Mr. Reed becomes a leading candidate for WPIW tonight ... along with the 82-year-old mother of Greg Gutfeld, if Keith was TiVoing her son's show on Fox early this morning.

“President Eisenhower warned of the growing military industrial complex in his farewell address. Since Dick Cheney can now afford solid gold oil derricks, it’s safe to say we failed Ike miserably. After losing two friends and over a dozen comrades, I have this to say: Do not wage war unless it is absolutely, positively the last ditch effort for survival. ....In the future, I want my children to grow up with the belief that what I did here was wrong, in a society that doesn’t deem that idea unpatriotic,”

Spc. Alex Horton, 22, of the 3rd Stryker Brigade

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/09/ap_soldierblogs_070909/

Why would you give General Petraeus - who has risen to the top following five years of rigorous lap-dog selection by the administration - more credence than this front-line soldier, who has managed to get his message out despite harsh measures by the military to squelch such dissent from the troops?

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

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

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

This brings me to my more central point.
What is it that prompts these purveyors of liberal theology to come to this site about Olbermann? Contrary to statements of agnosticism about Orange Boy, these folks would not be here unless they were true blue Olbermann supporters. But, realizing that the arguments exposing Olbermann as a tool for far left viewpoints are too strong to rebut, they simply attempt diversion to compensate for their anger that Olbermann's journalistic malpractice cannot withstand scrutiny

Quick hit from (MSM) Chicago Trib's Rosenbloom:

http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/rosenblog/2007/09/bringing-the-bi.html

NBC's new football pregame show "marginalizes Bob Costas and Cris Collinsworth, who last year made the program work. Meanwhile, Keith Olbermann, who comes across as cynical and conceited, has been anointed as the effective new star,'' writes the Las Vegas Review-Journal's Bill Taafe. Truth be told, Costas' best work Sunday came on Fox's pregame show with Frank Caliendo.

“Iraq will serve as a beacon; a beacon of freedom in a part of the world desperate for freedom and liberty.” George W. Bush; December 19, 2005

“Victory in Iraq is a government that can sustain itself, govern itself, and defend itself” George W. Bush; June 9, 2006

“Iraq will be a society in which there is relative peace. I say relative peace because if there is, like, no car bombings it will never happen that way” George W. Bush; February 14, 2007

"Either we'll succeed, or we won't succeed. And the definition of success as I described is sectarian violence down. Success is not no violence. ... But success is a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives." George W. Bush; May 2, 2007

“If the standard of success is no car bombings or suicide bombings we have just handed those who commit car bombings a huge victory” George W. Bush; April 24, 2007.

So the "Beacon of Freedom and Liberty" is actually the light provided by a steady background of murderous explosions? What an inspiring leader!

This is the vision for which you people advocate keeping our troops in Iraq for God knows how many years?

From the original review:

Sep. 11, 2007
Las Vegas Review-Journal

BILL TAAFFE: NBC flagged for changes to pregame show

http://www.lvrj.com/sports/9708492.html

"The moves are bewildering.

The dynamic duo of Costas and Collinsworth has been effectively broken up. Costas now sits on one part of the set, uncomfortably laughing at Olbermann's sarcastic attempts at humor..."

Hank, as you and your's continue with your ridiculous "Bush Derangement Syndrome" red herring, you continue to miss the point. This, of course, makes it obvious that all the 'questions' you follow with are simply rhetorical in nature. Your mind is no more open to the nuanced thinking of people who appreciate Keith Olbermann than mine is to the myth that George Bush is a competent leader.

As long as you continue to convince yourself that my absolute discust and disdain for a 'leader' who has dragged America into an absolutely unnecessary and counterproductive WAR, that will gnaw at us for decades to come, constitutes something you can dismiss as "Bush Derangement Syndrome", you will never really get it.

While you and yours continue to shrug your collective shoulders about the horrors Bush's 'deranged' foreign policies have wrought, as if it were just an understandable little mistake that should be forgiven, folks like us will continue to speak the truth about our ongoing national nightmare...and WHO dragged us into it. No Hank, there is nothing 'deranged' about it.

And finally Hank, the truth is that Keith Olbermann has little to do with it! He is nothing but a sorely needed messenger sounding a wake up call, and THAT is what really alarms you. YOU would prefer that America simply remained aloof and asleep.

Another quick hit:

As The Ball Bounces: Week 1
By: Bob George/BosSports.net

http://www.patsfans.com/bob/display_story.php?story_id=3129

"Why does NBC put Keith Olbermann on its Football Night In America show? To showcase more of his mediocrity? "

Keith also had that snide comment about Fox to Costas after they played the clip of him punching out Frank Caliendo, that was first played on Fox NFL Sunday and then replayed on Football Night in America.

While Keith hates all things Rupert Murdoch, what he seems to not get is the four networks airing NFL games -- NBC, Fox, CBS and ESPN, do not have the same sort of demonization mindset towards the other networks' studio shows that Olby has towards not just Fox, but people like Anderson Cooper over at CNN. And while NBC News lets him get away with this type of childing sniping, NBC Sports isn't going to do that, because for its Sunday night show, the network needs highlight clips of games aired on Fox (or CBS or ESPN, if he also wants to trash Katie Couric's network or his former employer).

Keith just can't help it, which is why there's a perverse delight in watching him perform on FNIA, because all the things he says and does on "Countdown" without any parental guidance by NBC News to make sure what goes out is accurate and balanced he can't do on Sundays, because NBC Sports knows there are millions more people watching who won't let him get away with it, or who can make the network hurt where it counts if they let his childish feuds go unpunished.

SLOB and coward Mike, Bush Derangement Syndrome is what you both have. It is no red herring. You both don't give a lick about the troops and Mike has proven that time and time again by his silent agreement with MoveOn.org that General Petraeus is a traitor. Your objection to the war is based on one thing and one thing only, your hatred for George Bush and the right. Your objection to the war is your way to seek vengeance on George Bush for winning the 2000 election. Stop your lies and admit you true intentions. Stop pretending to care about the troops. We all know you don't.

"And finally Hank, the truth is that Keith Olbermann has little to do with it! He is nothing but a sorely needed messenger sounding a wake up call"

Ok, Mike (and slob and clucker, blindrat, et al), let's assume that Olbermann is truly this beacon of truth, the "sorely needed messenger" to disseminate the call to arms for those who want to "redeploy" our troops from Iraq. You seem to believe that Olbermann is a qualified and competent journalist. I think he is not. I want to know why people who believe as you do see him as an apropos spokesman for what you believe in. Does it matter how many times that we document his gaffes, lies, misstatements, distortions, goofiness, immaturity, and delusions of grandeur? It seems to me the answer to that question is "NO" that you and your "get out now" crowd will never acknowledge Olbermann for what he is (a cowardly insecure bomb thrower who surrounds himself with stooges because he is unable to defend his intemperate rantings).

Factor, why do you insist on lying like you do?

One example: "Mike has proven that time and time again by his silent agreement with moveon.og that General Petraeus is a traitor."....That is a LIE. I have made two comments on this blog about that. One early yesterday stating emphatically that I did NOT agree with the moveon ad, and the other late yesterday as a direct answer to one of your OWN deranged posts.

- Another example: "Your objection to this war is based on one thing and one thing only, your hatred of George Bush and the right."....Another outright LIE. The opposite is true. George Bush's war came first.

- Another example: "Your objection to seek vengeance on George Bush for winning the 2000 election".....Except you forget the inconvenient FACT that I both voted for AND supported George Bush in 2000.

- Yet another example: "Stop pretending to care about the troops. We all know you don't."....Once again liar, I WAS a troop, and I understand the military far better than you could ever hope to do. You cannot make a single coherent argument proving that YOU support the troops by supporting throwing more and more of them into this madness to be killed, .... So you choose to denigrate the motives of your opponents instead.

The FACT is 'Factor', ALL of your arguments are based on either lies or false denigration of the motives of your political opponents......And that further shows why you are SO full of s**t!

Factor; People like YOU are your side's own worst enemies.

Once again Hank, you ask me 'questions', and then pretend to know the 'answers'.

You obviously don't want any 'answers' from me about Olbermann. You just want to continue your ranting lecture about why you think I'm so wrong.

Yet another example: "Stop pretending to care about the troops. We all know you don't."....Once again liar, I WAS a troop, and I understand the military far better than you could ever hope to do. You cannot make a single coherent argument proving that YOU support the troops

posted by mike

Just because you were a "troop" doesn't automatically mean you "care" or "support" them. You claimed in the past you supported the troops, I asked you many times how you supported the troops and you gave jack shit because you couldn't.

And, how do YOU support the troops, rk?...

Jeff: "I asked you many times how you supported the troops and you gave jack shit because you couldn't."

Well Jeff, at least I don't hate the troops and want to see more of them get killed, as YOU do!

Well Jeff, at least I don't hate the troops and want to see more of them get killed, as YOU do!

Posted by: Mike at September 12, 2007 1:47 PM

Another lie. Sure you do Mike. That would help your cause. Just like the Olby loon stated on Gibson's show. "I don't support Osama Bin Laden but we have the same enemy."

Factor was able to deduce that Mike was lying, just by wanting it to be true really bad. Factor cares about soldiers, which is why he supports the man who has, by his own admission, provided the military with a horribly flawed "strategy" while arming the enemy at the same time. Factor supports the same president who allowed veterans to go untreated in squallid conditions or simply to go untreated because they weren't eligible...

Factor is a patriot...although for what country, I cannot imagine...

"I don't support Osama Bin Laden but we have the same enemy."

###
No statement puts the reality any better for the fringe anti-American left.

Are there any supporters of Olbermann who frequent this site who are willing to stand up for him? If so, kindly provide answers to the following questions:

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

Hank, how convenient it is for you to define the 'questions' for which you personally demand 'answers'.

I would prefer a different set of questions because every one of yours is clearly loaded in your favor and most of them make assumptions I disagree with.

Nice try though.

The Left loves the war.
It helps them politically and hopes it continues!

Joker: "The left loves the war"

Sure Joker, that statement has just about as much truth as your other despicable lie you told that Markos Malitos was nabbed as a sexual predator and Mathews and Olbermann helped cover it up.

YOU are one pathetic excuse for a human being!

Joker forgets that Bush is the one arming the enemy...

Or, DID Joker forget?

I would prefer a different set of questions because every one of yours is clearly loaded in your favor and most of them make assumptions I disagree with.

Nice try though.

Posted by: Mike at September 12, 2007 2:40 PM

In other words, he won't answer the simple questions because he knows his answers will expose him as the far leftist olbypologist that he is. Like we don't already know......

1) Do you think that royal king is a patriot?

2) Does the fact that he has never served his country make him a coward?

3) Does the fact that he is a coward keep him from being a patriot?

4) Pretending to cry whenever a GI dies but supporting the man who sent them there with no strategy is Royal King's philosophy. Do you agree with it or do you hate Bush?

No Jeff, I will never answer a 'simple' question loaded with a false pretext "like the parade of lefty synchophants that reinforce Olbermann's every utterance", .... because it is not a 'question' at all.

I don't expect YOU to understand this but this answer isn't really meant for you anyway.

1) - "Do you think that Royal king is a patriot?"....No!

2) - "Does the fact that he has never served his country make him a coward?".....No, but the fact that he is a coward makes him a coward.

3) - "Does the fact that he is a coward keep him from being a patriot?"....It makes him a false patriot.

4) - "Pretending to cry when a GI dies but supporting the man who sent them there with no strategy is Royal Kings philosophy. Do you agree with it or do you hate Bush?".....It certainly is a good reason for any true patriot to hate Bush, but Jeff is no patriot.

Well, Mike is hiding behind his desk like Olbermann himself when I ask him to answer some simple questions about what he believes about Olbermann (if you think the questions have assumptions you don't agree with, you could have rebutted the assumptions and answered, so your excuse is clearly a pretext).

I see blindrat is on the board. How about it, my sight impaired cheese eating friend, tell us what you think about your favorite left wing cable host:

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

Hey Brandon, you missed one of the best parts of the interview----Olbermann a known stalker, claims he was stalked!!!

Playboy: You had a stalker a few years back. That must have been scary.

Olbermann: It started at ESPN. A woman thought I had proposed to her in a secret code during SportsCenter. She would call and call, leave 50 or 60 messages a night. I thought it was over after I went to work at Fox, then I picked up the phone and it was her. "Please don't call me," I said. "How can you think I want to marry you? We've had no contact for four years."
She said, "You needed time to make up your mind." This went on for more than 10 years, until she got so sick she couldn't leave her house. Couldn't continue it.

-----------------
First, didn't he hire a private detective to "stalk" an old teacher, personally "stalk" a producer from MS-NBC, Rebecca Lobo, leave "needy-stalky" messages for the Radio Chick, and the porn star...plus lets not forget Karmabites1 (a fan who he emailed during his show). BTW--how did he know that his "stalker" got sick and couldn't leave her house....

Posted by: another nugget from Playboy at September 12, 2007 2:20 PM

"I see blindrat is on the board. How about it, my sight impaired cheese eating friend, tell us what you think about your favorite left wing cable host:"

As for me, Olbermann is not my "favorite" - that would be Amy Goodman of "Democracy Now", a show carried on only a handful of cable/satellite networks. Her show is far more professional and in-depth than Olbermann's, and and her journalistic street-ced in zones of warfare and unrest is unimpeachable. Her show is "left-wing" only in regard to the fact that she presents facts and entertains question deemed untouchable by most media outlets today. I consider Olbermann's show as an opinionated clearing-house of the information aired in a far more objective format on "Democracy Now".

1) What are your thoughts about Olbermann and his competence and integrity in his self proclaimed role as a "newsman" ?

There is reporting on his show -you cannot deny this. Olbermann definitely has an agenda which colors all of his commentary throughout his show. I like a lot of his agenda; I dislike some of it (i.e his infatuation with Hillary). I can think for myself and weigh whether what I like overpowers that which I do not. So far I keep watching him regularly to hear his mild echo of my own thoughts regarding the Bush administration; and I write him critically rearding the Hillary et. al, stuff.

2) What do you make of his assertions that he he has no allegiences to any political point of view?

Clearly this is not the case currently - but Bush has a way of polarizing people.

3) Do you believe that Olbermann is sincere when he makes such statements as the one above or do you believe that Olbermann is lying?

Lying

4) If you think he is lying, does this affect whether you would find believeable anything else that he says?

Yes - because I can think, and have come to these same conclusions prior to hearing Olbermann state them, generally.

5) Do you think that the parade of lefty sycophants that reinforce Olbermann's every utterance increases or decreases the possibility that Olbermann will strive to ensure that his statements are carefully sourced and verified?"

---Like I said previously, on most serious issues I have already read the "primary" source journalism that serve as the basis for his stories. I have never noticed his reports to deviate from the established facts. I have never seen a OW "debunking" that amounted to a pile of shit either.

The Fox News/ABC bad-cop/good-cop routine of presenting conventional wisdom that suits the interests of America's corporate masters has set a miserable standard for journalism, and I am happy that my side finally has a dog in the fight.

Hank, would you be interested in anbswering a similar series of questions regarding your lying, self-entitled, retard of a fetish/president?

Are violently shifting goal-posts worth any more American lives? Or do you people even give a shit - just as long as America is at war providing you with your televised, vicarious pretenses to "honor"?

“Iraq will serve as a beacon; a beacon of freedom in a part of the world desperate for freedom and liberty.” George W. Bush; December 19, 2005

“Victory in Iraq is a government that can sustain itself, govern itself, and defend itself” George W. Bush; June 9, 2006

“Iraq will be a society in which there is relative peace. I say relative peace because if there is, like, no car bombings it will never happen that way” George W. Bush; February 14, 2007

"Either we'll succeed, or we won't succeed. And the definition of success as I described is sectarian violence down. Success is not no violence. ... But success is a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives." George W. Bush; May 2, 2007

“If the standard of success is no car bombings or suicide bombings we have just handed those who commit car bombings a huge victory” George W. Bush; April 24, 2007.

more blow back, but from the Washington Times (so does it really count?):

Knave: Keith Olbermann, the MSNBC commentator who says that Fox News is "worse than Al Qaeda" and "as dangerous" as the Ku Klux Klan.

Mr. Olbermann has a long history of clashes and feuds with conservatives via his "worst person in the world" diatribes, and certainly he is no stranger to the art of the shocking statement. But his latest, in an interview in the October issue of Playboy magazine, takes the cake. Mr. Olbermann was quoted as saying: "Al Qaeda really hurt us, but not as much as Rupert Murdoch has hurt us, particularly in the case of Fox News. Fox News is worse than Al Qaeda — worse for our society. It's as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was."

Strange how, during the week of the sixth anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Mr. Olbermann has not gotten more blowback. It's a different climate for a liberal to compare Fox to the terrorist group responsible for the most violent and deadliest attack on American soil? And the comparison to the KKK? For comparing Fox News to al Qaeda and the KKK, Keith Olbermann is the Knave of the Week.

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070915/EDITORIAL/109150005/1013/editorial