Thanks, J.D.

This Olbyloon character really is a loon!!

And MSNBC is betting all their money on him during primetime (not caring about daily ratings.)

No wonder GE will spin-off from them.

And they certainly betterr.

Good Journalism = NOT

This video is perplexing, perhaps because I agree with Olbermann in this case. Kennedy's religion speech highlighted the importance of the principle of "seperation of church and state." Romney's speech had the exact opposite point, which is--in my view--anti-American.

What was this video trying to say? My religion, your religion, anybody's religion IS nobody's goddamned business!

Well, well, well....under the nice example of decorum and religious sensitivity displayed by Mr. Olbermann, the lay minister, Mr. blank-FLUCKER posts an absolutely ridiculous reaction to the personal opinion of Governer Romney.

Romney displayed no misunderstanding, dear Mr. blank-FLUCKER. It is his opinion, as a politician, how he sees his faith influence, as a part of his whole person, the worldview he tries to follow. You may not want his faith to have any influence, or perhaps only some, or perhaps almost all, but it does not matter what you want.....it is his personal decision.

Either you vote for him or you don't.....There is no religious tests as prescribed by The US Constitution, so for some to impugn Romney's opinion on how his faith shapes him as a person is his own decision to make.

Mr. blank-FLUCKER seems to want to assign a certain "interplay" of religion and government....Oh how I would LOVE to know the specifics of that opinion! I can only wonder that it would be just as off the mark as the other ideas the 21st century philosopher spouts.

Please Mr. blank-FLUCKER, with historical support, instruct all of us morons on how religion and government is supposed to interplay.....Please be specific!.....I would just love to see your structure especially since you claim to be so religious and devout!

the lay minister, Mr. blank-FLUCKER

This is how he reveres his "religion":

Why:

I am a Catholic school survivor, even having survived boarding while in high school, and I never did see a single incident of sexual impropriety. We did have an incident my junior year when one of the visiting priests-in-residence went into the garden in the Spring wearing red lace panties and a black lace bra and high tops and started eating daffodils. I remember the incident clearly because I got in some trouble over it. When the headmaster came in for our decompression session and asked if we had any questions about what we had seen, I asked if it were a sin to eat daffodils. I think he assumed I was a smart ass.

I don't think the daffodil-eater was as much a pervert as a lunatic, however. I later heard that when he was asked to vaccum the nave at the retreat center to which we was sent, he did it with a push lawnmower.
Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 7, 2007 1:27 AM

That story probably helps the elderly people who are looking to like minded people of faith as they face their last days when the "lay minister" piously performs his ministry.
Faith in action.

Romney is going to be criticized no matter what he does. If he ignores his Mormon faith or tries to explain it. Look at what he has done and make your decision based upon his record and statements. Do you believe him when he states that he had a change of heart on abortion? Does he represent your views on foreign policy?

Actually, Romney accomplished EVERYTHING that he "really" wanted to accomplish with this speech...

Days worth of national coverage....with media coverage of side-by-side pictures of himself with Pres. Kennedy.

The lovely whiff of persecution, especially persecution by the rightwing, which will generate invaluable and eternal media political memes. Does anyone know who REALLY made the calls about McCain or Romney?

The notion that while it's okay to continue to disparage and to raise doubts upon the religious right in general, it's not okay to do the same towards the sect of Mormonism, because..hell...that's what the religious right does... -- a theme the media can live with...

The option that after the primary, despite the warm regards of James Dobson (which now causes some doubts in the media and among the Capons), he can still run like hell away from these men in the NATIONAL election because the media and the Capons will always love beating up Dobsonites.

And most of all--- ***Favorable comparisons of himself with his REAL threat-- Mike Huckabee.

I LOVE politics!

Read your own comment. Who is the ass?

Are you ruling out Guiliani, Cecelia?

Are you ruling out Guiliani, Cecelia?

Posted by: Sharon at December 7, 2007 10:30 AM

Hey, Sharon!

No, I'm not ruling out anyone. I'm just an entertained watcher of the political scene. :D

Who would have ever thought Huckabee? If he should win the nomination, what kind of statement does that say about how much money is needed? It probably won't happen but an Obama Huckabee race would be something no one ever expected last year.

Excellent essay by an Olbermann supporter who his not happy with Olby calling Dobbs a racist: (an excerpt)

Keith Olbermann: What A Shame.
Diary Entry by Alfred McGuire

It really is a shame. Olbermann has been doing a first-rate job in terms of his commentaries on the Bush regime. But when it comes to a couple of pet issues he seems to lose all objectivity and to devolve into a kind of mindless- and at times vitriolic- dogmatism. The other night was a good example: Lou Dobbs and illegal immigration. Dobbs has been quite vocal on two main issues: the plight of the middle-class as the result of the ascendancy of the corporatocracy and the negative effects of unregulated illegal immigration.

Olbermann sees red when illegal immigration is mentioned. A couple of nights ago he attacked Dobbs as a “racist” because of Dobbs’s view that illegal immigration presents a danger to national security and a burden on national resources.

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=5103

Recap & comment of the special comment:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2007/12/07/olbermann-calls-bush-pathological-liar-or-idiot-chief

P.S. J$ how come you guys don't do the recaps of the special comments anymore? I think this was the first special comment in the new NBC digs---complete with 2 camera set up and all...

sports related Olbermann in the news:

By Michael Hiestand, USA TODAY

Helping nonsense catch on

NBC's Keith Olbermann, on NBC's Sunday night NFL studio show, is now just one of many sportscasters blurting out odd catchphrases over taped game highlights.

But, in the 1990s, along with his then-ESPN partner Dan Patrick, Olbermann was in the genre's revolutionary vanguard. Recalling those heady times, Olbermann recalls one ESPN show with Craig Kilborn when both were "bored" and decided to say something nonsensical — "salsa!" — during basketball highlights to see if some other sportscasters would start using it — "and within three days, somebody on-air in Cleveland was saying it."

Olbermann says rereading the 20-page glossary of catchphrases in The Big Show, a 1997 book co-authored with Patrick, was "like looking at fossils," although some such as "guh!" — to signifying the unexpected — or "invisible gophers" — which cause players to trip — remain "timeless."

He sounds almost remorseful about the ascendancy of catchphrases — "we were evoking our own style and people thought they could create their style by using catchphrases" — and says he's only deployed two good new catchphrases in his debut NBC NFL season. (Judge for yourself: "Great Odin's raven" and "By the beard of Zeus" — both from the film Anchorman. He also offered, after noting a player had "re-aggravated a groin," that might live on — "we hope his own.")

The bottom line, he says: "You can't stop the catchphrase. You can only hope to contain it."

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/hiestand-tv/2007-12-06-hiestand-weekend_N.htm

Numbnuts better hope that Bush, Billo, and Brittney don't all go down in a plane crash. What, oh ever what would he then "report" on? And what in the f*ck is he always looking around for; at his lap, down on the floor, to his right, left, etc. Is this supposed to make him look more "news reportery"? It just makes him look "more stoopider"!
DUMBF*CK!!!

Just got done watching the....er listening to the 'Krazy Koments'. I always find it's a good time to take a dump since Stupid is spewing s**t at this time anyway.

Ya know, just when you think Dopey has gone off the deep end, he finds another part of the deep end.

> J$ how come you guys don't do the recaps of the special comments anymore? I think this was the first special comment in the new NBC digs---complete with 2 camera set up and all...

After enduring Krazy Keith five nights a week for way too many months, I cut back to three nights a week. I had to protect myself from the corrupting effect of Olbermann Lies. Our coverage of the other two nights has not been as consistent as we'd like. Ideally I'd like to have a team of five so that nobody would have to suffer through Oralmann more than once a week.

I really don't know how you guys do it. I can only take about five minutes of his audible vomit.

> Johnny Dollar said - "Ideally I'd like to have a team of five so that nobody would have to suffer through Oralmann more than once a week."

The loons at ERT must feel the same way. They've had to recruit a team of new people to cover him and one of their charter members has retired. One can only take so much of him, and you have to consider your health and sanity first.

Johnny, I'd volunteer to help you out but honestly the show sounds like the same thing every night. My recap would just look like I'm cutting and pasting.

I'd help you out But i'm pretty sure i'd pull an Elvis and shoot the TV after two nights

http://www.junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20071206.html

Amusing reading if it wasn't so pathetic

I've started watching Chris Matthews again, he's downright centrist compared to Olbermann.

Thanks for the 3 days J$, you do God's work here...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316005,00.html

THIS is important

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/12/07/too-hot-for-nbc-freedoms-watch-say-thanks-to-the-troops/

Ridiculous but thats Olby's parent network

Matthews has always been centrist. Fact is, the center in this country has moved to the left considerably during the last three (3) years. I think it is a pretty pronounced leftward drift, too. Which means, if Hillary does not get the nomination, it may well be because she is perceived as too conservative.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 7, 2007 3:50 PM

I don't know....I live in a big city but work in the suburbs...folks don't seem that "left leaning" out here. And why do all the right-wing talk radio guys/(gal) have HUGE ratings. I don't think you should assume Dems are going to win, especially if Hillary gets the nomination. I'm a live long Dem, but will not vote for her.

I meant LIFE long Dem

http://www.islam-watch.org/Others/Death-before-Burkas.htm

Only about 500 million women here.

http://www.islam-watch.org/Others/Call-It-Ramabomb.htm

Islam is Peace

THIS is important

Posted by: McCool at December 7, 2007 4:06 PM

pretty funny ;)

if Hillary does not get the nomination, it may well be because she is perceived as too conservative.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 7, 2007 3:50 PM

good god, Hillary won't get the nomination because of her precieved corruption and utter lack of sincerity.

http://www.islam-watch.org/DenisSchulz/UK-avoid-Nazi-Germany.htm

OK my last anti-islam rant for the day here

UK today - US Tomorrow

http://www.thenoseonyourface.com/2007/12/06/new-footage-of-dana-perinohelen-thomas-exchange/

THIS is funny

"So I don't know where he [Osama bin Laden] is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him"

[...]

"I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."

G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
http://tinyurl.com/6klv

Hey, McCool, I want to pick up where we left, yesterday, since your response avoided the substance of my question to you.

As you know, on this day in 1941, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harber, a day, of course, that will live in infamy. Less than four years later, the Japanese surrendered.

On another day of infamy, in 2001, Osama bin Laden's plan to attack and kill thousands of people on American soil realized horrific fruition. Now, six years later. all of it on GWB's watch, bin Laden is a free man, able to occasionally produce tapes intended to taunt the US and call up militants to continue to attack Americans.

You stated that the worst thing you hoped would happen to bin Laden was that he'd die, a free man, in irrelevance. But of course, bin Laden will never be irrelevant. He is a towering giant in the history of those who have sought to harm America.

Again, I ask: Is this how low the bar has been lowered by those feal to GWB, that justice for the murder of some 3,000 people on American soil means allowing that plot's mastermind and financer to remain free and unconcerned about being sought after for the rest of his natural life?

I look forward to a more substantive reply from you.

I don't think conservatives have a good sense of humor. Fecal matter always works its way into the routine, as it did in this.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 7, 2007 4:39 PM
Post a comment

But tell me thats not the appropriate caricature for her!

if Hillary does not get the nomination, it may well be because she is perceived as too conservative.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 7, 2007 3:50 PM

Get out much? Too conservative? A borderline socialist, if not full on, too conservative? My bad, I'm on olbermannwatch, I should have known.

On another day of infamy, in 2001, Osama bin Laden's plan to attack and kill thousands of people on American soil realized horrific fruition. Now, six years later. all of it on GWB's watch, bin Laden is a free man, able to occasionally produce tapes intended to taunt the US and call up militants to continue to attack Americans.

You stated that the worst thing you hoped would happen to bin Laden was that he'd die, a free man, in irrelevance. But of course, bin Laden will never be irrelevant. He is a towering giant in the history of those who have sought to harm America.

Again, I ask: Is this how low the bar has been lowered by those feal to GWB, that justice for the murder of some 3,000 people on American soil means allowing that plot's mastermind and financer to remain free and unconcerned about being sought after for the rest of his natural life?

I look forward to a more substantive reply from you.

First:In WWII, we knew exactly where the enemy was, Tokyo and Berlin. Not hiding in some cave or hut in the Hindu Kush Mtns at 10000 feet

Second: If Bush DID pursue Bin Laden with the aggression that you claim to want to see, your ilk would be the first and LOUDEST screaming about our military causing complications which would likely include: infuriating 150 million Pakistanis since he is likely crossing that border repeatedly. Democrats would scream how Bush is compromising the security of Pakistan's nukes by giving extremists there ammo to topple moderates like Pervez. Not to mention how THAT would destabilze a highly sensitive area of the world vis a vis India vs Pakistan or did you forget how in the late 90's they were doing alternating nuke tests to intimidate each other. By comparison, bloody island hopping across teh pacific seems simple.

Towering Giant? Only is the hitler sense. And the only thing that is keeping him relatively safe is the Pashtun and other tribal customs of the area that require giving shelter to travellers. and i'm sure his bribing of chiefs doesnt hurt either. He knows he steps out of the relatively narrow box and he is dead. Bush wont be afraid to pull the trigger on a Predator with a hellfire missle like Clinton was.

As far as justice for the 3000 victims of Bin Laden, nothing will bring them back but our military has liberated a combined 50 million people in these two countries and given them the hope of freedom and progress. Along with that comes the hope that these two countries will be a beacon for oppressed people in the rest of the toltalitarian regimes in the area. Killing Bin laden would be extremely satisfying, as would in my opinion, turning the kabaa into a glass parking lot, but we don't live in a simpler 1940's type world anymore. I'd say spreading freedom, which the US Military has been extremely good at historically is a monument to those victims. Any other liberal type questions up in Seattle today?

"As far as justice for the 3000 victims of Bin Laden, nothing will bring them back but our military has liberated a combined 50 million people in these two countries and given them the hope of freedom and progress. Along with that comes the hope that these two countries will be a beacon for oppressed people in the rest of the toltalitarian regimes in the area."

"I'd say spreading freedom, which the US Military has been extremely good at historically is a monument to those victims."

###
Homerun, McCool!....thank you for that, my friend....Your simple message made my weekend!

anytime

"If Bush DID pursue Bin Laden with the aggression that you claim to want to see, your ilk would be the first and LOUDEST screaming about our military causing complications"

[...]

"Bush wont be afraid to pull the trigger on a Predator with a hellfire missle like Clinton was."

I love it -- you guys are so hilarious! You can play that "blame Clinton/blame the liberals" card 50 ways from Sunday w/o breaking a sweat! Very entertaining!

No, seriously -- of the many libs I know, none would have a problem with an operation to capture ObL dead or alive. What we find frustrating is that a scant six months after 9/11, Bush was "not that concerned" about him, and by alll apperances has retained this disinterest.

Regarding your Clinton comment: Got a cite?

"As far as justice for the 3000 victims of Bin Laden, nothing will bring them back but our military has liberated a combined 50 million people in these two countries..."

I presume you mean Iraq as the second of the two countries. If that is the case, what was Iraq's role in 9/11, that invading that country provides justice for those murdered on that day?

Heres a couple of links

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/
evil RW bastion of news that it is

http://www.newsbusters.org/node/7512
Maybe the Hellfire opportunity wasnt there but a cruise missle strike was an option.

I love it -- you guys are so hilarious! You can play that "blame Clinton/blame the liberals" card 50 ways from Sunday w/o breaking a sweat! Very entertaining!

I DO blame Clinton, mistakes were made. By Bush too. He should have inserted about 50000 troops into Afghanistan and not relied on locals to help pin the sonofbitch down. But Clinton failed to act how many times prior to 9/11. Wnat me to go through the list of terrorist strikes in those 8 years???

No, seriously -- of the many libs I know, none would have a problem with an operation to capture ObL dead or alive. What we find frustrating is that a scant six months after 9/11, Bush was "not that concerned" about him, and by alll apperances has retained this disinterest.

Well, i'm glad YOU and youre liberal friends wouldn't object. I'm sure that would effectively negate the global repurcussions a large mission into Pakistan would entail!

I presume you mean Iraq as the second of the two countries. If that is the case, what was Iraq's role in 9/11, that invading that country provides justice for those murdered on that day?

There have been documented contacts btw Saddams regime and Bin Laden affiliates prior. I know you would like to go back in your time machine to the bliss that was Saddam's regime but unfortunately for you, olby and Al Franken thats impossible. You act like getting rid of that sick murderous bastard was a bad thing. look at a map, having a friendly democratic nation there in the middle of that medieval swamp is the best thing to happen to that region since oil was discovered. In case you are unaware in your NW kingdom, Iraqis ARE human beings too.

Hyperventilate some more about Bush and Cheney, they'll be out of office in another year. You and your myopic friends wouldn't know evil if it slapped you in the face

Robin, you make me miss Mike. I can't believe I just said that. I just threw up in my mouth.

Olbermann is a fake.
He's a mouthpiece for Soros!

Yeah, he's no Jerry Garcia, hell i bet he can't even play the guitar.

"Robin, you make me miss Mike. I can't believe I just said that. I just threw up in my mouth."

Ah, don't let your passions get the best of you, my fellow. I'm not here to send your gastric system into reverse. Even a little.

OK, here's a quote from you:

"Bush wont be afraid to pull the trigger on a Predator with a hellfire missle like Clinton was."

And then you provide links. (Including to NewsBusters -- for shame! I wouldn't send you to DailyKos or Atrios to try to bolster an argument of mine; but that's neither here nor there.)

So I'm reading the links, and I don't see where Clinton was "afraid" to take out ObL. Did I miss something? Here's what I found:

"In reality, getting bin Laden would have been extraordinarily difficult. He was a moving target deep inside Afghanistan. Most military operations would have been high-risk. What�s more, Clinton was weakened by scandal, and there was no political consensus for bold action, especially with an election weeks away."

Do you remember those times? The Right was FAR too interested in Clinton's penis to worry about terrorism. Do you remember, "No war for Monica!" Do you recall that trying to focus on terrorism during the lurid but silly Monicagate was deemed by the Right as "wag the dog"? I do. Thanks to the apoplexy of the Right, the world was laughing at us for our sorry priorities.

Anyhoo... = )

Let's roll the tape from the 9/11 Commission Report, shall we?

"Impressions vary as to who actually decided not to proceed with the operation. Clarke told us that the CSG saw the plan as flawed. He was said to have described it to a colleague on the NSC staff as "half-assed" and predicted that the principals would not approve it. "Jeff " thought the decision had been made at the cabinet level. Pavitt thought that it was Berger's doing, though perhaps on Tenet's advice. Tenet told us that given the recommendation of his chief operations officers, he alone had decided to "turn off" the operation. He had simply informed Berger, who had not pushed back. Berger's recollection was similar. He said the plan was never presented to the White House for a decision."

Linky-link: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch4.htm

Again: Where was Clinton AFRAID to strike Osama? I'll be waiting...

Movin' on...

"There have been documented contacts btw Saddams regime and Bin Laden affiliates prior. I know you would like to go back in your time machine to [blah blah blah]..."

From the White House website;

"Mr. President, Dr. Rice and Secretary Rumsfeld both said yesterday that they have seen no evidence that Iraq had anything to do with September 11th. Yet, on Meet the Press, Sunday, the Vice President said Iraq was a geographic base for the terrorists and he also said, I don't know, or we don't know, when asked if there was any involvement. Your critics say that this is some effort -- deliberate effort to blur the line and confuse people. How would you answer that?

THE PRESIDENT: We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th. What the Vice President said was, is that he has been involved with al Qaeda. And al Zarqawi, al Qaeda operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. He's a man who is still running loose, involved with the poisons network, involved with Ansar al-Islam. There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030917-7.html

So what we have is -- guilt by association? Hence, a large scale invasion of Iraq?

And what about al Zarqawi? Here's a fun news story:

"With Tuesday�s attacks, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq.

But NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself � but never pulled the trigger.

[...]

"�People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president�s policy of preemption against terrorists,� according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.

In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq.

The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi�s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam."

"having a friendly democratic nation there in the middle of that medieval swamp is the best thing to happen to that region since oil was discovered."

By "friendly democratic nation" are you meaning a country filled with unleashed sectarian strife, ethnic cleansings, and a powerful clergy with ties to and sympathies for Iran? And what are you proposing has made the Iraqis so friendly to the U.S.? Shock and awe, destroying the fragile infrastructure that had deteriorated under years of sanctions? Abu Ghraib? Raping and killing a 14 year old as revenge for a G.I. death? Creating a refugee crisis while allowing almost none of those refugees entry to the U.S.? Attempting to destroy nationalized oil revenues to privatize the industry for a handful of international corporations? Do tell! Only, not if it means regurgitating into your oral cavity. = )

My bad; I didn't provide the link to the al Zarqawi story I quoted from.

Here be that link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

Oh, and speaking of Iraq as a "friendly democratic' nation�

"Seven in ten Iraqis want US-led forces to commit to withdraw within a year. An overwhelming
majority believes that the US military presence in Iraq is provoking more conflict than it is
preventing. More broadly, most feel the US is having a predominantly negative influence in Iraq and
have little or no confidence in the US military. If the US made a commitment to withdraw, a majority
believes that this would strengthen the Iraqi government. Majorities believe that the withdrawal of US
troops would lead to a reduction in the amount of inter-ethnic violence and improvement in the dayto-
day security of Iraqis."

And...

"Support for attacks on US-led forces has grown to a majority position�now six in ten. Support
appears to be related to widespread perception, held by all ethnic groups, that the US government
plans to have permanent military bases in Iraq and would not withdraw its forces from Iraq even if the
Iraqi government asked it to. If the US were to commit to withdraw, more than half of those who
approve of attacks on US troops say that their support for attacks would diminish."

Link: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/sep06/Iraq_Sep06_rpt.pdf

And so, McCool, to your word "friendly"...

Are these truly friendly folk?

Bill O’Reilly has opined that he equates “reading far-left websites with devil-worship”, and that the Daily Kos is run by Satan Himself. An interesting theory to be sure. And one we should take very seriously here at the wackiest site of the all !
The Olbermann Watch !

Posted by: at December 7, 2007 9:42 PM

Thanks for stopping by! See you next time.

Great show tonight Keith Olbermann on the CIA destroys incriminating interrogation tapes.

posted by the king o the cut and
paste eaters

Even this pissed me off. I would love to see those tapes. A terrorist getting a nice long cool drink of water. Better than getting your throat slashed, isn't it?

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/IraqCoverage/
story?id=2052737&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

Robin,

Perhaps there are more several complex reasons that the Administration failed to take out al-Zarqawi in 2002 (not that I'm automatically discounting the one MSNBC ventured).

It could well be that one reason was the views of then White House terrorism czar, Richard Clark.

Clark was less than excited when we did take out al-Zarqawi in 2006, and made this statement to ABC News about the significance of al-Zarqawi.

'This morning President Bush hailed the death of al-Zarqawi as a "severe blow to al Qaeda" and "significant victory in the war on terror."

Clarke said the modest size of the terrorist leader's organization and his minimal involvement in the daily bomb attacks on coalition forces made that claim unlikely.

Though al-Zarqawi was a symbol of terrorism, he commanded only a few hundred people out of tens of thousands involved in the insurgency, Clarke told "Good Morning America."'

Link: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/sep06/Iraq_Sep06_rpt.pdf

And so, McCool, to your word "friendly"...

Well Robin,
September 2006. Yeah things were pretty bad then. Things change, I wonder what the percentages would be today, Mailki wants a strategic partnership now.. The world is fluid. as for the rest of your little research project delving into 2003, I could waaste my time pulling out just as much contradicting "evidence." You are a master of splitting and RE-splitting hairs in retrospect. Thats the game played by the party not in power for the last few decades. Repubs did it too. Is it productive? Would focusing on the present and the future be MORE productive? Yes, I had the same distaste when Gingrich and Starr wouldn't just let Monica go and let the nation moveon. Looking at the overall picture, the man led us through the worst attack on our country in 60 years. We HAVE NOT been attacked since then, which is THE most importnat thing to most people. Our economy has expanded by what, 30 or 40 % in the last 7 years. And again let me get back to a point you like to gloss over because it doesn't resonate in your little echo chamber, we liberated 50 million people from medieval tyrants. I suppose when you are hyperventilating criticizing the man, you are looking back at the previous 8 years in comparison. I would like to know just exactly what did Clinton do that was comparable? Hillary's communist medicine attempt? His mideast peace attempts with Arafat teh terrorist? Kyoto? How many major terrorist attacks happened on US interests on his watch? 1993, 1998, 2000? He had the luxury of being elected as the result of a recession during Bush I's term and also the luxury of teh collpase of the Soviet Union at the same time. He was a caretaker president at best. Oh sure, the Euros liked him better than Bush because he told them what they wanted to hear, just like he does with everyone else. the man talks out both sides of his mouth. I won't even get into the national disgrace of the Monica scandal. Go to work and compile a list of Clinton's accomplishments that you think compare to what this man has done in the last 7. Until then, grow up and take a realistic view of the world, not just the over the top bullshit this asshole Olbermann spews on a nightly basis for RATINGS!!!

By "friendly democratic nation" are you meaning a country filled with unleashed sectarian strife, ethnic cleansings, and a powerful clergy with ties to and sympathies for Iran? And what are you proposing has made the Iraqis so friendly to the U.S.? Shock and awe, destroying the fragile infrastructure that had deteriorated under years of sanctions? Abu Ghraib? Raping and killing a 14 year old as revenge for a G.I. death? Creating a refugee crisis while allowing almost none of those refugees entry to the U.S.? Attempting to destroy nationalized oil revenues to privatize the industry for a handful of international corporations? Do tell! Only, not if it means regurgitating into your oral cavity. = )

As for this, have you read the news lately? Oh right, most of the media isn't covering GOOD news coming from Iraq. Yeah Abu Grhaib and the rape. You act like that was systemic and not the result of a few morons and common criminals. Every group has them, I heard Seattle has an unusually high proportion. As for the rest, why dont YOU go take a poll of Iraqis and see what percentage would like to go back to the good ole days of Saddam and his sick bastard sons. Have you done any research into THEIR atrocities? I know this is against your rules but watch Foxnews a little. They show some of the positive things coming out of it. You think these people (Iraqis)don't know who the REAL evil is? Typical left feeling sorry for teh brown man because the white man has taken advantage of their inherent disadvantages. The Iraqis know the difference, they are turning on the Al Qaeda now. The problem over there was systemic, a democratic open socitey free of corription isnt going to develop overnight. The society's development had been retarded for too long under Saddam. And yes, Bush and Rumsfeld amde the mistake of thinking it would be easier after he was toppled. again, how would you handle it? Reinstalling Saddam/? Too late the Iraqis killed him because he was evil. And Friendly democratic nation is a relative terms, compared to Syria and Iran yes, I think that term applies,
As for throwing up in my mouth, that was distaste for Mike, not you.

Bill Clinton 's presidency has been listed as a success by many people...even Bill O'Reilly.
Historians have him somewhat in the middle of the pact in a list of best presidents.
Most historians have George Bush ...DEAD LAST or near the bottom.

McCool,,,,isn't too cool nor too bright !

Posted by: Why Don't You Think at December 8, 2007 1:57 PM

No list? Shocker.

Go to work and compile a list of Clinton's accomplishments that you think compare to what this man has done in the last 7.
Posted by: McCool at December 8, 2007 10:12 AM

Bill Clinton 's presidency has been listed as a success by many people...even Bill O'Reilly.
Historians have him somewhat in the middle of the pact in a list of best presidents.
Most historians have George Bush ...DEAD LAST or near the bottom.

McCool,,,,isn't too cool nor too bright !

Posted by: Why Don't You Think at December 8, 2007 1:57 PM

We'll see with some historical perspective. Come see me in about 20 years and see what history's judgement is.
Don't get me wrong, I voted for Clinton twice. I'm not saying he was the antichrist but neither is Bush. I'm just saying Bush has had a MUCH more difficult road to travel and has taken FAR more responsibilities upon himself than Clinton did.

Democrats trying to make political hay out of the resignation of Florida Republican Congressman Tom Foley should take a good look at their own party. There was Bill Clinton’s last minute pardon of former Rep. Mel Reynolds, D-IL, who had been imprisoned for having sex with a 16-year-old staffer. (He was later hired by Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH Coalition; both Clinton and Jackson had also had sex with subordinates.) There is the case of Rep. Barney Frank, D-MA, whose office housed a prostitution ring. However, less known is one Hawaiian case, in which more than seven high ranking Democrat senators and representatives (and one Republican) worked to assist one Leon Rouse – a convicted child molester serving time on underage sex charges in the Philippines. Rouse, now released after 8 years in prison, was hired last session as an employee of a Democrat-controlled Hawaii state Legislative Committee. 2008 Democratic presidential hopeful RUSS FEINGOLD also came to his defense, along with a Clinton-era U.S. embassy and more than half-a-dozen Democrats.

Thats nice, assholes. THAT is the first place that needs cleaning out, Congress. We need term limits. 18 or 24 years max by any person. And also limit the pork that keeps being sent back to the home base and getting assholes like Murtha and Kennedy reelected. These jackasses feel like they are above the law as long as they keep sending home money.

Democrats trying to make political hay out of the resignation of Florida Republican Congressman Tom Foley should take a good look at their own party. There was Bill Clinton’s last minute pardon of former Rep. Mel Reynolds, D-IL, who had been imprisoned for having sex with a 16-year-old staffer. (He was later hired by Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH Coalition; both Clinton and Jackson had also had sex with subordinates.) There is the case of Rep. Barney Frank, D-MA, whose office housed a prostitution ring. However, less known is one Hawaiian case, in which more than seven high ranking Democrat senators and representatives (and one Republican) worked to assist one Leon Rouse – a convicted child molester serving time on underage sex charges in the Philippines. Rouse, now released after 8 years in prison, was hired last session as an employee of a Democrat-controlled Hawaii state Legislative Committee. 2008 Democratic presidential hopeful Russ Feingold also came to his defense, along with a Clinton-era U.S. embassy and more than half-a-dozen Democrats.

McCool: "We need term limits."

I never thought I would agree with you about anything, but I've believed that for years.

I agree Mike. How about we limit your term here at Owatch?

Term limits. KKK Byrd comes mind.

McCool: "We need term limits."

I never thought I would agree with you about anything, but I've believed that for years.

Posted by: Mike at December 8, 2007 9:01 PM
I agree Mike. How about we limit your term here at Owatch?

Posted by: at December 9, 2007 12:35 AM
Term limits. KKK Byrd comes mind.

Posted by: at December 9, 2007 12:51 AM
We have terms limits. It's called voting. And, from what I can tell, we do better when the voters elect officials than when the Court appoints them.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 9, 2007 9:52 AM

Mike, ok peace today.

KKK Bird needs to go definitely

I know its called voting but the public in most districts will continue to vote for these corrupt bastards as long as they send jobs and money back home. Its a goddamn corrupt system based on seniority not equity. 24 years is enough for anyone to address whatever agenda they have. If they can't accomplish anything in that amount of time they wont accomplish anything other than becoming a full blown burden on our society as they drink from the public tit until they die. How old was Thurmond? 100? Another piece of shit bigot elected indefinitely and ad nauseum

Its NOT the courts appointing them, its a set term limit just like the president has. It needs to be done to address the disfunctional bastards. I think EVERYONE of them should be voted out over the next 5 years just to send a message that the public matters and its the public who sends them there.

Congress lost touch with the american people many years ago and everyone knows it. For our government to function as it was intended with checks and balances, Congress needs to be an actual, responsive voice of the American people. The American people know that, its like the JV of American politics. when was the last time the American people trusted and elected someone from Congress as president?
Ford appointed
Johnson - reelected in 1964 but not directly from Congress
Kennedy 1960

No shit! So you are against term limits for these jackasses? Is that what that means? Let me guess, you live in Murtha's district?

Well I haven't seen it. Lets see this list, maybe i had selective amnesia from 1992 until 2000

McKoolaid can't stop the war hero Jack Murtha from getting elected by the people who want him and vote for him,...so he wants to try to stop him with term limits.
Maybe McKoolaid would probably rather a weak chickenhawk republican instead.

Posted by: Why Don't You Think at December 9, 2007 11:10 AM

War hero in the 60s, selfish corrupt, short sightened partisan hack in the 80's, 90's and 00's. I'm sure the USMC feels he;s quite a hero. and wasn't he an unindicted coconspirator in ABSCAM in the 1980s?

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10427

here's your war hero. Just like Duke Cunningham

McCool:

My only point is term limits are distinctly undemocratic, including term limits for the president. I don't think term limits reform anything. And, that is what we need, a full, complete comprehensive reform of the system.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 9, 2007 11:32 AM

Tell that to the Anti Chavez forces in venezuela
The system for the most part is fine, it just needs tweaking, things the founding fathers couldn't foresee.

No shit! So you are against term limits for these jackasses? Is that what that means? Let me guess, you live in Murtha's district?
Posted by: McCool at December 9, 2007 11:00 AM

'why' lives in McGreevey country and supports mad man (in cold blood) murtha. Thank God his day in court is coming. Just think, all of those Marines he accused of murder will be face to face with him. I would give anything to be there.

Murtha video - 5:00 talks about a scientist almost blowing 1.5 billion dollar energy plant deal by telling the truth that the science wasn't ready yet.

17:00 to 26:00 often talking about buying influence and covering his ass legally

27:45 to 31;00 talks about money he wants invested in his district to buy his influence to introduce legislation so he can be reelected INDEFINITELY

32;00 to 39:00 I'm not interested in the $50,000 "AT THIS POINT, mayeb I will be later" Quite the fucking hero. I couldn't even watch the rest.

Rolling Stone AND Wikipedia. QUITE IMPRESSIVE. and history is always judged correctly contemporaneously right?

The bong is calling WHY. Life is simpler with the bong, go back to her.

And before you go off and criticize Rolling Stone...and make a fool of yourself...they were the first publication to break the AIDS story in America...AND educate on the origin and transmission of the disease.

I salute them for that. Doesn't make them political scientists or historians

Its like a sportscaster demanding a president resign. kinda rings hollow don't you think?

OK i HAD to listen to the rest
48:00 to 51:00 the crux of the matter Give it to my "friend" he will do whatever is right with it. I;m just intrested in investment in my district to make me look good

Murtha ws just smarter about it than Cunningham.
as for historians. i have multiple degrees in history and education and have attended several universities. I have witnessed first hand the recent left leaning bias of 95 % of history professors, your unassailable historians. I make my own judgements based on the evidence at hand and the historical record. So go back to you bong!

Watch that video WHY. THATS first hand historical evidence. make a judgement on the hero if you can see it through the smoke.

Your stupidity and rigidity makes me miss Mike.

And yet you ignore the ignominious record of George Bush and the republicans....and all of the damage he has done to America.
You're a fraud !

Ignominious by your and Olby's standard??By THESE Congressional Democrats?? ABSOULTELY I IGNORE IT!! great hyperbole by the way, bravo. Go try out for your community theatre group jackass

At least Mike can pose a coherent argument. Flawed as they are. I gotta go get on with my life. Smoke some bud while motherfucking me pal.

I think his name is McCoolio. You know, because he is a "gangster rapper".

I'd prefer McKoolaid, it has more panache.

McKoolaid thinks the Murtha video is NEW news.
TDF

"I have witnessed first hand the recent left leaning bias of 95 % of history professors, your unassailable historians."

RECENT ? No..We've been around a very long time.
When you know the facts inside and out, thats why they're aren't many "right leaning" history professors.

Posted by: Why Don't You Think at December 9, 2007 12:46 PM

I didn't say it was recent news jackass. Dont be calling this guy a hero, hes a common crook.

And by the sounds of it, you are claiming to be a history professor. If that is so then you KNOW what I am talking about when i say left leaning faculty. and its inherent, teh hiring process, tenure etc. You KNOW its true. As far as the lack of right leaning professors, its kind of hard to force your way through undergrad, grad, and doctorate with a right leaning point of view when SO many liberals are judging your work and GRADING it (read disagreeing here) So much for freedom of thought huh?

Months later, the fan grrrls are still upset with Olbermann's Playboy interview....

(From Relevant Torture):

Yes, the Playboy article was “one of those moments,” was it not? It was as if Keith conveniently forgot that he wasn’t talking privately to a friend…he wasn’t just talking man-to-man to a guy who happens to write for Playboy…he was being interviewed, by someone who was going to publish what he said. And what he said was likely to be read by those same females who said those things on the Interweb that he was nervous about them saying because he had no way of knowing what they looked like, which meant that for all he knew he had a bunch of UGLY women out there lusting after him, and, like, [i]ewwwww.[/i]

Not exactly Keith’s smartest moment.

He’s really kind of lucky that so many of us have forgiven him, despite his lack of recognition of how unwise it was, and lack of an apology.

Either that, or a whole lot of his fans have just never read it.

Oh well.

By orin ("Leona") english on Sunday, December 9, 2007 12:11 pm | Permalink

more from the other nut Chicating, hank goodness shes at "peace" with the Olbermann Playboy interview...

(more from Relevant Torture):

I suppose it’s the tone that really matters. Which I suppose is the issue with the Playboy piece as well…it was sort of not-gracious and spitting on a compliment(although, yes, some of us are weird, smutty, and/or maybe even ugly.)
But most of us are women just trying to give credit where credit is due(and by credit, I mean porn. Kidding!Mostly.) I suppose Keith never saw the “Friends” where Joey is stalked by Brooke Shields the psycho soap fan…beauty doesn’t really do much to reduce one’s nutso quotient. But I have said things in my life that I would die if the whole world found out about, and I love that show, so, though apparently I’m not over it enough not to pull out the accessible soapbox, I’ve mostly made my peace with it.

By Chicating on Monday, December 10, 2007 1:48 pm | Permalink

but the best educators are those who present the facts and let the students make their own judgements.

Absolutely

liberal arts doe NOT mean Extreme Left Liberal arts. Its means keep an open mind, which is sorely lacking on many campuses these days.

Encore Encore. you make me sick you are so over the top.

But most of all, liberalism reflects a concern for human values, whereas conservatism and right wingers place an emphasis on corporatism at the expense of human values.
Proof of that is revealed after just reading a few posts of the wingnuts at this site.

There are right leaning professors and many are just as effective as liberals but the best educators are those who present the facts and let the students make their own judgements.

Posted by: Why Don't You Think at December 10, 2007 8:48 PM

That's quite a scholarly bit of argument there, Prof. Bobo... Conservatives don't care about people, liberals do...

Now most educators might have clouded the issue by surmising that "human values" is a terrifically vague term and that there may be differences in thinking when it comes to what people consider is best for society as a whole.

Not our Prof. Bobo....he goes for the exegesis about "wingnuts" and "presents the facts" by referencing posts on a blog site...

Now there's scholarship.... :D