Like Olby, his fans are bi-polar
Three Meltdowns brings feelings of dolor
Keith's fans aren't smart
But Keith has the heart
To drop by sometime and 3-hole her

Sounds like this "woman" has been studying at the Univeristy of WTF VODKA. And, mentored by the wonderful dr. dweebie frisch, phduh.

I understand her rage. I get that way whenever a "FOX news alert!" cuts into my Bill-O viewing. Damn miners!!

John-O, that was extremely cold. Families are suffering. That sounded like something that would posted at kosmokos or the mutts.

The Olbyloons are currently openly rooting for the swift death of Tony Snow. Lovely group aren't they?

I've posted links to the Olbyloons who believe communism is great. I've also posted links exposing how the Olbyloons believe Keith Olbermann isn't a liberal. I'll be happy to link to the posts on their various websites that point out how they hope that Snow dies and soon for his "sins" of being a spokesperson for George W. Bush. But of course you in all your insanity, will claim those viewpoints don't represent the "majority" of the Democratic party. Just those who post on the internet huh? I guess the rest are too stupid to find their way to the keyboard. Or more likely, didn't pay their electricty bill and have no internet access.

And I know I"m winning an argument when the Loons revert to their profanity-laced tirades against me. The verdict is clearly in: Olbermann is guilty of being a liberally-biased hack; your party openly cheers for communist dictators and the death of those working for the Bush administration. You know what? With the kind of attitudes found amongst you, I'll gladly take being labeled as a "Bushwipe".

You're on the losing end of this "Clucker"--as you always are. I've blogged on this issue before at Olbermannwatch and have posted fine examples of typical liberal loon support for the communist dictators, Chavez and Castro. Feel free to use search to find it here at Olbermannwatch.

oh wait, apparently you can't use the search function at any website there Clucker. I had no problem whatsoever finding pro-Chavez and pro-Castro posts & comments made at Daily Kos in just the last few days. I'm just shocked that you've been caught in (yet another) lie!

and oreilly idiots are any better both sides want to control you morons

Let's see, from what I originally posted one of Olbermann's lunatics watches his show three times a night than "archives" each episode on to DVD. Yes, I'd say that makes the Olbyloons fully under Olbermann's spell.

cluckstain,
\
And i'm new, so i cant say whether you've ever talked nice about Chavez, but you don't need to, your silence says it all. "Good Democrats don't criticize socialists"

when are you going to pull the hamster out of your taint? I can still hear him shuffling around in there.

Olby might want to get a restraining order because of his crazed loon followers.

Sounds like this woman is far more obsessed wtih K.O. than even we are, but she's essentially watching Olberdolt and watching the internet for K.O. information just as this site does.

I think Bob ought to approach her with doing pro-Keith commentary for OW.

It sounds like she'd be more invested in doing this than Doug Krile has been and she could be the conduit for linking Olbyloon Bush-bashing Olberlove with OWer's scorn for K.O., thus making everyone happy, while keeping the focus on the site's K.O. fixation.

I 2nd that: The phrase "Bush Bashing" nothing but a Red herring, whether or not the one expressing the opinion understands that or not.

Keeping tallies of the Republicans not running for re-election in Congress? That's the ultimate Bush bashing. At least until the Republicans have a nominee or nominee presumptive for President. Après le 1er septembre 2008, le déluge.

yes, all criticisms of bush are entirely rational and no one has ever crossed a line when talking about bush.

Do you guys even read the stuff posted here?

or how about when people don't even post anything other than Bush is the devil or die Bush die.
Nope, no bush bashing there. All rational arguments by highly intelligent liberals to the daily kos crowd.

Well, fine, WDYC, Mike, Anonyloon, consider it laughable.

You do it, we'll laugh...

However, I'm trying to get you an official Bush-basher blogger for the site. One who will no doubt, defend Olbermann's linkage of Bush to everything including the heartbreak of psoriasis, in a way that makes Mike's on-again/off-again understanding of rhetorical questions look like sweet reason in comparasion, all the while keeping the Olbermann in Olbermann Watch.

I'm a giver, it's not in me to take...

look at the echo chamber of your four posts wdyc, mike, clucker and anon. Not even the slightest thought among you that bush bashing is real.

Oh i agree.

Oh so do i.

Absolutely.

We are so smart.

Yes!!

good points by us.

I agree again

"By staying up and hitting "record" well ahead of time, I preserved that adorable piece of Keith silliness for the ages. Or at least for my collection. I can sleep now."

If I were anyone that this woman idolized I think I would hire a personal bodyguard.

Preserved KO's adorable silliness for the ages!

Now that might be the best left wing lib humor I've seen in while.

Grammie

actually wdyc, it speaks volumes about campaign finance reform, which requires candidates to start earliar in order to raise the same amount of money.

But the fact the last eclections have been starting earliar (ya know, ones Bush won)means nothing to you, cause it doesnt fit into your world view.

Starcrossed lovers, Momma Moonbat and Hugo
Whatdotheyhaveincommon? Bush bashing, you know
Cindy nude gives any normal man a fright
Unless he's unhinged about Bush, then he will bang her all night
It's true that Hugo Chavez, Krazy Keith and Cindy would love to blow

an official Bush-basher blogger for the site
-----
While I did truly enjoy your post (it was a formidable and enjoyable literary effort), I think your offer is superfluous. We have an official Bush-Basher for this site, all sites and the unsited. It's called the National Dialogue (that's not a newspaper or publication of any sort, Brandon and Pea Brain, so don't go looking and then call me a liar).

THIS IS OLBERMANN WATCH........

NOT BUSH WATCH MORONS.........

Oh I don't know about that anonyloon.

I see you have a bad case of BDS and I suspect a irritating rash to go along with it. I have heard that once it starts to scab over the pus stops running.......good luck on that one, anyway just watched your line up losers blow each other on ABC with the "wonder midget" Stephie Flopanofoolus.

If thats all you got to offer I know you will be in that same pissy mood for the next 9 years...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAAAA.

While I did truly enjoy your post (it was a formidable and enjoyable literary effort), I think your offer is superfluous. We have an official Bush-Basher for this site, all sites and the unsited. It's called the National Dialogue (that's not a newspaper or publication of any sort, Brandon and Pea Brain, so don't go looking and then call me a liar).

Posted by: Clucker at August 19, 2007 6:59 PM

Well, of course that my idea could be deemed unncessary here is only because of the graciousness of your host, but then you would forget context when it comes to Bush-bashing in a way you'd never forget it when it came to other conversations. That's just one aspect of the tendency that gives the terms "Bush-bashing" and Bush-basher" the crackpot factor that belies all the protests of "it's only reasonable" by B-Bers we see here.

We'll put aside your cluelessness in evoking the National Dialogue in the sense of unalienable right no matter where I am, and get to the point that an official Bush-Basher Olbyloon would put everyone on more "official" Olbermann Watch footing.

Bob has wanted an official voice of the Olbyloons. I'd say she qualifies.

Concerning the subject you call "Bush bashing", I called the phrase a red herring because in my view, anyone using this phrase is attempting to marginalize anything and everything negative we may say about Bush by making the false implication that ...."yeah, but you people would accuse Bush of everything".

Cecelia and others, have you ever taken a reflective look at your own thinking whenever you make the stretch of accusing Olbermann of "blaming Bush" for something like say, the bridge collapse simply you say because he dared to infer that more money MIGHT be available for infrastruture maintenance were we not bleeding so badly with the war in Iraq?

Such a suggestion was and is merely food for thought, and such things SHOULD be examined and discussed when such tragedies occur......and it hardly rose to the level of "bush bashing" OR "blaming Bush".

If you are one of the many on this site who seem to believe otherwise, then your sensitivity level is clearly set to extreme.

How's the Iraq War going, Gaggling Pistol?

(Since that is the hallmark of the president you voted for)

Presumptions held with your average anonyloon is analogous to that of a John's clairvoyance of disease infecting a hooker. You have no idea who I voted for IF I voted.

Cecelia and others, have you ever taken a reflective look at your own thinking whenever you make the stretch of accusing Olbermann of "blaming Bush" for something like say, the bridge collapse simply you say because he dared to infer that more money MIGHT be available for infrastructure maintenance were we not bleeding so badly with the war in Iraq?

Posted by: Mike at August 19, 2007 9:25 PM
==============================

Just checked Minnesota has a budget surplus of 1 billion dollars.......money should not have been an issue....... and certainly not from the federal level.........Olbermann's story did not suggest that point of view now did it? A healthy dose of paranoia is not needed just a little knowledge of the Orange Mans despicable history.

If you are one of the many on this site who seem to believe otherwise, then your sensitivity level is clearly set to extreme.

Posted by: Mike at August 19, 2007 9:25 PM

Speaking of sensitivity levels set to extreme....no one is suggesting that all criticism of Bush is Bush-bashing.

As to the other stuff you wroite, you use an assertion that could be used as a blanket catchall for any sort of criticism of public funding and then suggest that someone else's ...anything... is set at extreme?

That is precisely the sort of self-referential and circular argument that Olbermann and so many of the mush-for-brains leftists on the internet seem to enjoy precisely because there is no answer or even discussion in it that doesn't refer back to the larger debate about the War. We could be have more funding more mental health clinics if we weren't funding the Iraq War...end of story...I've auto-concluded that anyone else's POV or priorities are default invalid.

Most of the media doesn't engage in this sort of tactic. understanding that it is nothing but political gemesmanship and politicizing of the worst sort. That the media largely does recognize the utter simplity of these sorts of formulations is THE grounds for the accusation that they are corporate shills to whom Keith Olbermann is the Great Orange Hope.

BTW-- Olbermann didn't just raise a discussion, he explicitly said, in the case of the mine accident that Republicans pols had caused the death of the miners. Here he hopsotched over any discussion of the mining industrry in this country, of keeping it competitive with the world, and of regulation and risks endemic to the industry.

I leave that one-sided one-trick pony for you to watch and enjoy and proclaim that at last you finally have YOUR voice in the media.... I can't make you dissatisfied and horrified that the guy wouldn't glance at another opinion if it was his mother's, anymore than I can make someone want to visit The American Thinker website in order to get an understanding of other political views.

This girl probably has a "thing" for Olbermann just like Johnny Dollar has a "thing" for Gibson. Or Cox has his "thing" for O'Reilly.

When Olby did his 'little air
guitar' thingy, it was very effemine and hard to watch. Damn, he's a friggen woman.

Let's see who has served for our country....

Republicans:

George W. Bush Texas National Guard, went AWOL and did not show up the entire last year of contract

Elliott Abrams ? Sought deferment for OVERWEIGHT.

Ann Coulter - Did not serve - Max Cleland, highly decorated soldier and triple amputee of the Vietnam war Ann Coulter said to him on national TV "It's people like you that lost that war for us!"

Richard Armey - Sought college deferment.

Bill Bennett - Sought graduate school deferment.

Dick Cheney - Sought graduate school deferment, Dick Cheney's excuse for dodging the draft during the Vietnam war "I had better things to do"

Tom DeLay - Sought college deferment.

Phil Gramm - Sought marriage deferment, too loved to die. Personally, I find that there is even such a deferment disgusting.

Senator John McCain - McCain's naval honors include the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross, plus was a POW in Vietnam.

Former Senator Bob Dole ? I know he is not making decisions, but I felt his accomplishments should be pointed out. An honorable man Served in WWII and severely wounded.

Chuck Hagel - two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star, Vietnam.

Duke Cunningham - nominated for the Medal of Honor, received the Navy Cross, two Silver Stars, fifteen Air Medals, the Purple Heart, and several other decorations (stupid politics kept this man from receiving the MOH)

Rush Limbaugh - Sought college deferment,

John Gibson - did not serve.

Trent Lott - Sought deferment, couldn?t find out why.

P.J. O'Rourke - Sought deferment.

Kenneth Starr Sought deferment for psoriasis.Vin Weber - Sought deferment for asthma.

Don Nickles, Senate Minority Whip - Did not serve

Senator Richard Shelby, did not serve

Saxby Chambliss, Georgia - did not serve, had a "bad knee" (yet somehow feels he has a right to attack Max Cleland's patriotism)

Representative JC Watts - did not serve

Jack Kemp, did not serve (was fit enough for pro football, but "failed" the physical?)

Karl Rove - avoided the draft, did not serve, too busy being a Republican.

Eliot Abrams, did not serve

Att'y Gen. John Ashcroft - sought deferment to teach business ed at SW Missouri State

John Engler, did not serve

Tom Ridge, Bronze Star for Valor in Vietnam (he saved his platoon from an ambush. Vietnamese ambush success rate was 80% this is amazing)

Sam R. Johnson, combat missions in both Korea and Vietnam, POW in Hanoi from April 1966 to February 1973 (don't ever run for president Sam, they'll spread rumors that you're crazy)

Dennis Hastert - avoided the draft, did not serve. Puditocracy and Preacher-types:

George Will, did not serve but everyday he writes about sending in the troops.

Bill O'Reilly, did not serve

Paul Gigot, did not serve.

Pat Buchanan, did not serve

Pat Robertson - did not serve, apparently used Daddy's connections to get off the ship in Tokyo while his buddies went on to Korea.

Bill Kristol, did not serve
Independents

Gov. Jesse Ventura, U.S. Navy SEAL training, did UDT work Senator Jim Jeffords, U.S. Navy 1956-1959 (active duty)
Prominent Democrats

Gray Davis, California Governor, served in Vietnam.

Chuck Robb, US Senator from Virginia, served in Vietnam

George McGovern, famous liberal, awarded Silver Star & DFC, dozens of missions during WWII.

Pete Stark, D-CA, served in the Air Force (active duty)

House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt - Served his country in uniform, 1965-71 (active duty)

House Minority Whip David Bonior - Served his country in uniform, 1968-72 (active duty)

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle - Served his country in uniform, 1969-72 (active duty)

Former VP Al Gore - Served 1969-71; recipient of Vietnam Service Medal

Bob Kerrey... Democrat... Congressional Medal of Honor, Vietnam

Daniel Inouye... Democrat... Congressional Medal of Honor, World War Two

John Kerry... Democrat...Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam

Charles Rangel...Democrat... Bronze Star, Korea

Max Cleland... Democrat... Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam

Howell Heflin... Democrat... Silver Star

Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) - U.S. Army, 1951-1953. (active duty)

Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) - U.S. Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.

Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-IA) - two tours in Vietnam, two Distinguished Flying

Crosses as a helicopter pilot, two Bronze Stars, and the Soldier's Medal.

Ambassador "Pete" Peterson, Air Force Captain, POW, Democratic congressman,

Ambassador to Viet Nam, and recipient of the Purple Heart, the Silver Star and the Legion of Merit

Rep. Mike Thompson, D-CA: served in combat with the U.S. Army as a staff sergeant/platoon leader with the 173rd Airborne Brigade; was wounded and received a Purple Heart.

This terrible accident happened not on a battlefield but on a helicopter pad 15 miles away from combat. Cleland stepped out of a helicopter to go have a beer with buddies, saw a hand grenade on the ground, assumed that he had dropped it and picked the explosive device up. It had been dropped by another, inexperienced soldier who had left the weapon on a hair trigger setting. It detonated, devastating Cleland’s 25-year-old body and in an instant changing his life.

In the 1986 edition of his autobiography Strong at the Broken Places, Cleland wrote of his receiving the Soldier’s Medal “for allegedly shielding my men from the grenade blast and the Silver Star for allegedly coming to the aid of wounded troops….”

“There were no heroics on which to base the Soldier’s Medal,” wrote Cleland on page 87. “And it had been my men who took care of the wounded during the rocket attack, not me. Some compassionate military men had obviously recommended me for the Silver Star, but I didn’t deserve it.” (Emphasis added.) Two pages later he added: “I was not entitled to the Purple Heart either, since I was not wounded by enemy action.” (Emphasis added.)

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={29E5D51C-87EC-459A-82A4-2F1080B4D0C5}

Still, pretty damn heroic.

You can add to that DID NOT SERVE list:
RK, Cee, Brandon,Jizzwheel, Gagging pistol,Cecelia,Benson and the whole motley crew.

Posted by: at August 19, 2007 11:41 PM

Don't forget to add your name to the list. Oh, that's right, being accountable is not your mo. More like "stab and run."

Listen to my story!

I was drafted. I was! I received the dreaded letter from Uncle Sam that started with "Greetings". So I wrote a letter to the head of the local draft board and asked them to "undraft" me because I was going to join the ROTC the next year in college. They bought it. They undrafted me. Why do you think I am known as "Slick Willy?" The next year in college I somehow managed to not join the ROTC. A quarter of a century later and I finally make it into the military, as Commander In Chief. What a country!

It's funny how most of the warmongers think it's ok to send others to war but didn't have the balls to serve themselves.

"",

Where is your list of non-serving Democrats who voted to send others to die in Afghanistan?

And Olbermann? Jon Stewart? Bill Maher? Arianna Huffington? Stephanie Miller? Hmm. None of them have ever served in the military either. Those damn facts will bite you in the butt every time won't they?

Brando,

The people that you write about aren't in favor of sending other people's kids to war, son. I think that you are aware of the distinction. It goes back to the time when conservatives actually had balls...

That's right those people werent in favor of going into Afghanistan. Oh wait.......................

Good pointless stuff-
Keep up the lefty rhetoric and maybe everyone will believe it. Only Dems served. All Republicans skipped out. Idiots!

Just because I am not on welfare doesn't make my opinion of it moot...

The Daily Show is going to Iraq... I love it when the left tries to add levity to the most pressing issue of our time. It should be fun having jokes at the expense of the soldiers. Good stuff. Side splitting humor!

yay,

Kinda like the purple bandaids worn by all the chickenhawks at the republican convention in 2004. A million laughs!...

Bill Clinton (D) - Did not serve.
Launched unprovoked attack on Serbia.

Keith Olbermann (D) - Did not serve. Openly supports the Iranian regime.

In announcing that NBC will air Olbermoronn's gameshow prior to a pre-season football game, some dingbat from the New York Times actually called Meltdown with Olbermoronn a "highly rated" show. ROTFLMAO! http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/arts/20arts.html?ref=arts

The idea that liberals are ' tough fightin men' is hilarious. Give me a chickenhawk that doesn't back down from the enemy, anyday.

20/20,

Yeah! Like Bush! When we were attacked by the Saudis, he bravely stood right up and kissed their asses. What a man, son!...

When blindrat, clucker, Mike, why do you care, slob and others infected with Bush derangement syndrome come to this site offering the latest liberal platitudes, 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 agreed 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 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 to strong to rebut, they simply attempt diversion to compensate for their anger that Olbermann's journalistic malpractice cannot withstand scrutiny.

hank,

I won't hold my breath while waiting for you to chastise neocons for the same thing, son...

I think that, because you neocons have screwed this nation up, possibly beyond repair, we have a certain resentment. You can understand that, can't you child? It's as if you borrowed my car, gave the keys to a monkey and absolved yourself of all responsibility for your actions...

You want to do something important? Come up with solutions for this country's problems and fewer ad hominems against Olbermann...

"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 . . . [They] realiz[e] that the arguments exposing Olbermann as a tool for far left viewpoints are too strong to rebut, they simply attempt diversion . . ."

Posted by: hank at August 20, 2007 12:20 PM

Blindrat replies:

". . .waiting for you to chastise neocons for the same thing, son... neocons have screwed this nation up, possibly beyond repair"

Posted by: blindrat at August 20, 2007 12:30 PM

hank,

Too strong to rebut??? That's a laugh! All this site does is attack the man's appearance. You wanna see a GOOD media watchdog site, son. Check out mediamatters.org...

All you girls have is the mantra, "Olbermann is biased". It isn't biased if it is the truth, child...

All you girls have is the mantra, "Olbermann is biased". It isn't biased if it is the truth, child...

Posted by: blindrat at August 20, 2007 12:53 PM

"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?"

Posted by: hank at August 20, 2007 12:20 PM

Blindrat,

A bit of reading for your edification to disabuse you of the notion that Olbermann isa truth-teller.

http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2006/12/keith_olbermann_2.php

hank,

As with all neocons, you have chosen ideology over country, son...

Too bad...

hank,

As with all neocons, you have chosen ideology over country, son...Too bad...

Posted by: blindrat at August 20, 2007 1:06 PM

You got me there, Blindrat. Your compelling logic and unassailable mountain of evidence to rebut my criticisms of Olbermann are just too much for me. I'll just go away and vist mediamatters and convert to the dark side.

han,

You provide the mistruths, son...

It is impossible to prove, on one page, that everything Olbermann says is true...

"I am a liberal".
Keith Olbermann.

Gee, no biases in that statement at all are there?

As usual, the Olbyloons have a disconnect between reality and perception. The reality is that Olbermann is a radical leftist. So are his Olbyloon fans. This is perhaps why they can't see the biases of self-admitted liberal, Keith Olbermann.

By the way, wonder who Berrybush/Dorrie/Kathy/Psych/Orinenglish is on O'watch? Is it the Blind Rat, the Clucker, or some AnonLoon?

""I am a liberal". Kieth Olbermann".

And your point is Brandon? Is your point that there just shouldn't be any liberals on Cable TV news pushing their views?....Just conservatives?

You and this site used to criticize him for not owning up to being a liberal. Now that he has, you criticize him for BEING a liberal.

That said, I personally think you are a hypocrite Brandon.

Why, you ask?

For several reasons, but mainly what I find hypocritical is your asserion that you were staunchly against going into Iraq for all the right reasons, yet you also harbor no anger or ill will whatsoever towards the Idiot in Chief who did it for all the wrong reasons.

The president mislead us ALL!....Not just the 'liberals'.....And just look at the results....Yet you have no problem with him?

Posted by han:

"You got me there, Blindrat. Your compelling logic and unassailable mountain of evidence to rebut my criticisms of Olbermann are just too much for me. I'll just go away and vist mediamatters and convert to the dark side."

End Quote

Ever wonder why someone like Olbyshitter and Mike Moore even exist, well there ya go: BR, Mike, O'Lielly, AAP aka anony aka using my username and then replies to his own posts and SLOB. You have to be a stupid SOB to eat the shit out their ass. I bet these boys don't complain about having to pick the peanuts out of their shit.

It's morons like them that make the world go round. Maybe that's why when they were finally kicked out of home in their 20's their mothers didn't tell them the world didn't revolve around them, it revolved because of them. They are not part of the solution, they are part of the problem.

Mike- I think Brandon is slamming the fact that some loons still consider unbiased.

To quote a pair of bloggers:

"I still don't think Keith's a liberal, I just think he's got it right when it comes to most issues."

"Agreed. It's getting a little annoying hearing about Keith's liberalism. I don't see why telling it like it is is considered liberal."

Examples of Loonyism at its best. They are incapable of seeing another side to the democratic talking-points.

"You have to be a stupid SOB to eat the shit out of their ass. I bet these boys don't complain about having to pick the peanuts out of their shit"

THIS has to be the ultimate hypocrisy....Someone who would make such a moronic public statement as THAT..... routinely calling OTHERS morons.

It just doen't get any funnier than that!

Thanks for using your luch hour to post Laura! A few more repulsive synchophants like you blasting their profanity laced opinionated hypocrisy to the world is probably just what we need to turn a few more fence sitters to our side.

Mike wrote: "'I am a liberal'. Kieth Olbermann'. Is your point that there just shouldn't be any liberals on Cable TV news pushing their views?"

The point is that Olbermann is a liar. Olbermann also said "I'm politically neutral", and "I'm not politically biased".

"The point is that Olbermann is a liar."

Yeah, yeah, yeah.....So is Hannity, O'reilly, Beck, Gibson, Hume, etc., etc, etc.

In the end, it all boils down to your own political viewpoint, and who you think should be on allowed on TV espousing their own personal philosophy to the world.

Journalists shouldn't air their personal opinions on television period, unless they are clearly labeled as OPINION shows. Olbermann still tries to insist his is a news show not an opinion show. Furthermore, his fans clearly think that they are watching a News show and that Olbermann is not a liberal, even when he himself has said, more than once, that he is. If they can't see the problem with the journalistic ethics that are being violated there (and they can't), then the future of journalism as we know it is in far worse shape than I already suspected it was.

Mike, I know that it's simply impossible for you to understand this concept, but this is a website about Keith Olbermann, it's not intended to be a site about George W. Bush and the war in Iraq. If I want to talk about the war and how I feel about it, I'll go to the appropriate websites to air my issues or contact my Senator and Congressman. Maybe you should do the same.

And just because I don't spend my time slamming Bush on this war doesn't mean that I agree with his policies. But what good does it do at this point to bitch, moan, and whine about it? What's done is done. We're there and we're probably going to be there for a long time. Has the protesting you liberal types done accomplished one single thing to get our troops home? Instead they have sent more over there. I'm not going to sit here and criticize the troop surge or the troops who are there because first of all, this is not the appropriate or most effective forum for it. And secondly, I know they need our support, not our criticisim. I'm sick of seeing the troops referred to as baby killers and worse on the leading liberal websites. Mistakes were made. Everyone at this point acknowledges that. Now the focus should be on what to do to improve our position there. Again, this is not the appropriate place to conduct such a discussion. I'm not real sure why you continue to insist it is but perhaps it is that sort of muddled thinking that is so typical of liberals that is a leading reason why the public continues to think that your Democratic led Congress is such a joke.
You're good at criticizing, not very good at governing.

keith, like any good woman, thinks with his emotions.

Brandon to me about Bush and Iraq: "this is not the appropriate place to conduct such a discussion. I'm not real sure why you continue to insist that it is"

Because Olbermann's major beef IS with Bush and his conduct concerning the Iraq War! Your position seems to be that we are allowed to discuss this Cable TV anchor himself, but NOT the relative pros and cons regarding the positions he takes.

I reject that!

Bill Maher said " MediamMatters is a bunch of pussys crybabying over ever utterance that offends them."

brando,

The democrats in congress have a higher approval rating than the republicans in congress and George Bush, son...

* MediaMatters for America

Barry Bonds is gonna kick bathtub boy's ass! HA!

Yeah, yeah, yeah.....So is Hannity, O'reilly, Beck, Gibson, Hume, etc., etc, etc.

In the end, it all boils down to your own political viewpoint, and who you think should be on allowed on TV espousing their own personal philosophy to the world.

Posted by: Mike at August 20, 2007 2:22 PM

Any proof regarding Hannity or any of the others? Just more opinion?

How about that fucking liar-hypocrite Olbermann pretending like he has shown respect for Tony Snow. What a friggen laugh!

THIS has to be the ultimate hypocrisy....Someone who would make such a moronic public statement as THAT..... routinely calling OTHERS morons.

Posted by: Mike at August 20, 2007 2:06 PM

This is THE ultimate hypocrisy, plain and simple. It's really sad.

Thanks for agreeing with me Jeff!....LOL

I would be opposed to Hannity, O'reilly, or Beck, hosting a republican debate... they are too biased. But when KeithO mediates the debate. I hear nothing. How come? Only crickets from the left.

Listen to these neocons, bitching about how they would oppose right wing water carriers who did the same shit I did. Too bad! See, Danny Boy is the GM and he's nothing but a pointy headed Ivy Leaguer who got his brain filled with mush in law school so I can do what I want, as I long as I stick by the left wing playbook.

BOR is a Nazi? No problem. Tell hecklers to kill themselves and f*** their mother? Bring it on. Chris Wallace is a monkey? Do it some more. Hand out checks to left wing politicians on the air? Sure. Getting my ass kicked 3-1 by BOR's ratings every night? We don't care. Stuttering and stammering through the Minnesota bridge collapse coverage? It's OK man, we'll get the teleprompter back up and running tomorrow. Every guest agrees with me? Great, the neocons can suck an egg.

Hey life is great at MSNBC and I got a hot babe for a girlfriend who really thinks I'm wonderful . . . well, except she's always wanting me to "peform" , I mean what the hell does she think I am a piece of meat? I want her to love me for my brains and magnetic personailty and my full head of gray poofy hair. I wish she would understand, taking on these right wingers every night is REALLY stressful and she expects me to perform on schedule once a week, I'm really starting to wonder if this selfish ho needs to start hanging out with Brittney Spears and Linday Lohan.

blindrat certainly is a condescending little prick, isn't he?

THIS has to be the ultimate hypocrisy....Someone who would make such a moronic public statement as THAT..... routinely calling OTHERS morons.

Posted by: Mike at August 20, 2007 2:06 PM

This is THE ultimate hypocrisy, plain and simple. It's really sad.

Road map, since the certain spolbyloon played the divert card.
First, the biggest hypocrite on the internet calling someone else a hypocrite is well, you know, a total joke.
Secondly, the certain spolbyloon criticising someone else for calling someone a moron is well, you know, also, the queen of the hypocritical statments, to say the least. One for the hard drive, for sure.

"The democrats in congress have a higher approval rating than the republicans in congress and George Bush, son..."

Wrong again. They do have a higher approval rating than the Republicans in Congress (28% to 21%). But they have a lower approval rating than President Bush (28% to 29%-35% depending on the poll). See? Even talking down to someone and being condescending doesn't make you any more right.

Mike protesteth too much!

By the way, I used the polls from the last two weeks from pollingreport.com. So bring on the deconstruction...

Unlike some of you, I am also able to admit my errors. The Congressional approval numbers used were from mid-July.

Here's an interesting tidbit:

"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."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html?hpid=news-col-blog

One has no trouble imagining this scene repeated in "news" rooms around the country. Of course, delusional left wingers will continue to hold on to the fantasy that MSM newspapers across the country are non-idealogical rather than the left leaning organs that can be counted on to under-report positive developments of success in the current surge in Iraq and in the domestic economy.

Left wingers are loathe to admit that the vast majority of big city dailies hew to the left because it creates the possibility that their side is guilty of suppressing the full story. But incidents such as this put the lie to such proclamations. To truly appreciate how the rank and file mentality of the big city dailies operates, it is necessary to know what they do when they think no one is watching, as with the incident detailed above.

When presented with vivid evidence of bias such as this, libs can be counted on to reach into their grab back of pretextual excuses ("but the Daily Express endorsed Senator Neocon in 1998" or "but the Daily Express is owned by fat cat neocons "), to create diversion, but these red herrings are soon seen for the red herrings that they are.

The audacity of the staff to cheer in a newsroom wearing their politics on the sleeve shows that they feel they are among peers. One does not vocalize like this unless they are among those of like-mind.

Yet they claim to not be biased- puuuuuuulleeeease!

Journalistic code of ethics
"Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others." as if?

Bob has wanted an official voice of the Olbyloons. I'd say she qualifies.
Posted by: Cecelia at August 19, 2007 8:44 PM

Same could be said about you...you are quite obsessed with Olbermann and quite looney. Oh, I forgot, you are aready the "official voice" of OlbermannWatch....

Well I see now that Boogurmann is solidly in second place at 8:00 pm and his audience has grown an incredible 88% over last year ( according to Bung Hole) NBC is giving Countdown a test run on Sunday night just before the football game. I am sure the national audience will warm up to him immediately ...........gag.....gag......puke!

At least the loons know how to work their DVR's....

EZ Shitz is still trying to figure his out!

LMFAO

Thanks, patsy!

Hey, boys and girls did you see me on Meet The Press yesterday? That was a lot fun. It was more fun than I expected because they sent that goofball David Gregory in to do the interview. Colors his hair gray to look older, what a dweeb!
Talk about a boy doing a man's job- Gregory's a lightweight, of course, but then again he's an Einstein compared to that that orange faced looking idiot whose claim to fame is foaming at the mouth every night over Bill O'Reilly. What a hoot!

Anyway, as expected, I toook Gregory to the woodshed. Here's my favorite part of the interview:

MR. GREGORY: Do you think you owe Valerie Plame an apology?
MR. ROVE: No.
MR. GREGORY: You do not?
MR. ROVE: No.
MR. GREGORY: You considered her fair game in this debate?
MR. ROVE: No. And you know what? Fair game, that wasn’t my phrase. That’s a phrase of a journalist. In fact, a colleague of yours.
MR. GREGORY: Was she an appropriate target in this debate?
MR. ROVE: No.
MR. GREGORY: She was not.
MR. ROVE: No. Look, her husband wrote a op-ed that we now know by—in a statement issued on July 11th by the director of the CIA, backed by a report by the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, was misleading and inaccurate. The vice president, the White House and the director of the CIA did not send Mr. Wilson to Africa to look into—to the question of uranium cake from Niger to Iraq. We also know that he did—he came—the information he came back with was not dispositive, was not conclusive, did not disprove the British intelligence finding that the Iraqis had attempted to acquire uranium cake. In fact, we now know that he brought back information not disclosed in his article that added to the belief, that confirmed the British intelligence report that the Iraqis had attempted to acquire uranium cake. He brought back information about a previously unknown contact where the Iraqis, working through a third party, attempted to bring and did bring to Niger a trade delegation. And since the only thing Niger had to sell was uranium cake that was on a U.N. sanctions list, they declined to do any business. He brought back information that affirmed the, the British intelligence report. After this all came out, the British did a study, did a review, appointed a commission to review their intelligence finding and came back and confirmed that they stood by their original assessment that, that Iraq had attempted to acquire uranium yellow cake from Niger in—and exactly as was in the president’s speech.

That, boys and girls, is what you call a smackdown. You should have seen Gregory's producers afterwards-- they were pissed!

The above poster accepted Rove's lies.
Everytime they try to reinvent history, they cheer it, instead of correcting it.
Not surprised though, they love to hear what they want to hear no matter how false it is.
Same ole, same ole !

Posted by: Why Do you care at August 20, 2007 7:16 PM
===============================
If you have facts to the contrary bring them in other wise put your straw man back in the closet.

The more successful Keith gets the more he's put down by the OLBYhaters.

Reality is a foreign concept to them !

Posted by: Why Do you care at August 20, 2007 7:20 PM
===============================

Your at the wrong site moonbat.....Bung Hole is the place you want to be along with the other Boogermann loons and lemmings.

You can even wright a love note for you hero and stroke his massive ego just like the rest of that pathetic bunch of mostly female losers.

They have been posted 1000 times in ever major publication in the country plus here at this site.

Were you born yesterday?

It's just amazing how uninformed these jerks are !

Posted by: Why Do you care at August 20, 2007 7:26 PM

Didn't think you had any...............those either.

Judicial Watch, the CONSERVATIVE legal group that pried damning government records out of the Clinton administration, turned up a document that further undermines the Bush administration’s prewar claim that Saddam Hussein was trying to acquire nuclear materials. The 2002 State Department memo concluded that the sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq was improbable because of a host of economic, diplomatic and logistical obstacles, The New York Times reported. Yet the infamous "16 words" about an attempted sale still made President Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address, and Scooter Libby felt it necessary to out former CIA agent Valerie Plame.

Always love to use their own conservative sources to prove how wrong they are. It's time for Winona's beaver to go into hibernation

Posted by: Why Do you care at August 20, 2007 7:38 PM

You just now hearing about all this? This isn't new stuff.

Bush never said that Saddam had or even could buy yellowcake from Niger, his statement was that he was seeking this sort of material and what that portends.

Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Both the Brits and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence ruled that these words were true. An Iraqi delegation had visited Niger in 1999 and then-prime minister, Ibrahim Mayaki said that they were after yellowcake.

What's more, Joe Wilson wrote just THAT in his book.

Same could be said about you...you are quite obsessed with Olbermann and quite looney. Oh, I forgot, you are aready the "official voice" of OlbermannWatch....

Posted by: Great Thanks at August 20, 2007 5:37 PM

Actually, *I already said the lady was even more obsessed with Olbermann than we are and so would be a fitting official blogger on the site.

Glad you agree and great thanks back atcha... :D

Were you born yesterday?

It's just amazing how uninformed these jerks are !

Posted by: Why Do you care at August 20, 2007 7:26 PM

You just now hearing about all this? This isn't new stuff.

Bush never said that Saddam had or even could buy yellowcake from Niger, his statement was that he was seeking this sort of material and what that portends.

Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Both the Brits and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence ruled that these words were true. An Iraqi delegation had visited Niger in 1999 and then-prime minister, Ibrahim Mayaki said that they were after yellowcake.

What's more, Joe Wilson wrote just THAT in his book.

Posted by: Cecelia at August 20, 2007 8:00 PM

Just another example how Cecilia tries to follow in her discredited brethren's footsteps with trying to reinvent history.

Posted by: Why Do you care at August 20, 2007 9:14 PM

Actually, you're the one who is inventing history. You are meshing two separate incidences.

There were forged documents-- which, by the way, Joe Wilson claimed to have seen and to have identified as being forgeries, and later had to recount after it was proven that he could not have seen them.

Iraqi officials were in Niger in '99 and Mayaki said they were seeking yellowcake.

I direct you to the non-partisan site factcheck.org so you can read for yourself.

http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html

Here's the piece from factcheck.org for those who don't like to link.

It details the forged documents, what place they had in the SOTU address and the findings of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as the Brit Butler Report.

http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html

(It's interesting that WDYC refers to my "discredited brethen". He's just one of many here who seem to view politics in this country no differently than those who engage in religious wars....)

"Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying

July 26, 2004

Updated: August 23, 2004

Two intelligence investigations show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said in his 2003 State of the Union Address.
Summary

The famous “16 words” in President Bush’s Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address turn out to have a basis in fact after all, according to two recently released investigations in the US and Britain.
Bush said then, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.

A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger.

Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.

None of the new information suggests Iraq ever nailed down a deal to buy uranium, and the Senate report makes clear that US intelligence analysts have come to doubt whether Iraq was even trying to buy the stuff. In fact, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn’t have been part of Bush’s speech.

But what he said – that Iraq sought uranium – is just what both British and US intelligence were telling him at the time. So Bush may indeed have been misinformed, but that's not the same as lying.

Analysis

The "16 words" in Bush's State of the Union Address on Jan. 28, 2003 have been offered as evidence that the President led the US into war using false information intentionally. The new reports show Bush accurately stated what British intelligence was saying, and that CIA analysts believed the same thing. The "16 Words"

During the State the Union Address on January 28, 2003, President Bush said:

Bush: The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

The Butler Report

After nearly a six-month investigation, a special panel reported to the British Parliament July 14 that British intelligence had indeed concluded back in 2002 that Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy uranium. The review panel was headed by Lord Butler of Brockwell, who had been a cabinet secretary under five different Prime Ministers and who is currently master of University College, Oxford.

The Butler report said British intelligence had "credible" information -- from several sources -- that a 1999 visit by Iraqi officials to Niger was for the purpose of buying uranium:

Butler Report: It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.

The Butler Report affirmed what the British government had said about the Niger uranium story back in 2003, and specifically endorsed what Bush said as well.

Butler Report: By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” was well-founded.

The Senate Intelligence Committee Report

The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reported July 7, 2004 that the CIA had received reports from a foreign government (not named, but probably Britain) that Iraq had actually concluded a deal with Niger to supply 500 tons a year of partially processed uranium ore, or "yellowcake." That is potentially enough to produce 50 nuclear warheads.

The Senate report said the CIA then asked a "former ambassador" to go to Niger and report. That is a reference to Joseph Wilson -- who later became a vocal critic of the President's 16 words. The Senate report said Wilson brought back denials of any Niger-Iraq uranium sale, and argued that such a sale wasn't likely to happen. But the Intelligence Committee report also reveals that Wilson brought back something else as well -- evidence that Iraq may well have wanted to buy uranium.

Wilson reported that he had met with Niger's former Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki, who said that in June 1999 he was asked to meet with a delegation from Iraq to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between the two countries.
Based on what Wilson told them, CIA analysts wrote an intelligence report saying former Prime Minister Mayki "interpreted 'expanding commercial relations' to mean that the (Iraqi) delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales." In fact, the Intelligence Committee report said that "for most analysts" Wilson's trip to Niger "lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal."

The subject of uranium sales never actually came up in the meeting, according to what Wilson later told the Senate Intelligence Committee staff. He quoted Mayaki as saying that when he met with the Iraqis he was wary of discussing any trade issues at all because Iraq remained under United Nations sanctions. According to Wilson, Mayaki steered the conversation away from any discussion of trade.

For that reason, Wilson himself has publicly dismissed the significance of the 1999 meeting. He said on NBC’s Meet the Press May 2, 2004:

Wilson: …At that meeting, uranium was not discussed. It would be a tragedy to think that we went to war over a conversation in which uranium was not discussed because the Niger official was sufficiently sophisticated to think that perhaps he might have wanted to discuss uranium at some later date.

But that's not the way the CIA saw it at the time. In the CIA's view, Wilson's report bolstered suspicions that Iraq was indeed seeking uranium in Africa. The Senate report cited an intelligence officer who reviewed Wilson’s report upon his return from Niger:

Committee Report: He (the intelligence officer) said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerian officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.

"Reasonable to Assess"

At this point the CIA also had received "several intelligence reports" alleging that Iraq wanted to buy uranium from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and from Somalia, as well as from Niger. The Intelligence Committee concluded that "it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency reporting and other available intelligence."

Reasonable, that is, until documents from an Italian magazine journalist showed up that seemed to prove an Iraq-Niger deal had actually been signed. The Intelligence Committee said the CIA should have been quicker to investigate the authenticity of those documents, which had "obvious problems" and were soon exposed as fakes by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

"We No Longer Believe"

Both the Butler report and the Senate Intelligence Committee report make clear that Bush's 16 words weren't based on the fake documents. The British didn't even see them until after issuing the reports -- based on other sources -- that Bush quoted in his 16 words. But discovery of the Italian fraud did trigger a belated reassessment of the Iraq/Niger story by the CIA.

Once the CIA was certain that the Italian documents were forgeries, it said in an internal memorandum that "we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad." But that wasn't until June 17, 2003 -- nearly five months after Bush's 16 words.

Soon after, on July 6, 2003, former ambassador Wilson went public in a New York Times opinion piece with his rebuttal of Bush's 16 words, saying that if the President was referring to Niger "his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them," and that "I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." Wilson has since used much stronger language, calling Bush's 16 words a "lie" in an Internet chat sponsored by the Kerry campaign.

On July 7, the day after Wilson's original Times article, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer took back the 16 words, calling them "incorrect:"

Fleischer: Now, we've long acknowledged -- and this is old news, we've said this repeatedly -- that the information on yellow cake did, indeed, turn out to be incorrect.

And soon after, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice acknowledged that the 16 words were, in retrospect, a mistake. She said during a July 11, 2003 White House press briefing:

Rice: What we've said subsequently is, knowing what we now know, that some of the Niger documents were apparently forged, we wouldn't have put this in the President's speech -- but that's knowing what we know now.

That same day, CIA Director George Tenet took personal responsibility for the appearance of the 16 words in Bush's speech:

Tenet: These 16 words should never have been included in the text written
for the President.

Tenet said the CIA had viewed the original British intelligence reports as "inconclusive," and had "expressed reservations" to the British.

The Senate report doesn't make clear why discovery of the forged documents changed the CIA's thinking. Logically, that discovery should have made little difference since the documents weren't the basis for the CIA's original belief that Saddam was seeking uranium. However, the Senate report did note that even within the CIA the comments and assessments were "inconsistent and at times contradictory" on the Niger story.

Even after Tenet tried to take the blame, Bush's critics persisted in saying he lied with his 16 words -- for example, in an opinion column July 16, 2003 by Michael Kinsley in the Washington Post:

Kinsley: Who was the arch-fiend who told a lie in President Bush's State of the Union speech? . . .Linguists note that the question "Who lied in George Bush's State of the Union speech" bears a certain resemblance to the famous conundrum "Who is buried in Grant's Tomb?"

However, the Senate report confirmed that the CIA had reviewed Bush's State of the Union address, and -- whatever doubts it may have harbored -- cleared it for him.

Senate Report: When coordinating the State of the Union, no Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analysts or officials told the National Security Council (NSC) to remove the "16 words" or that there were concerns about the credibility of the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting.

The final word on the 16 words may have to await history's judgment. The Butler report's conclusion that British intelligence was "credible" clearly doesn't square with what US intelligence now believes. But these new reports show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said, even if British intelligence is eventually shown to be mistaken.

Sources
President George W. Bush, “ State of the Union ,” 28 January 2003.
Chairman Lord Butler of Brockwell, “Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction,” 14 July 2004.

“Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq,” Select Committee on Intelligence United States Senate, 7 July 2004.

Walter Pincus, “ CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report Of Uranium Bid ,” Washington Post, 12 June 2003.

Mohamed ElBaradei, “ The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq: An Update ,” Statement to the United Nations Security Council by International Atomic Energy Agency Director General, 7 March 2003.

Joseph Wilson, “What I Didn’t Find in Africa,” New York Times, 6 July 2003.

Joseph Wilson,The Official Kerry-Edwards BLOG: "Transcript of Chat with Ambassador Joe Wilson," 29 Oct 2003.

Michael Kinsley, "...Or More Lies From The Usual Suspects?," Washington Post, 16 July 2003: A23.

Ari Fleischer, “ Press Gaggle ,” 7 July 2003.

Ari Fleischer and Dr. Condoleeza Rice, “ Press Gaggle ,” 11 July 2003.

George Tenet, "Statement by George J. Tenet Director of Central Intelligence," Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), 11 July 2003.

Related Articles
Bush Contradicted On Iraq & al Qaeda? Or not?
Even the 9-11 comissioners don't agree about whether their staff contradicted the Bush administration.

What Bush Left Unsaid in State of the Union Address
Forget Weapons of Mass Destruction. Now its "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities."

Copyright © 2003 - 2007, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania
FactCheck.org's staff, not the Annenberg Center, is responsible for this material."

Nice try, but factcheck.org is a highly reputable nonpartisan site that I doubt you knew from Adam before I linked them.

I invite everyone to look about their "About Us" page http://www.factcheck.org/about/

Here a few things playing now on what WDYC suggests is a biased site simply because he wishes to discredit what he doesn't want to hear....

The Immigration Showdown
August 20, 2007

Romney's and Giuliani's chest-thumping on immigration leaves behind context and, in some cases, the facts.

What Is a Civil Union?
August 9, 2007

Politicians often say they support civil unions but not gay marriage. We sort out the difference.

AFL-CIO Democratic Forum
August 8, 2007

"The president of Canada" and other factual bobbles.

Sunday Morning Missteps
August 6, 2007

Another Republican debate, with more false claims

Giuliani's Tax Puffery
July 27, 2007

Former NYC mayor takes credit for too many tax cuts.

Dems Face YouTube Interrogators
July 25, 2007

A few flubs in the Democrats' first "official" debate.

Firefighters Vs. Giuliani
July 18, 2007

A union's attack video takes liberties with the truth.

More Mitt Missteps
July 9, 2007

We find additional exaggerations and misstatements by Romney on the campaign trail.

Democratic Debate Part 3
June 29, 2007

Few errors, lots of dreaming.

Don't Veto the Truth
June 28, 2007

Romney leaves out a heap of information when discussing his love of vetoes.

Your president was a disgrace with this episode, as you are.

Posted by: Why Do you care at August 20, 2007 10:41 PM

You've debunked nothing, you've merely rehashed and old point of contention that's long been settled by investigations in two countries.

Please link the articles in the WP, Reuters, and the LA Times that you reference so that I can read them in their entirity and can see the dates of the articles.

If you don't have links to the articles themselves and are quoting a piece that refers to these articles, link that piece, please.

Wrong again. Don't you get tired of being wrong?

I have talked about Fact Check and my personal knowledge of the place on a number of occasions at this site. Your "sharp as a tac" mind( you think) should have remembered at least one of those times.

I obviously know Adam.You don't know shit !

Posted by: Why Do you care at August 20, 2007 10:54 PM

I invite everryone to go to factcheck.org and look at the credentials of their board of directors as well as those of their writers.

I've already cut-n-pasted their current partisan conservative debunkings of Romney, Guiliani, etc. If you look at the arhives you see others on McCain too, as well as many Democrat candidates.

So WDYC, factcheck.org is lying about what the Senate Select Committee On Intelligence and the Butler Committee reported?

They're lying that Joe Wilson himself reported to the CIA?

Perhaps you can show how the time sequence of events is in reality different from what they report.

Again, I'd like to read the news articles that you reference in their entirity or what you are reading about Judicial Watch, etc. that references these news articles.

Why Do you care,

You are right, Sir! We are non-partisan. Proof of that is that we have no articles about Scott Thomas Beauchamp.

Factcheck.org operates at a level of amateurishness that is totally inappropriate for the position of final arbiter of truth that it has claimed for itself.

Posted by: Why Do you care at August 20, 2007 11:08 PM

Link the source for that critique on factcheck.org, so we can read the entire thing.

Rather than merely saying that the factcheck.com piece in not reliable, how about showing how it's not reliable.

Again, anyone can go to the site and judge it for themselves.

I'd like the links to the sites for the things you reference.

Here's a WP piece you might find interesting, WDYC.

Plame's Input Is Cited on Niger Mission
Report Disputes Wilson's Claims on Trip, Wife's Role
By Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 10, 2004; Page A09

Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly.

Wilson last year launched a public firestorm with his accusations that the administration had manipulated intelligence to build a case for war. He has said that his trip to Niger should have laid to rest any notion that Iraq sought uranium there and has said his findings were ignored by the White House.

Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.

Yesterday's report said that whether Iraq sought to buy lightly enriched "yellowcake" uranium from Niger is one of the few bits of prewar intelligence that remains an open question. Much of the rest of the intelligence suggesting a buildup of weapons of mass destruction was unfounded, the report said.

The report turns a harsh spotlight on what Wilson has said about his role in gathering prewar intelligence, most pointedly by asserting that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, recommended him.

Plame's role could be significant in an ongoing investigation into whether a crime was committed when her name and employment were disclosed to reporters last summer.

Administration officials told columnist Robert D. Novak then that Wilson, a partisan critic of Bush's foreign policy, was sent to Niger at the suggestion of Plame, who worked in the nonproliferation unit at CIA. The disclosure of Plame's identity, which was classified, led to an investigation into who leaked her name.

The report may bolster the rationale that administration officials provided the information not to intentionally expose an undercover CIA employee, but to call into question Wilson's bona fides as an investigator into trafficking of weapons of mass destruction. To charge anyone with a crime, prosecutors need evidence that exposure of a covert officer was intentional.

The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.

Wilson has asserted that his wife was not involved in the decision to send him to Niger.

"Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson wrote in a memoir published this year. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."

Wilson stood by his assertion in an interview yesterday, saying Plame was not the person who made the decision to send him. Of her memo, he said: "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me."

The report said Plame told committee staffers that she relayed the CIA's request to her husband, saying, "there's this crazy report" about a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq. The committee found Wilson had made an earlier trip to Niger in 1999 for the CIA, also at his wife's suggestion.

The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."

"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

Wilson's reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium in Niger, although officials at the State Department remained highly skeptical, the report said.

Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq -- which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales. A report CIA officials drafted after debriefing Wilson said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq."

According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998.

Still, it was the CIA that bore the brunt of the criticism of the Niger intelligence. The panel found that the CIA has not fully investigated possible efforts by Iraq to buy uranium in Niger to this day, citing reports from a foreign service and the U.S. Navy about uranium from Niger destined for Iraq and stored in a warehouse in Benin.

The agency did not examine forged documents that have been widely cited as a reason to dismiss the purported effort by Iraq until months after it obtained them. The panel said it still has "not published an assessment to clarify or correct its position on whether or not Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Africa."

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

WDYC writes "Bush knew that this information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.
A Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade.... The debunking of the forgery was passed around the administration and seemed to be accepted.... except that Bush and the State Department kept citing it anyway.

Doesn't take a genius to figure out why, now does it ?

It is also clear that CIA officials doubted the evidence. The Washington Post reported on March 22 that CIA officials "communicated significant doubts to the administration about the evidence." The Los Angeles Times reported on March 15 that "the CIA first heard allegations that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger in late 2001," when "the existence of the documents was reported to [the CIA] second- or third-hand." The Los Angeles Times quoted a CIA official as saying: "We included that in some of our reporting, although it was all caveated because we had concerns about the accuracy of that information."

Bush use forged evidence in the State of the Union address !"

This is your rebuttal?

A referral to news article you say prove Bush knew the documents were forged before hand, but no links to the article themselves or to a site that references them?

After two investigations in the U.S. and Brtain this would be getting bigger play, doncha think....

If you bothered reading the factcheck.org piece and the WP piece, I linked you would find that both the US and British investigation say that Bush could not have foreknowledge that the documents were forgeries because of the time and the fact that the CIA had not officially deemed them as such.

"Both the Butler report and the Senate Intelligence Committee report make clear that Bush's 16 words weren't based on the fake documents. The British didn't even see them until after issuing the reports -- based on other sources -- that Bush quoted in his 16 words. But discovery of the Italian fraud did trigger a belated reassessment of the Iraq/Niger story by the CIA.

Once the CIA was certain that the Italian documents were forgeries, it said in an internal memorandum that "we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad." But that wasn't until June 17, 2003 -- nearly five months after Bush's 16 words."

Sorry I forgot to include the link the Washington Post piece that reports this:

"The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html

WDYC, if your Reuters, LA Times and WP news articles have more recent and current findings that prove Bush had foreknowledge and specific warnings before the SOTU address, I'd certainly be interested in seeing them, if you'll bother to link them.

Cecelia, notice the crickets from why, he's more worried about name calling.

Factcheck.org operates at a level of amateurishness that is totally inappropriate for the position of final arbiter of truth that it has claimed for itself.

Posted by: Why Do you care at August 20, 2007 11:08 PM

Translation: They're no media matters and factcheck doesn't cater to the far left.

Though WDYC wouldn't link the "proof" he had of Bush's foreknowledge of forged documents before "the 16 words", I found it via google. WDYC copies whole paragraphs from it without attribution.

It's entitled Forged Evidence
By Rep. Henry Waxman
June 10, 2003

http://www.notinourname.net/war/forged.htm

WDYC not only quotes Rep. Waxman without attribution but quotes New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof without attribution as well.

Notice that Waxman's findings are written in 2003 before the SSCI and the Butler Report.

Notice the "envoy" Kristof and later.... WDYC..both....refer to when they....both.....say... "The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade.... The envoy's debunking of the forgery was passed around the administration and seemed to be accepted - except that President Bush and the State Department kept citing it anyway."

That envoy is none of other than Joe Wilson!

The impartial....former Kerry Campaign Manager Joe Wilson had to later admit he'd never seen the forgeries... :D

WDYC, I can understand how it would be hard for you to link to an '03 Waxman piece when you had implied that you had more current info and also when you had impugned the impartiality of other folks...

BTW, the entire statement below WDYC copied word-by-word from the Waxman piece.

Well...the last sentence is WDYC's... :D

"It is also clear that CIA officials doubted the evidence. The Washington Post reported on March 22 that CIA officials "communicated significant doubts to the administration about the evidence." The Los Angeles Times reported on March 15 that "the CIA first heard allegations that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger in late 2001," when "the existence of the documents was reported to [the CIA] second- or third-hand." The Los Angeles Times quoted a CIA official as saying: "We included that in some of our reporting, although it was all caveated because we had concerns about the accuracy of that information."

Your president was a disgrace with this episode, as you are.

Posted by: Why Do you care at August 20, 2007 10:41 PM "

The impartial....former Kerry Campaign Manager Joe Wilson had to later admit he'd never seen the forgeries... :D

Posted by: Cecelia at August 21, 2007 1:02 AM

Kerry Campaign Advisor, rather.

Cecelia, "why" is laying on the floor bleeding like a stuck hog. He has dug his hole and has no way out. I'm glad you are on my side.......:)

When I went to Niger and asked all of the leaders if they were selling yellowcake to Saddam they all said "Hell no, Joe!" Case closed. I solved the case and I even did it without my wife, Valerie, also known to many as "the female James Bond". So there!

Jeff to Cecelia: "I'm glad you are on my side......:)"

Yea, but I wonder if she is glad you're on her side.....:)?

You Bush apologists are ruining America.

He is a lame duck. Move on. Support Guiliani or Thompson or even Newt. But move on. Defending Bush is not only indefensible, but it is also pointless now.

Besides, you are giving me a sick headache with all of your unceasing whining.

Jeff to Cecelia: "I'm glad you are on my side......:)"

Yea, but I wonder if she is glad you're on her side.....:)?

Posted by: Mike at August 21, 2007 5:48 AM

I don't think of being a Republican or being a liberal as having a "side". We're not talking about the Redskins here. We're talking about everyone from Noam Chomsky to Pat Buchanan--- there's a lot of variations in between.

Yeah, I enjoy concuring with folks on one thing or another and I am particularly fond of RK, Grammie, Sharon, and Cee... but I also like and enjoy most of folks on your "side" here too. Not all of them, but that goes for a few of the conservatives and a few OWers here too.

You Bush apologists are ruining America.

He is a lame duck. Move on. Support Guiliani or Thompson or even Newt. But move on. Defending Bush is not only indefensible, but it is also pointless now.

Besides, you are giving me a sick headache with all of your unceasing whining.

Posted by: Clucker at August 21, 2007 9:17 AM

Not that you're whining, huh.... :D

Well, you have all day to make yourself all better by demonstrating your urbane superiority over the riff-raff via your missives to RK.

As always, Cecelia, thank you for your immense contribution. It is 930 on the West Coast, 1230 on the East Coast now. I am heading to dinner, and I will enjoy a nice Bordeaux for you. Why not put back a pint of Jack Daniels for me. Never too early for you, dear.

...

That's fucking insane.

I mean, really.

Like, these people should be locked up.

I'm seriously concerned. Maybe it's because I'm not, you know, a stalker, therefore don't understand the mentally of... these people, but, come on. It's just Keith Olbermann... I don't love him or hate him, but... seriously. What the hell is worth stalking over... I can hardly watch 5 minutes of him at a time, let alone 3 hours of him...

As always, Cecelia, thank you for your immense contribution. It is 930 on the West Coast, 1230 on the East Coast now. I am heading to dinner, and I will enjoy a nice Bordeaux for you. Why not put back a pint of Jack Daniels for me. Never too early for you, dear.

Posted by: Clucker at August 21, 2007 1:15 PM

And waste good Jack Daniels? Never!

As always, Cecelia, thank you for your immense contribution. It is 930 on the West Coast, 1230 on the East Coast now. I am heading to dinner, and I will enjoy a nice Bordeaux for you. Why not put back a pint of Jack Daniels for me. Never too early for you, dear.

Posted by: Clucker at August 21, 2007 1:15 PM

Cecelia, you better not open that bottle till I get there!

How about that fucking liar-hypocrite Olbermann pretending like he has shown respect for Tony Snow. What a friggen laugh!

Posted by: creepy lying hateful democrats at August 20, 2007 2:41 PM

Ha ! Listen to these neocons, bitching about how they would oppose right wing water carriers who did the same shit I did. Too bad! See, Danny Boy is the GM and he's nothing but a pointy headed Ivy Leaguer who got his brain filled with mush in law school so I can do what I want, as I long as I stick by the left wing playbook.

BOR is a Nazi? No problem. Tell hecklers to kill themselves and f*** their mother? Bring it on. Chris Wallace is a monkey? Do it some more. Hand out checks to left wing politicians on the air? Sure. Getting my ass kicked 3-1 by BOR's ratings every night? We don't care. Stuttering and stammering through the Minnesota bridge collapse coverage? It's OK man, we'll get the teleprompter back up and running tomorrow. Every guest agrees with me? Great, the neocons can suck an egg.

Hey life is great at MSNBC and I got a hot babe for a girlfriend who really thinks I'm wonderful . . . well, except she's always wanting me to "peform" , I mean what the hell does she think I am a piece of meat? I want her to love me for my brains and magnetic personailty and my full head of gray poofy hair. I wish she would understand, taking on these right wingers every night is REALLY stressful and she expects me to perform on schedule once a week, I'm really starting to wonder if this selfish ho needs to start hanging out with Britney Spears and Linday Lohan

Don't worry Keith. She loves you for your wallet and bank account. Isn't that enough?