Olby presents lies as the fact
Bashing troops is part of his act
He's the person that's worst
He'll never be first
NBC should burn his contract

Oh my Goodness, you are quite right! This is not for the faint of heart! I don't like Keith in the least bit, but this, wowza! The language shocked me.

But to stay on topic, I think everyone capable of thinking a clear thought knows he (Keith) will most likely never correct himself.

And I believe the more and more people expose little tidbits like this, the more the masses will realize how biased Keith really is. To fabricate facts for the justification of his own opinion... it's quite sickening. Of course, for this exact same reason, I don't watch Bill O'Reilly, or... any news television for that matter.

I'll leave this up to the professionals to dissect. I'm getting a migraine.

Now if only Olbermann would end his occupation of our airwaves and withdraw from television.

Your remote control won't change channels? I don't seem to have that problem. Olbermann is seldom on in my house.

Posted by: Clucker at September 2, 2007 11:21 PM

Evidently there's little camaraderie among hornswogglers.

nevermind that basra just happens to have one of the highest concentrations of trained iraqi security forces. Or that this had been planned for almost a year. Nope. The British are a running.

10:59.....Olbyloon diversion.

actually, yeah. the british are pretty much running. American commanders have been pissed that they haven't played their part in the surge.

They've also said they won't be able to fill the void after the British leave, since it is likely things will get so much worse after they go and it will be very dangerous to try and reestablish what they had their. Protection will essentially be left to iraq security forces, but more realistically, to local militias.

For those who advocate a pull-out being the answer to peace, Basra will provide an interesting test of that theory. I dont think your gonna like what you see.

Prediction: Americans will be marching into Basra next spring.

Holy cow.... This Mike Jones makes Mike Malloy seem like the result of gene splicing Dr. Joyce Brothers with Gandhi.

O, dear, Gabby Johnson has surfaced. Time for me to go to bed.
Posted by: Clucker at September 2, 2007 11:51 PM

That must be his nighty-nighty personality...

i love how clucker refers to the british getting ready to "redeploy to the UK." When did Dems get the idea that going home is a military manuever? You don't support the war. WE GET IT. But why to you cowards hide behind words. End the War. Surrender. Cut our losses and come home.

perhaps clucker would care to enlighten us as to how the British pull out of Basra will kill U.S. troops.

Do you mean to say that Basra WON'T turn into a peaceful utopia once those evil occupiers leave?

A. "redeployment" plans involve movement of troops to Kuwait. That's the "redeployment." Even dems have made it clear they plan to leave troops in middle east.

and why would basra "flare up" clucker, as you so put it? The occupiers are leaving? Why would it get worse? WE are the cause right? We must be, because if you actually believed that things will "flare up" in Basra, then you certainly wouldn't support a pull out from there. Or the rest of the country. Unless of course you dont give a shit about iraqis, and are so wrapped up in your anti Bush, anti republican, anti war, stance that you dont care how many iraqis die so long as you are proven right.

hehe, clearly clucker cant recognize a hyperbole argument.

suprising, considering he probably worships Colbert.

Clucker/philby/rudy/jennifer worships chavez and chirac.

Did I just read a dem admit that we are not the cause of all the fighting in Iraq?

Somebody else attacked Iraq and just said it was the USA
.............................................................

and just as our invasion led to infighting and chaos, our pullout should result in total and complete peace.

what is the purpose of soilders numbnuts? (In addition to defending a nation) To fight for those who can't fight for themselves. To protect civilians. And if necessary, to give their lives for civilians. Regardless of how you feel about the invasion itself, it's pretty shallow to make the argument that iraqi civilians aren't the responsibility of the U.S. just cause you can write their deaths off as the mistakes of Bush and sleep well at night. How about a little fucking accountability in this country. We fucked up. So do we pin that on Iraqis, or do we do something about it. I already know your choice.

And you care so much about Iraq and the people of Iraq because......

( obviously a lot more than the deaths of our troops)
________________

what is the purpose of soilders numbnuts? (In addition to defending a nation) To fight for those who can't fight for themselves. To protect civilians. And if necessary, to give their lives for civilians. Regardless of how you feel about the invasion itself, it's pretty shallow to make the argument that iraqi civilians aren't the responsibility of the U.S. just cause you can write their deaths off as the mistakes of Bush and sleep well at night. How about a little fucking accountability in this country. We fucked up. So do we pin that on Iraqis, or do we do something about it. I already know your choice.
_____________________

owned

didn't vote. 16 years old. and apparently already have a better grasp of the world than you. Though i'm gald to see your policy of invoking bush in a discussion about dying iraqi civilians still holds true. Well, whatever helps you sleep at night.

like i already said, bush did fuck up (impeach em, i dont give a shit), but that dont much change the current situation now does it? (no matter how much you really really really want it to.)

god, your such an idiot. you have to put arguments in my mouth to win a debate.

is the country worse as a result of OUR INVASION? YES!!! THATS THE FUCKING POINT YOU TARD!!!! ACOUNTABILITY!!!!

and maybe it cant be won. maybe it is futile. all possibilities, maybe even likelyhoods. But too fucking bad. Accountability. WE broke it. WE gotta try and fix it until we fail. And yeah, that includes more dead soldiers if necessary. And guess what i'll be doing in two years. Just like two of my three brothers. National Gaurd. So go fuck yourself. (I love when people make the "you go fight then" argument to me.)

16 yrs old.

I see.
From what I hear, they will take ANYONE now in the military.
I'm sure you can get in even underage.
Time to enlist, boy !

yeah, i will be. Althought i like the condesending tone. Says a lot about your views on the military. Whens the last time you did anything for your country? Oh wait, nevermind. Your blogging. keep fighting the good fight!!

funny how a guy who crys about the death of american soldiers, is now urging sombody else to enlist. Its a win win for him. If i die, he can use me to make his arguments. You're smarter than i thought.

Distract. Deflect. Change the subject. The true purposes of the Olbyloon.

Doubtful what with Edwards pushing socialized medicine and demanding that all Americans see doctors whether they want to or not.

yep. why have honest debates when you can just make generalizations that make you feel good about yourself.

why did the subject get changed btw. the other arguement was going so well.

the answer is actually not for all americans to have health insurance, its for no americans to. You'd be suprised how cheap health care would be if everybody paid for it themselves.

I want to say that I like this site. Thanks for posting my article about Keith Olbermann. That man is an idiot. Maybe I will try watching his show again sometime, so I can write further about him. I will need to be restrained and fitted with a wooden block in my mouth, so that I do not bite off my tongue though.

I really doubt starving children in Darfur have heard of Keith Olbermann. Richard Cranium is no one. MrRichardCranium is someone. That person is I. I recently started up my own website on the views I have about different things occuring in life. Unlike Keith Olbermann, my views have substance, reason, interest and last but not least, POINTS. See, when you talk about something, and you want people to understand your point of view. It's better to use facts mixed with great analyzations, rather than equally witted commentators, and softball sized questions. Anybody can ask a Bush hater what's wrong with Bush. But Keith Olbermann can't seem to ask anyone who supports Bush anything relevant. I hope this helped you understand who I am. Now, go to hell.

I voted for the guy who got elected President. That's funny huh? Who did you vote for? Is he sitting at home, saving up money to bail out his alcoholic pretty boy son? Wait, or is he thinking up new ways to blame everything on global warming. Maybe he can blame global warming on Santa Claus. Makes sense to me. Chump.

Mr. Crainum, I love your work. But I do feel it necessary to correct something you posted. Mr. Gore's son would be both an alcoholic, a drug-user, and a serial abuser of speed-limit laws.

Thanks for correcting me. I thought the other two were common knowledge. Oh and to the numbskull that is still hungover from Florida's voting problem. Al Gore, was not elected president because there was no Ross Perot there to help him get elected. Bill Clinton had such luck years ago, when he was appointed president without the majority of the vote. RETARD!

oh and if you love my work, go to my site, join the dickhead club, click on my ads, click on all my ads. Give me money! I can use it to better the republican conquest!

Clucker.....here's what we think of your "APPOINTED" notion.

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

At least Dick isn't making up stupid-ass songs and poems and posting love-sick notes to their hero on half-a-dozen websites under different names.

At least Dick isn't liberally ranting on cable news every day and trying to pass himself off as a neutral reporter. At Least Dick isn't attempting to make journalism into something akin to crappy daytime tv with his own worst person in the world segment.

still the greatest country on earth.

Olbyloons.......just for you.....
................... .. ... /´ /)
.................... ..,../¯ ..//
.................... ..../... ./ /
.................... ..,/¯ ..//
.................... ./... ./ /
............./´¯/' ...'/´¯`•¸
........../'/.../... ./... ..../¨¯\
........('(...´(... ....... ,~/'...')
.........\.......... ..... ..\/..../
..........''...\.... ..... . _.•´
............\....... ..... ..(
..............\..... ..... ...\

What percentage of Olbyloons do we think are severely mentally ill and delusional as Olbermann himself is? 100%.

Olbermann and facts? You are so funny. Olbermann avoids facts that don't fit in with his Democratic-approved talking points. He's just like O'Reilly, no different, just different idealogy.

Excellent job Mike Jones. It is fun to hear Keith's lie spliced together with what he is lying about. Play the clip of Rino Scarborough and Screwball Chris Mathews outing his lie is also excellent. Chris Mathews is a scumbag liberal coward but at least he is not lead around on a leash by Morons Matter. It is also quite telling that none of the zombies on this site even bother to defend Olbermann anymore. They just attack Bush like one of Olbermann’s dogs. Soulless and brainless the zombies march on with their master Keith Olbermann.

Olbermann and facts? You are so funny. Olbermann avoids facts that don't fit in with his Democratic-approved talking points. He's just like O'Reilly, no different, just different idealogy.

Posted by: at September 3, 2007 8:05 PM

The big difference is that O'Reilly dosn't live in a echo chamber like Keith. O'Reilly has guest on who dispute his facts. Olbermann has parrots on to nod their heads.

And Olby can't even get GOOD guests on his show unless he hands them a check on air, in violation of all journalistic ethics. But that's Olby, hero of the people! Anyone recall Edward R. Murrow ever cutting a check to get an interview and displaying it on air?

Thanks for the tip on NEICE, being NIECE. I really do need to invest in a dictionary. Maybe I can get a thesaurus from Keith, I'm sure he has hundreds of those. Since he uses one every God damn show to try and make himself seem like an intellect. Also, thanks for the compliment about the website. I only made it through 9th grade computers concepts before I flunked out on hippie ideas like global warming and drinking and driving.

Mr. RichardCranium is my new hero.

But here he is again.Pretending none of it ever happened.

Good for you Non-Factor.

Posted by: at September 3, 2007 8:20 PM

Patsy, a legend in his own mind! We're all wrong, with no proof, says he........funny how the spolbyloons think and operate just like olbyonesidedkanoby and the meltdown comedy show crack staff of one.

Brandon wrote: "And Olby can't even get GOOD guests on his show unless he hands them a check on air..."

Uberloon's on-air legal expert is a disbarred attorney and convicted felon. Great thanks.

Brandonspeak:

"And Olbermann can't even get GOOD guests on his show unless he hands them a check on air.".....Do you have any proof that the famous check he handed to Clinton was offered as a condition for the interview? On one hand Brandon, you complain about how he doesn't have this or that guest on his show, .... but on the other hand you claim he can't get them to come on. Which is it?

"in violation of all journalistic ethics"......another one might be leveling a charge of buying interviews that you can't support with facts....but you're not exactly a journalist, are you Brandon?

"Anyone ever recall Edward R Murrow ever cutting a check and then displaying it on air."......Probably not, considering no one on this board is old enough for that, except possibly Janet.

No Brandon, I agree that Olbermann is no Edward R Murrow, but if Murrow were actually on the air today, I'm convinced you would hate him as every bit as much as you hate Olbermann, ..... if not more.

I only made it through 9th grade computers concepts before I flunked out on hippie ideas like global warming and drinking and driving.

Posted by: MrRichardCranium.com at September 3, 2007 10:08 PM

Drinking and driving is a "hippie idea"? Does he mean that the only "hippies" drink and drive (Cheney has at least two DUI's on his record, and we all know about Bush's "youthful indiscretions"); or that MADD is a "hippie" organization in oposition to a concept they have framed in the media?

I hope this moron keeps posting here, he could be fun.

Edward Murrow was very brave
Krazy Keith's in his Manhattan cave
Ed covered the war
Keith's NBC's whore
Edward Murrow rolls in his grave

Mike ignorantly said that it's not a problem if Olby handed a check over to Clinton on camera before an interview. Check the ethics codes of the NY Times, another liberal love affair if ever there was one. They'll tell you that's a big no-no. In fact, there's not a J-School in America that will tell you that's fine and dandy and I defy you to find one that will.

And I think I would have liked Murrow just fine. You see, he risked his life time and again to bring the American people the story of what was really going on, he didn't sit anchored safely in a news studio thousands of miles away from the action. Murrow also wasn't afraid to have people on who represented ALL different viewpoints. Murrow may not have agreed with who he had on, but at least he had the balls and the courage and the INTEGRITY to invite people on his show who had differing viewpoints.

The loons still insist that most of us here at Owatch hate Olbermann for his "truth-telling" about the GOP. That isn't it for me. I've never supported this war, still don't. What gets me is that Olbermann is hailed as a NEWS anchor when he is anything but. He doesn't cover stories from the field. He doesn't have guests on with varying opinions and he refuses to report news that doesn't support HIS opinions. Furthermore, he gives opinions on a program that MSNBC still tries to insist is a news program. It isn't. But the Olbyloons ignore all of that, too blinded by their own partisan politics, their own world viewpoint which jives perfectly with Olbermann's, despite the facts. They rail against Fox when what Olbermann does is worse. The libs twist themselves into pretzels trying to explain why it's okay for Olbermann to run an opinion fest labeled as news but foam at the mouth and howl at the moon when you so much as mention the words "Fox News".

Oh well at least it's all confirmation about what I already knew about Olbermann, his lunatic fans, and liberals in general.

the check was bad. why would you do that on the air? give it to him later for christsake.

Olbermann gave him the check on-air to show the world what a great guy he is, building all those schools in Africa. Olbermann is a shameless self-promoter, accent on shameless.

More loony Brandonspeak:

"Mike ignorantly said that it's not a problem if Olbermann handed a check over to Clinton on camera before an interview.".....Actually I DIDN'T say that at all Brandon. I SAID your assertion that he bought the interview is unproven and probably an outright lie.

"Check the ethics codes of the NY Times."....Have YOU checked the "ethics codes of the NY times?"

"Another liberal love affair if there ever was one.".....DOn't you just HATE those so called "liberal love affairs", Brandon?

"They'll tell you thats a big no-no".....I doubt if they'll even talk to me.

"In fact, there's not a J-school in America that's fine and dandy and I defy you to find one that will.".....Possibly, but there's another side of this story you're ignoring. The check was given specifically for a very worthwhile charitable cause and doing it on the air was likely meant to be an inspiration for others to do the same. Jounalistically correct or not, it's hard to find too much fault with that.

"And I think I would have like Murrow just fine".....And I think you wouldn't have! I believe Murrow would have been a strong vocal opponent of both Bush, his war, and today's rather selfish version of conservatism.

"You see, he risked his life time and again to show the American people what was really going on.".....And that was admirable of him, but not a negative reflection in any way on someone who doesn't.

"he didn't sit anchored safely in his studio thousands of miles from the action."....Well, sometimes he did, and sometimes he didn't.

"Murrow wasn't afraid to have people on who represented ALL different viewpoints.".....And I doubt if Olbermann is "afraid" to do that either. He just doesn't have that type of show and that is perfectly OK, since their are many other shows that argue different viewpoints. Sometimes, I get pretty tired of guests trying to shout down each other and would just like to get more in depth opinions of one or the other.

"Murrow may not have agreed with who he had on, but at least he had the balls, the courage and INTEGRITY to invite people on his show who had differing viewpoints.".....It has nothing to do with "balls, courage, or INTEGRITY". It has everything to do with the format of the show and the preferences of it's particular audience.

More loony Brandonspeak:

"The loons still insist that we at Owatch hate Olbermann for his "truth telling" about the GOP. That isn't it for me.".....Well, we DO kind of wonder hate at all? Much less someone you never even have to watch. Actually, it's proven, Brandon...the majority of anti- Olbermann posters just happen to also be anti liberal and pro Bush. The prepondurance of evidence to that fact does not lie.....and Olbermann remains the ONLY anti-bush pundit on Cable and that is clearly what riles the majority of his detractors.

"I've never supported this war and still don't".....Thats only a half truth at best, since you have stated you believe we can't leave.

Since The remainder of your latest screed was nothing more than a repeat of the beginning, I'll let that go.

Forget it Brandon...you have no moral or ethical superiority to those you lovingly call "loons", and you are anything but a "Clear thinker".

Speshul Education Komment alert!

--Keith's Special Comment on the President's surprise visit to Iraq and his intent... "playing for October-November". --

Mike, All journalists allow the unscripted point of view of any arguable point to be presented when covering an issue. If they don't, they are not jounalists, they are advocates.

That is why Rush Limbaugh is not called a journalist.

That is why Sean Hannity is not called a journalist.

That is why Bill O'Reilly also states he is not acting as a journalist when he makes his "Taling Points" or writes his books....He clearly presents himself as a commentator...an advocate for a particular point of view. He never has claimed to be this generation's "Murrow."

That is why Edward Murrow was a great journalist....he always allowed the focus of his investigative reporting equal time to counter and address allegations he had uncovered. Investigative journlaists present the facts, allow the focus of the investigation to address the charges and then allow the viewer/listener to decide for themselves.

MSNBC has decided to pursue a demographic that enjoys an echochamber...a chamber that repeats and validates their worldview....fine, GE and their advertisers can spend their money however they choose. So can Newscorp and their advertisers.

However, Keith Olbermann is lying when he claims he is a journalist. He is not. He is a vocal advocate for a particular brand of leftist ideology that exists in the current politicial times.

So when he closes his show as a great journalist once did, he is claiming credibility he does not deserve to claim. To even try to claim to be Murrow is laughable (he does not have the man's talent), but objectively, Olbermann should not because he is 180 degrees in his behavior and treatment of those he chooses to cover.

You are being disengenuous if you are so critical of O'Reilly and "Fox Noise" because of their tactics when MSNBC and COUNTDOWN are doing the same thing for the left' echochamber lovers and claim great journalistic pedigrees.

Face it....Olbermann is the left's Rush Limbaugh. It's ok....he can choose to be such a person, but he is NOT Edward Murrow.

Does Keith know there isn't an election this November?
Does Keith know Bush can't run next year?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Cee: Olbermann is the lefts' Rush Limbaugh.... He can choose to be such a person. But he is NOT Edward Murrow.

I never said he was Cee. However, I'd lay odds you wouldn't like Murrow either if he were around today.

Benson: "Does Keith know there isn't an Election this November"
does Keith know Bush can't run next year."

He seems to know that the republican field seem to largely be Bush "double Gitmo" synchophants.

"So when he closes his show as a great journalist once did, he is claiming credibility he does not deserve to claim. To even try to claim to be Murrow is laughable (he does not have the man's talent), but objectively, Olbermann should not because he is 180 degrees in his behavior and treatment of those he chooses to cover."

Murrow's most famous moments were commentary, Phari-cee. His assaults on McCarthy were from himself to the viewer; laying out his analyses and recommendations based on his observations. He also paid the bills by filling his reports with innane interviews with entertainers and pop-culture figures with no relevance whatsoever to American politics.

I wish Olbermann WOULD interview some rightie freaks on his show - because they are so easy and fun to debunk - but I get the impression that off-the-cuff thinking is not his long suit. He does, however, manage to string together some very effective prepared commentary from a perspective that is very rare in our televised media.

For years Amy Goodman has been doing a much better job of honest reporting on the tiny "Democracy Now" franchise; and Bill Moyers pops in and out with opinion-rich reporting that makes clear sense; but other than that - and the smart satire and devastating interviews provided on Jon Stewart's and Steven Colbert's shows - there is nobody else out there presenting or even acknowledging this coherent perspective.

However, this perspective has the virtue of conforming with the facts, as opposed to the laughable fallacies clung-to by the right, and it is infectuous.

Olbermann is a johnny-come-lately in regard to common sense, but I won't fault him for that.

didn't vote. 16 years old. and apparently already have a better grasp...
Posted by: at September 3, 2007 11:08 AM

Katy's getting kinda old, can you forward me your email (doesn't matter if you are a chick or dude ;)

You do know that Pea Brain is one of hundreds of people around the world who monitor the internet and routinely report posters who disagree with him, encrypted, no less, using a secret decoder ring and a majical crystal that broadcasts the message directly to the Naval Observatory in Washington, D.C.? I doubt you want either to happen.

Posted by: Clucker at August 31, 2007 7:11 PM

I picture him wearing tiny piped green shorts and a little bolo-tie with a Bush-effigy slide. He's an Eagle-cadet in the Bush Scouts. His Mom and Dad have to whisper nervously to each other when he's out of the basement.

Olbermann is a johnny-come-lately in regard to common sense, but I won't fault him for that.
Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at September 4, 2007 3:09 PM

Better late than never....making him very very rich.

Mike gambles....

"I'd lay odds you wouldn't like Murrow either if he were around today."

###
Would those be 5:1 while your claim I would be a Brown Shirt in Germany, 1938 is around 4:1?

Once again, the debate goes to me, Mike. Why? Your analysis about Keith Olbermann is just about as on target as it is about me.

Keith Olbermann presents himself as a journalist host of a news-show.....he has never functioned as a journalist while hosting COUNTDOWN and this site exists to chronicle the contradiction....rather well IMHO.

That was the object of my post.....not whether I would agree with Edward R. Murrow's various investigative journalism conclusions.

I just want to point out the fact that Murrow always presented both sides, even in his converage of McCarthy and even allowed the senator equal time on his show, without question, to present his side of the story regarding his worries about communism.

"Murrow's most famous moments were commentary, Phari-cee. His assaults on McCarthy were from himself to the viewer; laying out his analyses and recommendations based on his observations."

###
And allowed McCarthy to answer his allegations point-by-point....again, directly to the viewer, Loin.

Something Bill Moyers, another elitist leftist, does not do on his hour of propaganda....funded by the tax payers (even worse than the privetly funded faux jounalist Olbermann).

"Would those be 5:1 while your claim I would be a Brown Shirt in Germany, 1938 is around 4:1?"

Mike, I have to take you to task for apparently suggesting that cee would have been a Brown Shirt. The purpose of the Brown Shirts was intimidation by an overt show of unity and the implication of group violence - threats which were frequently realized. cee would put himself in no such position - he would have supported Hitler as he supports Bush - through effusive verbal agreement and adulation; and the clear promise to a predatory power to do absolutely nothing.

> would just like to get more in depth opinions of one or the other.

Then why watch Olbermann? On The Hour of Spin you get in depth opinions of one, but never the other.

Loin, do not take Mike to task for my characterization of his previous post.....he did suggest I would have been a Nazi supporter only because of my supposed sheep-like behavior regarding the current bogeyman of the left....neoconservatism.

How that would of manifested itself is up to the reader....I guess I romatisized it and saw myself in the streets smashing windows.

romanticized

Murrow- couldn't be farther from him!

As the Mike Jones audio points out...

Keith is a certifiable LIAR. He states that Fox News' attacked Rosie ODonnel AND deliberately changes her quote to "Who IS the terrorist". This is not only FALSE it is purposely twisted to place blame on FOX News. Smart people would notice this.

Rosie asked "Who are the Terrosits" She distinctly meant the US troops. Keith lied and sided with this troop hating liberal. He changed the QUOTE which shows NO journalistic merit. And he uses this tact- day-in-and-day-out.

Sadly the loons eat it up. Murrow would NEVER do that. Let the facts speak for themselves. When you fake or twist the news they should throw out the baby with the bathwater. His show has about as much credibility as news from The Onion. Thats why I hate KeithO. And why I hate his apologists even more.

21 questions with Keith Olbermann:

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2007/09/keith_olbermann_thinks_elizabe.html#more

What's your favorite medication?
Protonix. I can get asthmatic episodes from acid reflux (and from the current administration). This stuff takes care of the first kind.

"And allowed McCarthy to answer his allegations point-by-point....again, directly to the viewer, Loin."

Like I said - he should. But then again; Russert, Chris Wallace, Shieffer, and Stephanopoulos have all sorts of Senators and cabinet officers talking face-to-face for hours each week, and all of it is a total waste of time. Self-serving statements are accepted without follow-up, and "horse-race" politics are the main course.

News shows that ask tough or un-agreed-upon questions typically never get any interviews above the level of a spin-doctor or media flack, and these forums invariably devolve into "Crossfire" - type Big Time Wrestling.

Olbermann satisfies himself with contextualized footage of his political opponents making patently riduculous policy statements, and he allows this medium to serve as the opposing voice.

I am glad that Olbermann resists having the likes of Mary Maitlin or Dick Morris muddying up the water on his show, but I would like to see some elected and appointed officials defend their positions on Countdown.

Is there any evidence that such interviews have been offered but rebuffed by "Countdown"?

"he would have supported Hitler as he supports Bush - through effusive verbal agreement and adulation"

###
"Hitler's 'dislike of the Jews ... was well-founded,'

Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr (D)

"In every revolution, you have to expect some bloodshed. Hitler is building a spirit in his men that could be envied in this country,"

Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr (D)

"I was very pleased and gratified at your observations of the German situation, and I think your conclusions are very sound,"

Ambassador Joe Kennedy (D)

###
No, Loin and Mike, my Jewish hertiage would lead me away from supporting Adolf's poinsoned ideology, just like I do not support the radical left's poisonous anti-Semitic ideology either.

Oh yeah, another aspect of Keith Olbermann that makes me shudder....his anti-Semitism.

^ we heard you the first time moron...

On The Hour of Spin you get in depth opinions of one, but never the other.

Posted by: johnny dollar at September 4, 2007 3:32 PM

We are bombarded with the "other" on essentially all of the other televised news outlets. Its a corporate media problem - Olbermann, I suspect, exists on MSNBC in his current form solely because a groundswell of opinion has made the presentation of his perspectives a profitable strategy. As such coherent analyses are increasingly demanded, however, the viewing public learns what a real conclusion based on facts actually looks like, and a large portion of the media's propagandiizing power goes out the window. This is why the biggies in the MSM fight rationality and relevance at every turn, despite the short-term profits they could realize.

Fuck Joseph Kennedy, that fucking Irish gangster.

Get into this century, douchebag.

The loons still insist that we at Owatch hate Olbermann for his "truth telling" about the GOP. That isn't it for me."..[Brandon]

Mike replies...Well, we DO kind of wonder hate at all? Much less someone you never even have to watch. Actually, it's proven, Brandon...the majority of anti- Olbermann posters just happen to also be anti liberal and pro Bush. The prepondurance of evidence to that fact does not lie.....and Olbermann remains the ONLY anti-bush pundit on Cable and that is clearly what riles the majority of his detractors.

Posted by: Mike at September 4, 2007 2:07 PM

Well, just to bring a bit of reality to this claim here, you're going to have to define what you mean by "anti-Bush" when you say that Olbermann is the only anti-Bush pundit on cable.

What you certainly can't be suggesting is that Olbermann is the only war critic or Bush policy/ Bush judgment/Bush political strategy critic... or that he is the only pundit who routinely criticizes Bush's diction, manner, and facial expressions.

If we exclude FOX News entirely, and suggest that there is virtually no on-air criticism of Bush on that cable channel, still the entire MSNBC news analysis lineup is occupied chiefly with all the above (I've no quarrel with that...) and over at CNN, Paula Zahn, Larry King, and Anderson Cooper aren't exactly on the Bush payroll.

What you must mean by saying that Olbermann is the only anti-Bush pundit on cable, is that Olbermann is the only pundit willing to criticize Bush AND juxtapose a picture of his head with that of a groundhog.... Olbermann is the only cable news pundit who doesn't allow rebuttal to a plethora of ominous charges such as the one typified in the claim that Bush uses Homeland Security, and terrorism in general, in the way that young actors use rehab programs.

So if being an "anti-Bush" critic, means all the above, Olbermann is certainly the sole occupier of that throne and what's more, there is no pundit on cable news who is anti-{insert name of Democratic pol] in such a manner.

Another thing,is that Olbermann's critics may largely be those people who occupy one end of the political spectrum, but the same is true for the vast majority of Olbermann "non-critics". This equally partisan group is not just comprised of his ardent fans but also by those members of his audience who give him ANY supportive attention at all. THAT particular dynamic gives more, not less credence, to his critic's charges.

But Loin, the attitude of the elitist left remains the same, centralized power achieving a human-derived political hierarchy.....

That is why I have always believed that communism/socialism/Marxism is and was no different, in the end regarding freedom, than Hitler's brand of fascism....

and is why the radical American left is stuck in the last century (if not the previous century).....

class warfare,
secular government predominance,
heavily regulated markets,
religious bigotry,
dehumanization,

Sir Loin of Milquetoast, you are the one stuck in 19th century.

Murrow may not have agreed with who he had on, but at least he had the balls, the courage and INTEGRITY to invite people on his show who had differing viewpoints.".....It has nothing to do with "balls, courage, or INTEGRITY". It has everything to do with the format of the show and the preferences of it's particular audience.

Which makes him the same weenie that you are...Olberman, and your opinion are the equivalent of farting into a tornado...

I agree with all of you.

This is why the biggies in the MSM fight rationality and relevance at every turn, despite the short-term profits they could realize.
Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at September 4, 2007 4:00 PM

That's just patently false and silly to boot. The suggestion is that the sort of charges that make the rounds on the Blue Blogs are rarely aired on cable news analysis shows.

That's not true. Everything from war profiteering..... charges of pre-9/11 incompetence.... the politicalization of terrorism (there's irony...)...... charges of torture and mistreatment of enemies with top down.... oversight,..... WH crony profiteering and culpability in the home lending crisis..... is routinely discussed on cable news shows.

The difference and the thing that seems to stick in your crawl is that rebuttal to such charges is provided.

Let me address the charge that the dynamic of media news divisions tends towards corporate bias rather than the political leanings of all the individuals involved in the daily grind of programming--- those who decide what airs and the tenor of what airs. There's no doubt that there has been instances of censorship based upon concerns over who those stories would offend and what agenda they might harm, but the corporate angle is largely overplayed and is used more as an excuse by those who want fewer media watchdogs, rather than the other way around. It amazes me to see the number of journalists who would rather suggest that they are all willing abettors of some widely recognized corporate institutional bias rather to admit, to any degree, that they may harbor some unconscious cultural and class-based tone-deafness to their own political biases and those of their hands-on colleagues who operate nuts and bolts matters behind the scenes. It's true that stories and issues can be consumer/profti driven, but even THAT dynamic is tempered. The lack of profit-making ability in a network news division has been more an accepted and even respected aspect of the news business rather than the other way around.

Topics involving complex economic issues, of the sort that would capture your interest, Sir Loin, are not widely aired BECAUSE of the doze factor among members of the wider audience rather than because of corporate censorship. You want to hear programs articulating the.....cons....and.... pros.... of globalization, unfortunately you have to go to business cable channels.

However, on any given day, on any bread and butter Party issue-- nationalized health care, social security, education, etc..... the tenor of the discussion on most news shows will tend more towards your end of the spectrum than mine. This is because the people who have chosen the topic, the guest list, the time allowance, also hold liberal stances on these matters. If Mr Republican is on to expound on the virtues of gun ownership...he will be questioned and pushed from a leftward tilt, by a host with an index card full of pro-gun control arguments. Fair enough. But when Mr. Democrat is then asked to rebut, said host will also push him/her farther to the left.... why are you not also legislating against these types of weapons...rather than just this type of weapon......using those same proogun control arguments. MY arguments....be it health care...school vouchers....public financing.... will be solely articulated by the guest on my side. ON the majority of tv shows, the host will never elucidate conservative arguments behind certain stances or, for the most part, even seem to be aware that they exist. Again, that holds true for school vouchers, non-nationalized alternative health care plans, social security privatization plans, social/cultural issues, and public financing... of any sort, be it entitlement programs or political campaigns. You may not the segment handled as though it were an article in Mother Jones, but you'll see it as though it was an article in the American Prospect, Atlantic Monthly, or The New Republic. It will NEVER be from the perspective of even a Paul Harvey..(a majority view) let alone a National Review one...

To specifically address Keith Olbermann and his show, if Scarborough or Tucker Carlson brought in twice the numbers of Olbermann, few people in the leadership or the general workforce of MSNBC would wish them to become the "face" of MSNBC in the way that Olbermann is being vetted for that.

Frankly, there is NO way that any cable or mainstream news network could be fronted by any conservative AND have any credibility whatsoever among the establishment of journalists and journalism critics and academes in the field. This establishment will tolerate, give credence to, wait for and hope for the success (money making success in the way that Fox makes money....) of an Olbermann.............. as news anchor who juxtaposes Bush's head with the head of groundhog, who gives "special comments" demanding the president resign, who provides a venue for unchallenged one-sided conspiracy theories, who airs little to no criticism of the Democratic power structure........ and they'll do that in a way that will NEVER be the case for a Brit Hume, regardless of Hume's greater experience in the field. PERIOD.

THe disdain for, crying over, and bitching about Fox News among the media elite and your side would result in an equal amount of sheer incredulous and overwhelming joy if Keith Olbermann ever became the face of an MSNBC that is anywhere near as successful in the cable business as FOX News.

If FOX News did not exist and had never existed, the ascension of Keith Olbermann in the news media would be heralded as an indication of cultural advancement.

So much for the old corporate media robber baron canard.

Posted by: at September 4, 2007 6:24 PM

I think it is pretty well established that Olbermann is not going to have opposing viewpoints. I think it has nothing to do with some vast "MSM" conspiricy of any sort.

Remember, that "warts & all" article by NYmag called Limbaugh for Lefties, a few months ago, anyway, there was a section were it was pointed out that he can not have others on the set with him. I think the guy is just odd and has a lot of hang-ups & control issues. And lets face, those scream fests get out of control. (Remember when Laura Ingrahm walked off Hannity & Colmes?). After reading his weirdness about "actors" (see 21 questions), this further makes sense.

He reads a teleprompter, lifts from blogs and started his TV career in sports, reading a teleprompter. He better hope that a Repub gets elected, because he one trick pony is going to wear real thin.

>To specifically address Keith Olbermann and his show, if Scarborough or Tucker Carlson brought in twice the numbers of Olbermann, few people in the leadership or the general workforce of MSNBC would wish them to become the "face" of MSNBC in the way that Olbermann is being vetted for that. Posted by: Cecelia at September 4, 2007 6:25 PM

Huh? Whatever makes money will become the "face" of anything...this is why the MSM "tolerates" Fox.

But Loin, the attitude of the elitist left remains the same, centralized power achieving a human-derived political hierarchy.....

....and is why the radical American left is stuck in the last century (if not the previous century).....

Sir Loin of Milquetoast, you are the one stuck in 19th century.

Posted by: cee at September 4, 2007 4:13 PM

...as opposed to your new-fangled, 21st century alternative to a "human-derived political hierarchy"? And what would that be? The reign of a 1st century zombie man-god? You're funny.

"...and over at CNN, Paula Zahn, Larry King, and Anderson Cooper aren't exactly on the Bush payroll."

That's why I am careful to identify the "corporate media" represented by the MSM as a problem distinct from the "Republican media" represented by FOX. Everybody in the media today, in order to be taken seriously, needs to be somewhat critical of Bush; usually taking the form of mildly criticizing his execution of the war - but rarely (until recently) actually questioning the fact that the war is an utter waste and crime. There are still some very stark lines that the "journalists" you cite will not cross due to implicit fear for their cushy jobs - just as there are facts in this regard that Olbermann will not touch, although he is whittling this list down as his masters at MSNBC - obscesed with "catch-up" note his growing success.

The interests of our corporate overlords are linked, but not identical to those of the Bush cabal. Bush is a handy marketing executive for them to make use of, but as goods spoiled on the shelf by the heat of the past six years, he is easily replacable by their next front-man.

Remember, that "warts & all" article by NYmag called Limbaugh for Lefties, a few months ago, anyway, there was a section were it was pointed out that he can not have others on the set with him. I think the guy is just odd and has a lot of hang-ups & control issues. And lets face, those scream fests get out of control. (Remember when Laura Ingrahm walked off Hannity & Colmes?). After reading his weirdness about "actors" (see 21 questions), this further makes sense.

He reads a teleprompter, lifts from blogs and started his TV career in sports, reading a teleprompter. He better hope that a Repub gets elected, because he one trick pony is going to wear real thin.

Posted by: at September 4, 2007 6:33 PM

I agree. Above I stated that I don't think that "off-the-cuff thinking is his strong suit". And you're right about his "one-trick pony" - I don't see Olbermann getting up in Hillary's grill any time soon, they that Jon Stewart has been doing with good effect.

But that said; I love to hear him rip on that fucking moron bloodsucker Bush, and I can detract little from his rants in regard to our commander-in-chief and his assinine wars - although I might add a little now and then.

Paul Bremmer's letters leaked in self-defense today regarding the pretense represented by Bush's claims of blinking ignorance in regard to Bremmer's disbanding of the Iraqi Army should make for a good installment tonight.

That's why I am careful to identify the "corporate media" represented by the MSM as a problem distinct from the "Republican media" represented by FOX. Everybody in the media today, in order to be taken seriously, needs to be somewhat critical of Bush; usually taking the form of mildly criticizing his execution of the war - but rarely (until recently) actually questioning the fact that the war is an utter waste and crime. There are still some very stark lines that the "journalists" you cite will not cross due to implicit fear for their cushy jobs - just as there are facts in this regard that Olbermann will not touch, although he is whittling this list down as his masters at MSNBC - obscesed with "catch-up" note his growing success.

The interests of our corporate overlords are linked, but not identical to those of the Bush cabal. Bush is a handy marketing executive for them to make use of, but as goods spoiled on the shelf by the heat of the past six years, he is easily replacable by their next front-man.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at September 4, 2007 7:05 PM

Since any discussion of the war on cable news shows does revolve around the assumption that the only debate remaining is how soon we should cut our losses and leave, I think you're asking for something more and unreasonably more.

I take no issues with discussing the matter from that perspective, along with all other perspectives.

Again, the thing that seems to stick in your crawl is that that there is no overt outright advocacy of your position among most (but not all....Chris Matthews wants us out yesterday....) journalists/hosts.

This really is the gist of the debate between Olbermann critics and his supporters and really illustrates how Olbermann views journalism as well. To you and to him, outright advocacy of pulling out of Iraq tomorrow is the championing of a self-evident "truth" and that's truth on the order of say....championing the end of segregation in the south... or championing voting rights for women.

Olbermann views his advocacy of liberal stances in just the same light. He's not "political" he's only championing what is "true".

There truly are positions that are inherently moral and that transcend any notion of partisan political stance, but that is not the standard fare of politics or even most ideological issues. To color everything in that light...brings an air to the public discourse that is almost theological or doctrinal.

In more modern times this has been a red flag in journalism because it's the mindset that justifies Olbermann.... a journalist... moving beyond the criticism of a president to outright advocacy for an entire political philosophy and agenda. The end, a one-sided partisan festival, is justified because anything else is akin to abetting damnable lies.

You of all people, Sir Loin, ought to be aware that few things are as immovable and implacable as a zealot. A capitalist, whether they be a flimflam artist or a honest broker, looks like putty in comparison.

Firstly, ifeel obliged to point out to you that things get stuck in one's "craw":

Main Entry: craw
Pronunciation: \ˈkrȯ\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English crawe, from Old English *cræga; perhaps akin to Latin vorare to devour — more at voracious
Date: 14th century
1 : the crop of a bird or insect
2 : the stomach especially of a lower animal

This is one of my lnguistic pet peeves - right up there with "chester drawers" and making a "mute point".

...unless of course you were making a clever double entenre to the bottom-of-the screen "news crawl" through which our cable news shows generally supply the most blatant of their corporate mind-washing for the very stupidest among us - in which case your recasting of this idiom represents absolutely brilliant reparte.

As for Olberman taking a stance regarding the war: suck it up. If Olbermann calls himself a "journalist" he's the only one. He doesn't act like one; his show doesn't present him as one; he's just one more commentator out there - one that is hitting a nerve. Hell, he's the only one who's demo won't be pushing uo daisies within ten years, so get used to him

You of all people, Sir Loin, ought to be aware that few things are as immovable and implacable as a zealot. A capitalist, whether they be a flimflam artist or a honest broker, looks like putty in comparison.

Posted by: Cecelia at September 4, 2007 8:16 PM

Are you saying Olberman is a "zealot"? You really are cloistered, aren't you? I suspect he is more mercenary than zealot; but more concerned citizen than mercenary.

Thanks, for the interesting lesson in linguistics, Sir Loin. I'll remember it and you (in a very good way) the next time I use the expression.

However, I have no beef with Olbermann's stance on the war. My beef is that he thinks that broadcasting any other stance is tantamount to airing dangerous agitprop, seditious speech, or a lie on the magnitude that the earth is flat.

"Again, the thing that seems to stick in your crawl is that that there is no overt outright advocacy of your position among most (but not all....Chris Matthews wants us out yesterday....) journalists/hosts. "

No; I object to the outright stupidity promulgated as "conventional wisdom" across our (corporate) news media. The way that some questions are considered "bad manners" in regard particularly to this current administration; and the way that two-dimensional comic-book thinking (i.e. they hate us for our freedoms"; we have a "Homeland"; ...) is accepted - usually without question let alone outage - by a domesticated press corps.

...and Matthews may be saying that this week (I don't know - I stopped watching him almost two years ago), but the next time Bush shows up dressed vaguely like a soldier, sailor, or marine Tweetie will be drooling on his desk and heaping expressions of man-love on your fetish/president.

Are you saying Olberman is a "zealot"? You really are cloistered, aren't you? I suspect he is more mercenary than zealot; but more concerned citizen than mercenary.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at September 4, 2007 8:37 PM

I suspect, internally, he's more fifth grader doing lines from All the President's Men in the mirror and dreaming of cocktail parties with Katherine Graham.

However, gandiose fifth grade dreams of personal heroism may the rudimentary component of zealotry.

However, I have no beef with Olbermann's stance on the war. My beef is that he thinks that broadcasting any other stance is tantamount to airing dangerous agitprop, seditious speech, or a lie on the magnitude that the earth is flat.

Posted by: Cecelia at September 4, 2007 8:47 PM

Oh I strongly disagree. In my viewing experience Olbermann reacts vehemently when his right-wing rivals broadast material that is factual obtuse or dishonest, or morally reprehensible. In my perception it is usually the crap-pile on which the stated opinions are based that he reacts to, and not the opinions themselves.

When arguing from a right-wing position today, this should be expected.

I suspect, internally, he's more fifth grader doing lines from All the President's Men in the mirror and dreaming of cocktail parties with Katherine Graham.

However, gandiose fifth grade dreams of personal heroism may the rudimentary component of zealotry.

Posted by: Cecelia at September 4, 2007 8:52 PM

Maybe - but the lines he recites certainly resonate.

In my viewing experience Olbermann reacts vehemently when his right-wing rivals broadast material that is factual obtuse or dishonest

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at September 4, 2007 8:53 PM

Besides his usual list of disbarred or discredited parrots parroting, has he ever backed anything with actual evidence in regards to your "factual obtuse or dishonest" defense?

Just wanted to say to the people that visited my website, Mrrichardcranium.com:
Thanks for visiting it, I hope you continue to visit it. I love the feedback, negative, and positive alike. I am an amatuer writer and I hope to become a lot better in this medium. I've done stand up comedy and the website is a much easier way of getting that out without all the other crap getting in the way. If you go to my site and search the archives, I think you will see that I don't really lean one extreme to the other and that I'm pretty fair in my assessments of things. I've only had this website up and running for less than 10 months and some of the months were backdated. I got my start on Myspace writing blogs and I got a bit of a following. I've hoped to get my view across whether you agree or disagree. I hope you will give me your reasons why you disagree if you do. I enjoy debating and I am open-minded. So take a look at my old stuff and let me know what you think. Also, I must say that Keith Olbermann for whatever reason rubs me the wrong way because alot of the little things he does seem rehearsed. I'm sorry but it's hard to believe someone is passionate about something he is reading off a teleprompter. It's also hard to believe someone is after the truth when he takes his position before he even knows whats in front of him. You can dislike Bush for whatever reason but to discredit everything he has done as wrong because you disagree with him, is wrong. You only go as far to look at your own self and your experiences to realize that we all make mistakes, heated and calculated that may be wrong. I do believe though that his intentions were to help the country, and still are. I support the war because I've spoken with 3 Iraqi people that have been there before, during and after the wars, 1 & 2 in Iraq. The stories they told me were enough for me personally to see what were doing over there as just. The ends may justify the means here. Afterall, if you stumble across a gold mine when youre digging for worms, do you not get the gold, just because it's not what you first intended to do?

You're funny. What's so primitive about my website? Do you have any idea what's on that site? This site isn't as complex as my site, but you can't get your dork ass off it, can ya? I'll get a spell check, if you promise to tell me what's so primitive about my site. And list specifics, dumb ass. It's time to put your money where your mouth is.

"I support the war because I've spoken with 3 Iraqi people that have been there before, during and after the wars, 1 & 2 in Iraq. The stories they told me were enough for me personally to see what were doing over there as just."

Well; you may have got Bush beat there in regard to relevant research, but that's a pretty low standard. To stick to a skimpy handful of anecdotes in the face of five years of shifting goalposts, shattered promises, and growing chaos is just plain stupid.

I know this may seem like a crazy concept as well. But considering that my site is a site that relies on its viewers reading and not being blown away by porn. Could you ever comprehend that the site doesn't need dancing idiots, or flashing lights like say, A keith Olbermann show, to be successful. I know it may shock you, but some people don't need to be lured away by dramatics when all their after is substance. I should've known that someone who likes the Countdown show could only be entertained by short, pop-culture moronic gimmicks with little substance or fact. You, like your boy, Keith are the reason Paris Hilton is a whore and on TV. In other words, you are an idiot and the reason the World sucks shit.

The facts are that I don't need to talk to everyone to realize we're doing good over there. Do you go to your kid's parent teach conference and talk to every student there to make sure your kid is getting the best education? Do you go to the place that changes your vehicle's oil and ask every customer if their car runs okay after bringing it there? 3 people, yes, it's not the entire country of Iraq, but it doesn't have to be. I trust these 3 people and if they tell me that the progress over there is sufficient and needed. I believe them. They also speak about regions, not just their personal lives, dipshit. They are 3 people, thus they have 4 times the credibility of Keith Olbermann, who counts as -1, because he's a fucking moron.

If you can give me one example of investigative reporting that Keith Olbermann has had in Iraq, I'll be impressed. Point to the time and date that Keith went somewhere outside of his comfortable studio, without the pink tie, teleprompter and make-up. Tell me about all the times he's showed up at Iraq unannounced to speak with the troops, or native Iraqi people to get their insight on the war. He doesn't have to, because he won't go outside his comfort zone. He won't dare attempt something that actually involves him being original. He doesn't dare use a sentence with his everyday vocabulary involved rather than Roget's Thesaurus in hand. He is, like the man above stated, a one trick pony. Without Bush, or Republican in office, Olbermann doesn't exist. He is just another ass kissing Democrat posing as a journalist on a network that's news is about as funny as it's Thursday night line-up. Olbermann is and always will be, like you, a waste of oxygen.

Wow! You figured out what Richard Cranium stands for. Did you realize that you're the winner of the Obvious Award. You can now pull up a chair with everyone else on this planet and count yourself as 1 of us. Dipshit, the sites name means Dickhead, and theres a dickhead club, and store. You would see that if you pulled your head out of your ass. Look, use both hands on the keyboard, instead of one in your lap. This way you can stay focused long enough to realize what my website is. Fucking crazy coincidence that I am a fucking dickhead and my site's named is mrrichardcranium.com. You've got to be the most idiotic fuck I've ever had the pleasure of shitting on.

Just how many times have you been called "dickhead" in your lifetime?

I bet quite a few after people have read your lame site.

Posted by: at September 4, 2007 10:38 PM

Well, he's a person with a computer who is willing to kiss Bush's ass and love his war from a distance, so he'll probably have heaps of Murdoch sponsorship - and maybe misappropriated White House propaganda support - any time now.

We may have met here the next rising star in the Right-wing Blogosphere. Har Har.

You've got to be the most idiotic fuck I've ever had the pleasure of shitting on.

Posted by: MrRichardCranium.com at September 4, 2007 10:47 PM

I thought you said your crap-site was porn-free?

Sir Loin in an earlier post on this thread posted an exhaustive defense of Olbermann's failure to ever allow any guests other than those who parrot his own viewpoints. What Loin fails to consider is that one of the primary reasons for a host to have a person with an opposing viewpoint is to keep the HOST honest. This is a point made frequently on this site; Olbermann takes the lazy man's approach to discussing the issues by clicking and ripping from the blue blogs. And why not? Which one of his guests is going to call him on his spin, distortion, and faulty analysis? Olbermann knows full well he could not get away with such one-sided distortion if he ever would allow a person from the other side of the political spectrum on his show, but I wouldn't expect it anytime soon.

"I thought you said your crap-site was porn-free?"

What the fuck is this? You just think copying and pasting my previous statements helps you prove your points? I think if people want to see what I wrote, they can navigate the WHOLE 3 inches above and see it themselves, dumb ass. Also, I can see you obviously have no answer to my question. Also, look up Keith Olbermann goes to Iraq, or goes into the field to report the news and you know what you get? Not one god damn thing about him doing any of that. He's not a reporter, he's not a news anchor. He's a puppet for NBCs political agenda.

So, basically what you're saying, Hank is that Olbermann is interviewing himself. I don't know about you guys but I hardly ever disagree with myself.

Hey, guys, I'm proud of you. Whether you love Olbermann or not at least you're here discussing it with people that don't agree with you. Maybe if you can get Keith to do that, I wouldn't have such a problem with him. Although I think you may find that after that happens, Keith may not have the charisma and thesaurus like vocabulary that you're use to. It's hard to rig a teleprompter on a Republican's tie.

you're right. I can't. Because I didn't watch his fucking show. I'm watching the Cubs right now. Sorry, boob, I don't eat, shit and breath Keith Olbermann. I'm just on here trying to get you guys to go to my web site to rip on me some more. But, the damn server has an error and I got my hosting site working on it. I'm a big timer, like those black rapper guys that ride in bouncy cars and drink 40 ounces.

Name one thing wrong with what Keith said in tonite's Special Comment.

You can't.
Posted by: at September 4, 2007 11:12 PM

Discounting that we don't know when Bush made the statement that appears in Mr. Draper's book and that condiitions have changed on the ground, so to speak, with appointing Petraeus' to man the surge and give the final report on the status of that surge: a troop draw-down does not contradict the goal of a long-term continued military presence in Iraq.

What a joke. Some guy is begging people to go read his website after using the 'words' "fucking", "boob", "shit", and "damn", .... all in a simple 3 1/2 line post.

I know. I'm not begging. I'm just laughing because I'm making money off of idiots like you just like the moderator of this site is making money off of idiots like you. God, love this country. Oh, almost forgot. fucking, boob, shit, damn. Yep, those are words in the English language pal. Sorry, do you have virgin ears? I'm sure you call your wife worse in bed, pervert. :)

Hey Mike, here's a puzzle for you....Decode these words!

UCKF
OOBB
HTSI
NAMD

Good Luck Fucktard!

Thanks for the compliment! But it's not a business. I have a job and I just do that web site to piss people off. Infact I only started making money off of it weeks ago. I love you guys. If it's okay with you guys, I want you to be my new pets. I'll make room in my basement for you, okay?

I'll keep you both fat off of left wing bullshit like you're use to from keith Olbermann. Then if you're bad, I'll let you see unfiltered news reports about Iraq. I'll even show you websites that catalogue the success of the war in Iraq by Iraqis. Shit that you've never even heard of, because of course you get all your "news" from MSNBC. Look, it's not that big of a deal that you guys hate Bush, and love Hillary, Obama, and that idiot Edwards, but it is a big deal that you believe Democrats are truth telling do gooders that can do no wrong. Wake up!

I just got Deja Vu! This reminded me of the time I talked to a bunch of idiots on Olbermannwatch.com today. Wait....Nevermind.

Thanks for the compliment! But it's not a business. I have a job and I just do that web site to piss people off. Infact I only started making money off of it weeks ago. I love you guys. If it's okay with you guys, I want you to be my new pets. I'll make room in my basement for you, okay?

Posted by: MrRichardCranium.com at September 4, 2007 11:42 PM

You should have just gone with posting something like this:

Good site. Thank you!
Posted by: bachelor degree online at September 4, 2007 10:37 PM

yeah, I guess I am just a worthless spammer. haha. I got a son on the way in 2 months or less. Give me a break. I'm trying to get his nest egg going here folks.

Cranium probably doesn;t even know about Bremer's self-defensive presentation of evidence of Bush's lies in regard to the supposed "loose cannon" nature of Bremer's disbanding of the Iraqi military.

I'm sure that Bush did not devise this policy, but he has recently and in the past claimed that he knew nothing about it ("fog of post-invasion burearacy" and all). Bremer's leaked letter clearly show that the fetish/president was kept in the loop in regard to this disatrous but intentional strategy, and is frantically ass-covering now. Why does Bush give medals out to people he claims do drastic, stupid, and destructive things on their own volition?

Maybe Cranium is blogging about football over there?

"What the fuck is this? You just think copying and pasting my previous statements helps you prove your points? I think if people want to see what I wrote, they can navigate the WHOLE 3 inches above and see it themselves, dumb ass. "

Jeez, what a pussy. Offensive, defensive, AND no sense of humor. I bet that web-shite is just great!

Crazy thing about me, I blog about more than just Politics. man, sir loin you're cutting me deep. Idiot...

I got a son on the way in 2 months or less. Give me a break. I'm trying to get his nest egg going here folks.

Posted by: MrRichardCranium.com at September 5, 2007 12:09 AM

Well, we'll still be in Iran when the kid's 18, if your fetish/president has his way. What kind of developmental crib-toys do you get for baby cannon-fodder?

Crazy thing about me, I blog about more than just Politics. man, sir loin you're cutting me deep. Idiot...

Posted by: MrRichardCranium.com at September 5, 2007 12:16 AM

Wow - a bona fide rennaissance man! how impressive!

Offensive? Defensive? AND no sense of humorive? Man, slow down on the beatings dick. I have only 3 hitpoints left. You're busting my balls here. Oh and I'm not that offensive. Jesus, you would love my Jesus vs. Choi (the kid that shot up Virginia Tech) It's a side by side comparison to see who is better. You'd love it with those pussy ears of yours. OOOOOPS! I said pussy! Oh, that's okay, because you said it first, right? Fucking hypocrite moron fuck!!!

What a joke. Some guy is begging people to go read his website after using the 'words' "fucking", "boob", "shit", and "damn", .... all in a simple 3 1/2 line post.

Posted by: Mike at September 4, 2007 11:24 PM

Sounds like the huffpo or the daily kos, to me. Or, aap, o'leily and slob. Don't dare say anything about them, though.

Sir Loin of Beef? How do you multi-task? Do you breath, think and eat all at the same time or do you have to stop breathing to think?

"pussy ears"? What is that supposed to mean relative to a web-site?

"Jesus vs Choi"? Do you mean "Cho Seung-Hui". Maybe that's why nobody gets it. ' think?

Dude, I can't WAIT to see your fabulous website, but I suspect you've misspelled the address.

What's your guys solution to the Iraq war? Something specific please. Nothing general/vague like; "We should pull out, after we get the Iraqi government secure." The reason you won't have one that makes sense is because the only one that does make sense is already being used. Our Military Generals are the ones that are telling Bush what the troop levels should be. Not the other way around.

Sir Loin of Beef? How do you multi-task? Do you breath, think and eat all at the same time or do you have to stop breathing to think?

Posted by: MrRichardCranium.com at September 5, 2007 12:28 AM

BAM! Touche, Dickhead, you got me with that adroit reparte. I retire in disgrace, and as homage I will get everyone I know to visit your scintillating crap-site.

yes, his name is correctly spelled on the website. God I said CHO, instead of choi, sorry I mindfucked you there debbie downer. Jesus, you'd think you were the fucking editor of this site. Fuck my site, I'd like to meet you in person so I could give you a hug. You need a hug, don't ya? Seriously, and don't lie. When was the last time you talked to a women without using your credit card?

Great. You know like 3 people, and only 1 of them has the internet card at the Library. I'm fucked!

What's your guys solution to the Iraq war? Something specific please. Nothing general/vague like; "We should pull out, after we get the Iraqi government secure." The reason you won't have one that makes sense is because the only one that does make sense is already being used. Our Military Generals are the ones that are telling Bush what the troop levels should be. Not the other way around.

Posted by: MrRichardCranium.com at September 5, 2007 12:31 AM

We need to leave now, and secure through diplomacy and money the engagement of Syriaand Iran, with the help of Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other Islamic countries in the region, to maintain security until there really is a government in Iraq. Iran can curb the Shia/ Syria can handle the Sunni.

Then we need to impeach the fuck out of Bush and CHeney, and send their asses to the Hague for war-crimes prosecution.

Bye guys. It was fun going back and fourth with you guys. You guys have a nice night. Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic. I talk to my friends, close friends worse than I talked to you guys. It's just how I am. On the other hand, I don't want you clowns thinking you're better than you really are, so boob, shit, bitch, fuck, damn, dick, horny hooker cock sling. There ya go, guys! Love you, Sincerely MrRichardCranium.com AKA CRAPSITE.COM

"What's your guys solution to the Iraq war. Something specific please."

Yeah I know brain, anything other than the wholesale insanity already being practiced is not "specific" enough, is it?

What a sad bumblefuck he was.

okay, real quick. Good luck getting any help diplomatic, military or other from any country in that region other than Israel. Israel will attack Iran if we don't and that means the one country you want to keep them in check will be attacking them. U.S. is caught in the middle and has no choice but to get involved militarily. We already have over 1200 military installations in Iran bomb charted and ready for attack at a moments notice. You can't keep Iraq safe diplomatically because there is no such thing as diplomacy to people that have no way of getting it other than the propaganda network of al jazeera aka the Middle East MSNBC (MEMSNBC) Nice try though. Also, the help of Afghanistan? Are you retarded? Who runs Afghanistan, moron? We do. Without our military, which is still there, doing their jobs successfully, I may add. So your solution is that we pull out our forces, rely on untrustworthy oil rich countries to not infiltrate Iraq for economic gain, all the while hoping the great nation of Afghanistan run by our military will keep them in check? You my friend, must live on lollypop lane, ride a unicorn to work, and eat shit for breakfast because the shit you're saying doesn't even start to make sense. Hey buddy, wake up! There is no exit plan that involves us leaving and Iraq being safe and secure before that time comes. It's like starting a business and asking the customers to run it. You think if you told the customers at Wal-Mart you're going to take the employees out and please just put money for what you bought in the jar at the front, they would? And those are americans, not middle eastern people who could actually use the shit. Use your fucking head, man!

I mean seriously - the guy is here for hours spewing lame-ass smack, then finally registers a request for a "serious" discussion" - and then bails out 8 minutes later without any attention to his own request.

He has a bright future on the Rightie Web.

OH! he's back!

wrong again dickhead. I answered your question. You just never gave me a good answer. I'll take a look at what you say, tom. I gots to gets to beds, yo yo yo, negro yo!

Well dang, we thought he was done gone away from here and here he is back again telling us why he thinks we have to dictate what happens in a country we never shoulda invaded and occupied in the first place.

I reckon he just cain't get nobody to come argue with him on his own web site.

"Also, the help of Afghanistan? Are you retarded? Who runs Afghanistan, moron? We do. Without our military, which is still there, doing their jobs successfully, I may add. "

Well, thanks for confirming that your fetish/president is lying sack, and that all of his "freedom and sovereignty" rhetoric is clap-trap.

What are "their jobs", then? - to stay there forever?

"There is no exit plan that involves us leaving and Iraq being safe and secure before that time comes."

...and there's no meatheaded bumblefuck chickenhawk righty that can tell us what time that is. Apparently its not 2007 - maybe not 2017. 2027?

Will your unborn child die in the desert for this sick fairy-tale?

Personally I loved his using Bush's utter failure in securing Afghanistan as a defense of staying in Iraq forever.

At least, he was able to work in a fecal reference, again.

I am not DEFENDING anybody but didn't you just type an antidote for constipation on one of the threads? And you have to decipher what Cranium says just as you do SLOB. This is what I heard from Cranium, minus the same trash talk heard all over the board:

1. The U.S. won't get cooperation from anyone in the region except Israel.

2. Israel (the sole ally) will attack Iran unless the U.S. does and it will be much uglier.

3. The U.S. is trapped (no mention of whether we should be there in the first place, sticking to the present).

4. The U.S. is on stand-by for an attack of Iran.

5. Diplomacy won't work in Iraq because information is disseminated to the population at large through al Jazeera (slam at al Jazeera and MSNBC).

6. Repeating that the U.S. cannot rely on Afghanistan without U.S. troops which kind of defeats the purpose.

7. Pulling out will not lead the other countries to act honorably but give them cart blanche to pursue their own economic interests.

8. Pull out now is premature; wait until Iraq more secure.

9. AT least if you left Americans in charge of a store in reliance on an honor system, the inventory would go to proper use.

9. Comparison to Americans versus Iraqis

Now, my disclaimer is that I am only summarizing to show that the people you claim have nothing but crap to say actually have quite a bit to say. Disagree with it. Parce it out. And Clucker,
At least, he was able to work in a fecal reference, again.

Who just gave a recipe for constipation on one of the threads? Not that I am DEFENDING anyone!

were not facing Cobra Commander here folks. They're just not going to run away at the end of the hour because the story is ended. There is no timeline because this kind of shit has never happened before. That's like asking George Washington when he would have the revolutionary war done by. "Oh let me check my war clock here, ummm, yep, that'll be another 4 minutes, guys." You need to stop thinking there's a timer on wars and get your microwave out for that. Obviously were not going to be there for another 10 years but I would say at least another 2 to at least get the police forces there well entrenched. Just because progress isn't at the speed you want it at, doesn't mean it no longer ceases to be progress. Your kid better read by 3 or else you'll fucking kill his ass and pull him out of daycare. War isn't a science. The democratic party has you thinking it's that simple. Go start a fight with your neighbor and tell me when it will end. You can't cause nobody knows this shit. You leave Iraq when the job is done, not when youre done with the job.

At least, he was able to work in a fecal reference, again. Oops, forgot I already covered that.

there were two nines. Not to be picky. Just thought you should've put 9A and 9B to clarify. Sorry, I can't help but be a smart ass.

You're right, Clucker,

That "Walmart" analogy was choice. I particularly loved they way he lost track of his own metaphor and started talking about an actual Walmart in the Middle East:

"You think if you told the customers at Wal-Mart you're going to take the employees out and please just put money for what you bought in the jar at the front, they would? And those are americans, not middle eastern people who could actually use the shit. Use your fucking head, man!"

Har Har.

MrRichardCranium: "You need to stop thinking there'a a timer on wars and get your microwaves out for that."

My gosh, that there Cranium feller shore is one deep thinker!

Tell us more please mister Cranium....we uns have never heard such smart thinkin like that before!

Yeah, I saw that Cranium. It was obviously rough draft form (as seen by the double fecal talk).

SLOB,

You disrespect everyone who holds a different view than you on any topic. I never heard one freaking insult about Islam yet you have belittled Christianity time and again. (This is not to be construed as not an invitation to insult). And I did address your question of the other night. I can find a treatise on any topic. I am not ashamed of what I believe.

Do you respect the Koran and all the teachings, beliefs held by Muslims?

I actually meant to delete the second 9 because it didn't really convey the point I thought you were making. Hey, I did my best.

Olbyloon debating at 1:30. Can't refute, make an ass out of yourself......

"Now, my disclaimer is that I am only summarizing to show that the people you claim have nothing but crap to say actually have quite a bit to say. Disagree with it. Parce it out."

Point taken anon; Even Koko the Gorilla is reputed to sign "pretty hat" and "banana happy" when viewed within the proper paradigms. I will address the boy-genius's cognet points as you translated them:

1. The U.S. won't get cooperation from anyone in the region except Israel.

- Iran helped us in Afghanistan; offered to do likewise in Iraq and were petulently rebuffed. Also; this point re: Israel is contradicted by Point #2:

2. Israel (the sole ally) will attack Iran unless the U.S. does and it will be much uglier.

- uglier how? Will they actually win inside of six years? Perhaps we could threaten to stop funding their entire defense, the way Ike smacked Britain and Israel out of the Suez in 1949 - but that would take balls and integrity....

3. The U.S. is trapped (no mention of whether we should be there in the first place, sticking to the present).

- the US is definitely NOT trapped there - at least not by anything beyond our own stupidity and the cowardice of politicians on both sides of the aisle. I love this dodge - go in, fuck everything up, and then throw up your hands and say "well; we're here now - what's YOUR perfect solution?".

4. The U.S. is on stand-by for an attack of Iran.

- according to precisely the same neocon fucks that said Saddam had nukes and launched the 9/11 attacks. Part of gettin Iran to help clean up our intensifing mess would have to be that we NOT attack them.

5. Diplomacy won't work in Iraq because information is disseminated to the population at large through al Jazeera (slam at al Jazeera and MSNBC).

- and CNN; and CSPAN...they watch our politicians and they know they are lying.

6. Repeating that the U.S. cannot rely on Afghanistan without U.S. troops which kind of defeats the purpose.

- I already covered this self-defeating point of Cranium's. I love it. I mentioned Afghanistan as second-tier helpers to Iran and Syria, but Dickhead grabbed onto it as his life-saving straw. I guess I actually have more faith in our success in there than he does - shame on me!

7. Pulling out will not lead the other countries to act honorably but give them cart blanche to pursue their own economic interests.

- pot calling kettle black - but even stupider; Iran and Syria are not close friends, but both don't need or desire a crap-hole of chaos filled with crusading Americans just across their borders. Conflicting interests on their parts and the involvement of other regional countries would hopefully keep them honest. Both have ostensible clients in Iraq, which is more than we could ever say. Their chances and motives for stabilizing Iraq are significantly better than are ours - Hell, Bush says every other day that we are in Iraq to actually attract destructive terrorists there so we "don't have to fight them here". That must sound to Iraqis like we planned and promoted the chaos there intentionally! Crazy talk- just Crazy!

8. Pull out now is premature; wait until Iraq more secure.

- No actually Dickhead said: "There is no exit plan that involves us leaving and Iraq being safe and secure before that time comes." So it wont be safe and secure before its safe and secure - circular gibberish.

9. AT least if you left Americans in charge of a store in reliance on an honor system, the inventory would go to proper use.

Ha Ha! - "General Petraeus; where are those 110,000 assault rifles, 80,000 autmatic pistols, 50,000 helmets etc. that were to be used to arm the Iraqi Army? (chiiirp....chirp). Mr. Bremer; where are this skids laden with opver 9 billion dollars in hundreds and 20's which are gone and for which you can provide no record? Rummy; where are the tons of explosives looted under your nose from Al Qaqaa? BOOOMM - oh there's some now! Mr. Cheney, What did Halliburton do with that money to provide clean water to our soldiers, who were found to be drinking and showering in fecally-contaminated river water for months? Anybody: how many wood screws and washers can you ship to Iraq or a domestic military baser for $900,000? (answer: two of each, at most)

9. Comparison to Americans versus Iraqis

- I don't know what this is supposed to mean, other than serving as a racist's argument against Bush's nation building.

"I never heard one freaking insult about Islam yet you have belittled Christianity time and again. (This is not to be construed as not an invitation to insult). "

Why would I insult someone who is not even "here" to read it? When somebody starts arguing to me that Mohammed is just fine with my country jumping into trumped=up wars all the time, then I will trash his or her version of Islam.

Anonydumbya at 2:01:

"olbyloon debating at 1:30. Can't refute. Make an ass out of yourself....."

Lets see, if you said something like "heat really is hot", I wouldn't bother 'refuting' you on that one either.

That said, if you REALLY believe a statement like "you need to stop thinking there's a timer on wars and get your microwaves out for that" is an intelligent statement, ..... then God help you because you're going to need a LOT of help just getting through life.

Why would I insult someone who is not even "here" to read it? When somebody starts arguing to me that Mohammed is just fine with my country jumping into trumped=up wars all the time, then I will trash his or her version of Islam.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at September 5, 2007 2:09 AM

???????

2:26 anon: "???????"

Anon, I wouldn't admit I didn't get that comment if I were you.

Very good answer Loin.

Everyone talks here like they would have respected Murrow back in the day. Nowadays the fringe conservatives would have accused him of being a communist.

In 2008 some (not all) conservatives demonize the left, liberals, or americans that oppose the war with subtle accusations that dissent is disloyalty, if you oppose this war that somehow makes you on the side of terrorists. Let me make this clear: I am a liberal. I OPPOSE terrorism and I oppose the war in Iraq. I am sorry ladies and gentlemen, but liberals and conservatives aren't to be put into neat little boxes just for the sake of hating. Though I am liberal I have many conservative friends who, though I don't agree with their political beliefs, are some of the most kind decent people I have ever met. We have to remember that we all want what is best for this country.

Why would I insult someone who is not even "here" to read it? When somebody starts arguing to me that Mohammed is just fine with my country jumping into trumped=up wars all the time, then I will trash his or her version of Islam.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at September 5, 2007 2:09 AM

Dishonesty. You have belittled Christianity outside of the context of the war issue. You even refuse to believe that extremist Muslims flew planes into our buildings. It is much easier to believe that Bush executed 9/11.

I will address the boy-genius's cognet points as you translated them:

Jane Goodall here. I don't care if you agree with Cranium or not or even care to side with him. I just found it interesting that you and Mike were completely dismissive that there were any points being made because they were buried in language that is often used here.

9. Comparison to Americans versus Iraqis

- I don't know what this is supposed to mean, other than serving as a racist's argument against Bush's nation building.

I actually meant to delete the second 9 because it didn't really convey the point I thought you were making. Hey, I did my best.
Posted by: Sharon at September 5, 2007 1:35 AM

Ha Ha! - "General Petraeus; where are those 110,000 assault rifles, 80,000 autmatic pistols, 50,000 helmets etc. that were to be used to arm the Iraqi Army? (chiiirp....chirp).

Here is why I believe that you seem to despise our servicemen and women. (Same with bombing the Golden Mosque). They would have to be complicit. I noticed that you stated you donated money toward the noble mission of supplying Iraqi families with water purifiers but you weren't going to do that when you thought it was for the marines. The reason for not giving to the marines could easily be applied to giving to the Iraqis.

your accusation of bombing mosque, not mine

Is it possible that some of the information you numbskulls are seeking is classified or not being released because of the implications it has on our allies? Russia, for example used trucks to help move WMD to Syria before the invasion. Iraqi civilians spotted them but the U.S. has to deny it because it would implicate Russia. You guys act like you're sitting at the President's desk, getting all the information he is getting and making decisions based on that. You're sitting at your desk, getting Democrat filtered mumble jumble that only targets negatives in Iraq and you feel empowered by all that. ENough even to declare yourself some Demi-God of politics. You probably even believe that Loose Change documentary because it had music and video and simple lies that meant your agenda. The White House doesn't have to sit there and fuck up it's allies to meet the satisfaction of the minority which is the Democratic party. You've been outside the loop for your whole life, why in the fuck did you think the last 8 years would be any different? Also, you guys are started to make me believe in Abortion. SLOB, and Mike, you're walking advertisements against keeping babies alive.

Here is why I believe that you seem to despise our servicemen and women. (Same with bombing the Golden Mosque). They would have to be complicit. I noticed that you stated you donated money toward the noble mission of supplying Iraqi families with water purifiers but you weren't going to do that when you thought it was for the marines. The reason for not giving to the marines could easily be applied to giving to the Iraqis.

Posted by: Sharon at September 5, 2007 8:32 AM

How fucking stupid are you Sharon? How many times must you be told that it is the the political - and some of the top military - LEADERSHIP that created this quagmire that is the target of my criticism.

Short-sighted, moronic policies are what lost those weapons, not the individual soldiers, non-coms and junior offiers carged with training and dealing with the Iraqis. The mosque, if it was in fact destroyed by our side as I suspect, was done so not on the whim of some poor grunt, but as a pivotal policy move in the recipe for chaos.

But you people hide behind the troops in more ways than I can count - almost as many ways as your piratical, venal leadership makes use of. Bush's "Waiting for Petreaus" burlesque is an excellent examlple of rolling shit downhill - and when they can they make sure it misses the brass. Your irritatingly stupid post above is only one of these ways.

"Jane Goodall here. I don't care if you agree with Cranium or not or even care to side with him. I just found it interesting that you and Mike were completely dismissive that there were any points being made because they were buried in language that is often used here. "

OK, SHaron, so go ahead and ignore my destruction of his stupid fucking points when put in clean and vaguely legible form by you.

You think it was the bad language that caused me to dismiss him? You are truly dumber than fuck.

Dishonesty. You have belittled Christianity outside of the context of the war issue. You even refuse to believe that extremist Muslims flew planes into our buildings. It is much easier to believe that Bush executed 9/11.

Posted by: Sharon at September 5, 2007 8:20 AM

Why are you making shit up, Sharon? I have never, ever disputed that 15 fanatical Saudis and four other Arab whack-jobs flew those planes It was YOUR fetish/president who called them "19 kids lured onto airplanes" the other week.

I do, however, find the business relationshps between the Saudis - including close family members of Osama bin Laden - and our poitical leadership (particularly the Bush family) to be very curious - particularly when you consider the fact that Osama has been left alone since Tora Bora.

"Ha Ha! - "General Petraeus; where are those 110,000 assault rifles, 80,000 autmatic pistols, 50,000 helmets etc. that were to be used to arm the Iraqi Army? (chiiirp....chirp). Mr. Bremer; where are this skids laden with opver 9 billion dollars in hundreds and 20's which are gone and for which you can provide no record? Rummy; where are the tons of explosives looted under your nose from Al Qaqaa? BOOOMM - oh there's some now! Mr. Cheney, What did Halliburton do with that money to provide clean water to our soldiers, who were found to be drinking and showering in fecally-contaminated river water for months? Anybody: how many wood screws and washers can you ship to Iraq or a domestic military baser for $900,000? (answer: two of each, at most)"

Sharon - does your rosary-addled mind see anyone but top policy-makers and top military commanders mentioned here?

You are the one who doesn't give a shit about the troops. You crave the military conquest of a rival belief system to prove to yourself that yours is better, because the swill of illogical mythology that your brain seeps in cannot do this for you. To this end you are happy to see 4000 American soldiers die outright in a pointless occupation, and have thousands of others injured or have the psyches blasted by what your political franchise forces them to experience - all for the hope that it will enable you to more sincerely beam your smile at God on his cloud.

Iraqi civilians? You couldn't give two shits - to you they're just infidels who are better off in hell. ...and if you were muslim and we lived in Saudi Arabia I'd be saying the same thing.

"You crave the military conquest of a rival belief system to prove to yourself that yours is better, because the swill of illogical mythology that your brain seeps in cannot do this for you."

...but Sharon, the truly sad thing is that you are being played for a rube. This war is not about your religion, or "spreading freedom", or "stabilizing the Middle East (HAH!) - these are just various parallel confidence games being run on selfish fools like yourself to win your compliance and support. Its really all about looting our treasury - syphoning the vast wealth of the American taxpayer into corporate coffers through endless war. Read Orwell.

SLOB,

I will respond in detail later. I'll just start with this thought: if I didn't care about the Iraqis, why would I have posted information to help get water purifiers for them (that resulted in your donation)? You generalize, generalize, generalize.

SLOB,

I will respond in detail later. I'll just start with this thought: if I didn't care about the Iraqis, why would I have posted information to help get water purifiers for them (that resulted in your donation)? You generalize, generalize, generalize.

Posted by: Sharon at September 5, 2007 12:23 PM

You assuage your guilt in many ways, I suspect. Throwing cheap band-aids at a horrendous humanitarian crisis created with your placid approval is only one of these. My contributon to the marines in this reard was also done out of guilt; I am a voting member of an ostensible democracy that has over two decades now utterly destroyed the quality of life in Iraq, and I must do something.

But you fail to recognize your complicity in the disaster - which is clearly greater than is mine due to your eager support for American/christianist belligerence. You present your actions to yourself as those of an angel of mercy providing aid out of the blue. How utterly self-serving and disingenuous.

First you hide behind the troops, and now you hide behind a couple of water-purifying trinkets. You sicken me.

Cranium 9:10 AM:


"You guys act like you're sitting at the president's desk, getting all the information he is getting and acting on that."......Tell us Cranium, how well has the president's 'exclusive' information worked out for us so far? How long are Americans supposed to sit back and ASSUME the president is making better decisions than anyone else could because he SAYS he is getting superior information? Who doesn't know by now that the the preponderance of information that was available publicly in 2002/2003 run up to the invasion was far MORE reliable than the president's own 'secret' information?

"Also you guys are walking advertisements for abortion SLOB, and Mike, you're walking advertisements against keeping babies alive"......THIS statement shows us more about the sinister nature of YOUR character than any other single thing you've written. You haven't stated how old you are, but I'll lay odds that I had already served in the US military when the decision was made about whether or not to abort YOU was being made!

Mike,

Cranium also claims to have a bun in the oven - I wonder how creepy his wife would find the declaration of his that you cite.

Once again SLOB attempts to defend Olby against the charge that viewpoints contrary to those advocated by KO will not get a hearing:

"Olbermann satisfies himself with contextualized footage of his political opponents making patently riduculous policy statements, and he allows this medium to serve as the opposing voice."
Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at
September 4, 2007 3:51 PM

Well, I imagine that using "contextualized footage" to represent the totality of the political opponent's views on any particular subject is a medium that undoubtedly "satisfies" Mr. Olbermann because it allows him to selectively include only those statements he wants to
use and discard the ones that are inconvenient for his agenda.

Here is an example for SLOB that involves one of your favorites, Dick Cheney. (Warning: this runs a little long, but it is necessary to make the point) In a 2004 debate with John Edwards, Cheney denied that he stated that Iraq was responsible for carrying out the 9/11 attacks. Dick Cheney said during the debate: "The Senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

On a subsequent Countdown show, Olby attempted to impeach Cheney's statement that he had not made such a connection by using selective quotes to make it appear as if Cheney had in fact drawn this connection. Olby introduced a statement that Cheney made to Tim Russert on the September 14, 2003 edition of Meet the Press:
Cheney: "We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the, the, the base if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years but most especially on 9/11."
Olbermann declared that this was evidence that Cheney had lied during the debate with Edwards. Said Olby: Cheney was "self-sabotaged on this day after by comparisons between his insistence last night that he never implied a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 and the series of times that he has." Of course, on the September 14, 2003 Meet The Press Cheney was simply arguing that Iraq lies in an area of the world which spawns terrorists, including those who attacked the U.S. on 9/11, not that the Iraqi regime specifically contracted the attack. And it is even more apparent that Olbermann's use of this clip is disingenous for the pupose of showing that he contradicted himself during the debate when the full clip is played, which Olbermann did not do because it would have revealed his duplicity (The relevant quote that undermines Olby's claim about Cheney in all caps):

Tim Russert: "Can we keep 150,000 troops beyond next spring without, in effect breaking the Army?"
Dick Cheney: "Tim we can do what we have to do to prevail in this conflict. This is not just about Iraq. Or just about the difficulties we might encounter in any one part of the country in terms of restoring security and stability. This is about a continuing operation on the war on terror. And it's very, very important we get it right. If we're successful in Iraq. If we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the, the base if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years but most especially on 9/11. They understand what's at stake here. It's one of the reasons they are putting up as much of a struggle they have is because they know if we succeed here that, that's gonna strike a major blow at, at their capability-"
Russert: "So the resistance in Iraq is coming from those who were responsible for 9/11?"
Cheney: "OH I WOULDN'T, I WAS CAREFUL NOT TO SAY THAT. With respect to 9/11, 9/11 as I said at the beginning of the show changed everything. And one of the things it changed is we recognized that time was not on our side, that in this part of the world in particular, given the problems we've encountered in Afghanistan which forced us to go in and take action there as well as in Iraq that we, in fact, had to move on it. The relevance for 9/11 is that what 9/11 marked was the beginning of a struggle in which the terrorists come at us and strike us here on our home territory. And it's a global operation."

Then, Olby used another quote from Cheney's appearance on the September 8, 2002 edition of Meet the Press: "Mohammed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions, and on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center."

Once again, due to the magic of Olby's selective editing, what was left out was the part of Cheney's statement that emphasized that "I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that," and how Cheney described as "unconfirmed" reports of an Atta meeting with Iraqi intelligence.

And Olby did this twice more during this Countdown show, but this post is running long and you get the idea by now: Olby is a complete fraud when he makes representations about what his political opponents believe.

Hank adds emphasis to the following Cheny quote, apparently thinking it a significant bit:
Cheney: "OH I WOULDN'T, I WAS CAREFUL NOT TO SAY THAT.

So Cheney lies in 2007 about what he said in 2001, 2002, and 2003 and you take it as some sort of proof of his veracity?

Despite what clip Olbermann may have used, it is clear that Cheney did, in fact, discuss the alleged meeting as an unqualified certainty. From Cheney's November 14, 2001, appearance on CBS's 60 Minutes II:

GLORIA BORGER (CBS News contributor): Well, you know that Mohammed Atta, the ringleader of the hijackers, actually met with Iraqi intelligence.

CHENEY: I know this. In Prague, in April of this year, as well as earlier. And that information has been made public. The Czechs made that public. Obviously, that's an interesting piece of information.

From the December 9, 2001, edition of NBC's Meet the Press:

TIM RUSSERT (host): The plane on the ground in Iraq used to train non-Iraqi hijackers. Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?

CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack. Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point. But that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue.

I got SLOB to cuss. He didn't cuss before. I've already lowered the bar in this room. Shame, shame, pity, pity.

SLOB's own quote shows that Cheney never claimed what Olbermann claims he did:

" . . .that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.. . . NOW, WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THAT WAS, WHAT TRANSPIRED BETWEEN THEM, WE SIMPLY DON'T KNOW AT THIS POINT. But that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue."

See, Cheney didn't say there was a connection, he simply said there was meeting.

Why don't you face up to the fact that I proved conclusively that Olbermann selectively edited Cheney's quote to serve his purposes. I made this point because you were so gung-ho about the idea that Olby gives opposing views a fair hearing when he clearly does not. I can give you many examples of Olbermann taking quotes out of context and editing them for his own purpose. At least be honest about this.

You drink Chablis? So are you a top or bottom?

My website is finally free of bugs, thanks to the good people at ANHOSTING, who messed it up in the first place. I want you all to go to it and realize the genius of my website, MrRichardCranium.com. I realize I've been quite juvenile with you all, but let's be honest, most of you are just looking for something to bitch about anyways. All I ask is that you go to my site, check it out. If you like it, hate it, let me know. Thanks for the memories. Also, I do not sell Chablis on my site, not because I don't want to, it's just I'd have more luck selling rainbow bumper stickers to a KKK member.

"See, Cheney didn't say there was a connection, he simply said there was meeting."

Hank, you precious ingenue. To a person not defensively strapped to a simplistic legalistic perspective, this statement -taken together with Cheney's many other sentences in which he uses "iraq" and "those who attacked us on 9/11" as paired refferents; and in consideration of the administration's fear-mongering in regard to "mushroom clouds" and subsequent actions in Iraq, clearly reflect misinformation.

...and forget the fact that the Atta meeting clearly NEVER HAPPENED - and appears to literally have been invented by Peggy Noonan in consultation with the PNAC. Can't you see how closely you are paring around the lies?

People really should go tpo Dickhead's site. I just saw it and was impressed with its potential to educate people in regard to the quality of right-wing thinking.

As more more people who associate that logo (a vacuous featurless face gamely engulfing a cock and balls) with the Republicans, the resulting queaziness will be worth the chump-change earned by our new friend.

I suggest we all try to make his crap-site a real phenomenon.

Wow.
Talk about hiting a home room with that psychoanalysist !

Posted by: at September 6, 2007 12:17 AM

Thanks. Its pretty easy to "hit a home room" in regard to pegging these hypocrits after a few exchanges.

Wow.
Talk about [hiting]sic a home room with that [psychoanalysist]sic !

Posted by: at September 6, 2007 12:17 AM

This coward can't even spell, do we expect him to know what it means? Sounds like something you would need penicillin for.

Isn't slob a classy fellow?

Beck fan?

Jeff Beck? You must be as old as me

"Beck" the scientologist rock band?

...You can't mean Glenn Beck - that weird little fucker can't have any fans.

Nice try, SLOB, but I have once again exposed your boy Olbermann. You cannot refute my assertion that Olbermann manipulates taped footage of his political opponents to suit his partisan agenda. Re-read my post of September 5 @ 5:56.

You have made a vain attempt to try to excuse Olbermann by asserting that Cheney did in fact attempt to suggest that there was a link between 9/11 and Iraq on occasions other than than those where Olbermann used the manipulated footage. But the truth of the matter is that Cheney has never said that there was a link between the two, even though he believed at one time that Atta met with Iraqi officials in Prague based on Czech intelligence. Here is Cheney in 2006 with Tim Russert:

"MR. RUSSERT: Any suggestion there was a meeting with Mohamed Atta, one of the hijackers, with Iraqi officials?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. The sequence, Tim, was, when you and I talked that morning, we had not received any reporting with respect to Mohamed Atta going to Prague. Just a few days after you and I did that show, the CIA, CIA produced an intelligence report from the Czech Intelligence Service that said Mohammad Atta, leader of the hijackers, had been in Prague in April of ‘01 and had met with the senior Iraqi intelligence official in Prague. That was the first report we had that he’d been to Prague and met with Iraqis. Later on, some period of time after that, the CIA produced another report based on a photographer—on a photograph that was taken in Prague of a man they claim 70 percent probability was Mohammad Atta on another occasion. This was the reporting we received from the CIA when I responded to your question and said it had been pretty well confirmed that he’d been in Prague. The—later on, they were unable to confirm it. Later on, they backed off of it.
But what I told you was exactly what we were receiving at the time. It never said, and I don’t believe I ever said, specifically, that it linked the Iraqis to 9/11. It specifically said he had been in Prague, Mohamed Atta had been in Prague and we didn’t know...
MR. RUSSERT: And the meeting with Atta did not occur?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. I mean, we’ve never been able to, to, to link it, and the FBI and CIA have worked it aggressively. I would say, at this point, nobody has been able to confirm"

Get a grip, SLOB. Olbermann is the one who is manipulating and misrepresenting what his political opponents are saying, but you can't bear to admit that Olbermann is not the "truth teller" you fringe leftys say he is. I have given you the goods on him, but you will continue to believe everything he tells you, no matter how much proof there is showing that he is a fraud.

I tried to cut down on the penis per square inch on my page and I'm afraid it's still pretty high. Keep the faith!

Countdown.msnbc.com

And last night Olbermann had to apologize for his dumb-ass Michael Vick commentary, the same one his crazy fans had been defending all week. HA HA!

Watch the spolbyloons spin this!