You can believe that the Dems believe things will grow worse in Iraq and this will help them in '08.

Either way, they're losing points among people who disagree with the 1st proposition and who distain the 2nd.

I really don't think they have anything to lose though, it's not like Bush is concentrating on any domestic agenda to push through and there's certainly a grand chance that things in Iraq won't improve and you'll have your broadwalk.

Should I wish you "luck" on that?

How characteristic of you, Cecelia, to always find the negative, dash towards it and embrace it as if it was a lover you hadn't seen for years. Oddly, you had left that same lover only minutes before.

Another way to look at it might be that the Democrats' progress is blocked by a huge boulder, they are unable to move the boulder, so they are chipping away at it to move forward when their work is completed. It's not fast, nor is it easy, but it just might be an effective way to stem the flow of blood in and the flushing of borrowed money to Iraq.

How characteristic of you, Cecelia, to always find the negative, dash towards it and embrace it as if it was a lover you hadn't seen for years. Oddly, you had left that same lover only minutes before.

Posted by: Mrs. Philby at July 22, 2007

This, coming from someone who constantly dwells on Bush negatives day in and day out. Need I use the "H" word?

How characteristic of you, Cecelia, to always find the negative, dash towards it and embrace it as if it was a lover you hadn't seen for years. Oddly, you had left that same lover only minutes before.

Another way to look at it might be that the Democrats' progress is blocked by a huge boulder, they are unable to move the boulder, so they are chipping away at it to move forward when their work is completed. It's not fast, nor is it easy, but it just might be an effective way to stem the flow of blood in and the flushing of borrowed money to Iraq.

Posted by: Clucker at July 22, 2007 1:36 PM

It's interesting that THIS was a negative summation to you....

"On way is that the Democrats don't want to do anything to dash any sort of chance of a turn around in Iraq,"

Is there anything BUT negatives?

He's not the worst president ever for his "positives'.

Fool !

Posted by: at July 22, 2007 2:19 PM

Awww... a "positive" post for Clucker!

Notice the sly way, Cecelia avoids actually having to agree with the "worst president ever" moniker.

Factually correct and to the point was the post.

Gibber Jabber Gibberish is Cecelia's forte !

Posted by: at July 22, 2007 2:32 PM

Those sly devils.... not concuring with you!... :D

Sorry Clucker but it's looking bad for BOTH parties right now. The polls show that the public is fed up with both politicans and politics as usual. Remember, the Republicans weren't the only ones voting for this war, the Democrats were right there, raising their hands and voting Yes right along with the GOP, as Democratic God Al Gore might put it, another inconvenient truth for the Democrats.

Cecelia has a mountain of evidence to disprove bush is NOT the worst presdient ever.
We just have to guess what it is.

What a dizzy, empty-headed broad !

Posted by: at July 22, 2007 2:54 PM

You think I'm bad... think of all those other sly devils who think Nixon or Reagan hold that title...

Posted by: Brandon at July 22, 2007 2:55 PM

Hey, Brandon... Since you seem to be around, I want to say that I'm done with the Tur thing.

I'm going to drop it and I'd like for us to start over.

I'll most certainly bring it to your attention whenever you say something that sticks in my crawl, but the subject of Tur is done.

Whether you are down with this or not, this is going to be the case for me. However, I hope you'll agree.

O.K. Ceceilia, I accept your apology. Mighty big of you to admit you were wrong and I was right all along.

O.K. Ceceilia, I accept your apology. Mighty big of you to admit you were wrong and I was right all along.

Posted by: Brandon at July 22, 2007 3:14 PM

Mightly big of you to mischaracterize what I said.

But you answered my question and we'll leave it at that.

Excuse me but the "Brandon" posting at 3:14 is not me and I very seriously doubt the Cecelia posting at either 3:22 or 3:08 is really her either. She's never in a million years admit she was wrong and she damn sure wouldn't apologize to me if she did.

Actually, both posts are from me, Brandon.

You're right, I'm not apologizing. I don't feel differently about your actions or argument. I'm not asking you to feel differently about mine.

However, I think we probably are in more agreement about issues than not. I'd like us to start out on a new foot.

Either way. I'm done with the other matter.

So I am right, again. In a million years you'll never admit you are wrong, and even if you know you are, you're too stubborn and arrogant to apologize.

So I am right, again. In a million years you'll never admit you are wrong, and even if you know you are, you're too stubborn and arrogant to apologize.

Posted by: Brandon at July 22, 2007 6:29 PM

No, when I think I have been wrong, I do admit it. When I don't think I have been wrong, I don't...

I'm just funny that way.... but I apply that principle across the board and don't expect anything more or less from from anyone else.

That would include you, Brandon.

I can't stand Cecelia, but here she is offering the retarded Brandon an olive branch and he still balks at it.

Funny stuff !

Posted by: at July 22, 2007 6:38 PM

I'm sure she feels the same way about you, too. Oh, wait, you're one of those people that refuse to use a name for your little childish jabs and smartass remarks. Run along with the other kiddies and stay out of the mud puddles!

Liberals and Democrats would be more convincing if they were'nt such awful, hateful, lying bastards.

The "Brandon" posting at 6:29 is also NOT me.

This is me, Scott, tho...and sorry, I just realized the post I made yesterday (7:28 pm) was posted as Cecelia...my pc has been kinda hinky lately, so I will use that as an excuse, although it could have been user error....

Sorry for the confusion I may have caused.

This is me, Scott, tho...and sorry, I just realized the post I made yesterday (7:28 pm) was posted as Cecelia...my pc has been kinda hinky lately, so I will use that as an excuse, although it could have been user error....

Sorry for the confusion I may have caused.

Posted by: Scott at July 22, 2007 11:05 PM

No problem. I saw it and didn't say anything because it's obvious that you accidently signed my name because you were addressing me in the post.

I've done that before too.

It's a "doh!"...

Posted by: Scott at July 22, 2007 11:20 PM

KIDDING! :D

I think you guys(scott and cecelia) should plant a garden or something. You have too much time on your hands.

http://www.juancole.com/2007/07/how-to-create-angry-american.html

Good meange video showing administration lies paired with administration denials. (Olbermann is in it for a couple of seconds, so you all need to watch it or you are too weak in your hate)

How's this for "democracy?"

CARACAS, Venezuela - President Hugo Chavez said Sunday that foreigners who publicly criticize him or his government while visiting Venezuela will be expelled from the country.

Chavez ordered officials to closely monitor statements made by international figures during their visits to Venezuela _ and deport any outspoken critics.

How's THIS for democracy. rk?

"Then, unexpectedly, Lucas Rincón Romero, commander-in-chief of the Venezuelan armed forces, announced in a broadcast to a nationwide audience that Chávez had tendered his resignation from the presidency. While Chávez was brought to a military base and held there, military leaders appointed the president of the Fedecámaras, Pedro Carmona, as Venezuela's interim president. Carmona's first decree reversed the major social and economic policies that comprised Chávez's "Bolivarian Revolution", and dissolved both the National Assembly and the Venezuelan judiciary, while reverting the nation's name back to República de Venezuela.

The coup against the democratically-elected Venezuelan government was approved and supported by Washington, acting through senior officials of the U.S. government, including Otto Reich and convicted Iran-contra figure and George W. Bush's "democracy 'tzar'" Elliott Abrams, who have long histories in the U.S.-backed "dirty wars" in Central America in the 1980s, and links to death squads working in Central America at that time. [45] Top coup plotters, including Pedro Carmona himself, began visits to the White House months before the coup and continued until weeks before the putsch. The plotters were received at the White House by the man President George Bush tasked to be his key policy-maker for Latin America, Otto Reich. [46]
"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez#2002:_Coup_and_strike.2Flockout

Oh yeah - forgot to mention: Chavez support among the people dislved the coup, and CHavez went on to win by landslides one national election and one US-funded/driven "special recall refferendum".

As Madison said as he defended our separation of powers "no nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare,", and the constant pressure, plots, attacks, and subversion that the US levies against Venezuela constitutes a low level of "war", and have had the predictable low-level effects regarding governmental authority.

This happened in Cuba as well - invasion, bockades, assassination plots, etc.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1884

Chavez ordered officials to closely monitor statements made by international figures during their visits to Venezuela _ and DEPORT any outspoken critics.

Posted by: royalking at July 23, 2007 11:20 AM

Did you cover your eyes as not to see this? This is why he wins elections. Deny and spin all you want. Oh, wikipedia, has no credibility. I can make a bio about myself that says I rule the world, doesn't mean it's true. What would you think of Bush if he deported people like you? Would you still think he was a swell guy made out to be a bad guy by Fox News?

"Did you cover your eyes as not to see this? This is why he wins elections."

rk,

No, these media restrictions are very recent developments. Throughout the coup, the national election, and the recall effort no Venezuelan media outlet was closed or impeded by the democratically elected government. As I have been saying, however, the constant and well-funded propaganda assaults waged against Chavez from this country and England has taken its toll. Our superpower petulence is undeniably drving Chavez to clamp down, just as we did with Castro. Sure; they could take the high road, as defined by you, and hand their countries right back to the neocolonial corporate viceroys who kept the majority of their populations in grinding slavery to a tiny, US-directed elite. But they have, under extreme duress, chosen to prioritize economic justice.

...as for wiki's credibility - yes i can be altered, but it can also be checked. Do you deny any of the facts presented? I would like to see any corrections you could provide.

Everybody go to the July 20 Comments. Monsieur Royale has cracked up.

Sorry Brandon, The GOP looks a hell of a lot worse than the Democrats on this issue, AND WILL VOTE ACCORDINGLY IN 08'. much to your chagrine.
---------------------------------------------------

Yeah.... except right now the dem congress has a lower approval rating than the republican one in '06.

The only thing I feel confident saying about '08 is that "all bets are off".

My point exactly. The Dems were elected in '06 by promising reforms. So far they haven't delivered on anything they promised. The party faithful aren't pleased with them at all. Public opinion polls show that the Democratic-led Congress are held in even lesser esteem than the GOP and Bush. There's no getting around those kinds of stats and it could be a really interesting election in '08 as a result for both parties.

There are people all over the world monitoring blogs and websites looking for the defenders of the enemy as well as potential supporters. I am one of those people.

Think again Anonloon: Opinion polls of the Democratic leaders, including your beloved Pelosi show that people don't think too much of her and the rest of the "leadership", perhaps that's because they haven't shown any.

And you have proof of this how exactly? This website has not existed for 6 years and I only began posting here in the last year. Another Olbyloon debunked.

By the way, I'm interested in knowing how the Olbyloons who insisted there was nothing wrong whatsoever in Countdown labeling Mrs. Vitter a "ho" for her attire feel that Olbermann has apologized for the remark (even though he was quick to point out that he was not present at the time the remark was made, Alison Stewart was and also failed to mention if any staff were fired or censored for the remark). If Olbermann apologized doesn't that mean that HE felt there was something wrong with the label? Or will the Olbyloons, as usual, create their own spin cycle to explain away the apology?

Brandon: The apology was prudent and gracious, and I think we ought to leave it at that. Although I didn't see the show in question, I saw the press conference. What I thought and what I said were two (2) very different things. I did not have a high opinion of Ms. Vitter or her attire, and I found it a curious choice given the circumstances. I would be displeased if my wife, sisters or daughter or daughter-in-law were to dress that way. But, even if I had a very negative opinion of Ms. Vitter's appearance, one which might well be summarized by one of the derogatory terms one hears, I have no need to say it. To say it would be crass, ungentlemanly. Maybe, that is where Mr. Olbermann is on this matter. I have no way of knowing, of course. Perhaps ....

have not, nor have I ever seen the slinkiness, the clininess or the print in Church. But, that is not the point. The point is, in the context in which it was worn, that dress did nothing but emphasis her husband's lack of moral fiber. It was an incredible lapse of judgment, if not taste on Ms. Vitter's part. There is an entire science based upon how men and women should dress when in Court, and I can assure you, no woman ought to dress that way in court. A simple dress, in a dark color, some pearls, maybe a subtle polka dot, sling back pumps .... If Ms. Vitter had dressed that way, wouldn't the impression conveyed have been much more powerful? To be sure, bad taste is not a crime, and if it weren't for bad taste, some people would have no taste. All I am saying is this woman wanted to embarass her husband. I suspect she did to most who saw her.

Posted by: Mrs. Philby at July 18, 2007 7:55 PM

I did not have a high opinion of Ms. Vitter or her attire, and I found it a curious choice given the circumstances. I would be displeased if my wife, sisters or daughter or daughter-in-law were to dress that way. But, even if I had a very negative opinion of Ms. Vitter's appearance, one which might well be summarized by one of the derogatory terms one hears, I have no need to say it. To say it would be crass, ungentlemanly. Maybe, that is where Mr. Olbermann is on this matter. I have no way of knowing, of course. Perhaps ....

Posted by: Clucker at July 24, 2007 12:01 AM

I suppose an animal print dress in a lightweight fabric would be inappropriate for the Amish...

I do not have a high opinion of Rep Vitter or the diaper that he paid women to put on him so he could shit himself. I believe that he stated that his predecessor, 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.

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?"

"But, even if I had a very negative opinion of Ms. Vitter's appearance, one which might well be summarized by one of the derogatory terms one hears, I have no need to say it. To say it would be crass, ungentlemanly. Maybe, that is where Mr. Olbermann is on this matter."

Oh for sure, Olberman would certainly wish to restrain himself so as not to be "ungentlemanly" to a woman. Think again. Even the lib web sites you love so much know about Olby and his attitudes about women:

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

In case you missed it, Olbermann took some heat back in October of 2006 for some choice remarks about Paris Hilton. Now, I'm lost as to what would motivate anyone to pay any attention to Hilton or her affairs, but then I've always been alienated by "celeb" culture. What I do know is that there is no sliding scale of how sexist you can be based on your feelings about a particular woman, celebrity or not. Quoth Olbermann, of Hilton, " ... she's had worse things happen to her face" than being punched in it. If that's not enough for you, note the caption Olbermann devised to go with his report: "A Slut and Battery."

Bloggers pointed out that he kept this on the screen for 20 seconds of a 32-second clip, but I don't see the relevance. Even if he'd only thrown it up long enough to read, this caption (coupled with the vitriol he spewed) tells us everything we need to know about Olbermann's attitude toward women:

He thinks it is acceptable to judge women for their sexual choices.
He thinks women who make particular sexual choices are to be taken less seriously when they claim to have been assaulted.
He thinks it's amusing to, um, "cleverly" invert a phrase often associated with domestic violence and use it to belittle women.

My former admiration notwithstanding, I dismissed Olbermann then and there, but it seems many others have been willing to give him a second chance. It is my unfortunate duty to note that Olbermann persists in his misogyny.

On Monday, Olbermann devoted some airtime to that most important of world events: Britney Spears' hairstyle choice. (Story number two, for anyone keeping track, was a similarly distasteful, if slightly more reserved, bashing of the late Anna Nicole Smith.) He began his coverage by calling Spears a "pop tart " and went on to opine that "... the question now turns to what was she thinking, if not what was she on ..."

In the eyes of Olbermann and his sexist ilk, Spears made two mistakes: She dared to be overtly sexual and she dared to shed one of the defining markers of her femininity. I neither know nor care how much sex Spears has and with whom, or why she shaved her head, but I have this radical proposition: In spite of the fact that she's made sexy music videos, Spears' body is her own and should not be subjected to Olbermann's disgusting views.

Olbermann went further. He invited some smarmy hack—Michael Musto, a columnist for The Village Voice —for, I suppose, expert testimony. (Pause for a moment to consider this scenario: The man who has been called the Edward R. Murrow of our time has a gossip columnist on his show to discuss a pop singer's hairstyle.) Among many other hateful comments that Musto and Olbermann smugly batted back and forth was this gem:

OLBERMANN: The hair dresser, Miss Tognozzi, also asked if Britney Spears appeared to be under the influence. She said no, but she did use the word trance to describe her. A trance.

MUSTO: No, she actually said the tramp dropped her pants, and it got reported as trance, but it works anyway.

Olbermann elected not to take issue with the crude commentary of his guest. I'm not shocked.

Finally, we turn to TheNewsHole, the official blog of Olbermann's show, Countdown. The blog is said to be authored by "the cast and crew" of Countdown, but this doesn't mean Olbermann isn't responsible for its content. The blog, of course, has an entry about Spears' shaved head, because how could it not? An excerpt:

A bystander says Britney told reporters she did it because "she didn't want people touching her anymore."

You're getting there, sweetheart.

Twisting a woman's stated desire to exert agency over her own body into an implicit swipe at her appearance is an old and common patriarchal trope, never so disgusting as when it is garnished with the ubiquitous, belittling "sweetheart."

So, to Keith Olbermann, who will be sternly moralizing into the camera for at least another four years, I have this to say: There is no excuse for how irresponsibly you are using your position of influence. The fact that you are a petty, disrespectful misogynist discredits you. You are not a progressive and you never will be, unless you drastically alter your attitude toward women. All of the brutally honest political criticism in the world does not make up for the shallow, sexist tripe you use to boost ratings. You, sir, are no Edward R. Murrow.

So, to Keith Olbermann, who will be sternly moralizing into the camera for at least another four years, I have this to say: There is no excuse for how irresponsibly you are using your position of influence. The fact that you are a petty, disrespectful misogynist discredits you. You are not a progressive and you never will be, unless you drastically alter your attitude toward women. All of the brutally honest political criticism in the world does not make up for the shallow, sexist tripe you use to boost ratings. You, sir, are no Edward R. Murrow.

Posted by: at July 24, 2007 3:58 PM

well, duh...he's certainly not Edward R. Murrow.... but if you can't fault someone for their "sexual choices" ---shouldn't you include criticism about May-December relationships and one-night-stands with fans as being that too?

but if you can't fault someone for their "sexual choices" ---shouldn't you include criticism about May-December relationships and one-night-stands with fans as being that too?

The point here was simply to educate Clucker, (which would be a full time job to do it properly) who was offering up the ridiculous notion that Olbermann would view criticism of Mrs. Vitter's dress as "ungentlemanly". You are not arguing that Olbermann is a model of respectful behavior towards women, are you?

The point here was simply to educate Clucker, (which would be a full time job to do it properly) who was offering up the ridiculous notion that Olbermann would view criticism of Mrs. Vitter's dress as "ungentlemanly". You are not arguing that Olbermann is a model of respectful behavior towards women, are you?

Posted by: at July 24, 2007 4:23 PM

Reread Clucker's post.

Nope. You're absolutely right. Olbermann is NOT "gentlemanly", in the sense Clucker means.

However, you're over-stating things yourself, with the sexual choices business.

To be fair to RK, if he had jsut fallen off a turnip truck Im sure it didnt hurt...It takes intellect to feel pain.

It takes intellect to feel pain.

Posted by: StealThisOpinion at July 24, 2007 7:52 PM

It's safe to say you are "feeling no pain" right now, then. Did you see the links to your hate sites on the 24th thread? Enjoy the read! No, "mike" didn't tell us how he supports the troops, it's because he doesn't.

You really are dumb as a bag of hammers.

I found the ONE blog post you posted on the 23rd, not the 24th, which didnt even have anything to say. It just links to BillO's bullshit which has been debunked already. The "hate posts" that O'Reilly refers to are heavily troll-rated, which means most the DailyKos viewers disagree with them and, not to mention, THEY WERENT EVEN DIARIES. They were rogue comments by people who do NOT represent to mainstream thought that occurs at the DailyKos. Either way, in your original post you didnt even mention the DailyKos. You mentioned HuffPo and MediaMatters. Nothing to say on them?

Jesus, this is easy.

Does it hurt to always be wrong RK? I imagine your ego must be the size of a pea given how often you're off.

Olbyloon Ed 101f
Subject: Media Matters
Todays student: stooge

"After three years of tax-exempt operation, Media Matters’ credibility as a media watchdog is questionable. Its leader, Brock, is a self-proclaimed liar who strong-armed sources that didn’t agree with him. While writing his mea culpa, “Blinded by the Right,” Brock was hospitalized in a mental facility where he spent time in a “quiet room” and “had delusions, he thought people were trying to kill him,” according to news sources.

...according to news sources...

Funny stuff Royalasshole....funny stuff.

Posted by: at July 24, 2007 10:23 PM

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20525

Here's the link above to the whole article. Media Matters is pathethic

Does it hurt to always be wrong RK? I imagine your ego must be the size of a pea given how often you're off.

Posted by: StealThisOpinion at July 24, 2007 8:11 PM

Actually, this is where Royal Douche uses his ignorance to his advantage.

Someone slightly smarter would know he's lost almost every argument on this board (he's occassionally argued with himself, so I'm giving him partial victories for those 'debates')

But RD just keeps plugging along...

No, ignorance isn't bliss, but it certainly is helpful when it comes to self-esteem issues, when you're a Royal Douche.

Someone slightly smarter would know he's lost almost every argument on this board (he's occassionally argued with himself, so I'm giving him partial victories for those 'debates')

Posted by: funniest quote of the night at July 25, 2007 2:01 AM

Any proof, coward? That's what I thougt, another lying, desperate olbyloon.