Where in the world is Olby? Hiding from Gibby, no doubt.

Ever since Olbyone got is contract re-up'd and his 4 Mil. he has been noticeably absent.

Yeah, ever since he signed that huge contract, he has taken a lot of vacations. Which wouldn't be an issue, except for the fact that Keith has constantly bashed other people for taking vacations.

Isn't it funny....when KO is there, you complain about that....when is is gone, you complain about that as well.

Admit it guys....you really love him more than you hate him, don't you?

What does everyone think about what Countdown is going to be like on Sunday?

Will he ratchet it up, or tone it down?

And will the added exposure take or will the whole ploy fall flat?

Isn't it funny...when KO is there, Mike kisses his ass...when he is gone, Mike still kisses his ass.

He'll have to rachet it down John.

Not at all James. I don't kiss anybody's ass. I was laughing at YOUR ridiculous obsession with this guy, whether he's on or not.

Got it now...James?

Here's what Keith has been up to. Bidding on his OWN baseball cards on Ebay (part of a special edition). Note bidder name: Merkle923. That's Olby.

Mike,

And you aren't obsessed with a guy named "W"?

Mike spewed: "Isn't it funny....when KO is there, you complain about that....when is is gone, you complain about that as well"

Keeping track of Ubermoronn's lies is a full-time job.

With KO MIA, I guess it's up to Dan Abrams to bash O'Reilly.

BTW, anyone know the ratings for yesterday's show with Amy Robach pinch hitting for Olby?

> Note bidder name: Merkle923. That's Olby.

But the bidder ID in that auction is Merkle 922. So is that really ORalmann?

"mike,

And you aren't obsessed with a guy named "W"?"

Posted by Rico @ 10:49.

I think MY obsession makes a little more sense. This guy named "W" is literally ruining my country!

Why don't all of you drowning-rat war-boosters ante up to your own stupid opinions and political franchise? Enlist! - you comfort-addicted bourgeois death-voyeurs. You cowardly, bloodthirsty pieces of shit make me want to puke.

Why don't all of you drowning-rat war-boosters ante up to your own stupid opinions and political franchise? Enlist! - you comfort-addicted bourgeois death-voyeurs. You cowardly, bloodthirsty pieces of shit make me want to puke.
_________________________________________

apparently not being in the military makes you a coward. So does that mean Democrats are 30% more cowardly than republicans?

Why don't all of you drowning-rat war-boosters ante up to your own stupid opinions and political franchise? Enlist! - you comfort-addicted bourgeois death-voyeurs. You cowardly, bloodthirsty pieces of shit make me want to puke.
..............................................................

says the guy who apparently views posting on a blog as an equal and opposite reaction to that position.

Come on man. American soldiers are dying for lies and injustice and that evil Bush. How many times have you protested in public? How many times have you written your congressman? Get off your ass and do something about it. Start an anti-war group. Do something. But no. here you are. Doing your part by defending KO. Changing the world, eight viewers at a time.

As Stephen Colbert ironically got right once, "Oh NO!!!! They're blogging!!!"

btw sir loin, dont come back with i protest all the time and i write my congressman all the time blah blah. We all know you're here all day.

Americans are dying, and you just dont REALLY care? But you sure act like it.

There was a car accident today on the road by my house.
Bush let it happen!
It's his fault!

--With KO MIA, I guess it's up to Dan Abrams to bash O'Reilly.--

Posted by: Jay Williams at August 21, 2007 10:59 PM

That's true- Abrams has been known to pick up where Oralmann leaves off. MSNBC is so classless. CNN doesn't engage in "obligatory" smearing of anybody; and I don't think they consider Daily Kos and the like to be legitimate news sources.

Doing your part by defending KO. Changing the world, eight viewers at a time.

As Stephen Colbert ironically got right once, "Oh NO!!!! They're blogging!!!"

Posted by: check the make and model of this sausage at August 22, 2007 12:56 AM

I will guarantee you, there is not a single olbyloon doing a damn thing besides banging on their keyboard defending someone who lies on a regular basis (proven) and someone they have never met or spoken a single word to. They defend the orange loser more than they would defend their own mothers. Really sad.

>Here's what Keith has been up to. Bidding on his OWN baseball cards on Ebay (part of a special edition). Note bidder name: Merkle923. That's Olby.

Posted by: The Ego, The Ego. at August 21, 2007 10:37 PM <

Where are you getting the idea that he is bidding on his own cards?

IF NBC wants to get ratings as opposed to angry viewers' complaints, Olby will have to tone down his socialist propaganda.

Blindrat and Mikey- in case you missed it...

So the just released CIA report on 9/11 heaps many of the blame for the disaster on failings of the CIA FROM 1998 to 2001.

QUOTE-
"Conclusions
• U.S. spy agencies, which were overseen by Tenet, lacked a comprehensive strategic plan to counter Osama bin Laden prior to 9/11. The inspector general concluded that Tenet "by virtue of his position, bears ultimate responsibility for the fact that no such strategic plan was ever created."

• The CIA's analysis of al-Qaida before Sept. 2001 was lacking. No comprehensive report focusing on bin Laden was written after 1993, and no comprehensive report laying out the threats of 2001 was assembled. "A number of important issues were covered insufficiently or not at all," the report found.

• The CIA and the National Security Agency tussled over their responsibilities in dealing with al-Qaida well into 2001. Only Tenet's personal involvement could have led to a timely resolution, the report concluded.

• The CIA station charged with monitoring bin Laden — code-named Alec Station — was overworked, lacked operational experience, expertise and training. The report recommended forming accountability boards for the CIA Counterterror Center chiefs from 1998 to 2001, including Black.

• Although 50 to 60 people read at least one CIA cable about two of the hijackers, the information wasn't shared with the proper offices and agencies. "That so many individuals failed to act in this case reflects a systemic breakdown.... Basically, there was no coherent, functioning watch-listing program," the report said. The report again called for further review of Black and his predecessor.

While blame is heaped on Tenet and his deputies, the report also says that Tenet was forcefully engaged in counterterrorism efforts and personally sounded the alarm before Congress, the military and policymakers. In a now well-known 1998 memo, he declared, "We are at war."

The trouble, the report said, was follow-up."

Still think there isn't any blood on Clinton's hands?
It just goes to show that anyone that thinks Bush is solely to blame for the terrorist attack is just a shortsighted bush hater.

They defend the orange loser more than they would defend their own mothers. Really sad.

Posted by: at August 22, 2007 2:40 AM

What is really sad is that some people will not defend their constitution and the history of their own country and instead follow a criminal administration and its propaganda like lost little sheep. You attack others for the same things you are guilty of. What have you done to support your cause? Have you killed any terrorists lately? No? Just sitting around typing little remarks about Keith. Sad.

Hurls Mike Lussy:

"Isn't it funny....when KO is there, you complain about that....when is is gone, you complain about that as well.

Admit it guys....you really love him more than you hate him, don't you?"

END QUOTE

Dear Lussy,

Isn't it funny....when GW is right, you complain about that....when the world doesn't evolve around Ms. Mike Lussy, you complain about that.

Admit it Lussy....liberals are only good at whining, finger pointing, excuse making, growing bitter till the hate distorts their face into a wretched reality of what is on the inside?"

Um, you should have clicked on www.FaggotsForOlby.com.

Oh goody....Sir Loin of Milquetoast is still trying the old ChickenHawk argument....the more things change.....

And I am so glad President Bush will keep the idea of totalitarianism versus freedom in the spotlight today....

"The White House released excerpts of Bush's remarks to the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) group, which claims 2.3 million members, on Tuesday as he headed to Kansas City, Missouri, for their annual convention.

"Bush also tied anti-war forces in the Vietnam era to the hundreds of thousands of people killed in the aftermath of the US pull-out, and hinted at a parallel catastrophe in Iraq if US forces leave too soon.

"'Many argued that if we pulled out, there would be no consequences for the Vietnamese people,' he was to say. 'The world would learn just how costly these misimpressions would be.'

"'Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left,' he said.

"'Whatever your position in that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of Americas withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people,' 're-education camps,' and 'killing fields,'

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070821221133.r8brp1m8&show_article=1

###
Oh yes....the American left anti-war movement supports totalitarianism.......again.

Demicide, re-education of those bad freedom-loving South Vietnmese, what a wonderful world!

Pull the troops out now!...cut the funds!

Oh, and what about codas' comment?....Impeach the criminals Bush & Cheney!

Big Dig failures,,,

BOSTON - About 500 leaks in Big Dig tunnels are awaiting repair, and that number doesn't include leaks being handled by the project's contractors, according to state officials who warn that future leaks are inevitable.

Bush's fault. Began in 1991 by democrats but the leaks occurred under Bush's watch.

"'Senator Clinton's view that the President's Iraq policy is 'working' is another instance of a Washington politician trying to have it both ways,' Edwards campaign manager David Bonior said in a statement. 'You cannot be for the President's strategy in Iraq but against the war. The American people deserve straight talk and real answers on Iraq, not double-speak, triangulation, or political positioning.'"

###
I agree with the millionaire poverty advocate's opinion about the former leftist dove turned masculine hawk!

Get the troops out now!.....Cut the funds!

Oh the leftist ruling elite is sooooooo dysfuctional....Where are the leaders?

The left are are busy hanging out with the likes of gay billionaire David Geffen and the Hollywood liberal types.

It's a fact that one can't ignore
Keith's afraid to cover the war
Shouldn't come as a shock
Never been to Iraq
Keith's no Murrow... he's NBC's whore

Edward Murrow stood in harm's way
Keith "lift and reads" and calls it a day
"Good night and good luck"
Despicable fuck
Keith's a coward with little to say

When Iraq's going bad
It makes Keith mad
He loves to show we're losing
Defeat is what Loons are choosing
The surge has made Olby so sad

Keith's depressed
'cause the surge is a success
Al Queda on the run
Doing Countdown ain't no fun
Olby's in his bunker wearing a dress

You attack others for the same things you are guilty of. What have you done to support your cause? Have you killed any terrorists lately? No? Just sitting around typing little remarks about Keith. Sad.
________________________________________

codas, no one was accussed of anything until sir loin used the old "Enlist if you believe in it so much" argument. I dont care if you join the military or if you choose to protest. Its your life. People can support and do whatever the hell they want.

But if sir loin is gonna make a point and act like he is so rightous for his cause, i'm gonna point out that, well, he's not.

Bush is doing nothing to stop the floods in the Midwest.
This is criminal!
The flooding is Bush's fault!

"The flooding is Bush's fault"

No, I think it's Clinton's fault.

"The NBC 2.0 reorganization is coming up on its first year and the initiative has resulted in more layoffs at MSNBC. An insider tells TVNewser employees in editing and promotions were let go Tuesday.

"Last October, then-NBC CEO, Bob Wright said the company-wide initiative would reduce NBC's annual expenses by $750 million by the end of 2008. Wright added NBC would slash 'approximately 700 positions.'"

###
Oh boy, 700 positions cut at an up and coming network.....I sure am glad Keith Olbermann can continue his wonderful narcissitic lifestyle in Manhattan while he remains the shill for the American left.

I wonder what Keith Olbermann will be giving the poor slobs (who lost their jobs while he got his raise) for their going away presents?

"if it were teh other way around, Lussy's like you would be living under the Crown, the Swastika of the flag of the rising sun."

Ok, which is it Laura, ...."The Crown", or the "Swatiska of the flag of the rising sun"?

ha ha mike. You are so funny for pointing out typing errors.

Or are you just so dumb you just couldn't discern what he meant?

"Or are you so dumb you just couldn't discern what he meant?"

You mean like how all you "clear thinkers" on this here hate site keep 'discerning' what Keith Olbermann 'meant', even though he didn't actually say what you said he said....over and over again?

According to the Loons...why Olbermann has not been in---he's not in the bathtub, he's "taking a lot of meetings":

"I think it's clear, from what Phil Griffin has said about the upcoming NBC
"Countdown" special this coming Sunday, that Mr. Griffin considers this an
important next step, both for the broadcast network and for MSNBC, so it's
possible that Keith is taking a lot of meetings and also personally preparing
for this event in a way he hasn't had to get ready for something in a long
time.

It's not like it's "make or break," exactly; more like it would be REALLY GOOD
if this went over well with the young, pumped-up, young, slightly irreverent,
young pre-game audience. I believe that's what Keith and his superiors see
as the goal, and they're thinking it through very carefully.

I just hope they don't OVER-think it. But that being said, I can't wait to see
what they finally come up with! "

-Marie- Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:24 pm Post subject:

You mean like how all you "clear thinkers" on this here hate site keep 'discerning' what Keith Olbermann 'meant', even though he didn't actually say what you said he said....over and over again?
_________________________________________

like he never asked for the president of the United States to resign? you mean like that? Cause if so, then yeah.

like he never asked for the president of the United States to resign? you mean like that? Cause if so, then yeah.
..............................................................
ahhh, objective jounalism at its best. And now he goes on before SNF. Let me ask you something Mike, what if Rush was doing pieces before MNF?

I suppose it would be alright now that KO is doing it?

Actually Rush was doing Schtick during the telecasts....

Actually Rush was doing Schtick during the telecasts....
_________________________________________

but were you cool with it then? Most weren't. But its totally cool to do it with KO.
Its alright now, but it wasn't then.

You mean like how all you "clear thinkers" on this here hate site keep 'discerning' what Keith Olbermann 'meant', even though he didn't actually say what you said he said....over and over again?

Posted by: Mike at August 22, 2007 12:38 PM

So you're implication here is that we put words into Keith's mouth...right?

Is it fair to assume this is what you mean though you didn't actually say it, Mike?

Mike in Denial-
You continue to state that Olbermann did not blame Bush for the bridge collapse. Well here is the entry FROM HIS FAN WESBITE 'olberman.org' recapping his show.

(Aug 3, 2007)
Tax policy to blame for bridge collapse?
Did the Minnesota bridge collapse because the Bush administration has misplaced spending priorities? Radio talk show host Rachel Maddow weighs in.

His own minions state it... why do you
continue to live in denial!?!?

ONE MORE TIME: He blamed Bush for the collapse

I wonder what Keith Olbermann will be giving the poor slobs (who lost their jobs while he got his raise) for their going away presents?

Posted by: cee at August 22, 2007 12:19 PM

Just imagine the frothing at the mouth of Olbyonesidedkanobie and his loons if Fox News (#1) slashed 700 workers while paying O'Reilly 10 million dollars! Oh, the rage of the socialists would be astronomical.

Mike's repeated insistance that Keith never stated it – even though day-after-day posts PROVE the contrary puts him in the Olbyloon Hall- of Fame.

He may have not SAID it verbatim, but the facts prove he reported it as a factor. LOOOOOONIE MIKEY!

No Benson, I just read your 'recap' that you posted, and even going on blind faith that it is an honest recap of what was actually said, you just proved MY point.

Just as YOU stated it, he introduced a GUEST who in turn chose to pose a question he may or may not have personally agreed with.

I have the very SAME questions! I STRONGLY believe we have had ridiculously misplaced spending priorities for the last six years, .... and every time I or anyone else chooses to bring that up does NOT mean we are "blaming Bush" for any specific event.

As for what you say his "minions" siad, I could care less what his "minions" might have said....I'm not one of his minions.

yeah, OK mike.

tonight on Bill O. "did clinton cause 9/11?" ya know, its just talk. didn't actually say it cause its in the form of a question.

Cecelia:

"So you're implication is that we put words into Keith's mouth....right?

"Is it fair to assume this is what you mean even though you didn't actually say it, Mike?"

Actually Cecelia, I think I DID actually say it, and yes, Olbermann haters ARE routinely putting words into Olbermanns mouth he didn't actually emit all the time.


Remember how the comment "did we blink" morphed to "the US "blinked"....after JD misquoted it initially, to finally, "the US blinked" as subsequent posters saw and re-quoted it? Soon, it became ironclad 'fact' on this site that Keith Olbermann had said something he had not said at all.

Mike - i hate to pile on because I really don't think you are a loon, just someone i disagree with a lot.

But the whole format of Olby's show is to spew propoganda and his opinion without debate. If he had a second guest on to debate the loon theory, I would give him the benefit of the doubt. Instead he lobs softballs at the guest and nods in agreement when they give him the answers he seeks.

That is why I (olby hater) and olbvermann.org (olby asskisser) both believe the show blamed Bush for the collapse.

so mike, just what the fuck do you think he meant by we?

him and his 8 year old girlfriend?

Actually anon 1:19, "did Clinton cause 911" is not an outright accusation either, although it is a little closer to one than the example we have been discussing.

Look people, I have ALWAYS agreed that yes, Olbermann IS biased. So am I! And or course, so is Bill O'Reilly.

That doesn't excuse changing questions into statements of fact.

Is mike a cunt?

Can Mike suck seven dicks at one time?

How many times has Mike tossed the salad?

You're right mike. This is awesome!!!

1:28 anon: "What the fuck do you think he meant by we?"

It only matters to ME what "what the fuck" I think he meant by "we". By the same token, it doesn't matter to anyone but YOU "what the fuck he meant with we". What you or I THINK it meant is NOT a statement of fact about what it actually meant, therefore turning the aforementioned QUESTION into a statement of fact is both dishonest and inaccurate.

What you are really doing is turning what is inarguably a clear case of journalistic bias into something more eggregarious than it actually is....which makes what you are doing just as bad as anything you accuse KO of doing.

He may have not SAID it verbatim, but the facts prove he reported it as a factor. LOOOOOONIE MIKEY!

Posted by: at August 22, 2007 1:04 PM

Actually, when discussing the bridge collapse with Air America DJ Rachael Maddow, Olbermann blamed the collapse on war spending and the Republican dislike of taxes, explicitly suggesting that more money would have saved lives:

OLBERMANN:" Republicans, including Governor Pawlenty, President Bush, have demonized taxes, demonized any Democrat who ever said tax hike could improve our lives, save our lives at home. Does the governor's reversal tonight suggest maybe somebody is going to start having sane, reasoned discussions about taxes and when they're needed?"

With some investigation and some time before striking out at the usual suspects (not to mention interviewing someone else along side the liberal radio personality...) Olbermann might have discovered that the state of Minnesota is running a surplus AND is building the Vikings a new stadium and been able to ask pertinent questions about THAT ...as well...

To be fair, Olbermann did attempt to cover the angle that the feds do leave some things up to the states. Get this... and be aware WHO Olbermann is asking this question....

OLBERMANN: "But now the White House wants all the states to shoulder as much of the burden of government and governance as possible. Is that some sort of variety or mutation of a push for small government, the original principled idea, or an attempt to disperse accountability so that, you know, corporations and contractors and such can get to the public trough more easily? What is it?"

So even if the state was in charge of their infrastructure, were the feds really just givng businesses a reward rather than taking care of folks, Rachael?

Rachael did not comment on putting business above people tact of this question, she settled for arguing that it was just an attempt to shift accountability.

Surprise!

But then Olbermann's show isn't about investigation, or asking pertinent questions from all sides in order to find out what's really going on. No, it's about leftist opportunism. You know.... that "side" that only dear Mr. Olbermann will give them....

you're right mike, people have no right to interpret the actions or words of others without them having said what they difinitivly meant.

In fact, Hitler never said he committed genocide. So how dare we interpret him as having done so. All history books should read, Did Hitler commit genocide?

Is mike a chode?

Is his cholestoral higher than his sperm count?

"'There are many differences between the wars we fought in the Far East and the war on terror we are fighting today,' Bush said. 'But one important similarity is that at their core, they are all ideological struggles.'

###
This is where leftist historians want the fundamental aspect of disinformation perpetuated regarding Vietnam. Ideology, not fervent nationalism, drove the militaristic ambitions of the NVA and Viet Cong.

"The militarists of Japan and the Communists in Korea and Vietnam were driven by a merciless vision for the proper ordering of humanity. They killed Americans because we stood in the way of their attempt to force this ideology on others."

###
That is the mission.....defending democracy from the forces of totalitarianism. The leftist ruling class, The Democrat Party, have made their choice.

You guys are right- I am being stubborn because then I would be admitting to being wrong.

Cecelia, the only thing i disagreed about in your last (1:42 PM) post is your statement of interpretation in the second paragraph "Olbermann blamed the collapse on war spending and the Republican dislike of taxes."

Otherwise, you're spot on....Olbermann IS certainly biased....as I have readily agreed with all along.

Remember how the comment "did we blink" morphed to "the US "blinked"....after JD misquoted it initially, to finally, "the US blinked" as subsequent posters saw and re-quoted it? Soon, it became ironclad 'fact' on this site that Keith Olbermann had said something he had not said at all.

Posted by: Mike at August 22, 2007 1:25 PM

Mike, we both know that Keith was asking a rhetorical question at the end of a set-up that implied that the only reasonable answer is "YES".

Johnny paraphrased the term blinked. It was a form of the term Olbermann used and was utterly accurate with what Olbermann implied. Just as I could paraphrase your rhetorical question:

Mike "You mean like how all you "clear thinkers" on this here hate site keep 'discerning' what Keith Olbermann 'meant', even though he didn't actually say what you said he said....over and over again"

into

Mike says we haven't "discerned" what Olbermann says, we've put words in his mouth.

And I would be perfectly accurate as to what you MEANT.

It's ridiculous nitpicking on your part and you know it.

"In fact, Hitler never said he commited genocide. So how dare we interpret him as having done so. All history books should read, did Hitler commit genocide?"

ROFLMAO!

I think you need to take a few more classes in logical thinking before attempting any more metaphors!

ROFLMAO!

I think you need to take a few more classes in logical thinking before attempting any more metaphors!_________________________________________

what Mike?

you said the opinion of the individual doesn't matter when evaluating the statements of others.

Unless he admitted to it, or said it directly, how can we apply our own interpretations onto him?

Is mike dodging an argument?

Cecelia, the only thing i disagreed about in your last (1:42 PM) post is your statement of interpretation in the second paragraph "Olbermann blamed the collapse on war spending and the Republican dislike of taxes."

Otherwise, you're spot on....Olbermann IS certainly biased....as I have readily agreed with all along.

Posted by: Mike at August 22, 2007 1:50 PM

So you characterize a scenario in which Olbermann brought up the President's tax cuts, spending in Iraq, and Bush wanting the states to shoulder some of the burden for infrastructure.. solely to one liberal guest....WHILE you say Olbermann certainly IS biased and THEN disagree that Olbermann was holding the Bushies responsible for the bridge failure.

We both know you'd never be swallowing this camel if the scenario was reversed.

Cecelia: "It's ridiculous nitpicking on your part and you know it."

Thats YOUR opinion Cecelia, and believe it or not, I do respect it.

However, when someone who has no preconceived notions about Keith Olbermann reads one of JD's 'recaps', he should not come away believing that Keith made a statement of fact when in FACT, he did not, ....nor should the wording and quotes be rearranged so that they are unable to make their OWN honest determination about what the man said or meant themself.

god, mike is such a chode licker.

and no, thats not a question.

"is mike dodging an argument?"

vagenia, do you REALLY want me to take your metaphor about Hitler on? .... Or would you like to think about it a little first?

However, when someone who has no preconceived notions about Keith Olbermann reads one of JD's 'recaps', he should not come away believing that Keith made a statement of fact when in FACT, he did not, ....nor should the wording and quotes be rearranged so that they are unable to make their OWN honest determination about what the man said or meant themself.
________________________________________

you mean like Kieth never rearranges quotes, or plays a regurgitated video while editing out a chunk that goes against his personal world view. (that was my personal favorite)

vagenia, do you REALLY want me to take your metaphor about Hitler on? .... Or would you like to think about it a little first?

what, because you percieve their to be facts proving it? But thats only your interpretation right? So is there proof showing Bush caused the bridge collapse? If not, why even have the segment? ANd if so, are those only interpretations of individuals? So they dont count.

I being a sarcastic dick, but i just love your assertion the the interpretaions of individuals on others comments dont matter. Its so very social of you.

if Imus had said "are those nappy headed hoes", i'm sure no one would have said a word. You are so funny.

However, when someone who has no preconceived notions about Keith Olbermann reads one of JD's 'recaps', he should not come away believing that Keith made a statement of fact when in FACT, he did not, ....nor should the wording and quotes be rearranged so that they are unable to make their OWN honest determination about what the man said or meant themself.

Posted by: Mike at August 22, 2007 2:03 PM

So now we just go back to the place where you argue there's room for interpretation that Olbermann was asking a rhetorical question in the first place, when we both know that based on everything he said in his set-up, there was not. Anyone who read Johnny's words would come away with an absolutely accurate picture of what Olbermann meants, just as anyone who read my summation of your rhetorical question:

Mike says we aren't "discerning" what Keith says, he thinks we put words in his mouth.

.... would have a precisely accurate picturee of what you said to the poster at who posted at 12:31 PM.

You changed his "dicern" into "discerning". If someone who had never been here, saw both your posts on an otherwise blank sheet of paper they would not have failed to graps anonymous' meaning or your meaning in your rhetorical question.

You changed his "dicern" into "discerning". If someone who had never been here, saw both your posts on an otherwise blank sheet of paper they would not have failed to graps anonymous' meaning or your meaning in your rhetorical question.
Posted by: Cecelia at August 22, 2007 2:19 PM

Jesus, what where you saying about "nitpicking"... from the nitpick queen.

if Imus had said "are those nappy headed hoes", i'm sure no one would have said a word. You are so funny.

Posted by: pack the hog already at August 22, 2007 2:15 PM

It's particularly troublesome that someone could have come here, not known what Olbermann said, read Johnny's paraphrase, and gotten the RIGHT impression of Olbermann's opinion on the matter...

Jesus, what where you saying about "nitpicking"... from the nitpick queen.

Posted by: at August 22, 2007 2:23 PM

Well, I didn't call him a "nitpick queen", but that's you're perogative, I supppose....

Mike,

If you are in between customer transactions, what exact words did R.K. use in stating that not enough troops have died? Or did you put words in his mouth?

>Just imagine the frothing at the mouth of Olbyonesidedkanobie and his loons if Fox News (#1) slashed 700 workers while paying O'Reilly 10 million dollars! Oh, the rage of the socialists would be astronomical.

Posted by: royalking at August 22, 2007 1:03 PM

I love how RoyalDouche calls KO 'Olbyonesidedkanobie' yet readily admits he's a big fan of the Wiener that wrote 'Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.'

Familiarity breeds contempt, eh Douche?

Perhaps if you weren't so full of Bull sperm you'd have the sense to recognize your own hypocrisy.

Funny (although not surprising) that the Olbersessed would rather mince words debating whether Olby blamed the bridge collapse on Bush's wrong-headed policies than debate whether focusing on Iraq's infrastructure (that we destroyed) took money away from our infrastructure.

Very telling goons...

Bush is doing nothing to stop the floods in the Midwest.
This is criminal!
The flooding is Bush's fault!

Posted by: Kossack at August 22, 2007 11:04 AM

C'mon Kossack...Don't be a Royal Douche, every good NeoCon / T-Warrior knows that all the ills of this country are caused by the Liberal Media Elite and the Evil Secular Progressives.

Bush just runs the country...

Wise up man!

Funny (although not surprising) that the Olbersessed would rather mince words debating whether Olby blamed the bridge collapse on Bush's wrong-headed policies than debate whether focusing on Iraq's infrastructure (that we destroyed) took money away from our infrastructure.

Very telling goons...

Posted by: at August 22, 2007 2:35 PM

"Wrongheaded policy" is pretty telling too.

In other words, if we were agreeing with Olbermann here, this clown would have no trouble whatsoever with our discussing Keith Olbermann, his show, and his opinions here...

Perhaps if you weren't so full of Bull sperm you'd have the sense to recognize your own hypocrisy.

Posted by: at August 22, 2007 2:31 PM

So the next time RK disses Mike Malloy, Rachael Maddow, or Jeannine Garafolo for a one-sided talk radio show you can hop right on him. Otherwise you're comparing apples to oranges, moron.

Short article from an author questioning the mixing of politics & football. Sadly, the liberal loons who left comments completely missed the point and as usual attack the writer.

Keith Olbermann, NBC and political football
By John Ryan
Tuesday, August 21st, 2007 at 12:37 pm

(an excerpt):
"It's not a special football edition; it's the politics-heavy show, coming on before a football game and featuring a guy who's going to be talking football in that time slot for the next four months.

Doesn't bother me personally---I watch the show as much as I watch any of the other political shows. And I'm not naive enough to think there wouldn't be some cross-promotion. But this sure does seem like they're crossing the streams, which---Ghostbusters' showed us is bad bad bad."

http://www.mercextra.com/blogs/buzz/2007/08/21/keith-olbermann-nbc-and-political-football/

Cecelia: "when we both know that based on everything he said in his set-ups, there was not. Anyone who read Johnny's words would come away with an absolutely accurate picture of what Olbermann meants,"

AH, so it's your belief that its Johnny's place to think and interpret for everyone else! Thanks for clearing that up.

For anyone unclear about what this is all about, it concerned the Iranian siezure of the British sailors several months ago. When they were finally released, KO asked "did we blink" as part of his header leading into the story. That was subsequently changed by the Olbermann critics to "the US blinked"

I see a HUGE diiference in the potential interpretations of the two phrases (in ADDITION to the fact that one was a question, and the other was not), but Cecelia clearly doesn't, and I guess JD didn't either.

Cecelia, I didn't interpret that QUESTION as the anti-Bush STATEMENT you and JD did at all. I personally never saw any part of that particular event as having had any particular negative connotation on the president, or on his judgement, ....and there is no evidence KO did either.

Therefore, there WAS room for honest interpretations other than the ones you and Johnny arrived at as to what Olbermann 'meant'.

Sharon, I would appreciate it if you did not get involved in anything going on between me and Jeff. You chose to stay uninvolved with his multitude of outright LIES about me posting as hundreds of others, yet for some reason, you want to get involved in this.

You and Jeff may think it is insignificant and unimportant to have a troll constantly accusing you of making anonymous statements you didn't make, but I beg to differ.

The problem with Keith.
His mantra is...
I report ONE SIDE, you decide.

You can debate whether Keith 'implied' that Bush inadvertantly caused this nation's infrastructure to crumble....

It's the same type of crap Fox 'News' does all the time. Asking leading questions...

>Now that the Dems control congress, how high will your taxes go up?

>Will the ACLU's war on Christmas mean longer lines for you at Wal-Mart?

>Will the Democrats defeatist attitude give the enemy the renewed hope that was crushed by our efficient and expert Iraq strategy?

>If Hillary wins in '08 will we see a return of the cold war, great depression, and 9-11?

Think about it Goons....

No, I'm not complaining about Fox, they can do whatever they want. I stopped believing in 'true' journalism when American's hunger for 'infotainment' went crazy during the 80's (and has only gotten worse).

I'm complaining about YOU complaining about KO, but with a partisan wink and nod, think Fox is all that is good with cable news.
And, no, just because Fox has token liberal guests on that they criticize, interrupt, talk over, mischaracterize, and occasionally cut the mic of, that doesn't mean the conservative shows hosted by conservative pundits are 'fair and balanced.'

Think about it Goons, if a cable news network REALLY wanted to be 'fair and balanced' don't you think they could trouble themselves to have at least ONE show hosted by a lone liberal host?

GUESS NOT!

And yes, I know....

This site is called 'OlbermannWatch'

And it happens to be supported by partisan hypocrites, and every time they 'expose' KO for doing what Fox has been perfecting over the last decade, it actually exposes their blatant partisan hypocrisy.

Cheers!

The problem with Keith.
His mantra is...
I report ONE SIDE, you decide.

Posted by: benson at August 22, 2007 2:57 PM

Exactly Benson, you decide.

You decide whether or not to believe what he is saying, and you decide whether or not to watch his show.

When Countdown becomes mandatory viewing to qualify for tax cuts, you can bitch all you want.

But until then, grow up and decide for yourself what to watch.

Cecelia, I didn't interpret that QUESTION as the anti-Bush STATEMENT you and JD did at all. I personally never saw any part of that particular event as having had any particular negative connotation on the president, or on his judgement, ....and there is no evidence KO did either.

Therefore, there WAS room for honest interpretations other than the ones you and Johnny arrived at as to what Olbermann 'meant'.

Posted by: Mike at August 22, 2007 2:47 PM

I would be very pleased to hear your thoughts on the non-negative implications of Olbermann's speculation (without a shred of evidence) that the Bushies may have worked behind the scenes to free the British hostages and had therefore backtracked ("blinked") on an expressly tough policy not to deal with hostage takers?

But do you really expect me to believe that you would have found such unfounded and unevidenced speculation by a journalist just as open to positive interpretation had it been put out on national tv during Clinton's tenure.

Posted by: at August 22, 2007 3:02 PM
Cecelia

I repeat- at least fox news throws a left wing pundit in
to give THE OTHER SIDE.!

Mike,

First, I guess it is perfectly alright for you and some others here to malign someone with a serious charge, unlike the silly posting as others charge. Concerning R.K.'s badgering you that you don't support the troops, have you noticed, no one else is piling on? There hasn't been literally hundreds of comments, many of them lengthy, as in R.K.'s case. Secondly, the point I made had more to do with your inability to see how ridiculous it is to stick to the "exact words" discussion. I think that was even addressed in an old Brady Bunch show.

typical loon at 3:01

Comes to a Olbermann watchdog blog and defends his propaganda with "Its not mandatory viewing"

You are out of place loon. Maybe on the KO fan sites your rhetoric sticks to the wall. Here you just look like a bitter defender of Keith's lying and news manipulation. DailyKOs is calling for you. You know the site that wants to censor right-wing talk radio.

But until then, grow up and decide for yourself what to watch.

Posted by: at August 22, 2007 3:01 PM

We have decided. We've decided to watch his show and express our feelings on it and state the other POV.

Now we could tell you that you aren't forced to come HERE and read the stuff that is written about Olbermann and his show, and view our actions that you find illogical.... but then... you know that.

You do it because you feel what you feel about our logic in doing what we do and you wish to tell us that.

You aren't so different from us now, are you...

Sharon, I guess you see a difference in Jeff's multiple name calling tp me and others, calling us "traitors", and "enemy defenders", and "not supporting the troops", by twisting our words to suit his own biased definitions.....but when the EXACT SAME THING is done to him in return, you find that offensive.......what's up with that?

And just as I said before, you just dismissed the name post LYING as "silly posting as others charge". That means you have also dismissed how much I was personally offended by it as unimportant. Who are you to do that Sharon? His many LIES in that regard to me are far more offensive than anything I have done in return. Why can't you see that?

Has hypocisy become a contageous partisan desease in America that can't be contained?

Sharon: More to your point of "sticking to his exact words", lets go back to the "blinked" example.

If JD had simply written his interpretation, ALONG WITH an accurate quote of what was actually said, I would never have called him on it.

You and I are free to interpret anything we choose any way we choose to do it, but that doesn't make our conclusions logical....or fair.

And just as I said before, you just dismissed the name post LYING as "silly posting as others charge". That means you have also dismissed how much I was personally offended by it as unimportant. Who are you to do that Sharon? His many LIES in that regard to me are far more offensive than anything I have done in return. Why can't you see that?

Has hypocisy become a contageous partisan desease in America that can't be contained?

Posted by: Mike at August 22, 2007 3:34 PM

Well, that's just Sharon's interpretation of RK's actions Mike....

Personally, I see a positive element to Sharon's criticism of you-- she is appealing to you to ignore these actions by RK because she thinks you are the bigger person.

Now I personally think she's making a point that if you're going to make an issue of blink and blinked as putting words in someone's mouth, then you ought to be the last one to put the sort of words you put into RK's mouth... but that's just me.

I think Sharon's words are certainly open to the positive interpretation....the one where she doesn't think you're a hypocrite....but she thinks you're the berries...

You and I are free to interpret anything we choose any way we choose to do it, but that doesn't make our conclusions logical....or fair.

Posted by: Mike at August 22, 2007 3:41 PM

So you think the logical stance is to say that anything is open to interpretation and that all interpretations are logical....

You and I are free to interpret anything we choose any way we choose to do it, but that doesn't make our conclusions logical....or fair.

Posted by: Mike at August 22, 2007 3:41 PM

You have yet to tell us the logical and fair alternate interpretation of Olbermann opinion when he setup the hostage crisis as having being inexplicably and suddenly solved and then asked if Bush might have ignored his own policy and met Iran's demands....

"Sharon, I would appreciate it if you did not get involved in anything going on between me and Jeff" posted by mike

>>>It's okie dokie for you ,aap/why and clucker/philby/rudy to pile on and vis versa with their phony assertions and lies, though. Like claiming I made "anti-troop" comments and "I hate our troops" among other lies. Right mike, oh hypocritical one?

I love how RoyalDouche calls KO 'Olbyonesidedkanobie' yet readily admits he's a big fan of the Wiener that wrote 'Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.'

Posted by:patsy at August 22, 2007 2:31 PM

>>>Savage is not one sided. You, obviously, have never listened to his show. He hammers conservatives and Bush on a daily basis. You immediately discredit him based on a book he wrote. Have you read it? I doubt it. Who's onesided? One more thing, I have never claimed to be a "big fan," either. I haven't listened to his show in over a month, although, I do read his website occasionally.

Exposing the Olbygoons says:

"You can debate whether Keith 'implied' that Bush inadvertantly caused this nation's infrastructure to crumble....It's the same type of crap Fox 'News' does all the time. Asking leading questions..."

When exposing the olbygoons, blindrat, clucker, Mike, and others infected with Bush derangement syndrome come to this site offering the latest irrelevant complaints about "Fox Noise", the question has been asked: Since this site is dedicated to observations and opinions about Olbermann, the mentally ill host of Meltdown, what are your thoughts about him and his competence and integrity in his self proclaimed role as a "newsman" ? What do you make of his assertions that he he has no allegiences to any political point of view? (to wit, the following Olbermann response in a recent interview: Online Journalism Review: How would you describe yourself politically on the liberal-to-conservative spectrum? How important do you think it is for MSM to be transparent on their political affiliations?
Olbermann: I'm not political. I don't vote. . . I have no more interest in the political outcome of an election than I did in the winner or loser of any ballgame I ever covered.
http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/041130glaser/)

Do you believe that Olbermann is sincere when he makes such statements or do you believe that Olbermann is lying? If you think he is lying, does this affect whether you would find believeable anything else that he says? Do you think that the parade of lefty sycophants that reinforce Olbermann's every utterance increases or decreases the possibility that Olbermann will strive to ensure that his statements are carefully sourced and verified?

Such fundamental questions about Olbermann go unanswered by our faithful left wing correspondents as well as MSLSD's irresponsible complicity in permitting such left fringe propaganda to be promoted as "news" and worthy of consumption by serious persons. This brings me to my more central point.

What is it that prompts these purveyors of liberal theology to come to this site about Olbermann? Well, think of this site as a street demonstration against Olbermann on the web. Now, if you didn't care anything about Olbermann or didn't care one way or the other if anyone said nasty things about him, you would pay it no mind and continue your walk down the street. However, if you really supported with Olbermann or couldn't stand the idea of anyone calling his cred into question, you would stop and fire back, even if you had no good arguments to support him.

And it is this latter category that exposing the olbygoons, blindrat, clucker, et. al. belong in. Contrary to statements of agnosticism about Orange Boy, these folks would not be here unless they were true blue Olbermann supporters. But, realizing that the arguments exposing Olbermann as a tool for far left viewpoints are too strong to rebut, they simply attempt diversion to compensate for their anger that Olbermann's journalistic malpractice cannot withstand scrutiny.

"Savage is not one sided"; Anybody who could make such a ridiculous statement is hopelessly brainwashed. Even I admit Olbermann is one sided, but he's not nearly as one sided as Savage!

And Yes, I have listened to Savage....and I could not imagine a bigger anti-American one sided jerk than him!

Hank, in your continued insistance that Fox is 'irrelevant', you ignor the very real fact that Olbermann's show is a welcome backlash to Fox.

Without one, we probably wouldn't have the other.

Not as one sided as Savage. How can you be any more one sided that KO?

Cecelia: So you think the logical stance is to say that anything is open to interpretation and all interpretations are logical..."

Since what I actually said was that "doesn't make our interpretations logical", I'm mainly sitting here wondering why you just interpreted what I said as just the opposite of what I actually said?

Just as an afterthought, my entire former career was based on logical thinking, ie. engineering, computers, electronics, and troubleshooting....and yes, detail was very important.

"Hank, in your continued insistance that Fox is 'irrelevant', you ignor the very real fact that Olbermann's show is a welcome backlash to Fox"

OK, so how do you think Olbermann is doing as the "journalist" that he says that he is? Specifically,

a)what are your thoughts about him and his competence and integrity in his self proclaimed role as a "newsman" ?
b) What do you make of his assertions that he he has no allegiences to any political point of view? (to wit, the following Olbermann response in a recent interview:
Online Journalism Review: How would you describe yourself politically on the liberal-to-conservative spectrum? How important do you think it is for MSM to be transparent on their political affiliations?
Olbermann: I'm not political. I don't vote. . . I have no more interest in the political outcome of an election than I did in the winner or loser of any ballgame I ever covered.
http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/041130glaser/)
(c) Do you believe that Olbermann is sincere when he makes such statements or do you believe that Olbermann is lying?
(d) If you think he is lying, does this affect whether you would find believeable anything else that he says?
(e) Do you think that the parade of lefty sycophants that reinforce Olbermann's every utterance increases or decreases the possibility that Olbermann will strive to ensure that his statements are carefully sourced and verified?

Cecelia: I don't think Bush played much of a role in the entire hostage debacle, and if he did, it was behind the scenes. I don't recall KO implying otherwise...unless that's how you interpreted "did we blink".

Throughout history, hostage situations have almost always resulted in somebody "blinking". Why would we have assumed this one would be any different? So in the context of a hostage negotiation, "blinking" would not necessarily have a negative conotation.

Hank, in all of your questions, you totally ignored my point, even as you used it as a pretext to again question Olbermann's credentials as a 'journalist'.

i dont get it. The US cant blink. It doesnt have eyelids.

And Yes, I have listened to Savage....and I could not imagine a bigger anti-American one sided jerk than him!

Posted by: Mike at August 22, 2007 4:27 PM

That proves you right? Far from it, spolbyloon.

Without one, we probably wouldn't have the other.

Posted by: Mike at August 22, 2007 4:29 PM

Yes, Hank the mere terimity of FOX News having a conservative host interviewing both liberals and conservatives about issues of the day is justification enough for a liberal Olbermann airing only liberal guests and liberal views.

The Big Show where liberal Olbermann compared Ken Starr to Himmler and the House Managers to a kangaroo Court wasn't enough. On that show Olbermann still had to cover unfavorable news events like the impeachment hearings and had to have on alternative viewpoints.

"Sharon, I would appreciate it if you did not get involved in anything going on between me and Jeff" posted by mike

>>>It's okie dokie for you ,aap/why and clucker/philby/rudy to pile on and vis versa with their phony assertions and lies, though. Like claiming I made "anti-troop" comments and "I hate our troops" among other lies. Right mike, oh hypocritical one?

crickets.......

"Sharon, I would appreciate it if you did not get involved in anything going on between me and Jeff" posted by mike

>>>It's okie dokie for you ,aap/why and clucker/philby/rudy to pile on and vis versa with their phony assertions and lies, though. Like claiming I made "anti-troop" comments and "I hate our troops" among other lies. Right mike, oh hypocritical one?

crickets.......

Why doesn't Bush stop the floods in the Midwest?
This is criminal!
Does he enjoy seeing people lose their homes.
Why doesn't he stop the floods!
It's Bush's fault!

"yes, Hank, the terimity of FOX News having a conservative host...."

Try ALL of them....and Puleeese, don't invoke the token lesser half named Colmes.

Cecelia: I don't think Bush played much of a role in the entire hostage debacle, and if he did, it was behind the scenes. I don't recall KO implying otherwise...unless that's how you interpreted "did we blink".

Throughout history, hostage situations have almost always resulted in somebody "blinking". Why would we have assumed this one would be any different? So in the context of a hostage negotiation, "blinking" would not necessarily have a negative conotation.

Posted by: Mike at August 22, 2007 4:48 PM

Mike, that you don't think and don't know that the U.S. negoticiated with Iran behind the scenes is because there is not any evidence to suggest that we did.

That wasn't good enough for Olbermann. He had to throw out that conjecture anyway and set it up that rhetorical question with the scenario of high gas prices and of course.... you're ignoring that the inherent negativity of an Administration backing down from your own stated policy or the implication that it was an unreasonable policy to start with.

And now you're pretending that hostage negotiations with Iran would be something akin to negotiating with a kidnapper or that Iran would be the equivalent of a CEO in a labor dispute.

Just what do you think it means when you say that the U.S. blinked...gave in.... capitulated... to the demands of a fascist enemy nation?.... Just what is it that you think Iran would want?... A million bucks? A better health insurance policy?...

No Cecelia, I'm not referring to law enforcemant situations. There have been many International hostage situations that have been solved by behind the scenes negotiations designed to save face. The Pueblo and the Chinese seizing of our surveillance plane are two that come to mind right away.

"Blinking" is not always the dishonorable thing to do.

I don't know what Iran would 'want', just as you don't. That is one reason why the question "did we blink" had no clear meaning, and was not, in my opinion, necessarily intended as a rhetorical question.

Try ALL of them....and Puleeese, don't invoke the token lesser half named Colmes.

Posted by: Mike at August 22, 2007 5:11 PM

I'll grant your assumption that EVERY on-air person on the whole of Fox News is conservative, for argument's sake and still say your calling Olbermann's show justtified "backlash" to FOX goes along way towards showing that you'll only really be happy if all the shows are the equivalent of Olbermann's.

Conservatives believe the MSM was liberal and were happy to get shows on FOX that aired our views as well as liberal guests airing their opinions.

Liberals also say the MSM is biased (corporate conservative) and FOX News is biased and the only "welcomed backlash" to YOU is Keith Olbermann's one-view only ...no conservatives or Republicans allowed...show.

Scarborough. Matthews, Tucker, and Abrams are anti-war and vehemently critical of the Administration...but that's not enough...Olbermann and his lone voice is your only just due...

Go figure!

Nice to see liberal mike thinks of Colmes as "the lesser half token."

No Cecelia, I'm not referring to law enforcemant situations. There have been many International hostage situations that have been solved by behind the scenes negotiations designed to save face. The Pueblo and the Chinese seizing of our surveillance plane are two that come to mind right away.

"Blinking" is not always the dishonorable thing to do.

I don't know what Iran would 'want', just as you don't. That is one reason why the question "did we blink" had no clear meaning, and was not, in my opinion, necessarily intended as a rhetorical question.

Posted by: Mike at August 22, 2007 5:24 PM

Oh, actually there were many who said we did blink in Pueblo incident and no one had difficulty understanding what that meant...

I'll bet you have some sort of idea about the kind of things Iran would want. Just as I'll bet you'd understand that "blink" would have negative connotations for any govt that had declared it would not negotiate with govt over actions such as these.

I would never say another thing negative about Fox "News' if they would go out and give Bill Mayer an offer he can't refuse along with a prime time nightly show, with no managerial interference of his subject matter or viewpoints.

I guarantee you Mayer would have guests on from both 'sides', and such a move would take much of the bite out of the very justified criticism from our side.

Are you listening....Rupert Murdoch???

Cecelia,

That is one reason why the question "did we blink" had no clear meaning, (Mike)

I guess it is appropriate for "journalists" to speak in code?

"Hank, in all of your questions, you totally ignored my point, even as you used it as a pretext to again question Olbermann's credentials as a 'journalist'"

I posted questions to you and like minded Olby supporters at 4:19 pm regarding your views on Olbermann and the fact that you and others who think like you avoid answering such direct questions.

True to form, at 4:29 pm you posted a reply that completely ignored my questions concerning Olbermann's hapless performance as a "newsman" and "journalist" and tried to re-direct my attention to your contention that Olbermann is a welcome backlash to Fox.

I think Cecilia has brought up all the relevant points that need to be said in response to your Olbermann-is-the-backlash-to-Fox argument.

Now, Mike on to my questions.

a)what are your thoughts about him and his competence and integrity in his self proclaimed role as a "newsman" ?
b) What do you make of his assertions that he he has no allegiences to any political point of view? (to wit, the following Olbermann response in a recent interview:
Online Journalism Review: How would you describe yourself politically on the liberal-to-conservative spectrum? How important do you think it is for MSM to be transparent on their political affiliations?
Olbermann: I'm not political. I don't vote. . . I have no more interest in the political outcome of an election than I did in the winner or loser of any ballgame I ever covered.
http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/041130glaser/)
(c) Do you believe that Olbermann is sincere when he makes such statements or do you believe that Olbermann is lying?
(d) If you think he is lying, does this affect whether you would find believeable anything else that he says?
(e) Do you think that the parade of lefty sycophants that reinforce Olbermann's every utterance increases or decreases the possibility that Olbermann will strive to ensure that his statements are carefully sourced and verified?

Cecelia,

That is one reason why the question "did we blink" had no clear meaning, (Mike)

I guess it is appropriate for "journalists" to speak in code?

Posted by: Sharon at August 22, 2007 5:49 PM

And "blink" is certainly the term journalists would employ when indicating that a second party had been helpful in negotiating a hostage release.

Hank, whenever you post such tripe as "Bush derangement syndrome", as you did at 4:19, you expose yourself as not having an open mind.

The "questions" you posed are irrelevant to me just as you think Fox is "irrelevant" to any discussion about Olbermann. Many of them start with assumptions that I strongly disagree with in the first place.

He is coming.

http://i10.tinypic.com/5375aom.jpg

hA HA ha Ha haH Aha hA HA Ha hA

"And "blink" is certainly the term journalists would employ when indicating that a second party had been helpful in negotiating a hostage release.

Thats your opinion but "did we blink?" does not necessarily mean "the US blinked!"

See how here we are right back at square one again?

I would never say another thing negative about Fox "News' if they would go out and give Bill Mayer an offer he can't refuse along with a prime time nightly show, with no managerial interference of his subject matter or viewpoints.

I guarantee you Mayer would have guests on from both 'sides', and such a move would take much of the bite out of the very justified criticism from our side.

Are you listening....Rupert Murdoch???

Posted by: Mike at August 22, 2007 5:48 PM

According to Olbermann Murdoch would if he felt Mayer could get the ratings.

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/print.asp?entryID=118243

Olbermann---"I have no doubt about this in my mind … if tomorrow morning, if Rupert Murdoch woke up and – well, first off, if tomorrow morning Rupert Murdoch woke up – but if he woke up and someone had convinced him or it came to him into a dream that he could make twice as much money by turning Fox News Channel into a liberal operation, I think he'd do it. How he interacted with British politics showed that."

It's intereesting that Olbermann is willing to admit that with Murdoch it isn't about politics, it's about money. But to Olbermann it SHOULD be about politics. Because liberalism is correct and that alone should be enough that channels should be willing to lose money over it or to just get by ...by catering to the smaller audience that will watch it and to hopefully expand that audience.

Who's the ideologue here?

He is coming.

http://i10.tinypic.com/5375aom.jpg

hA HA ha Ha haH Aha hA HA Ha hA
..................................

this thread is awfully new for the advertisers to be in it already.

"And "blink" is certainly the term journalists would employ when indicating that a second party had been helpful in negotiating a hostage release.

Thats your opinion but "did we blink?" does not necessarily mean "the US blinked!"

See how here we are right back at square one again?

Posted by: Mike at August 22, 2007 6:07 PM

Oh sure, that's why he prefaced it with "did this country blink" and with the fact that U.S. gasoline prices had shot through the roof.

Mike,
Why ios Bush allowing the Midwest to get flooded?
I hope Olbermann blames him!

"Why ios Bush allowing the Midwest to get flooded?
I hope Olbermann blames him!"

Don't worry Kossack, someone will SAY he did, ... and fiction will once again become 'fact' in Olbermannwatchland.

See how here we are right back at square one again?

Posted by: Mike at August 22, 2007 6:07 PM

So you're arguing that Olbermann could have meant that the Brits blinked and just harkening back to our colonial roots when he asks "Did we blink?" or do you mean that Olbermann could have been asking that both the U.S. and Britain blinked or that the Coalition blinked and if so, how does that change anything?

Thats your opinion but "did we blink?" does not necessarily mean "the US blinked!"

See how here we are right back at square one again?

Posted by: Mike at August 22, 2007 6:07 PM

Who was the orange one referring to, Russia? Cambodia? mexico? Cecelia's "opinion" is much more logical than your "opinion."

Mike, does it make you wonder why Cecelia and I were typing almost idetical respones to your drivel at the same time on the "blinked" crap? You really should let the whole "blinked" one go. It's a lose, lose for ya.

"Hank, whenever you post such tripe as "Bush derangement syndrome", as you did at 4:19, you expose yourself as not having an open mind.The "questions" you posed are irrelevant to me just as you think Fox is "irrelevant" to any discussion about Olbermann. Many of them start with assumptions that I strongly disagree with in the first place."

OK, Mike so you, a frequent poster at OlbermannWatch, won't answer my questions that I pose to you about Olbermann because:

1) You think I don't have an open mind.
2) You disagree with my assumptions.

How about this: When two people are having a debate, it often happens that one debater may not have an open mind or may disagree with the other's assumptions. But, if a debater's arguments are strong enough, none of that matters. If you can't answer, I will assume that your excuses are simply a pretext for your inability to defend Olbermann. My questions once again:

a)what are your thoughts about him and his competence and integrity in his self proclaimed role as a "newsman" ?
b) What do you make of his assertions that he he has no allegiences to any political point of view? (to wit, the following Olbermann response in a recent interview:
Online Journalism Review: How would you describe yourself politically on the liberal-to-conservative spectrum? How important do you think it is for MSM to be transparent on their political affiliations?
Olbermann: I'm not political. I don't vote. . . I have no more interest in the political outcome of an election than I did in the winner or loser of any ballgame I ever covered.
http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/041130glaser/)
(c) Do you believe that Olbermann is sincere when he makes such statements or do you believe that Olbermann is lying?
(d) If you think he is lying, does this affect whether you would find believeable anything else that he says?
(e) Do you think that the parade of lefty sycophants that reinforce Olbermann's every utterance increases or decreases the possibility that Olbermann will strive to ensure that his statements are carefully sourced and verified?

Don't worry Kossack, someone will SAY he did, ... and fiction will once again become 'fact' in Olbermannwatchland.

Posted by: Mike at August 22, 2007 6:24 PM

And if he does say it, we'll have Mike here to say it's a matter of interpretation and a mere construct.

hank, right here is a prime example of mike and his debating technique. He has SRS. Known as Selective Response Syndrome. He shoots his mouth off and when called on his comments, he simply avoids them. Your questions are all legitimate ones, also. Don't expect straight answers. Right now, Cecelia has him behind the wood shed (it ain't pretty) so he will have to lick his wounds before he is able to respond to you. Good luck!

"Sharon, I would appreciate it if you did not get involved in anything going on between me and Jeff" posted by mike

>>>It's okie dokie for you ,aap/why and clucker/philby/rudy to pile on and vis versa with their phony assertions and lies, though. Like claiming I made "anti-troop" comments and "I hate our troops" among other lies. Right mike, oh hypocritical one?

crickets.......

Cecelia,

Do you remember that all during the hostage situation, after devoting much effort along
with Chris Matthews to show how Bush was determined to engage Iran in war, that he failed to report on the crisis until after it was resolved? And then he acted as if he had been covering it all along? I just did a little google research and found where Seymour Hersh (another favorite of KO) was certain that war was imminent with Iran by early 2007 (his article was in August of 2006). And what else did I find but this: (notice Sy Hersh is mentioned)

The president is now finding the idea of military force against Iran more and more attractive.

[KEITH] OLBERMANN [HOST]: For more on what the president said about Iran particularly in Wednesday`s speech, and what he may have really meant, let us turn now to former CIA and Bush administration National Security Counsel senior official, Flynt Leverett. Thank you for your time tonight, sir.

FLYNT LEVERETT, FORMER BUSH NSC OFFICIAL: Thanks for having me.

OLBERMANN: Are we to conclude from the president`s speech Wednesday evening that the real escalation of this war may not be troop deployment in Iraq, but a wider conflict involving Iran?

LEVERETT: Certainly the president is laying both the rhetorical conditions and the operational conditions that would enable him in coming months to take military action against Iran, and I think, frankly, those were the most important parts of the speech on Wednesday night.

Rhetorically, he said that Iran is providing material support to attacks on U.S. forces. That is a casus belli. And, of course, he outlined a series of operational steps that really, in many ways, can only, or primarily, be justified or explained with reference to Iran.

OLBERMANN: There has been much use in the last 48 hours of the term "regional conflict." There was a senior Pentagon official who told NBC News that the U.S. military has changed its perspective about the war in Iraq, now looking at it as a, quote, "regional conflict with Baghdad as the center of gravity."
How significant is the terminology in this? This is -- this indicate an actual procedural shift, a policy shift, or just somebody coming up with some new terms?

LEVERETT: I -- well, it is new terminology. But I think it does have some real significance. The way that the president and his administration have presented what we`re doing in Iraq to the American people and to the rest of the world is that we are helping Iraqis create the conditions necessary for a stable and democratic future.

What we`re saying now is, rather than our efforts failing, what we`re saying is that it is other actors in the region, primarily Iran, perhaps to a lesser extent Syria, who are keeping that project from succeeding. And so the nature of the project is changing from helping Iraqis make their own future, to stopping these bad actors from contributing to the failure of the American project in Iraq.

OLBERMANN: For literally years, anybody who`d written that we would wind up someday in Iran -- Sy Hersh comes to mind, or just blogged about it -- was dismissed as an alarmist or something worse. Now, whatever it means, it`s been in a presidential speech. Has a showdown with Iran been part of the plan all along? Or was this something improvised lately as part of some last-chance strategy at the White House?

LEVERETT: I think it`s somewhere in between. Certainly there are powerful actors in the administration, such as the vice president, who have all along believed that Iran should be a major target in the war on terror, and that we were going to have to take on Iran at some point.

I think the president has been very, very reluctant, resistant, to doing anything by way of serious diplomacy with Iran because he thinks this regime is fundamentally illegitimate. But I think now the fact that his Iraq policy is failing, and the efforts that the U.S. has been pursuing through the Security Council to limit Iran`s nuclear development, those are also, I think, collapsing around them.

And I think that the president is now finding the idea of military force against Iran more and more attractive, as both his Iraq policy and his Iran policy are failing. And he himself doesn`t want to pursue serious diplomacy with Iran...

For the complete transcript, please visit the MSNBC website.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:384ZKelXf0gJ:www.newamerica.net/pressroom/2007/msnbc_interviews_flynt_leverett_on_the_presidents_plan_for_iran+olbermann+hersh+iran+war&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=17&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Yet when Iran committed what is arguably an act of war, where was Olbermann on the story?

Don't count on that Cecelia, When he doesn't say it...and gets accused of saying it anyway, I doubt if I'll even bother to take on these silly assertions again.

Don't count on that Cecelia, When he doesn't say it...and gets accused of saying it anyway, I doubt if I'll even bother to take on these silly assertions again.

Posted by: Mike at August 22, 2007 6:44 PM

Just know this, Mike, because you're the only one who doesn't....if you had said the above two days ago...about another subject...and I'd had responded to your statement by saying that you had "blinked".... you wouldn't have thought for one second that I was being anything but negative towards you.... not for one second.

Yet when Iran committed what is arguably an act of war, where was Olbermann on the story?

Posted by: Sharon at August 22, 2007 6:44 PM

Yeah, I'm sure Olbermann felt he'd be helping the WH drum up public support for tensions with Iran if he reported on the story. It wasn't anything his audience wanted to hear.

Hank's 'questions':

a) - Olbermann is exceptionally competant as an orator and I do believe he is sincere. Therefore I have no problem with hios integrity. As for his role as a 'newsman', I am already on record on this very blog of questioning his status as a newsman. His show would be correctly identified as a News commentary show.
b) - The only thing I know about how KO has described himself politically is what I have read on this blog, and I don't trust a thing I read here written by the KO haters (the same ones who talk about his penus size). That said, how he may have described himself in the past would have little or no bearing on my opinion of him anyway.
c) - See my answer to 'b'.
d) - See my answer to 'b' & 'c'.
e) - I don't accept your preconceived notion on this so called 'question' at all so there obviously is no 'answer'.

Now Hank, it is NOT your perogative to play a game of twenty loaded questions, and then pretend you are engaging in a 'debate' by doing that.

But Cecelia, Olbermann never said "we had blinked", or that anyone in paticular "had blinked".

Why does that keep going by you?

As for your argument that KO might have thought that reporting on the situation might help Bush drum up support for war with Iraq....I agree! That may well be why he avoided it until it was resolved.

If you'll remember, I weighed in my two cents worth at the time that I didn't think it was nearly as big a story as you did. If we had reacted in an exceptionally bellicose manner and escalated the situation, it would have only THEN become a regrettable major story.

My question to you would be; Why in the world would YOU have wanted the flames of war to be fanned regarding Iran...when we are ALREADY up to our necks in crap in Iraq? It turned out well as I hoped it would without the more bellicose confrontation it sounds like you were favoring.

Hey Mike, don't these idiots remind you of a 50 year old bald overwieght crossdresser who will look in the mirror and see beauty instead of pathetic?

Bush compared withdrawal from Iraq to Vietnam!
Olby is leaving his bathtub to condemn Bush with a special comment.
How do I know?
The Stalinist Left is in upheaval over this on their blogs!
Olby must follow his master (Soros)'s orders!

SO, a newsman speaks in secret code, not meant to be understood. (blinked)

If you'll remember, I weighed in my two cents worth at the time that I didn't think it was nearly as big a story as you did. (Mike)

The point was never about what Cecelia thought. It was that Olbermann spiked the story when he thought Bush was aggressively pursuing war.

As for your argument that KO might have thought that reporting on the situation might help Bush drum up support for war with Iraq....I agree! That may well be why he avoided it until it was resolved. (Mike)

You rejected all prior reasoning of Cecelia for spiking the story, until now when Cecelia provides one that you spin into a positive light and by jove, that's got to be it! That is why he spiked it!

"An Iraqi man saved the lives of four U.S. Soldiers and eight civilians when he intercepted a suicide bomber during a Concerned Citizens meeting in the town of al-Arafia Aug. 18."

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13454&Itemid=21

>You aren't so different from us now, are you...

Posted by: Cecelia at August 22, 2007 3:14 PM

Cecelia's Partisan Battle-Cry:

"YOU'RE JUST AS BAD AS WE ARE!!!!!!"

Laughing My Fucking Ass Off!

7:33, are you rolling on the floor also? Let's get a little more creative and come up with some new ones. They might catch on like pwned did.

Sharon: "You rejeced all prior reasoning of Cecelia for spiking the story, until now when Celecila provides one that you spen into a positive light an by joves, thats got to be it! That is why he spiked it!"

One thing's for sure, you ladies sure do like to sit back in wait...and then spring with claws extended when you think the time is right.

Now Lets review Sharon: I said at the time that it was not really a political story and Olbermann has what is mostly a political show. You and yours disagreed with me that it was not a political story, if you'll remember.

I ALSO said at the time that I did not know why he decided not to run the story. Only Olbermann could answer that...not you, not me, not Cecelia. I was never particularly defensive about him choosing not to run the story except to state my opinion that it was not yet a political story....my opinion about that has not changed and recent history has even vindicated it.

Lets get back to the point I was making now....MY argument is that KO never said "did we blink" regarding that incident, and that is absolutely true.

The argument was, and apparently is being continued from your side that I, as someone who generally likes Countdown, must personally endorse and agree with everything KO does or says....an THAT is a fallacy and you know it!

Why do you keep trying to make me put words and opinions into KO's mouth? That is what YOU do....remember?

One thing's for sure, you ladies sure do like to sit back in wait...and then spring with claws extended when you think the time is right.

HA! If I were a cat, I would be allergic to myself.

>The truth is, Hillary can not win.

Posted by: Laura Bush, aka Tranny Lush at August 21, 2007 7:25 AM

A Conservative Transvestite Alcoholic named Bush that's down on Hillary?

Wow, That's MY kind of woman!

7:33, are you rolling on the floor also?

Posted by: Sharon at August 22, 2007 7:38 PM

No Sharon, I won't be rolling on the floor until later when Cecelia attempts one of her witty one-line come-backs keeping with her long standing tradition of needing the last word to feel better about herself - yet not actually understanding anything that's going on.

That's why you guys come here. The world is a hostile place for NeoCons. You seek safe refuge here among like-minded dolts.
SLoB once referred to you guys as drowning rats. I disagree, the rats are smart enough to know they're drowning.

Too bad people smarter than you always seem to crash your petty partisan pitty party.

But SSSHHHHHHH! Don't tell Royal Douche, he still thinks he's won every argument he's stepped in here.

But Cecelia, Olbermann never said "we had blinked", or that anyone in paticular "had blinked".

Why does that keep going by you?

As for your argument that KO might have thought that reporting on the situation might help Bush drum up support for war with Iraq....I agree! That may well be why he avoided it until it was resolved.

If you'll remember, I weighed in my two cents worth at the time that I didn't think it was nearly as big a story as you did. If we had reacted in an exceptionally bellicose manner and escalated the situation, it would have only THEN become a regrettable major story.

My question to you would be; Why in the world would YOU have wanted the flames of war to be fanned regarding Iran...when we are ALREADY up to our necks in crap in Iraq? It turned out well as I hoped it would without the more bellicose confrontation it sounds like you were favoring.

Posted by: Mike at August 22, 2007 7:13 PM

Olbermann essentialy said, we had blinked, that's what a rhetorical question does, and that's what you did about our "discernment" here today with another poster.

As for the Iran hostage crisis, you seem to be confusing the criticism of Olbermann not reporting the story at all, with the desire to make the story bigger than what it was.

Olbermann has no trouble airing the theory that Bush wants to broaden out the war in the Middle East, which is exactly what Iran says in order to justify nukes, but then he turns around and spikes a story because it might justify the Administrations rhetoric towards Iran and nukes.

You're essentially arguing that it's fine for Olbermann to air any conspiracy theories pulled out of their hats, but it's okay to spike a story when it doesn't fit in with his narrative.

I'm sure our beloved Cee will be delighted not that Bush has invoked Vietnam for the first time...using the very same unprovable argument Cee's been throwing out for some time now.

Funny thing, back in 2003 and 2004 when I invoked Vietnam, I got poo - pooed. I was accuses of wearing "Vietnan Blinders", among other things. Different time, different enemy, different military...I kept getting told.

Now here's the president, embracing the very same analogy he rejected just one year ago. But now, this bumbling president, who's made SO many mistakes on this issue, stands there telling us how big a mistake leaving would be....just like Vietnam......and yet many will actually listen to him...again!

Go figure!

Too bad people smarter than you always seem to crash your petty partisan pitty party.

But SSSHHHHHHH! Don't tell Royal Douche, he still thinks he's won every argument he's stepped in here.

Posted by: at August 22, 2007 7:58 PM

Well, since that spiel is merely "I'm smart, you're dumb" you obviously aren't one of the smarter people crashing the party.

By all means, get THEM in here.

Why do you keep trying to make me put words and opinions into KO's mouth? That is what YOU do....remember?

Posted by: Mike at August 22, 2007 7:39 PM

No, we argue what Olbermann said based on the context of the paragraphs before and after it and you tell us...no, it's a matter of interpretation because you happen to feel that "Blink" isn't a perjorative word to use when talking about a standoff....

Then there's Ari Fleischer's fundamentally dishonest ad campaign designed to win public support for extending the Iraq War.

There he is running emotional ads using a young soldier who declares "THEY ATTACKED US", as planes fly into the WTC. When Mike Barnicle calls him on the dishonesty of the ad, this shameless Neocon evades that question by saying 'but this is about now, it's not about 2002', even as we watch clips of the planes flying into the WTC.

This man feels no shame in running highly emotional ads implying once again that Iraq had something to do with 911, .... knowing full well that it will likely increase public support among a large portion of the population who STILL believe Iraq had a part in 911. For shame!

HOW many more thousands of young Americans are going to have to die?....HOW much deeper are we going to have to sink in debt to China and others? .... HOW many more young Americans will have to be maimed for life?.....HOW much more broken will our military have to become?....before we can finally stop this runaway train?

Now here's the president, embracing the very same analogy he rejected just one year ago. But now, this bumbling president, who's made SO many mistakes on this issue, stands there telling us how big a mistake leaving would be....just like Vietnam......and yet many will actually listen to him...again!

Go figure!

Posted by: Mike at August 22, 2007 8:08 PM

So are you arguing that Bush is wrong with the bloodbath analogy or that you should have been able to use quagmire Vietnam analogy too a year into the war?

HOW many more thousands of young Americans are going to have to die?....HOW much deeper are we going to have to sink in debt to China and others? .... HOW many more young Americans will have to be maimed for life?.....HOW much more broken will our military have to become?....before we can finally stop this runaway train?

Posted by: Mike at August 22, 2007 8:26 PM

Except for Richardson and Kucinich, you may want to ask the Dem. candidates about that.

There he is running emotional ads using a young soldier who declares "THEY ATTACKED US", as planes fly into the WTC. When Mike Barnicle calls him on the dishonesty of the ad, this shameless Neocon evades that question by saying 'but this is about now, it's not about 2002', even as we watch clips of the planes flying into the WTC.

Posted by: Mike at August 22, 2007 8:26 PM

I'm wondering too... is there not a war with young soldiers in Afghanistan?

You know...the place with Taliban and Al Qaeda?

Absolutly Cecelia....Afghanistan, not Iraq....the only place we should have gone into.

Fleischer's ad was about Iraq, not Afghanistan!

Absolutly Cecelia....Afghanistan, not Iraq....the only place we should have gone into.

Fleischer's ad was about Iraq, not Afghanistan!

Posted by: Mike at August 22, 2007 8:41 PM

Was it about Iraq and Iraq only...or about Afghanistan, Iraq, and the war on terror in general, Mike?

"Vets for Freedom is a nonpartisan organization established by combat veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our mission is to educate the American public about the importance of achieving success in these conflicts by applying our first-hand knowlege to issues of American strategy and tactics—namely "the surge" in Iraq. We support policymakers from both sides of the aisle who have stood behind our great generation of American warriors on the battlefield, and who have put long-term national security before short-term partisan political gain.

Vets for Freedom is the leading voice representing troops and veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan."
http://vetsforfreedom.org/

"For the past few months, Vets for Freedom has been on the front lines of the Iraq war debate in America, with only a few allies. But this morning, in a very real sense, the cavalry appeared on the horizon in the form of a new organization called Freedom's Watch.
http://www.oldwardogs.us/2007/08/20070822-politi.html

It was about Iraq, Cecelia....IRAQ!

The invasion and occupation of Iraq is part of the so called War on Terror in people's minds ONLY. The longer these cynical turdblossums can keep them all intertwined and confused in the public's collective mind, the longer thay can continue to perpetrate the big lie.

It's been that way from the beginning Cecelia, ....and I think you know it.

confused in the public's collective mind,

Look above at the two websites, Mike. These are military people, sure the public, but with much at stake. There will be an interesting stand off in Washington in September when the two opposing sides plan to voice their opinions. I hope it gets fair coverage.

Yes, Sharon, there will definitely be an "interesting stand off in Washington in September when the two opposing sides plan to voice their opinions."

After that, the war will continue, Congress will capitulate once again, many more soldiers will be killed, many more soldiers will be wounded, and the eventual end result will be exactly the same. You don't 'win' occupations and other people's civil wars!

I meant that two groups will converge on Washington, not Congress itself. There are soldiers and their families opposed to Iraq and those who are not.

HOW many more thousands of young Americans are going to have to die?....HOW much deeper are we going to have to sink in debt to China and others? .... HOW many more young Americans will have to be maimed for life?.....HOW much more broken will our military have to become?....before we can finally stop this runaway train?

Posted by: Mike at August 22, 2007 8:26 PM

Why don't you direct this question to your hero, Pelosi? The do nothing speaker? Oh, I know, it's easier and more cowardly to keep blaming Bush. Don't forget to keep typing "needless deaths" "maimed for life" "runaway train" "debt to china" and all of your other favorite daily kos comments.

"That's why you guys come here. The world is a hostile place for NeoCons. You seek safe refuge here among like-minded dolts."

posted by patsy

I'm curious, why do YOU come here?

I like your logic Jeff....You think the one who actually created this national disaster is not as culpable as the one who hasn't been able to successfully end it yet?...Twisted!...REALLY, REALLY twisted!

And Jeff, those are not "kos comments", they are realities!

It was about Iraq, Cecelia....IRAQ!

The invasion and occupation of Iraq is part of the so called War on Terror in people's minds ONLY. The longer these cynical turdblossums can keep them all intertwined and confused in the public's collective mind, the longer thay can continue to perpetrate the big lie.

It's been that way from the beginning Cecelia, ....and I think you know it.

Posted by: Mike at August 22, 2007 8:54 PM

Oh, so it wasn't a mistaken policy in the War On Terror....it's utterly not a part of the War On Terror...

And for the Administration or anyone to say that it is, is a "lie"..... rather than wronghead or misdirected front within the War On terror.... or even ...... my favorite----an alternative interpretation.... :D

hank, right here is a prime example of mike and his debating technique. He has SRS. Known as Selective Response Syndrome. He shoots his mouth off and when called on his comments, he simply avoids them. Your questions are all legitimate ones, also. Don't expect straight answers. Right now, Cecelia has him behind the wood shed (it ain't pretty) so he will have to lick his wounds before he is able to respond to you. Good luck!

"Sharon, I would appreciate it if you did not get involved in anything going on between me and Jeff" posted by mike

>>>It's okie dokie for you ,aap/why and clucker/philby/rudy to pile on and vis versa with their phony assertions and lies, though. Like claiming I made "anti-troop" comments and "I hate our troops" among other lies. Right mike, oh hypocritical one?

crickets.......

Posted by: royalking at August 22, 2007 6:41 PM

Hank's 'questions':

a) - Olbermann is exceptionally competant as an orator and I do believe he is sincere. Therefore I have no problem with hios integrity. As for his role as a 'newsman', I am already on record on this very blog of questioning his status as a newsman. His show would be correctly identified as a News commentary show.
b) - The only thing I know about how KO has described himself politically is what I have read on this blog, and I don't trust a thing I read here written by the KO haters (the same ones who talk about his penus size). That said, how he may have described himself in the past would have little or no bearing on my opinion of him anyway.
c) - See my answer to 'b'.
d) - See my answer to 'b' & 'c'.
e) - I don't accept your preconceived notion on this so called 'question' at all so there obviously is no 'answer'.

Now Hank, it is NOT your perogative to play a game of twenty loaded questions, and then pretend you are engaging in a 'debate' by doing that.

Posted by: Mike at August 22, 2007 7:02 PM

>>>Was I right, or was I right? I was right.

"I'm sure our beloved Cee will be delighted not that Bush has invoked Vietnam for the first time...using the very same unprovable argument Cee's been throwing out for some time now."

###
It's nice to be wanted. I did comment above regarding the speech today. I watched it on CSPAN, it was a very well received by the veterans.

Look Mike, I have been making the same argument for months, as you know, and the interpretation of the causes, influences and /or associations of actual historical events is never provable. Just as I ended the debate with craigs the other day, many historians present the Vietnam War as the biggest sign of a sea change in the American public and polticial landscape. For any historian to dismiss, out of hand, the idea that domestic socialists and others on the poltical left were not, at the very beginning of protests, supporting the victory of the communist north brings their objectivity into question. In addition, to say these same people were denying consequences of American withdrawl is also suspect.

It is interesting that all of the complaints so far is that Bush was once denying parallels. One, no one is addressing the claim Bush made that there were horrific consequences from the fall of Saigon. Two, his political enivronment changed in 11/06 and the left is claiming the election results SHOULD be making Bush change his view of the goals in Iraq. This change does make the Vietnam parallel appropriate because one can argue that if the election results were about stopping the war, the democrats would have done exactly that....They have not, and Bush knows he has the upper-hand because of the democrats timidity to cut the funds.

Even the leading democratic party candidates for the nomination are backing away from outright withdrawl that the radical left claimed would be the only moral act. Yet, complaints from the left seem to only center on Bush. More signs that this is not about the troops or their safety in Iraq to the left and their ruling elite....it is about politicial power and the next election cycle.

Bush is not up for re-election so his motives are much purer, IMHO....he is doing what be believes is right for The United States, the Iraqi people and their elected government and for the idea of freedom over totalitarianism. Like I said above, that is what the speech was about....

Choosing freedom over totalitarianism in Japan, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq.

And The Congress does nothing to pursue their claim to support the opposite.....and their approval ratings reflect it....down to 18%. Wow.

Bring the troops home now.....cut the funds!

Excuse me, since I know the wingnuts don't read much on their own, and they think everything is from the Daily Kos, the above post was from the AP.

Posted by: Why Do you care at August 22, 2007 9:26 PM

Oh, well, I thought you said it personally.... I never dreamed anything you wrote might be from anyone else...

Speaking of the Daily Kos, Countdown follwed the Vietnam War analogy Bush precisely as Mike alluded to it (but as a personal affront...) today.

Is the Blue Blog talking point of the day?

Cecelia: "Oh, so it wasn't a mistaken policy in the war on terror..."

No, not with all the dishonesty that has been involved in the process from the very beginning.

Just like that despicable Fleischer backed ad I mentioned earlier, showing images of planes flying into the towers while a wounded soldier passionately says "THEY ATTACKED US"....to defend th Iraq war.

In terms of dishonesty, Olbermann can't hold a candle to these people!

Exposed: White House Manual On Keeping Protestors From Bush

The 2nd story on Countdown!

What would Olbermann do without the Blue Blogs? :D

No, not with all the dishonesty that has been involved in the process from the very beginning.

Just like that despicable Fleischer backed ad I mentioned earlier, showing images of planes flying into the towers while a wounded soldier passionately says "THEY ATTACKED US"....to defend th Iraq war.

In terms of dishonesty, Olbermann can't hold a candle to these people!

Posted by: Mike at August 22, 2007 9:35 PM

No more respect for alternate interpretations or views here now... it's not bad neocon policy for opening up the Middle East and to spead democracy rather than trranny in the Middle East... or to put down a country that was mistakenly thought throughout the Western World to be harboring terrorists and working up a nuclear program.... nope.... it's "a lie".....

Now the Washington Post is a "blue blog." ?
( check where the story came from)

This is another example how Cecilia and the wingnuts are totally full of shit !

Posted by: Why Do you care at August 22, 2007 9:42 PM

Sweety, a blue blog link was the only way you saw it. I'm just surprised you didn't pass off the WP's words as your own... :D

Not only should it be the blue blog talking point of the day, it should be the right wing talking point of the day.
...unless they have amnesia and forgot they harped on denying this Vietnam/ Iraq comparison.....

Too damn funny !

Posted by: Why Do you care at August 22, 2007 9:40 PM

And what's on the Blue Blogs certainly should set the schedule for an MSNBC news program.... tell me....where the Blue Blogs as bad as Countdown for not offering the obvious rebuttal to this nonsense?

Maliki has said that the US can leave anytime now. The American people are STRONGLY for getting out of Iraq now, so what's stopping Bush from leaving?
Pure motives?
Funny!

Staying in a country where we are not wanted is pure motives to the deplorable Cee.
Yikes !

Posted by: Why Do you care at August 22, 2007 9:47 PM

Well, most of the Dem candidates want a slow draw down into late 2010 and Biden thinks we should keep a diminished number of troops there for several years. What's their unpure motives?

Poor MM (Why).....Bush gets a wonderful reception from the same audience that politely applauded for the left's best offerings (the pathetic hawk today/dove tomorrow Senator from New York & I'll never use nuclear weapns.....EVER! Senator from Illinois) and all he has is anger towards me....

Poor MM...you need that anti-war rally bad to juice you up again.....Perhaps spitting at a supporter of the Iraq policy will make you feel better!

"Sharon, I would appreciate it if you did not get involved in anything going on between me and Jeff" posted by mike

>>>It's okie dokie for you ,aap/why and clucker/philby/rudy to pile on and vis versa with their phony assertions and lies, though. Like claiming I made "anti-troop" comments and "I hate our troops" among other lies. Right mike, oh hypocritical one?

crickets.......

Posted by: royalking at August 22, 2007 6:41 PM

Even the crickets are sleeping, now! He won't touch it!

Perfect example of the whole OW logic .
Thank you for summing it all up for us,girl.

Posted by: Why Do you care at August 22, 2007 9:54 PM

So this was the only story on the news today...hyh... Why? There were no stories that were positive to the administration.... I had no idea the WP wasn't reporting that the surge had been effective militarily.... I thought I had several stories there saying just that.... now I'd expect the Blue Blogs to only report the bad things.... and to sound like they are subsidiaries of the DNC.... but an MSNBC news show... well, I'd have other expectations.. Wouldn't you?....

"That's why you guys come here. The world is a hostile place for NeoCons. You seek safe refuge here among like-minded dolts."

posted by patsy

I'm curious, why do YOU come here?

The only comment that is appropriate to this huge religious hypocrite is.....DEPLORABLE.

Posted by: Why Do you care at August 22, 2007 9:59 PM

What do you mean "this" religious hypocrite. You generally end all your posts to opponents with "You're a loser", "You're pathetic".... You're a disgrace"... "You're a hypocrite"...

You're not singling anyone out here... you apply those appellations to nearly everyone who disagrees with you.

"Many democrats want the American deaths to stop now, as I do."

###
And they have done NOTHING politically risky to accomplish it, MM.....You are naive.

You know that little unimportant thing to people of your ideological persuasion called "leadership?" Something no democrat has displayed since LBJ? This is the American left.....politics and rhetoric....

This is getting pathetic!

Cecelia, your 9:44 PM response did not address my point about how dispicable it is for them to run a highly emotional ad to try to drum up more public support for continuing the Iraq war...by perpetuating a lie.

You like implications...that was your argument all day today. That ad clearly makes a strong implication that Iraq attacked us on 911, in conjunction with a very emotional appeal for continuing the insanity.

It;s only been effective in two cities.
If you put enough troops in a designated area, of course you can control the area.
What happens when the troops leave?

Plus, will any number of troops stop the civil war in iraq?

So let's pick a city or two to secure so we can broadcast that the Surge is working, right?

Pleeeeeeeeeeezeeeeeeee

....all the while our troops are telling the truth, when they editorialized in the NYT saying the MSM is not telling the truth about how badly this war is going.

THIS WAR CANNOT BE WON MILITARILY.
THIS IS AN ESTABLISHED FACT.
Yet you cream in your pants when you hear ANY success of this so called Surge.

Posted by: Why Do you care at August 22, 2007 10:07 PM

I'm just mentioning stories that have been in the newspapers.... evidently SOME stories qualify for play on Countdown and some do not... That you then say that Countdown is just reporting the news is not completely true... That Bush said what he said about Vietnam is only news because it evokes a certain analysis.

It can safely be said that Countdown will not rerport any news, that is in the WP or NYT, if it sounds positive to the Administration. It will only report bad news towards the Administration and critical news analysis towards the Administration...

I go back to my original statement... What would Countdown do without the Blue Blogs....

The choice is clear.....

Pull the troops out before the Iraqi government can resist radical islamists like Al Qaeda.....allow for totalitarianism to prevail.....

Support the democratically elected forces in Iraq that still have expressed their need for our assistance with military and other support.....allow for freedom to prevail....

Choice number one (like in Vietnam) supported by the left since the war under UN authority beganin 2003....

Choice number two....the correct choice....

No revisionism.....you make your choices....you live with your choices....this is what moral, responsible adults do.

You know, "leaders."

Get the troops out.....cut the funds!

Look at the wench running to Cee's defense.
The deplorable Cee has cast himself as the "holy Cee"...all the while supporting more death of our troops in an unwinnable war in order that he and Bush don't lose face.

Yes...he is a religious hypocrite.

What would Jesus do?...

and who said....
Blessed are the Peacemakers , for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Religious hypocrites, indeed !

Posted by: Why Do you care at August 22, 2007 10:13 PM

As Countdown only focuses on those stories that are negative towards the Administration, you only quote those scriptures that you feel back you up, Why.

How about judge not lest ye be judged....

He who calls his brother a fool is in danger of hell fire....

Cecelia, your 9:44 PM response did not address my point about how dispicable it is for them to run a highly emotional ad to try to drum up more public support for continuing the Iraq war...by perpetuating a lie.

You like implications...that was your argument all day today. That ad clearly makes a strong implication that Iraq attacked us on 911, in conjunction with a very emotional appeal for continuing the insanity.

Posted by: Mike at August 22, 2007 10:06 PM

Id' have to see the ad, Mike, in order to see if it was addressing what the Administration feels to be the entire War on Terror--- Iraq AND Afghanistan.

I'll look for a link to the ad. If you find one post it.

Mmmm, I never recall calling myself holy. Please show me a post where I implied such a thing, MM.

I have decried the sanctimony of people like yourself, MM, who cast their judgements based on prejudice. I will admit that I have been guilty of this sin as well. But please remember that when the weak need defending, no where in the scriptures does it say that it is immoral to defend them.

That is what the US troops are doing under the orders of President Bush.....DEFENDING people who want religious and political freedom from radical islamists who use terror and fear. You seem to have a different impression about the enemy....even about who the enemy is.

Same went with The Vietnam War. The north represented a harsh, malignant ideology that crushed free thought and the practice of religion.....The south, with all of its warts, was pursuing demoracy, freedom and justice......Your ideological comrades had a different impression about the enemy....even about who the enemy was.

Continue supporting totalitarianism, MM....it fits with your failed worldview.

Continue supporting totalitarianism, MM....it fits with your failed worldview.

Posted by: cee at August 22, 2007 10:29 PM

Not to mention breaking the Commandment of Thou Shalt Not Steal... I'm sure it would apply to the words of Rep Waxman and the guy at Big Lizard blog...

"It's nice to be wanted. I did comment above regarding the speech today. I watched it on CSPAN, it was a very well received by the veterans."

Not the veterans of this war.

Cecelia, your 9:44 PM response did not address my point about how dispicable it is for them to run a highly emotional ad to try to drum up more public support for continuing the Iraq war...by perpetuating a lie. (Mike)

The group behind the commercial has received support from Vets for Freedom http://vetsforfreedom.org/ (see above comment) This group does not represent all of servicemen and women but it certainly represents some.
****

THIS WAR CANNOT BE WON MILITARILY. (Why)

Yesterday, I pointed out a few items from Bush's speech in January that conflict with some perceptions of Bush:

. . .

Bush believes solely in a military solution:

2. Only Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. (Bush speech 1/07)

3. A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. (Bush speech 1/07)

. . .

Posted by: Sharon at August 21, 2007 12:21 PM

I just watched the last part of a show on Comedy Central called L'il Bush. It's pretty funny, actually. Might cheer some of you up.

11:26 Why don't you take your trash elswhere?

Yet you cream in your pants when you hear ANY success of this so called Surge.

Posted by: Patsy/why at August 22, 2007 10:07 PM

I would much rather cream in my pants in light of success rather than cream in my pants in darkness of death, as you and some others here, do.

The biggest news stories on French television (and the BBC World Report):

The deaths in the helicopter incident.
Bush attacking Malaki one day and defending him the next.
French intervention in Iraq.

The interesting thing about the last item, is the American MSM, still the greatest pro-Bush bastion in America, playing this up as Sarkozy chumming to Bush, while the French are reporting the story (and the relevant cabinet members are saying) as an effort to try to help American out of the morass it has created. If the French are able to accomplish anything, and with their strong Arab diplomatic credentials, they may be able to do so, this is going to be played up as France once again saving America's ass. As long as it works, fine by me. Anything to extricate ourselves from the quagmire, but I would think Bush's bosoom buddies would not want this.

The interesting thing about the last item, is the American MSM, still the greatest pro-Bush bastion in America, playing this up as Sarkozy chumming to Bush, while the French are reporting the story (and the relevant cabinet members are saying) as an effort to try to help American out of the morass it has created. If the French are able to accomplish anything, and with their strong Arab diplomatic credentials, they may be able to do so, this is going to be played up as France once again saving America's ass. As long as it works, fine by me. Anything to extricate ourselves from the quagmire, but I would think Bush's bosoom buddies would not want this.

Posted by: Clucker at August 23, 2007 4:37 AM

I'm not sure how "chumming up to Bush" and trying to help the U.S. "out of the morass" are mutually exclusive. But that's your logic...

I haven't heard or read anyone, right or left, saying anything negative about this news, politicisze in that manner, or act like it's anything other than good news and an indication of a better relationship with France.

"the American MSM, still the greatest pro-Bush bastion in America"

Heh.

From Howie Kurtz' Washington Post media column describing the August 13 news staff meeting of the Seattle Times:

"In an embarrassment to the industry, some staffers at a Seattle Times news meeting cheered when Rove's resignation was announced. To his credit, Editor David Boardman made the incident public and warned that staff meetings should not "evolve into a liberal latte klatch."

And this a few days later:

MSNBC's Joe Scarborough revealed Thursday morning [August 16] that on his first day at MSNBC, on the night of President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, "people in the newsroom...were booing the President basically from the beginning to the end." . . . "And I've got to say, my first night here at MSNBC was the President's State of the Union address in 2003, and I was shocked because there were actually people in the newsroom that were booing the President basically from the beginning to the end. And I actually talked to [NBC/MSNBC executive] Phil Griffin about it, and he said 'well, how was it last night?' . . .I said 'well, it's okay, I understand it's a little bit different up here than it is down in northwest Florida, but you had people in the newsroom actively booing the President of the United States.' Phil turned red very quickly."

http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2007/cyb20070817.asp#1

No reasonable person doubts that these scenes are replicated on a continuous basis across MSM outposts in our country. I sometimes think Clucker inserts these detached-from-reality non-sequiters in his lengthy pieces just to see if anyone is paying attention.

I note the irony of Clucker protesting that the MSM is insufficiently critical of President Bush, while his posts appear on a website about Keith Olbermann, whose "news" show is nothing more than one sided cheerleading for the liberal left fringe

Hank,

Long before Joe Scarborough talked about his first day experience at MSNBC, Chris Matthews had told a similar story.

Anyone who can continue to deny that the media has a liberal bias has got to be living on a different planet than the one on which the rest of us inhabit. How many articles have we seen discuss the great "success" and "soaring ratings" of Countdown when he has yet to beat O'Reilly even on a single night in over four years on the air? That somehow never makes it into the text of any mainstream media article. Why? They want to prop him up and make him seem like he's some great phenomenon. It's incredibly interesting to watch as the media continues to profile personalities like Anderson Cooper and Olbermann and their ilk who don't get one-quarter of the ratings that the Fox News crew do, while the number of profiles done on Fox personalities are few and far-between. When they do appear they are usually hatchet pieces. And why? Because of the liberal bias of the mainstream media.

philby, how many troops does france have in Iraq? Can you tell us that? They're going to "save our ass?" They've had minimal troops involved since day one.

Do the French have an interest in Iraqi oil?

http://www.lcsun-news.com/apcontent/ci_6690365

Jeff asks: "how many troops does france have in Iraq? Can you tell us that?"

I can! ....They have the same number of troops in Iraq that we SHOULD have in Iraq.

"Kouchner's trip raised questions about recent reported interest by French oil giant Total SA in Iraq's oil fields. Total would not comment on the company's dealings in Iraq, and French diplomats insisted Kouchner's trip had nothing to do with oil."

http://www.lcsun-news.com/apcontent/ci_6690365

Hank: "I note the irony of Clucker protesting that the MSM is insufficieantly critical of President Bush, while his posts appear on a website about Keith Olbermann, whose "news" show is nothing more than one sided cheerleading for the liberal left fringe."

I disagree!.....Olbermann's show is more of a needed critique of this administration, and their war than it is a cheerleader "for the liberal left fringe."

There IS a big difference, whether you recongnize that difference or not!

Taken as a whole, the MSM has literally become afraid of it's own shadow, and that is the main reason BOTH sides believe it is biased in the opposite direction.

I can! ....They have the same number of troops in Iraq that we SHOULD have in Iraq.

Posted by: Mike at August 23, 2007 1:29 PM

Thanks for debunking philby's assertion of france "saving our ass." Thanks for your "defeatist" reply, as well. I'm sure she will thank you, too. Her "flight was called" so she had to go.

LMAO.....Jeff thinks believing we shouldn't have any troops in Iraq is 'defeatist'.

I say not wanting them in harms way for no coherent reason is the epitome of showing support for the troops.

And that, Jeff, is another example of why YOU do not REALLY support the troops at all!

Another thing Jeff....France TRIED very hard to talk sense into us by advising us MANY times that going into Iraq was a terrible and self defeating idea. In other words, they certainly tried to 'save our ass'....from ourselves.

And how did we thank them for being smarter than us? By embarking on a ridiculous flag draped 'hate France' campaign, and do stupid things like changing the name of French Fries to "Freedom Fries".

Mike,

You are willing to believe the worst of America. You may be right or not. But have you considered that maybe the motives of France are not so pure. Here is the ending point of something taken from MSNBC:

What France really wants
A medium-sized power with super-sized ambitions

ANALYSIS By Dan Goure
MSNBC

"What France wants — what is at the heart of its stance on Iraq — is what it has wanted since the days of de Gaulle: a Europe whole and free - of America. An Iraq with weapons of mass destruction may be a small price to pay when the prize is Europe."

"I say not not wanting them in harms way for no coherent reason is the epitome of showing support for the troops."

###
no coherent reason?.....

You are so wrong, Mike. These troops are in harms way defending democracy and freedom in Iraq. They are engaging an enemy who uses terrorism and targets civilians for violent death to advance an evil ideology. To say the troops have no reason to fight is factually wrong and demeans their mission.

Clarification- may or may not be right about Americans, specifically, the Bush Administration. I don't buy into the conspiracy theories, maybe history will prove me wrong. I didn't mean troops.

To say the troops have no reason to fight is factually wrong and demeans their mission.

Posted by: cee at August 23, 2007 2:59 PM

I've hammered mike on his "no coherent reason" spew in te past. It's not the first time he has said that, as most of tired and worn talking points. I told him to go tell the parent of a fallen soldier or any parent of a soldier that they are in Iraq for "no coherent reason" and he had nothing to say.

I disagree!.....Olbermann's show is more of a needed critique of this administration, and their war than it is a cheerleader "for the liberal left fringe."

There IS a big difference, whether you recongnize that difference or not!

Taken as a whole, the MSM has literally become afraid of it's own shadow, and that is the main reason BOTH sides believe it is biased in the opposite direction.

Posted by: Mike at August 23, 2007 1:38 PM

Well, the facts don't support your contention that Olbermann is just a war critic.

He's explicitly called for the president's resignation. Can you name anyone in the Democratic leadership who has done that?

Can you name a Democrat pol who has expressly stated that Bush is responsible for the deaths of the miners? Olbermann has expressly said that.

Can you name a pol in the Dem leadership or even a nationally known liberal pundit who has ventured that the FBI and Homeland Security are in kahoots with the Administration to make the timing of alerts politically strategic?

Can you name any pol in the DNC leadership or a non-Blue Blog synicated pundit who has expressly said that there was systemic vote theft abetted by Ohio officials in the that state during the '04 vote?

Hell! Can you name one Dem pol or nationally synicated columnist who reveres Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame as unassailable, as Olbermann does, even if they think the Administration was trying to punish Joe?

This isn't the mainstream. Not even among your own pols. It's the Blue Blog left.

He's your man and the expressed reason that you like him is because he's the voice of Daily Kos and not the voice (at least publicly) of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, or even Paul Krugman.

Those guys aren't telling the whole story in your book. Olbermann in all his one-sidedness and one side only guests, and my-way-or-the-highway infotainment DOES.

Fine. Just don't try to convince us that he's merely anti-war. You have an anti-war Democrat in Chris Matthews AND his substitute Mike Barnicle. We both know... you're thrilled in Olbermann to have someone who's quite a bit more...

Jeff sez: "I've hammered mike on his "no coherent reason" spew in te past."

WHEN Jeff? WHEN have you done anything but snipe????

I have CHALLENGED you to make a coherent argument on this subject many times, but you've never done it..not ONE time!

LIAR!

Cecelia, one of the tiring things about engaging you is the way you so often twist my words into something I never said or meant, just as you did at again at 4:08 PM.

First you accuse me of stating that KO was 'merely "anti-war", or "just a war critic", when in fact my actual quote was "more of a needed critique of this administration, AND their war". That meaning should be clear to anyone that the critique is not limited to the war.

First you accuse me of stating that KO was 'merely "anti-war", or "just a war critic", when in fact my actual quote was "more of a needed critique of this administration, AND their war". That meaning should be clear to anyone that the critique is not limited to the war.

Posted by: Mike at August 23, 2007 4:18 PM

The point is that it's not limited to anything our Dem leadership would say or what the vast majority of nationally synicated liberal pundits would say.

That pretty wells justifies Hank's assertion of Olbermann as fringe lefty internet Blue Blog voice.

Mike:
You're willing to believe the worst in America"
Posted by Sharon @ 2:45:

You have it SO wrong Sharon!

I want the America back that once stood as a shining beacon to the world by setting an example to the world by:

1) - Rejecting torture! The America I remember would never have considered stooping so low. Now we live in an America where even our president has defended this dispicable act. He has even stooped so low as to trash the internationally revered Geneva convention. My personal shame over this is absolute.

2) - I believe in an America that 'spreads' it's ideal to the world by example, not at the point of a gun.

3) - I believe in America where our leaders truly believe in transparency and reject secrecy...because WE THE PEOPLE are supposed to be the ones really in charge!

4) - I believe in an America in which the Commander in Chief understands to his very core that HE WORKS FOR US!

5) - I believe in an America that stands on it's own and pays it's own way. We are so deeply in international dept, we may never work our way out of this mess.

6) - I believe in an America that doesn't invade and occupy far away countries for contrived reasons and then make the pretense that we are "fighting for freedom and democracy" to cover it all up.

7) - I believe in an America in which it's leaders will take real responsibility for their own failures and mistakes....just as every other American is expected to do.

Sharon, this cesspool of a leadership is a far sight from the true American Ideals that built this great country.

No, I believe in what is best about America...and I hope someday that we can become that great country once again.

Cecelia: "The point is that it's not limited to anything our Dem leadership would say or what the vast majority of nationally syndicated liberal pundits would say."

Thats because they're mostly a bunch of weenies more concerned with their jobs or political future than actually doing or saying the right thing.

Don't ever forget that one reason we got in this mess in Iraq is partially because the MSM and the opposition party failed to stand up and be heard when it would have counted the most.

Cee: "You are so wrong Mike. These troops are in harms way defending and democracy and freedom in Iraq."

And that have absolutely no business "defending democracy and freedom in Iraq."

There mission is to protect and defend OUR freedom and democracy, not fictional "freedom and democracy" in an alien culture that has never expressed any compelling interest or desire to be like us.

6) - I believe in an America that doesn't invade and occupy far away countries for contrived reasons and then make the pretense that we are "fighting for freedom and democracy" to cover it all up.

No, I believe in what is best about America...and I hope someday that we can become that great country once again.

Posted by: Mike at August 23, 2007 4:37 PM

Yes, all Democatic Administrations have been about "transparency" and taking responsibility for their failures.... we've never occupied Vietnam, Korea, Haiti, Serbia, Somalia, the Phillippines.

The media would have reported on waterboarding just like they reported on Kennedy and his girlfriends at the time...

There's never been a deficit before....

Can't you just realistically keep it to "I think we shouldn't have gone into Iraq and Republican policies suck".... rather than engaging in this sort of revisionist faux drama?

Mike,

Saddam Hussein was removed from power under UN mandate. The resulting democratically elected government is under attack by the same terrorist ideology and it is the mission of the same troops, that removed Hussein, to protect the fledgling government. It is in the best interest of our national security to have an ally in Iraq and it is ALWAYS in our national interest to support democracy no matter who wants it. It is the noble tradition of our country to support freedom.

Millions of Iraqis voted in their first free elections and you want to characterize them as not wanting such self-governance? To ignore this simple fact is convenient to your argument but not intellectually honest.

Thats because they're mostly a bunch of weenies more concerned with their jobs or political future than actually doing or saying the right thing.

Don't ever forget that one reason we got in this mess in Iraq is partially because the MSM and the opposition party failed to stand up and be heard when it would have counted the most.

Posted by: Mike at August 23, 2007 4:43 PM

So your own pols, pundits, and the media, haven't reflected your voice in the way you think that it should.

Yeah,,, but you aren't on the fringe...

Cee: "Saddam Hussein was removed from power under mandate UN mandate."

WHAT!!!!!

Have you already fortten Cee? The UN OPPOSED using force to enforce it's own so called 'mandate'. We took it on ourselves to do that....under protest from the UN.

I know you're a history revisionist extraordinaire, but I didn't think you'd started revising history from this Century yet.

Cecelia: "yeah, but you aren't on the fringe..."

Whatever, but can you imagine what many of these spineless pundits and politicians are actually saying off the record?

I'd wager most of them are privately thinking and talking a lot more like me than you

Cecelia: "Can't you just realistically keep it to "I think we shouldn't have gone into Iraq and republican policies suck..."

No, because I don't believe in making gross understatements!

Don't ever forget that one reason we got in this mess in Iraq is partially because the MSM and the opposition party failed to stand up and be heard when it would have counted the most.

Posted by: Mike at August 23, 2007 4:43 PM

MSM decides if we go to war? Who woulda thunk.......

Jeff sez: "I've hammered mike on his "no coherent reason" spew in te past."

WHEN Jeff? WHEN have you done anything but snipe????

I have CHALLENGED you to make a coherent argument on this subject many times, but you've never done it..not ONE time!

LIAR!

Posted by: Mike at August 23, 2007 4:09 PM

Do you really want me to repost it? Think back, 2 maybe 3 weeks ago....

Lets see here, so far mike has claimed that Sharon is wrong, cee is wrong, Cecelia is wrong and I am a liar. Somebody bang the turntable, the record is skipping, again........

Cee: "It is the noble tradition of our country to support freedom."

But it is NOT in the noble tradition of our country to invade and occupy alien cultures we don't understand and try to turn them into a clone of ourselves.

It is NOT in the noble tradition of our country to make war with ulterior motives not fully disclosed beforehand while using false reasons as a public front.

It is NOT in the noble tradition of our country to ignor, and then revise revered international documents like the Geneva Convention to suit our own purposes.

Jeff: "Do you really want me to repost it."

No, I really want you to get lost....because like someone else pointed out the other day, you're nothing but the on line equivalent of a pesky little fly buzzing around and making a virtual pest out of yourself while adding nothing to the conversation.

Mike, do wish that Saddam Hussein was still in power?

Cecelia: "yeah, but you aren't on the fringe..."

Whatever, but can you imagine what many of these spineless pundits and politicians are actually saying off the record?

I'd wager most of them are privately thinking and talking a lot more like me than you

Posted by: Mike at August 23, 2007 7:51 PM

Oh yeah.

What you need to ask yourself is why they don't want THAT known to the rest of the planet...

"Mike, do you wish that Saddam Hussein was still in power?"

Wrong question, as usual!

James, would you like to try rephrasing your question to a more honest one than, "Do I believe bringing down this one ruthless dictator was worth: 1) 4000 American deaths, 2) - Many times that number of Americans permanently maimed for life - both physically and mentally, 3) - around 4 billion a month in drain on our budget, 4) - putting our country hopelessly deep in international debt, & 5) - Destabilizing the entire Middle East.

So, If your question is do I think taking out Hussein is worth the consequences, the answer is, of course....NO!

Now I have a question for you James; how often do you make decisions without weighing the consequences?

"What you need to ask yourself is why they don't want THAT known to the rest of the planet..."

I've already answered that question!

See post @ 4:43 PM, 2nd paragraph.

Oh wait. Can't do that can we. Hey I have an idea! Let's load Mike and the rest of the crew up and let them go run Iraq!

"Now, who are you going to believe?

The Iraqi people or Cee ?"
-------------------------------------------------

Why...Cee of course! He also has his own revisionist history of the consequences of the Vietnam war...and the president just parroted those views for the first time yesterday.

See...Cee has more pull than you thought!

Cee....gloating about more Americans being forced to die for no coherent reason.

Posted by: Mike at August 6, 2007 9:32 PM

Last I checked, our military was ALL volunteer, no one is forced. 3800 casualties out of 1.8 mil does not fall in the "forced to die" category. That's almost as asinine as your "certain death" theory of a few months back. Remember that one? STO made the original post and you defended it. Secondly, 99% of the 1.8 milllion troops would disagree with your "no coherent reason" theory.

Posted by: royalking at August 7, 2007 1:01 AM

"Mike, do you wish that Saddam Hussein was still in power?"

Wrong question, as usual!

James, would you like to try rephrasing your question to a more honest one than, "Do I believe bringing down this one ruthless dictator was worth: 1) 4000 American deaths, 2) - Many times that number of Americans permanently maimed for life - both physically and mentally, 3) - around 4 billion a month in drain on our budget, 4) - putting our country hopelessly deep in international debt, & 5) - Destabilizing the entire Middle East.

posted by self righteous mike

He has resorted to rewording questions to fit his far left socialist agenda. What's next?

Jeff: "Last I checked, out military was ALL volunteer, no one is forced. 3800 casualties out of 1.8 mil does not fall in the "forced to die" category."

Ah yes....back to the "they volunteered so it's Ok if we send these young kids into harm's way" cop-out!

What a repugnant argument! Many of these kids cannot even buy liquor in their own country yet, and you think they have the judgement and maturity to decide whether or not to die for a cause they don't even really understand yet!
------------------------------------------------
"3800 casualties out of 1.8 mil"

You mean 3800 US military deaths don't you, not "casualties". The "casualities" are many times that figure. Also your 3800 military deaths figure doesn't include the contractor deaths, which was approaching 1000 last I heard.
------------------------------------------------
"99% of the 1.8 million troops would disagree with your "no coherent reason" theory."

I think you're going to have to prove that one Jeff...because I say you pulled that figure right out of your ass!

Jeff sez: "I've hammered mike on his "no coherent reason" spew in te past."

WHEN Jeff? WHEN have you done anything but snipe????

I have CHALLENGED you to make a coherent argument on this subject many times, but you've never done it..not ONE time!

LIAR!

Posted by: Mike at August 23, 2007 4:09 PM

Cee....gloating about more Americans being forced to die for no coherent reason.

Posted by: Mike at August 6, 2007 9:32 PM

>>>My "snipe," according to the self righteous one.

Last I checked, our military was ALL volunteer, no one is forced. 3800 casualties out of 1.8 mil does not fall in the "forced to die" category. That's almost as asinine as your "certain death" theory of a few months back. Remember that one? STO made the original post and you defended it. Secondly, 99% of the 1.8 milllion troops would disagree with your "no coherent reason" theory.

Posted by: royalking at August 7, 2007 1:01 AM

>>>Who's the liar?

But they volunteered. And the way that it works is that you go where you're told to go. You'd think with his alleged Military background would know that.

Hey, look at Jeff...High fiving himself over his very stupid post he made 3 weeks ago at Aug. 7, 1:01 PM.

Jeff is actually touting that pointless and simplistic 4 line post like he really believes he actually made a point!

And to think....THAT was the best he has done in the last 3 weeks...by his own admission!

Does it get any funnier than that?

"But they volunteered. And the way that it works is that you go where you're told to go. You'd think with his alleged Military background would know that."

Yeah, reality sucks, doesn't it?

Thats exactly why we need rational people in charge who recognize insanity when they see it, even when it has somehow become part of the status quo.

History is full of such examples!

2010
Active Duty, Reserve, and Guard personnel have now signed the appeal

See that mike? 2010 soldiers have signed an appeal trying to ditch duty. 2010 out of 1.8 mil. Was my 99% pretty close? I think so.

"And to think....THAT was the best he has done in the last 3 weeks...by his own admission!" posted by mike

>>>Where did I say that? Find it and post it, please. Weren't you just accusing Cecelia of putting words in your mouth, which she didn't, then you go and say this? Just our daily dose of you know what........

Gee do you think the Liberals will do away with the all-volunteer military? Do you think they'll be able to do anything differently that the GOP has done? After all that would require them to do something period and as we've seen so far with their leadership of both houses of Congress they have done absolutely nothing, unless you count bitching and whining to be actions.

Jeff: "was my 99% pretty close?"

Uh...no Jeff! Signing a poll "trying to ditch duty" (whatever that is), is hardly a scientific poll regarding individual views about our Iraq policy.

"gee do you think the Liberals will do away with the all-vounteer military?"

Why not start with doing away with unnecessary "all voluteer" wars, such as the one in Iraq?

Jeff: "was my 99% pretty close?"

Uh...no Jeff! Signing a poll "trying to ditch duty" (whatever that is), is hardly a scientific poll regarding individual views about our Iraq policy.

Posted by: Mike at August 23, 2007 9:54 PM

A classic example of mikes "debating" technique. Deny and selective response. He ran full speed from his latest lie-

"And to think....THAT was the best he has done in the last 3 weeks...by his own admission!" posted by mike

>>>crickets, no proof where I said that. Cause I didn't.

You love it when soldiers speak out against the war, but when soldiers speak out in favor of the war, people like you and your pals at Daily Kos want them to shut up. Yeah, you support the military alright. Only when they say things you agree with.

Cmon Jeff, where did you got your "99%" from? Just like I said, you pulled it out of your ass.

James:

"you love it when soldiers speak out against the war, but when soldiers speak out in favor of the war, people like you and your pals at daily Kos want them to shut up:.....I personally respect the soldier's point of views, regardless of what they believe about the war. In reality, I would hate to think that none of them believed in what they were being asked to do. Making policy is not their place and most of them understand that.

In fact James, I suspect that the opposite is true regarding your assertion....You would probably be happy if every anti-war soldier were muzzled.

RK: "Stephen Colbert is really a conservative making fun of the libs."

Cmon Jeff, where did you got your "99%" from? Just like I said, you pulled it out of your ass.

Posted by: Mike at August 24, 2007 12:56 AM

It's called "math." Learn it.

"It's called "math". Learn it."

No, It's called "cop out", and you're very experienced at that.

Admit, it Jeff, you pulled hat 99% right out of your little ass, didn't you?

It just kills you when you're wrong, doesn't it? Ever heard of an "educated guess?" I guessed the number to be 99% originally, knowing it couldn't be any less. Then I did 30 seconds of research and proved I was right, actually it's higher than 99% and you can't stand it. Your desperation continues to show.

how many troops does france [sic] have in Iraq? Can you tell us that? They're going to "save our ass?" They've had minimal troops involved since day one.
---------------------------
A very good morning to a still sleeping America from you friend, Clucker stranded at a Transfer Desk in Amsterdam, and to the Prevaricating Pea Brain Paranoik, also from Clucker, your nemesis and worst nightmare, not your friend.

No one said the help was coming by way of troops. The help is coming by way of negotiations between the warring factions, Shiite, Sunni and, to a lesser extent Kurds. The French have diplomatic channels with all three (3) groups, as well as the Syrian and the Iranians. That allows them to do what our failed President and his failed Administration cannot do, talk.

You really can't even comprehend a simple declarative sentence in the present tense, can you? It's a real pity.

http://www.ivaw.org/

Here you go,mike, go hang out with all 2010 Iraq vets against the war.

Jeff, Jeff, Jeff!....THAT is not a scientific poll of military members who oppose the war. It is a Web Site consisting of 1010 ACTIVE MEMBERS who ACTIVELY oppose the war. It hardly is representative of the total numer, mny of whom would feel too intimidated to join an organization like that.

Try again Jeff! As I already said, you pulled that 99% figure right out of your ass!

Jeff: "ever heard of an "educated guess?" I guessed the number to be 99% originally, knowing it couldn't be any less."

'TO GUESS': To pull something out of your ass.

'EDUCATED GUESS': A hypothesis or approximation made by someone educated in that particular endeavor.

Jeff, you and the word "educated" are two mutually exclusive entities!

Whatever you say, idiot. You were debunked, see above. Here's a tissue.......

Cmon Jeff, tell us more about that 99% figure that you pulled out of your ass and exactly WHERE you got your erroneous information?

Inquiring minds want to know!

You know you looked even dumber than usual in this exchange...you DO know that, don't you?

Hey Jeff! By using YOUR delusional method of making deductions, 99% of America is against Bill O'Reilly!

How did I arrive at that? The same stupid way you arrived at the 99% of soldiers are for the war figure.

Lets see now, he 'only' gets an audience of around 2 million a night. That means over 300 miliion hate him......right Jeff!

I love your kind of convoluted thinking....it's SO much fun!

You're desperation is showing, mike, give it up.

philby, I see we get your opinion with no facts, just like mike, no surprise. "Your wrong!" With no evidence, shocker.

Why don't you provide me the "facts" for my support of Chavez, you lying charlatan?

Facts, indeed. You couldn't recognize a fact blown out of your nose.

Posted by: Clucker at August 25, 2007 12:58 PM

Just tell us you didn't make the aforementioned posts and I will be glad to post them as I have said many times before.

Where are your numbers in regards to Iraq vets against the war? Got any? Did mike post any? Not a single piece of evidence to refute mine, just opinions, as usual.

What is this, queerwatch, now?

And who has been right there supporting Bush all along without opposition? The Democratic-led Congress.

Just tell us you didn't make the aforementioned posts and I will be glad to post them as I have said many times before.

Where are your numbers in regards to Iraq vets against the war? Got any? Did mike post any? Not a single piece of evidence to refute mine, just opinions, as usual.

Posted by: royalking at August 25, 2007 2:20 PM

more crickets..........

As researchers have noted, the areas of the country where divorce rates are highest are also frequently the areas where many conservative Christians live.

Kentucky, Mississippi and Arkansas, for example, voted overwhelmingly for constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage. But they had three of the highest divorce rates in 2003, based on figures from the Census Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics.

The lowest divorce rates are largely in the blue states: the Northeast and the upper Midwest. And the state with the lowest divorce rate was Massachusetts, home to John Kerry, the Kennedys and same-sex marriage.

In 2003, the rate in Massachusetts was 5.7 divorces per 1,000 married people, compared with 10.8 in Kentucky, 11.1 in Mississippi and 12.7 in Arkansas

Posted by: Defend this at August 25, 2007 3:26 PM

I looked this up and can't find anything about the survey.

I would think that they'd have to adjust for several factors. Things like the relative age of the population and such.

The South has had such an immense growth in population, I'm wondering if its population isn't younger. You'd certainly find more incidences of marriage in that demographic than in areas with a higher middle-aged pop.

I'd think too that cultural factors would play into the results as well. My guess is that people in the Bible-Belt marry at a younger age than those in other regions and would be more likely to marry over over an unplanned pregnacy. Both of these factors would impact the odds of success.

Income level would affect marital success too. That's influenced by both age and education. Historically there's more poverty --with the ensuant lack of emphasis on education--- in rural areas, especially the South.

Anyway, I wonder if they're comparing apples to apples with this research.