Olbermann Watch - MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann: Countdown with Keith Olbermann

Olbermann Watch, "persecuting" Keith since 2004

February 15, 2008

Countdown with Keith Olbermann - February 14th, 2008

"COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN" (8:00 P.M.-9:00 P.M. ET)

Host: Keith Olbermann

Topics/Guests:

2008 ELECTION: Howard Fineman, Newsweek senior Washington correspondent and MSNBC political analyst; Rachel Maddow, Air America radio host and MSNBC political analyst; Dana Milbank, Washington Post national political reporter and MSNBC political analyst
REAL LIFE STAR WARS: Derrick Pitts, Franklin Institute Science Museum chief astronomer
ONE-ON-ONE WITH RICHARD LEWIS: Richard Lewis, comedian and author of "The Other Great Depression"
SPESHUL REEDUKATION KOMMENT: BUSH IS A FASCIST

Apparently, even Valentine's Day and all its deserved disdain was not devoid of a Keith Speshul Komment. I guess he was fresh out of Merlot for Ms. Tur. Thus, relegated to a night of preaching to Kos Kiddies, he served up the usual fodder. Keith has seemingly jumped ship to the Obama campaign, though he was happy to tout numbers suggesting Mrs. Clinton was ahead in PA and OH. The new Clinton catchword: solutions! Hawk it, Olby! Supposed McCain flip-flop on waterboarding (no more St. Rudy to beat on). Democrats "call the President's bluff." Apparently, the President is "terrorizing" the people of the United States especially since he might postpone his trip to Africa. Gasp! Fear mongering I detect! Horrors! Keith "no longer fears" the President. He should worry that his ratings will collapse when he can only scream about how the Democrats are not far left enough if the Democrats run Capitol Hill.

#5: Demonstrating some loyalty, Herr Olbermann touts Mrs. Clinton's slim win in New Mexico. But he doesn't neglect to remind us of her financial woes. Shockingly, "solutions" is also the keyword of Mr. Bill Clinton on the stump. Olby touts Mrs. Clinton's leads in Ohio and Pennsylvania, while quickly noting those leads have diminished. Keith, ever absorbed with himself and attempting to pretend he has no "horse in this race" has the "Keith Number" which is the number of undecideds. Free air time to Sen. Obama's campaign ad. Howie Fineman came in to shore up the idea that the "solutions" catchphrase is just that. Nothing terribly relevant or exciting here. Regurgitating Mrs. Clinton's former slogans. More beating on her and her campaign woes. I guess Der Fuhrer goes with the presumptive (D) Nominee. Howie doesn't seem to have any love for Hillary. MSNBC has surely been hating on that campaign that "pimps" out people. Great thanks.

Keith nearly wets himself telling the story that "Weak Linc" Chafee (R-supposedly-RI) former Senator is supporting Sen. Obama. Bring in Milby without any extravagant apparel. Cue weird jokes about "experimenting" and other pseudo homosexual remarks about a former Bush campaign manager who might resign from the McCain campaign because of some connection with Obama. Fat Ass tries to play best friend to both sides by giving each (D) candidate a bone. NEXT.

#4: Apparently, the "Straight Talk Express" no longer lives up to Fat Ass' standards. Sen. McCain now "endorses torture" because he voted against a resolution banning waterboarding despite the fact the Senator stated that his vote was based on the fact that the amendment in and of itself was unnecessary because the law already prohibited waterboarding. Irrelevant on Olbyplanet, whatever DailyKos says (Daily Kos's very own Keith Olbermann, mind you) must be true. Sen. McCain clearly endorses "torture." Mind you, three people at max have been waterboarded. St. Rudy is clearly no longer the priority for Jabba and his lackeys. Welcome MSNBC "political analyst" from far left Err America Radio who is very analytical as long as it's about the "Republican smear machine" or other such unbiased comments. Keith would prefer "Mister" Bush to say that he's resigning. Ms. Maddow's "analysis" is clearly unbiased and definitely not slanted towards Democrats. McCain supposedly flip flops a lot. Great thanks.

#3: Usual whining about the declared "illegality" by Keith "Chicken and Waffles" Olbermann of "eavesdropping" and violation of my "civil liberties." Republicans engage in "cheesy political theater" unlike the Democrats who cared more about dopey "contempt of congress" bills rather than the important FISA bill. Speshul Komment time. Recap at the bottom.

#2: In the Media Matters minute, the usual suspects for Olbersturmfuhrer and his lackeys. "Coultergeist" for referring to Barack Obama as "President Hussein" through the usual smear channel at Media Matters. Media Matters was in full force tonight, as Lauren Ingraham got the silver award. Two conservatives, shocking! Tom Sullivan, of "Fixed News Radio" [Ding!] in a Media Matters trifecta. Conservatives and Fox, what else would there be?

#1: Richard Lewis. Whatever. More lefty whining that matters not.

Tonight's MisterMeter reading: 8 [HIGH] This, the 649th day since the declaration that "Karl Rove will be indicted."

APPENDIX: Keith's Latest Speshul Education Komment

A part of what I will say, was said here on Jan. 31. Unfortunately it is both sadder and truer now than it was then.

“Who’s to blame?” Mr. Bush also said this afternoon, “Look, these folks in Congress passed a good bill late last summer.... The problem is, they let the bill expire. My attitude is: If the bill was good enough then, why not pass the bill again?”

Like the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Or Executive Order 90-66. Or The Alien and Sedition Acts. Or slavery.

Mr. Bush, you say that our ability to track terrorist threats will be weakened and our citizens will be in greater danger. Yet you have weakened that ability!

You have subjected us, your citizens, to that greater danger! This, Mr. Bush, is simple enough for even you to understand.

For the moment, at least, thanks to some true patriots in the House, and your own stubbornness, you have tabled telecom immunity, and the FISA act.

You. By your own terms and your definitions, you have just sided with the terrorists. You’ve got to have this law, or we’re all going to die. But, practically speaking, you vetoed this law.

It is bad enough, sir, that you were demanding an ex post facto law that could still clear the AT&Ts and the Verizons from responsibility for their systematic, aggressive and blatant collaboration with your illegal and unjustified spying on Americans under this flimsy guise of looking for any terrorists who are stupid enough to make a collect call or send a mass e-mail.

But when you demanded it again during the State of the Union address, you wouldn’t even confirm that they actually did anything for which they deserved to be cleared.

“The Congress must pass liability protection for companies believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend America.”

Believed? Don’t you know? Don’t you even have the guts Dick Cheney showed in admitting they did collaborate with you? Does this endless presidency of loopholes and fine print extend even here? If you believe in the seamless mutuality of government and big business, come out and say it! There is a dictionary definition, one word that describes that toxic blend.

You’re a fascist — get them to print you a T-shirt with fascist on it! What else is this but fascism? Did you see Mark Klein on this newscast last November?

Mark Klein was the AT&T whistleblower who explained in the placid, dull terms of your local neighborhood IT desk how he personally attached all AT&T circuits, everything, carrying every one of your phone calls, every one of your e-mails, every bit of your Web browsing into a secure room, room No. 641-A at the Folsom Street facility in San Francisco, where it was all copied so the government could look at it.

Not some of it, not just the international part of it, certainly not just the stuff some spy, a spy both patriotic and telepathic, might be able to divine had been sent or spoken by or to a terrorist.

Everything! Every time you looked at a naked picture. Every time you bid on eBay. Every time you phoned in a donation to a Democrat. “My thought was,” Mr. Klein told us last November, “George Orwell’s ‘1984.’ And here I am, forced to connect the Big Brother machine.”

And if there’s one thing we know about Big Brother, Mr. Bush, it is that he is — you are — a liar.

“This Saturday at midnight,” you said Thursday, “legislation authorizing intelligence professionals to quickly and effectively monitor terrorist communications will expire. If Congress does not act by that time, our ability to find out who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying and what they are planning will be compromised.” You said that “the lives of countless Americans depend” on your getting your way.

This is crap. And you sling it with an audacity and a speed unrivaled by even the greatest political felons of our history.

Richard Clarke — you might remember him, sir: He was one of the counterterror pros you inherited from President Clinton, before you ran the professionals out of government in favor of your unreality-based reality — Richard Clarke wrote in the Philadelphia Inquirer:

“Let me be clear: Our ability to track and monitor terrorists overseas would not cease should the Protect America Act expire.

“If this were true, the president would not threaten to terminate any temporary extension with his veto pen. All surveillance currently occurring would continue even after legislative provisions lapsed because authorizations issued under the act are in effect up to a full year.”

You are a liar, Mr. Bush. And after showing some skill at it, you have ceased to even be a very good liar.

And your minions like John Boehner, your Republican congressional crash dummies who just happen to decide to walk out of Congress when a podium-full of microphones await them, they should just keep walking, out of Congress and, if possible, out of the country.

For they and you, sir, have no place in a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

The lot of you are the symbolic descendants of the despotic middle managers of some banana republic to whom “freedom” is an ironic brand name, a word you reach for when you want to get away with its opposite.

Thus, Mr. Bush, your panoramic invasion of privacy is dressed up as “protecting America.”

Thus, Mr. Bush, your indiscriminate domestic spying becomes the focused monitoring only of “terrorist communications.”

Thus, Mr. Bush, what you and the telecom giants have done isn’t unlawful; it’s just the kind of perfectly legal, passionately patriotic thing for which you happen to need immunity!

Richard Clarke is on the money, as usual.

That the president was willing to veto this eavesdropping means there is no threat to the legitimate counterterror efforts under way.

As Sen. Edward Kennedy reminded us in December: “The president has said that American lives will be sacrificed if Congress does not change FISA."

“But he has also said that he will veto any FISA bill that does not grant retroactive immunity.

“No immunity, no FISA bill. So if we take the president at his word, he’s willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies.”

And that literally cannot be. Even Mr. Bush could not overtly take a step that actually aids the terrorists. I am not talking about ethics here. I am talking about blame. If the president seems to be throwing the baby out with the bath water, it means we can safely conclude there is no baby.

Because if there were, sir, now that you have vetoed an extension of this eavesdropping, if some terrorist attack were to follow, you would not merely be guilty of siding with the terrorists. You would not merely be guilty of prioritizing the telecoms over the people. You would not merely be guilty of stupidity. You would not merely be guilty of treason, sir.

You would be personally, and eternally, responsible.

And if there is one thing we know about you, Mr. Bush, one thing that you have proved time and time again — it is that you are never responsible.

As recently ago as 2006, we spoke words like these with trepidation.

The idea that even the most cynical and untrustworthy of politicians in our history, George W. Bush, would use the literal form of terrorism against his own people was dangerous territory. It seemed to tempt fate, to heighten fear.

We will not fear any longer. We will not fear the international terrorists, and we will thwart them. We will not fear the recognition of the manipulation of our yearning for safety, and we will call it what it is: terrorism. We will not fear identifying the vulgar hypocrites in our government, and we will name them. And we will not fear George W. Bush. Nor will we fear because George W. Bush wants us to fear.

Posted by Edward Schatz | Permalink | Comments (102) | | View blog reactions

102 Comments

By James on February 15, 2008 7:37 AM

Keith, your hypocrisy is so vast. You love to talk about "Willard" Mitt Romney and Michael "Weiner" Savage. But when someone mentions the name Barrack "Hussein" Obama, you get angry and label them the "Worst Person in the World".

By Right On James on February 15, 2008 8:34 AM

Amen

By Anonymous on February 15, 2008 8:49 AM

The only reason Olbermann gives a crap about the FISA business is because the libs have a hard-on about it. If the liberal blogs weren't whining about it 24/7 (in-between their in-fighting regarding Obama v. Clinton)---he wouldn't even know what the hell the bill was even ABOUT.

By cee on February 15, 2008 9:16 AM

The Special Comment.....What a load of crap......

The Senate passed the bill EASILY with immunity for the patriotic Americans helping in keeping us all safe and the Democrat leadership in the House is preventing a final vote because they know an EASY majority agrees with the American people and The President that the FISA bill with immunity IS FINE!

Democracy....this is what is supposed to happen.....

Throwing around the word, "fascist" is true fear mongering and Olbermann tries again....Sorry, I am not biting.....Bush is a patriot and has successfully protected out great nation for near 7 years now and I thank him for that....Olbermann and his radical leftist 15%-ers has done nothing but complain....

Another example of how the left will NOT protect our national security....another example for people to contemplate this November!

By joe on February 15, 2008 9:23 AM

Keith has criticized McCain all week long without even saying a criticizing word against Obama and Hilary. Bi-partisan journalism has no room in MSNBC.
Are Hilary and Obama perfect, is that why Keith is only going after McCain every night.

Dan Abrams said McCain flip-flopped but he did have a guest on his show that did not agree with his point of view. That's good and fair reporting.

Larry King also suggested McCain is changing positions but Larry did it to McCain face to face. Where at least McCain had a chance to respond.

How cowardly is it for Rachel Maddow to say that John McCain has no principles.
And where does Keith Olbermann come off saying John McCain is buying votes without not proof.

What kind of journalism is this? Where a reporter can attack a U.S. Senator, a war hero and a man running for president of the U.S. with out any rebuttal?

Is Keith trying to influence the vote of his viewers to vote against McCain?
Is that the job of MSNBC? To Change event and not report on them?
What right do Rachel and Keith have attacking Senator McCain, what have they done for this country.

Pointing out McCain faults as a candidate is fine by me but to question his principles, accusing him of buying votes and having an ugly picture of him on Keith's page is insulting to us vets, to McCain and to all journalist.

By Puck on February 15, 2008 9:35 AM

WOW! Keith was pretty angry last night. And on Valentine's Day too.

I wonder if having a romantic Merlot dinner for two at home, Katy said she was going out with the girls?

By cee on February 15, 2008 9:37 AM

joe...The people who would agree with Olbermann's political analysis are already pig-headed and their minds are made up....his show is an echo chamber.

Look at what the people who defend Olbermann post on this site for proof.

People looking for objective information and good journalism will bypass COUNTDOWN....don't worry about that.

Olbermann is a typical anti-American leftist....he will besmurch an honorable veteran like Senator McCain if it serves his purposes.

By cee on February 15, 2008 9:44 AM

"The leftists will persecute Christians and feed them to the lions, then turn around and embrace Sharia Law."

Posted by: Again with your Phallu-Cees at February 15, 2008 9:33 AM

###
No, wannawipe....I don't believe that. I simply know what happened after 8 years of the left being in charge of our national security 1992-2001.....Slowly increasing terrorist attacks with increasing deaths of Americans culminating in 9/11/01.....And now with the Democratic Party obstructing a vote on a simple law that will protect Americans without violating one iota of The US Constitution, the left proves once again they are incapable of properly protecting our troops and our families.....

So please try to not bring in your religious bigotry into this discussion.....you usually wait until the afternoon to become so irritating.

By E Buzz Miller on February 15, 2008 9:54 AM

"Newscast"???

I wonder if Keith isn't in on the joke. His SPACESHUTTLE COMMENTS are so crazy and attractive to the insane left that they have ot be crafted for that audeince.

I think he's secretly laughing at the dopes who buy into his crazy screeds.

If I were to try to attract an audeince, even one made up of sweaty nutjobs, I would do what he is doing.

But if he really believed in all of this shit, he wouldn't be on tv, he'd be in Dick Scaife's restroom armed with a copy of Mein Kampf, a bottle of Jack and a .45.

By TYPO on February 15, 2008 10:04 AM

Keiths insipid pandering to the Left doesn't pack much punch. What names remain for him to call the President? The 'facial grimace of disdain' that Keith portends is truly hilarious.

By Katy Turic on February 15, 2008 10:05 AM

Rachel Maddow slams John McCain
Rhodes Scholar with no working brain
A moonbat to abhor
John fought in the War
"No principles"? She must be insane

By merkle923 on February 15, 2008 10:12 AM

Richard Lewis called himself a "Jew monkey" on Countdown. At least now we know where Keith gets his talking points from when he's referring to FoxNews' Chris Wallace.

By cee on February 15, 2008 10:14 AM

Please show me evidence of either President Bush or Karl Rove besmurching McCain, wannawipe....Your leftwing propaganda regarding the 2000 election is a poor rebuttal to Keith Olbermann's comments about his vote on interrogation techniques....The push polling and hard politics of the primaries were never directly associated to Bush and Rove.

If anyone has credibility on torture and aggressive interogation techniques it is Senator McCain and some pundit sitting in Manhattan has no leg to stand on attacking him.

By Great Thanks on February 15, 2008 10:14 AM

"All surveillance currently occurring would continue even after legislative provisions lapsed because authorizations issued under the act are in effect up to a full year.”

Authorizations issued under the act...but what if they find they want to surveil somebody after the act expires but aren't allowed to, hmmm????

By Steve on February 15, 2008 10:23 AM

Great comment from Jon Friedman at Marketwatch.com:
"[MSNBC] needs some discipline in its ranks. It could use a top executive with strong ethics [good luck] and news sense, someone who will take no nonsense from the network's loose cannons [hmm] and will forcefully remind these "journalists" that their obligation is to inform the public, not to audition material for a guest spot on 'Saturday Night Live's' Weekend Update."

Or, one might add, auditioning material for the next DKos convention.

Full column here:
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/msnbc-americas-were-sorry-news-network/story.aspx?guid=%7BAD984543-AAA4-4072-92B9-3D4C3CB78411%7D

Steve

By charlie on February 15, 2008 10:28 AM

A "supposed" flip flop by McCain on waterboarding, ESchatz? He DID flip flop, as he said some time ago that the Army Field manual guidelines on interrogation techniques was good enough. NOW, he being the opportunist and flip flopper he's been in recent years, decided to vote AGAINST a bill that would limit all interrorgations of detainees to those proscribed in the Army Field Manual.

And you are such an idiot if you think Keith is jumping aboard Obama's ship. He doesn't jump aboard any democrat's ship. What do you think "the Keith number" is all about? It's about the undecided voters, which he apparently is.

By Anonymous on February 15, 2008 10:33 AM

'charlie,' haven't you claimed in the past you don't read the 'recaps?'

By johnny dollar on February 15, 2008 10:36 AM

> He doesn't jump aboard any democrat's ship.

He's riding the Democratic train, or Daily Kos wouldn't permit him to blog there. That site's purpose is to support and elect and Democrats.

By merkle923 on February 15, 2008 10:38 AM

Based on ratings, the "Keith Number" appears to be circling the drain.

By olby sucks on February 15, 2008 10:44 AM

"decided to vote AGAINST a bill that would limit all interrorgations of detainees to those proscribed in the Army Field Manual"

Does it say anywhere in the bill that we can slash their (the terrorists) throats like they (the terrorists) would do to you in a heartbeat if given the chance? Nothing wrong with a little dabble of water. Stop bitchin.'

By cee on February 15, 2008 10:45 AM

"He doesn't jump aboard any democrat's ship."

###
The naive quote of the day.....He is in Obama's butt pocket until (and if) HRC turns things around.....

His attacks on the honorable former POW Senator McCain proves that as does his recent behavior regarding Clinton Co.....

Keith Olbermann is the radical left's cable news spokesperson.

By dr. fill on February 15, 2008 10:54 AM

"And you are such an idiot if you think Keith is jumping aboard Obama's ship. He doesn't jump aboard any democrat's ship"

'charlie,' please, think before you post. I'm telling you for your own good.

By Charlie on February 15, 2008 10:58 AM

Oh, that's right, later you say you DO know what the Keith number is about, but your biased, immature hatred for "Fat Ass" makes you not believe much of anything he says.

And you obviously haven't done your homework if you think McCain is a "supposed" flip flopper: he IS a flip flopper, but until recently, the MSM darling wasn't called on it: he's almost as bad as Romney, having flipped on everything from gay rights (in an 11-minute span on Hardball, I believe), ethanol, Bush's conduct on the Iraq war, tax cuts, roe v. wade, comprehensive immigration reform, the religious right, etc.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/04/AR2008020402805.html?sid=ST2008020403086
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/02/11/mccains-double-talk-express-a-day-at-the-beach/

By sixstringbassplayer on February 15, 2008 11:03 AM

Face down in the East River is where garbage like this belong

By PoorBaby on February 15, 2008 11:04 AM

Posted by: James at February 15, 2008 7:37 AM
----------

Right to the heart of what I was gonna post...She gets worst person mention for using part of the guy's actual name?!?!?!?!

How many times has the left just referred to President George W. Bush as W?...or that one reporter on Scarborough or Matthews who referred to Bush as Chimp ON THE AIR!!!

But James is right...KO does it himself with made up middle or nicknames...but is he ever one of the WPITW? noooo

By The Way...the Laura Ingraham thing...I love the outrage...do they realize she made the same comment about nailing things down WHEN CLINTON VISITED THE WHITE HOUSE for a meeting or a dinner or something

I also love that Bill Clinton, himself, (aka the big check recipient) called out Olby for KO's pimping comment on Gen Patraeus!!!

By Robert Cox on February 15, 2008 11:07 AM

I continue to find it amusing that Rachel Maddow was hired as a "political analyst" at MSNBC. We all understand that the networks hire analysts who come out of partisan politics and will come at a particular issue with their politics as a filter but Maddow is SO one-sided and her "analysis" so partisan that there is little difference between her analysis and what you might read on FireDogLake. But it the way she substituted judgement and insight for a shrill repetition of far-left talking points that gets the biggest laugh.

By cee on February 15, 2008 11:11 AM

Oh dear...Coulter and Limbaugh playing possum really takes you guys in huh?....Please don't make me laugh...

Coulter and Limbaugh attacking McCain is the best thing for him....his conservative backing has INCREASED in exit polls over the last several weeks and slowly but surely (as evidenced by Romney's nice endorcement yeasterday), fiscal conservatives will put their force behind him....Only the most radical will not vote for him (not 12 million votes!) and when it comes to HRC v. McCain you can count on a very competitive race.....

Obama v. McCain is an unknown and nobody will be able to predict how that will go.

McCain does not have to pander to his left simply because Rush and Coulter are making such noise on his right. He can simply make his case on his conservative record, wait for the convention with his VP pick and go from there....His left flank is well protected and non-bomb throwing conservatives can assess the field appropriately.

BTW...do you listen to Rush?.....Has Rush told his listeners not to vote for McCain? Because I have not heard that....In fact, he has said he will start supporting HRC or Obama to hurt their chances!....

The man is a lightning rod and knows his role in this election....wait and see who McCain picks for his VP and who the democrat nominee is before such crazy predictions, wannawipe.

And Coulter...her claim she would vote for Hillary is outragous and only serves to get her coverage.....She is a great carnival barker...but in the end it is not true....If you believe her I have a bridge to sell you.

By PoorBaby on February 15, 2008 11:11 AM

oh, and the FISA business...his democrat controlled senate passed it...and the only reason the house didn't was a $1.5 million donation from the special interest of the dems...the trial lawyers...asking them to stop it do they can file lawsuit after lawsuit and make billions by siung them

By charlie on February 15, 2008 11:27 AM

"Keith, your hypocrisy is so vast. You love to talk about "Willard" Mitt Romney and Michael "Weiner" Savage. But when someone mentions the name Barrack "Hussein" Obama, you get angry and label them the "Worst Person in the World"."

Um, where is the hypocrisy James and Right On James? (Hint: there is none, fools).

And Chickenblogger, what "recaps" are you talking about? You must be mistaking me for another Charlie. I'm the one who has said I will stick up for Keith when he deserves it, and criticize him when he deserves it.

And last night, his Special Comment was great until he pulled out the "fascist" word. He criticizes Republicans for using "Islamofascism" to describe our enemies, but it's ok for him to call Bush a fascist? I don't agree.

But his basic points, which everyone from John Dean to Johnathan Turley has pointed out is that the Bush administration doesn't adhere to the Constitution, he bypasses it. The REAL "strict constructionists" are those who want to adhere to common law, international or domestic in every respect, especially those relating to national security.

>He's riding the Democratic train, or Daily Kos wouldn't permit him to blog there. That site's purpose is to support and elect and Democrats.

I said Keith doesn't support any Democrat - ok, do I have to say SPECIFIC Democrat in this race for you to understand what I meant? Of course he's going to vote for A democrat, but you know-it-alls seem to think his criticism of one democrat candidate means he's supporting the other. You don't know, and likely won't ever know who he or most other broadcasters are voting for.

By joe on February 15, 2008 11:39 AM

Here is the Larry King John McCain interview, aired 2/14/08

KING: Senator, despite a veto threat, the Senate voted 51-45 yesterday to prohibit the CIA from using waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods.

MCCAIN: Yes.

KING: You voted to oppose that.

MCCAIN: I voted...

KING: Why?

MCCAIN: Because you...

KING: I thought you were against all that.

MCCAIN: I am. Let me make it very clear. Waterboarding,, in my view, is torture, and it's illegal. We passed a Military Commissions Act which allowed the CIA to use some additional techniques not in violation of the Geneva Conventions, the Anti-Torture Convention, the Detainee Treatment Act or any of the other rules and laws and conventions that prohibit cruel and inhumane and degrading treatment.

But to say that they can't use any additional techniques, in my view, is not appropriate.

KING: That's what this said...

MCCAIN: But they cannot torture and they cannot do anything that's cruel and inhumane and degrading.

KING: Because you said torture is self-defeating.

MCCAIN: Oh, oh, yes, sure it is.

KING: People when tortured lie.

MCCAIN: Sure. They'd tell you the truth and tell you things that are not true

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0802/14/lkl.02.html

it seems of is the bill was against torture but also prohibited "additional techniques"
So McCain agrees with the bill when it came to prohibiting torture but disagrees with the bill when it came to the "prohibiting of additional techniques" part.

This bills main focus was prohibiting torture like waterboading but it also had other provisions in it that we don't know about and apparently John McCain didn't agree with.

I think if they would have made the bill just against waterboarding and torture, then McCain would have signed it.

Well that's the sense I get anyway I could be wrong.
It's funny the bill passed just barely 51-45, I would like to ask the 45 their views.

Bottom line is if you are going to call yourself a journalist, you don't throw accusations.
And if you do throw accusations at least have the journalistic courage to ask these questions to McCain himself, like Larry King did.

By charlie on February 15, 2008 11:42 AM

Robert Cox, you apparently hear what you want to hear. I heard Maddow on MSNBC say at a recent post-primary analysis that her listeners who likely going to give her fits for comparing Obama's campaign style to President Bush's 2000 run. And if she's so partisan, how come she said during the S-CHIP debate that she disagreed with Democrats on how to fund it: she would rather add to the deficit than add more taxes.

She's a VERY good analyst - and much more tolerable and better than Chris Matthews, for one thing.

By cee on February 15, 2008 12:09 PM

A dignified and honorable former President will now weigh in on Senator McCain:

George H.W. Bush to endorse McCain

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8540.html

###
At least this former President will not be race baiting and appealling to the lowest common denominator in human nature to make his case as he tries to defeatthe first serious African-American candidate for President of The United States....

Unlike the adulterous sodomite democratic former President, BJ Clinton.

I wonder when we will here from the other former President?....The anti-Semite democrat, Jimmy Carter.

By Robert Cox on February 15, 2008 12:20 PM

BTW.. excellent post last night. Glad to have you back Mr. Schatz. Keep it coming!

I had to turn off the Special Comment last night when Keith's voice started quivering. I couldn't tell if he was supposed to be trembling with anger or about to cry. Perhaps it is all that pent up rage at being bullied by the girls at school. I only read the entire thing in your post.

As usual, Keith says things that don't make sense and his fangirls lap it up. There's always too many errors in what Keith says to highlight all of them so let's just pick one to illustrate the point yet again...

Keith quotes Bush talking about the bill passed last summer and saying "My attitude is: If the bill was good enough then, why not pass the bill again?"

Keith then asks rhetorically "Like the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Or Executive Order 90-66. Or The Alien and Sedition Acts. Or slavery." I know Keith's favorite history book is Zinn but even Zinn is ACCURATE on the facts and dates.

Ever see Sesame Street? They have a little game with a song that goes "One of these things is not like the other..." and they will show a muppet looking at perhaps an apple, an orange, a banana, and a football [hint to OlbyLoons the correct answer is football]

So lets try that with KO. Which of THESE things is not like the other?

A. Gulf of Tonkin Resolution
http://www.footnote.com/viewer.php?image=4346698
a Joint Resolution of Congress (not a bill) authorizing the U.S. to take any necessary military action to defend nations who had signed the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty (i.e. South Vietnam)

B. Executive Order 90-66 (actually 9066)
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=74&page=transcript
An Executive Order (not a bill) which authorized the removal of persons deemed to be a threat to national security during WWII (i.e. Japanese internment)

C. The Alien and Sedition Acts
The so-called Alien and Sedition Acts were four BILLS (hint, hint) passed in 1798 and signed by President Adams: the Naturalization Act, the Aliens Act, the Alien Enemies Act, and the Sedition Act. The Sedition Act had a built in expiration date of 1801. The Naturalization Act and Aliens Act were repealed in 1802. The Alien Enemies Act is still in force today and has been applied in times of war ever since 1798.

D. Slavery
Slavery is a socio-economic state (not a bill), a form of unfree labor, in which a person is deprived of all of the rights and forced to work without compensation.

So, which of these things is not like the other?

If you guessed "C. The Alien and Sedition Acts" that you are correct. Congratulations, you win a cookie.

So, two problems for Keith. One, that three of the items on his list were not "bills" and therefore not comparable to the FISA Bill referenced by President Bush. Two, of the one item on his list that IS a bill is actually four bills one of which is still in force. Even for the one KO got right it would have been correct only list "Three of The Four Acts often referred to as the Alien and Sedition Acts".

In a touch of OlbyIrony, the Immigration Bill Keith was so supportive of last year would have EXTENDED the length of time for an immigrant (illegal) to become a naturalized citizen just as is the case with the Naturalization Act of 1798 (which Keith apparently dislikes). Doh!

As we see time and time again, Keith does not allow historical facts get in the way of rhetoric. Why worry about accuracy when your target audience is uninformed, far-left, loons who listen only to take a toke each time you manage to work concepts such as "Bush = Hitler", "Bush=Fascist", "Bush=Satan" into your oh so special comments.

Here's a little advice Keith, spent less time in front of the mirror practicing your "sincere eyebrow raise" technique and a little more time researching your Kossack Pep Talks"

By Anonymous on February 15, 2008 12:43 PM

Olbermann is a typical anti-American leftist....he will besmurch an honorable veteran like Senator McCain if it serves his purposes.

Posted by: cee at February 15, 2008 9:37 AM

I had no idea Bush and Rove were also leftists. They did a pretty good job on McCain themselves, and he was every bit the honorable vet in '00.

By Anonymous on February 15, 2008 12:48 PM

If anyone has credibility on torture and aggressive interogation techniques it is Senator McCain and some pundit sitting in Manhattan has no leg to stand on attacking him.

Posted by: cee at February 15, 2008 10:14 AM

You're right Cee.
It wasn't Bush and Rove that besmurched McCain in '00, even though McCain thought it was.

I have it on good word that it was a consolidated effort from Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.

Those anti-American leftists need to rot in hell.

By Observer on February 15, 2008 12:51 PM

"Of course he's going to vote for A democrat"
-Charlie

You may want to learn a little about the man you go to bat for. Olbermann says he doesn't vote.

"I don't vote because I don't think I should have a rooting interest in the outcome of an election."
-Keith Olbermann, July 28, 2006

And if you don't think he is using his (miniscule) influence to push a leftist agenda, you are sadly mistaken.

By Anonymous on February 15, 2008 1:03 PM

I'm a little surprised that so many well-thought out, NON-vulgar posts are getting stricken down out here lately. The strange thing these comments all have in common is that they generally support non-republican views.

All I've heard recently from the regulars out here (Cecelia, Grammie, OS/RK, etc...) is that this site is a bastion of differing ideas and that RCox only deletes posts based on language and tone. I find it hard to believe that such intelligent people are wrong.

I expect this post to last about 10 minutes, given the harsh language and horrible tone.

[EDITOR'S NOTE: OlbyWatch has a very clear policy on commenting and those who follow it can express any particular pro or anti KO point of view they wish; what I will not tolerate is people who, in my opinion and mine alone, seek to be disruptive. There are many ways to be disruptive - foul language, thread hijacking, name hijacking, hectoring, name-calling, insults, etc. - but one of them is not expressing a contrarian point of view. Within this, comments about Keith Olbermann, his show, his take on a particular issue or topics raised by his show are all welcome. At some point certain people cross the line as the case with the troll who wrote this comment and then what I do is ANYTHING I believe to be from them or that references something they wrote (i.e. someone else quotes them in their comment) will result in not just their comment being deleted but ANY comment that can be traded back to that IP address. In those cases, it does not matter WHAT the troll wrote, it is being deleted based on the author (or suspected author) regardless of content]

By cee on February 15, 2008 1:12 PM

"I had no idea Bush and Rove were also leftists. They did a pretty good job on McCain themselves, and he was every bit the honorable vet in '00."

###
Proof please...All I have ever heard from Bush and Rove has been praise for Senator McCain....I really wonder why McCain would embrace both men if they were so bad to him.

"George H.W. Bush himself is an adulterous sodomite from way back."

###
Proof please. I remember a tearful BJ Clinton compared to a wagging finer BJ Clinton.....

Did President Bush admit to such activity? I guess I missed it.

Oh, and after Bush, HW Bush, Rove, etc all back McCain and he thanks them for their support, are you still going to bring up that canard?....Will it be okay to bring up what BJ and HRC are saying about the first serious African-American candidate for President after he wins the nomination?....

The race baiting....
The fact that Obama is an unexperienced idealist.....
The JJ reference....DYNOMITE!......
The LBJ/MLK reference......
The fairy tale reference......

Please let me know anon.....

By blog news you can use on February 15, 2008 1:21 PM

Olbermann's blog entry at the Daily Kos. Scroll down to see a fangirl love fest pencil drawing of Keith. (She drew about 75 pounds off his actual weight):

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/14/16307/7702/753/456891

here's the exact portrait picture comment link:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/14/16307/7702/753/456891#c282

By olby sucks on February 15, 2008 1:47 PM

The strange thing these comments all have in common is that they generally support non-republican views.

posted by crazy marry

Wrong, again. The posts are being deleted because they are made by banned posters. What does RK/OS mean? Aren't you the poster who is constantly crying that WE are the ones "obsessed" by the "name game" and here you are playing it? Hypocritical? Ya think?

By Anonymous on February 15, 2008 2:02 PM

Oh, and after Bush, HW Bush, Rove, etc all back McCain and he thanks them for their support, are you still going to bring up that canard?....
Please let me know anon.....

Posted by: cee at February 15, 2008 1:12 PM

Well, who do you expect them to back? A dem? Would that keep them true to their ways of strictly partisan politics and sponsorship?
The same way you yourself said Rush and Coulter will eventually back McCain, so too will Rove and W.

That doesn't prove that in order to get Dummya elected in '00 they didn't pull some nastiness on McCain.
Their M.O. has been the same since Bush was a Texas politician, and only went to the next level once he went national. I know you believe that since Bush and McCain never admitted to it (and WHY WOULD THEY), they are innocent.
That is why I offered up the real culprits, led by Santa Claus.

By Robert Cox on February 15, 2008 2:02 PM

I am already on record having said last fall that John McCain, despite being in free all at the time, would be the Republican nominee. There is a very simple method for making these kinds of predictions. Ignore the media and apply logic.

In the case of the GOP race, there was NO WAY that the socially liberal Guiliani could possibly win in Republican primaries. There was no way that the Morman Romney could win in the South. Thompson was already proving to be a dude. Huckabee had no money and no organization. Even more so for Hunter, etc. And forget Ron Paul. By process of elimination that left McCain.

What I love about the media hype is that they seem oblivious to the recent past. Does anyone in the media recall how the Clintons pushed for a front-loaded primary schedule with the argument that the GOP had an advantage because they picked their candidate sooner and therefore got a jump on a national campaign. So for all that finagling look what they got - talk (legitimate) of a brokered convention where party hacks and elected officials (i.e. superdelegates) may determine the nominee sometime this summer. At the earliest it looks like April. And yet I've heard not a single media report about the Dem strategy they were all praising a couple of years ago has blown up in their face.

I would now go ahead and say that given McCain, if the Democrats nominate Obama, McCain will mop the floor with him. If they nominate Hillary the Dems will very likely win. At this point it sure looks like Obama is on his way so let's look at why McCain will not just win but destroy Obama in the campaign.

McCain has a massive resume with significant experience, he has REAL accomplishments, he is a war hero, etc.

Obama has virtually NO experience, he has accomplished precisely nothing in the U.S. Senate and, as if it mattered, nothing in the Illinois legislature. I've watched his surrogates many times on TV and when they are asked to name something THEY have done of the American people they have the same answer:

1) he brought people together as a community organizer in Chicago

2) he "led" the effort to bring ethics reform to Congress

Of course, by "led" they do not mean he authored legislation or chaired a committee or even took to the bully pulpit. Apparently it was a secret mission that only he knows about.

And that's about it.

Lately they claim another accomplishment is that he has "brought people together" in THIS campaign. It's unclear how that's an "accomplishment" since he has still not won the nomination let alone the office he seeks but how is being nominated by a political party TO RUN for a particular elected office at some point in the future an "accomplishment FOR the American people". Simple, it's not. It's a personal accomplishment.

Now let's take a look at what that personal accomplishment is at this time. He has gotten a little more than half the available elected delegates awarded by the Democratic primary in their primaries and caucuses.

Consider that in light of the fact that about 30% of the country are registered Democrats (with another 30% being Republican and most - about 40% - being independent/other). Factor in that the voting rate (those who are eligible to vote that actually vote) is about 60%.

In other words he has "energized" about one half of of the votes from a party that represents less than a third of about 60% of American citizens. Or looked at another way, of about 180 million citizens who are eligible to vote in the U.S., Obama has gotten votes from a about 9.5 million of them which comes out to be about 5% of the voting public.

So while it is great for him that he has done so well in the Democratic primaries and caucuses it is not an accomplishment FOR the American people. How can they even put that forward as a talking point when 95% of Americans have not voted for him.

Regardless of what happens between now and labor day by the time we get to the fall campaign when the rest of America begins to pay close attention to the race, McCain will be able to make the point that there is nothing in Obama's record that he can accomplish ANY of the things he talks about in his campaign speeches. I just find it hard to imagine that when people get into that voting booth they are really going to want to elect a guy who has so little to show for his 50 years on earth other than a winning personality.

What will make it all the more interesting is if Obama seeks to make the election a referendum on whether or not to stay in Iraq. What will the experts all say if that referendum is put forward and Americans vote McCain. I think by the time Obama is scrutinized by the media and challenged by a GOP opponent the Dems will be thinking, how could we possibly have nominate this neophyte.

The fact is that for all the opinion polls and far-left rhetoric, most Americans support the McCain position on Iraq.

Anywho...I am going to make it official here.

If McCain v. Hillary then Hillary in a squeeker when Ohio goes Blue.

If McCain v. Obama then McCain in a landslide (40+ states)

By Anonymous on February 15, 2008 2:04 PM

They all flip flop moron. Kerry-Heinz lost the election because he is a liar and a left wing loon, not because he flip-flopped.

Posted by: The Phony Soldier at February 15, 2008 1:26 PM

God, your stupidity knows no boundaries.

And what the hell is a "chollie"?

By yodell on February 15, 2008 2:07 PM

I predict by this time next year KO will be off of MSDNC because think about this if McCain wins the big-wigs at NBC will finally see that all of this lying and President bashing will all have been for naught.If the dems win what are they going to do bring on Rachael Maddow and what is Keith going to say to her "Hey Rachael isn't the President doing a great job?" and she would say " He/She sure is Keith!"An hour of that I don't think so,but I suppose they could just run Brittney Spears news for an hour.I don't think even the Koz-kids would even stand for that,do you?

By olby sucks on February 15, 2008 2:08 PM

I expect this post to last about 10 minutes, given the harsh language and horrible tone.

Posted by: at February 15, 2008 1:03 PM

Do you ever get tired of being wrong? Check the clock.......

By Anonymous on February 15, 2008 2:10 PM

"How about watch her on AAR and then get back with us."

***How do you "watch" someone on the radio, dummy?

"The ACLU has defended the KKK a couple of times."

***Are you talking about during his Oxycontin/doctor shopping scandal?

"Five chicken shit generals criticized our President after they retired. So what is your point. You have none other than defending some left wing loon."

***Five CHICKEN SHIT generals?
That is how you honor the great men of the military who laid their lives on the line so you could drink your cheap beer and spank it to your collection of Juggs magazines?
What is your military experience that you feel capable of calling five GENERALS chicken shits? My guess is that you're not a military man at all and wouldn't know courage if it bit you in the ass.

Posted by: The phony Soldier at February 15, 2008 1:37 PM

By Anonymous on February 15, 2008 2:13 PM

Posted by: olby sucks at February 15, 2008 1:47 PM

What does it matter if a well-thought out post is posted by a "banned" poster?
Are you THAT afraid of a different idea?

And I have one simple, straight forward question for you OS.
Did you formally post as RK?

By Anonymous on February 15, 2008 2:19 PM

Do you ever get tired of being wrong? Check the clock.......

Posted by: olby sucks at February 15, 2008 2:08 PM

Hooray!
This is the first time you've EVER been right on this site in any of your incarnations*!!

*that means embodiments or screen names, not a kind of flower

By Anonymous on February 15, 2008 2:20 PM

I’m glad the neo-fascist Republican Party is disintegrating in front of my eyes. All you want to do is destroy things and attack those you disagree with. Your message this election season is hopelessness filled with hate and war.

Your message isn’t working anymore. Now what are you flying monkeys going to do?

By Anonymous on February 15, 2008 2:23 PM

Your message isn’t working anymore. Now what are you flying monkeys going to do?

Posted by: at February 15, 2008 2:20 PM

Delete posts that disagree with them, what else?

By Janet Hawkins on February 15, 2008 2:23 PM

"Did you formally post as RK? "

What constitutes "formally" posting.

Is it strictly while wearing black tie attire or will a business suit suffice?

Grammie

By Anonymous on February 15, 2008 2:27 PM

What constitutes "formally" posting.

Is it strictly while wearing black tie attire or will a business suit suffice?

Grammie

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at February 15, 2008 2:23 PM

You are a hoot Grammie.

By olby sucks on February 15, 2008 2:28 PM

And I have one simple, straight forward question for you OS.
Did you formally post as RK?

Posted by: at February 15, 2008 2:13 PM

Are you obsessed? List all of your names, then I'll list mine, ok? Also, you have to admit to being a hypocritical hack. Mrs. "name games."

By olby sucks on February 15, 2008 2:29 PM

Address this, too, while you are listing all of your names.

> I'm still waiting for proof that I claimed anything of the sort. You'd be lying.

I beieve this is the exchange he's referring to:

The truth is that in poll after poll ( and that's all we have to go on) America favors the democrats over republicans in every single issue.
America is a whole lot smarter than the low IQ partisan hacks at this site.

posted by why as anon

Ok. Lets go one issue at a time, since that's all you can handle. Immigration. Name one (d) candidate that wants a fence. 70% of Americans want a fence or the border controlled.
(Feb 10)

Posted by: johnny dollar at February 14, 2008 11:23 AM

By Anonymous on February 15, 2008 2:29 PM

What constitutes "formally" posting.

Is it strictly while wearing black tie attire or will a business suit suffice?

Grammie

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at February 15, 2008 2:23 PM

In the case of OS/RK it would be his clean budweiser t-shirt and cut-off shorts.

By Cecelia on February 15, 2008 2:32 PM

I posted about Cox's galactic stupidity...I couldn't care less if you guys erase my posts; I simply use this is an outlet for my anger at the traitors in this country...plus, the regulars on here are hilarious. They're so out-of-touch that it's almost sad. Cee should probably just committ suicide or something. What a know-nothing coward/traitor.

Posted by: Republican Killa at February 15, 2008 2:18 PM

Thanks, Killa! That s nice to know!

It's extremely gratifying to learn that we provide you with an outlet that keeps your from venting your spleen in the way that cretins like you traditionally do-- via destructive acts on beer cans, furniture, and whatever woman is dumb enough to be within a 50 foot range of you.

By Robert Cox on February 15, 2008 2:32 PM

Troll Girl writes "I simply use this is an outlet for my anger"

Well that certainly explains why you've posted over 6,000 comments on this site in the past 10 months. Let's see, that comes out to be 600 comments a month or about about 20 a day. Yep, that's a lot of "anger".

You might find it more beneficial to double up on your meds rather than channel your rage and self-loathing into pretend arguments with imaginary people.

If you want I will be happy to give you a note to show your doctor, just send me the name of the mental health facility where you reside and I will be happy to fax it over.

By Anonymous on February 15, 2008 2:34 PM

Are you obsessed? List all of your names, then I'll list mine, ok? Also, you have to admit to being a hypocritical hack. Mrs. "name games."

Posted by: olby sucks at February 15, 2008 2:28 PM

Divert much? Still unable to answer a direct question I see.

Am I obsessed?
Not at all. You are just completely transparent.

Considering you've stated that the only people that change their names are cowards who don't want accountability I take it that includes you as well. It is refreshing to see you admit such obvious things.

By olby sucks on February 15, 2008 2:37 PM

Where did I admit to anything? Can you say "fiddle?" Now, address the 2:29 post, coward.

By SB_Mich on February 15, 2008 2:37 PM

The "Keith Numbers?" Does he really believe that anyone thinks he might be undecided? What a load of crap. Undecided is the last thing he is.

First he was a Clinton lap-dog until his puppet masters at Kos critisized his fat ass. Now he is a Obama suck ass.

Come on Limpy, have some conviction in your beliefs (if you even have any.)

By Doc on February 15, 2008 2:38 PM

Robert,

I find two points with you analysis. Its not if Hillary gets the nod but how. If its a back room deal you'll see Dems split and either defect or stay home. Money will get a little tight and surely that will cost one or two states. I predict it would cost Maryland.

Despite all the talk of McCain's mother's age, he's physically aged beyond his years based on his life lived. Should he take ill on the campaign trail - serious flu, a cancer flare up - you might get the Tsongas effect. He could lose by three or four states.

By Cecelia on February 15, 2008 2:40 PM

If you want I will be happy to give you a note to show your doctor, just send me the name of the mental health facility where you reside and I will be happy to fax it over.

Posted by: Robert Cox at February 15, 2008 2:32 PM

So...eh... will that fax be about Bobo (Why Don't You Think) or Patsy (bovine guy)?....

By Anonymous on February 15, 2008 2:41 PM

> I'm still waiting for proof that I claimed anything of the sort. You'd be lying.

I beieve this is the exchange he's referring to:

posted by why as anon

Ok. Lets go one issue at a time, since that's all you can handle. Immigration. Name one (d) candidate that wants a fence. 70% of Americans want a fence or the border controlled.
(Feb 10)

Posted by: johnny dollar at February 14, 2008 11:23 AM

Posted by: olby sucks at February 15, 2008 2:29 PM

Well, that would be very good for you RK, except, for the last time, I AM NOT WHY.

The rest of your post (running to J$ for help as usual) is about as relevant as you and the rest of the 25%ers.

By Anonymous on February 15, 2008 2:42 PM

Where did I admit to anything? Can you say "fiddle?" Now, address the 2:29 post, coward.

Posted by: olby sucks at February 15, 2008 2:37 PM

I asked you to address the 2:13 post first, RK.

Be a man, for once in your life.

By SB_Mich on February 15, 2008 2:45 PM

Special Comment? YAWN

Does anyone even read these Special Comments? I used to, but they are so predictable now. All you need to do is read two words and you can precit EVERYTHING that Limpy is going to say.

By Cecelia on February 15, 2008 2:46 PM

I do come here quite often, but it beats the alternative of spitting in the faces of the 30 in every one hundred people that share your out-dated views (go back to the 50s, McCarthy-lovers).

Posted by: Republican Killa at February 15, 2008 2:42 PM

(It's the only way which doesn't violate his parole...)

By Janet Hawkins on February 15, 2008 2:54 PM

I just noticed that Eshatz did the article tonight.

Very good job and don't stay away so long this time.

Grammie

By Anonymous on February 15, 2008 2:59 PM

Why the hell does the RNC allow any of its candidates on MS-NBC? With crazy chris mathews and fat ass chairing the SOU, and primary coverage--the GOP should be up in arms and telling MS-NBC--unless you get some basic fairness incoverage---no one with an R after their names will ever be on your air.
Fat ass is now off Broadwaying his drivel special comments to the KOS maniacs tin foil hat squads.Can you imagine the tut-tutting all the hack in the media would be doing if Rush were hosting the FOx coverage of the dems debates----or one of Bill Clinton's SOU? The double standard has become so wide--so clear for all to see. Anyone who gets news from MS-NBC--or any of the news outlets is insane---it has become an active arm in the DNC talking points operations.
As for fat ass----there is a word for a grown mman who allows no other vioces but his own----coward comes to mind but so does facist---perhaps fat ass needs tobuy an XXXX size t shirt with 'got facist" printed on it to cover his ever growing fat ass.

By Cecelia on February 15, 2008 2:59 PM

I just noticed that Eshatz did the article tonight.

Very good job and don't stay away so long this time.

Grammie
Posted by: Janet Hawkins at February 15, 2008 2:54 PM

You took the words right out of my mouth, Grammy. I had just gone back to reread it.

Thanks, E.! We missed you!

By johnny dollar on February 15, 2008 3:06 PM

Ditto. And that Merlot T-shirt? It never gets old! Excellent work, ES.

By olby sucks on February 15, 2008 3:37 PM

Oh, and I'm a guy. A 6' 190 lbs 27 year-old guy. From Minnesota. With a bachelor's in PR/Philosophy.

Posted by: Republican Killa at February 15, 2008 2:42 PM

Some fine teachers you must have had.....(sarcasm)

By Sharon on February 15, 2008 4:18 PM

I agree with the others girls, Eshatz.

By Jonathan Carpenter on February 15, 2008 4:29 PM

After seeing Olbermann's latest "Special Comment" I have to say; Someone needs to up their dose of Thorazine or perhaps add some Lithium to their medications.

By Anonymous on February 15, 2008 4:42 PM

I agree with the others girls, Eshatz.

Posted by: Sharon at February 15, 2008 4:18 PM

Surprise, surprise, surprise!

By Sharon on February 15, 2008 4:57 PM

And you too, Johnny $. Sorry, didn't see your comment.

By Waterboard Olbermann on February 15, 2008 5:20 PM

Waterboard Olbermann!

By Bill O'lielly on February 15, 2008 5:27 PM

Phony Soldier. congrats on wanting to fight this ' war ',, please continue with your desires to wear the Halliburton uniform.. Here is to hoping that you get to make your family proud with your military burial.. Hopefully it happens soon.

By Cecelia on February 15, 2008 5:41 PM

Down, boy...

Phony is a straw man sock puppet, O'Dielly.

By liberal: Bernie Ward on February 15, 2008 7:12 PM

http://prosites-prs.homestead.com/ward-small.pdf

By Anonymous on February 15, 2008 7:27 PM

You tell me, he's one of yours.....

By Anonymous on February 15, 2008 7:34 PM

Bernie is an America hating, police hating and military hating liberal talk radio host in san fran freako.

What would happen to Rush Limbaugh, were he to make such a claim? “Well, I was just doing research.” You know as well as I do the outcry would be unending. Or for that matter, Ward’s cross-town rival, Michael Savage. If Savage were ever accused of such a crime, the man would be the newest attachment to the Golden Gate bridge. But because this guy big mouthed liberal loon, we’re supposed to take claims that he was ‘doing research’ seriously.

Perhaps someday someone will be able to coherently explain to me how these people can come up with this glittering double standard with a straight face. Of the time being, I just don’t see it. But I will tell you what I do see; this being the leftist San Francisco, this guy will be on the street again, and on the air again, in about six months’ time.

By Anonymous on February 15, 2008 7:34 PM

Phony is a straw man sock puppet, O'Dielly.

Posted by: Cecelia at February 15, 2008 5:41 PM

Keep believing that bullshit Cecelia.

You have no proof of anything you say, as usual. I bet if he really were a straw man sock puppet RCox would have banned him by now.

You are the only person in the world who really believes there is a psychology to posting on sites. Everyone fits into your neatly defined roles, and you are the judge of who plays which role.
Defining internet roles is the only time a republican will say that wikipedia is a valid source.

By Anonymous on February 15, 2008 7:40 PM

7:34 from someone who is constantly telling us what WE think..........oh, the irony.

By Cecelia on February 15, 2008 7:44 PM

Well, you can always contest Wikipedia's definitions for internet trolls and sock puppets at their site...

And you don't know RCox very well. He wouldn't ban Phony Soldier merely because he's a sock puppet. In this case he'd keep him around simply because that's what YOU insist he should do...

By Anonymous on February 15, 2008 8:23 PM

> And that Merlot T-shirt? It never gets old! Excellent work, ES.

Did you know there's a Fat Bastard Merlot? Perfect for quick trips to hotel rooms.

http://www.wineintro.com/reviews/2004/merlot.html

By Damail on February 15, 2008 10:28 PM

To call Olbermann a disgusting pile of dog crap would be an insult to dog crap.

By Cecelia on February 15, 2008 10:44 PM

To call Olbermann a disgusting pile of dog crap would be an insult to dog crap.
Posted by: Damail at February 15, 2008 10:28 PM

My six dogs agree.

By Cecelia on February 16, 2008 1:57 PM

If there is anyone who knows dogcrap, it's Cecelia.
Her posts are full of it.

Posted by: at February 16, 2008 1:16 PM

I'm sure you tread on pearls too... :D

By Puck on February 16, 2008 6:48 PM

"Ward was fired last December from his job at KGO Radio, where he built a reputation as an outspoken liberal voice and harsh critic of the Bush administration."

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0215081ward1.html

Oh those outspoken liberal voices. They sure like em' young!

By Puck on February 16, 2008 6:50 PM

Ya know, I bet if you turned off Olby's teleprompter. He couldn't tell F.I.S.A. from V.I.S.A.

By Puck on February 16, 2008 9:45 PM

The study, written by a civilian Marine Corps official and obtained by The Associated Press

A 'Civilian' Marine Corps Official?

Don't you loons read what you post?

I know the next question.

Answer

AP? Oh yeah, the ones who get stories from CBS, who get stories from some 'Non-Profit' group funded by who?

a 'civilian' Marine Corps official.

Should we start to find the money trail on this one?

By Puck on February 16, 2008 9:48 PM

Read Only AP Stories, because we support the troops and know how to fight wars.

By Anonymous on February 16, 2008 10:19 PM

puck, that 'story' was stolen from the huffington post. The clown that posted it gets his 'news' from there on a regular basis. She's not too proud of it or she would have posted a link.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/16/bureaucrats-gross-misma_n_86975.html

By Puck on February 17, 2008 4:54 PM

"When the assholes don't like the story, they shoot the messenger, and then some, and then make fools of themselves.
Good to see nothing ever changes around here."

posted by some jack***

Looking at your-self in the mirror again?

Let's see didn't find it in the n.y. Post today, nor the daily news. Didn't even find it in the Scranton Times! And all they do is run AP stories. Couldn't find it in 'The Allentown Morning Call'. And they bend over and grab their ankles for AP stories.

Real Newspapers, not fringe websites DI**-Head.

**********************************

"I checked it out and I found dozens of web sites carrying this story before I stopped looking because there were even a lot more."

posted by said same J.A.

Why don't you list them moron. Then we could have a real good laugh.

Don't tell me let me guess, one was.............truthout? Yep! No doubt it's there! That 'fair & balanced' Truthout!

Did you know that truthout said Karl Rove was going to be indicted? Yeah! Any day now! Yep! They said it about a year and a half ago!!!!!!!

What's the other one? ispendmylifeinabasement.org?

KOOL-AID! GET YOUR ICE COLD KOOL-AID!

By Puck on February 17, 2008 5:38 PM

Now, I just went to this guy's homepage at where-ever. And he has the same story five times. But with five different headings?

So in Loon Logic does this count towards the dozens????

http://www.examiner.com/Topic-By__RICHARD_LARDNER.html

So what he blogs for AP? Didn't some loon from CNN just fired for blogging on far left wing sites?

Hello! Keith!

UPDATE: Gee, how old is this story? What is going on here? RE-HASHING?????????

Notice the date on this link.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-09-20-whistleblower_N.htm

Well, at least Olby and Richard Ladner have one thing in common. Both are lazy journalists. Gee Richard, rip an almost five month old story from U.S.A.. Add Huff-Po, Truth-Out, and a wacked out loon posting here (probably you.)

And you almost stole a story.

It's what you come to expect from AP these days.

And don't get me started with Franz Gayl.

From said five month old article.

"Gayl declined Thursday to comment on the letter."

Why is that Mr. Gayl?

By A Buttermaker on February 17, 2008 6:27 PM

You guys are hard on a guy (Olby) who has risen, on his own initiative, from village idiot to national idiot......

By A Buttermaker on February 17, 2008 6:27 PM

You guys are hard on a guy (Olby) who has risen, on his own initiative, from village idiot to national idiot......

By Above Average Patriot on February 17, 2008 8:03 PM

WAR PROFITEER BARBARA BOXER DEFENDS BERKELEY ANTI-MARINE HATRED

(chron.com) The fighting over Berkeley's snub of the U.S. Marine Corps hasn't died down - it's moved to the U.S. Senate...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/15/MNBDV2MEH.DTL

By Cecelia on February 17, 2008 8:42 PM

Puck,

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Are you saying the story is old news or that it is inaccurate?

By Puck on February 17, 2008 10:16 PM

Posted by: Cecelia at February 17, 2008 8:42 PM

Cecelia, I started out trying to find the so called 'dozens and dozens' so many you would have to stop counting about this story like that anon lacky said.

As I kept digging it began to look like a story from September that I found in U.S.A. Today.

It just looks like this guy did a 'copy and paste', and changed a few words around.

Other than 'truthout', huff-po, and this examiner.com (and you had to dig to find it) I didn't see it anywhere else.

Is it true? maybe? maybe not?The guy (Gayl) wouldn't respond to any questions after he made this report.

So it then go's to he said, she said. Right?

I kept reading 2005, so does that make this makes this a 3 year old story?

At one point in the story it says the comanders said they were having realiability problems with these new hum-vees.

At one point they blame Rumsfeld. Well, guess what, he isn't there anymore.

At another point they say they don't need as many because attacks in Baghdad have fallin' since the surge.

Yes the journalist listed all the troop deaths. (gotta throw that red-meat out to the anti-war wackos.)

Let's boil this thing down. It sounds like this guy Franz gave a progress report, from two or three years ago!

When was the last time you were sat down at work and giving a progress report from what you did two or three years ago?

Your tax dollars at work.

Thank you Democratic lead Congress.

BLAH! BLAH! BLAH!

goodnight!

By olby sucks on February 18, 2008 11:30 AM

puck, Janet described the 'anon' poster the best. She is nothing more than a 'drive by shootet.' Don't expect her to back anything she says, either. 'Trollgirl' is another good description of her.

By johnny dollar on February 18, 2008 9:33 PM

This thread is now closed!

OlbyWatchTweets

Former Obama Support/Donor Releases Song Supporting Romney/Ryan: "We'll Take It Back Again" by Kyle Tucker

Blue-Blog-a-Palooza: Ann Romney Edition!

No Joy in Kosville...Mighty Olby Has Struck Out

If It's Sunday, It's Meet the Obsessed

Keith Olbermann: An Infantile, Dysfunctional, Empty Vessel

Olbermann Watch, "persecuting" Keith since 2004

102 Comments