Sorry to comment off subject, but I need to vent. When I heard about McClellan's book coming out, I swear to God my only thought was, "as long as he doesn't go on Olbydouche's show". Then sure enough, as I'm watching Dribbles tonight, he comes out saying he'll be on Orangeman's show tomorrow night.

I know I'm stating the obvious, but what a f@ck@ng douchebag they both actually are. How many freakin times did Oralmann skewer this guy during his time as w.h. spokesman. Now the dickless one is gonna have him on his show and treat everything the guy says as "gospel". A match made in heaven I guess. I won't watch, as I might be tv-less like J$ if I do.

"Now the dickless one is gonna have him on his show and treat everything the guy is saying as "gospel"."

And who are YOU going to continue to listen to? ..... Dick Cheney?

The FACT is that McClellan is only confirming what those of us who were paying sufficient attention have known all along.

"I won't watch,"......Don't like hearing the truth?.....Best to hold your hands over your ears and yell yah, yah, yah!

McClellan's expiration date on being the former White House errand boy was about to pass, so he had to do something to exploit it and make money.

"so he had to do something to exploit it and make money."

What has he said that isn't true?

The FACT is that McClellan is only confirming what those of us who were paying sufficient attention have known all along.

by mikeh

Who also said "There is nothing to win in Iraq."

I wonder if the orange faced hack will remind Scotty Mac of when he was very critical of Richard Clarks 'tell all' book when it came out? NOt!!!

"Who also said "There is nothing to win in Iraq."

And you can't possibly make a coherent argument about what there is we can "win" in Iraq. It's all about foolish nationalistic pride for you....and you don't even know it!

Mike, I haven't read the book, so I can't judge what McClellan said. I didn't claim Scotty was a liar; I am saying he is a weasel.

I told you the other day before you ran. Freedom for the Iraqis can be won, mikeh. Freedom. Say it, I know you can.

Olby is reading from Scotty's book. If I watch this gasbag long enough, maybe he will read it all to us. At least Olby didn't rip and read those words straight from Media Matters (without attribution, of course). Not an original thought, but out of character for Orangemann.

"Freedom for the Iraqis can be won, mikeh."

You mean the "Freedom" to be like us instead of the way THEY choose to be?

"I didn't claim Scotty was a liar;"

But if he isn't lying, then exactly what is your beef?

You mean the "Freedom" to be like us instead of the way THEY choose to be?

by mikeh

Did they "choose" to be gassed, raped, tortured and repressed by Hussain and his sons? Just curious.

I don't have a beef, Mike. I made a comment.

"I don't have a beef, Mike. I made a comment."

I know. You called him a "weasel" for telling the truth and I'm ondering if you've thought about the ethics of that?

"Did they "choose" to be gassed, raped, tortured and repressed by Hussain and his sons?"

That event 20 years ago isn't the reason we invaded and you know it.

Are you advocating occupying Darfur because that much and worse is occuring as we speak?

The FACT is that McClellan is only confirming what those of us who were paying sufficient attention have known all along.

By MikeH on May 28, 2008 7:40 PM

This is precisely why anyone with half a brain would know that McClellan’s book is BS. I would be surprised if McClellan even wrote it. From what I have read, it looks like McClellan watched Keith's show for a couple nights and wrote down every slur Keith spews about the president. Or maybe McClellan just did what Keith does and lifted the material for his book from blue blogs. This coward McClellan’s has the nerve to blast Richard Clark for writing a slimy book for money and then McCelellan turns around and does it himself. McClellan can cut it in the White House show he stabs his freind in the back for money. It is a story as old as time.

In the Media Matters Minute (I don't have the blue blog sources, but you know there are ones), the evil O'Reilly for reporting on GE/NBC. The Olbsessed one is mad that BOR is talking about him personally. The mock hysterical Ted Baxter voice was used, as usual, while reading the blue blog transcript. Heavy Donkey made a private parts joke about Fox being in the Republican Party's pocket. Lieberman again. "Hagee"! "Hagee"! "Hagee's"! "Hagee's"! [ding!] [ding!] [ding's!] [ding's!] Oralmann says Lieberman is mocking himself so he doesn't have to. And Dunkin' Donuts. How dare they pull that Rachael Ray ad! Rachael is "unbearble." She's wearing a "stupid scarf." "Lunatic fringe"! [ding!] "Xenophobic paranoia"! [ding!] Producers giggle off-camera. "They [Dunkin' Donuts] were as weak as their decaf" in pulling the ad. Mock voice used while reading statement. The right "shares the mentality of the terrorists." Michelle Malkin is a "fascist." "Lunatic fringers"! [ding!] "Terrorist scarves!" (2x) Mock baker voice: "Time to stop buying the donuts."
And that's my recap. I'd like to throw a brick through my computer monitor after hearing all that. Are you sure he's going to be gone soon, Bob? It feels like he isn't going anywhere. And...say it with me because you know what's coming...it frustrates me greatly.

Olby could hardly contain himself over the "scoop".

The Charles Foster Kane of our generation.

And Katy is the "singer" in the flick.

KO's mad that BOR *isn't* talking about him personally. Sorry about that.

I think keith upset the MSLSD sales manager by putting stink on dunkin donuts.

Keith hurt the early morning daypart with his rant.
DD spends a lot of money on TV.

But, leave it to Keith to throw his comrades under the bus. They don't run donut commericals in cable prime time, so these guys were expendable.

"This is precisely why anyone with half a brain would know that McClellan's book is BS."

Maybe, but it is also precisely why anyone with a FULL brain knows it to be absolutely true. It is simply a confirmation of a compilation of bits and pieces of truth that has leaked out slowly for years like a Chinese water torture.

So I ask again; what is it that he has written that you deem to be "BS"?

"Are you sure he's going to be gone soon, Bob?"

MikeC, lets have a Mike to Mike talk!

I watched the openng speil "Talking Points memo" of the O'Reilly Factor tonight and I can assure you that I was every bit as incredulous about what was coming out of that fool's mouth as you claim to be about anything Olbermann has said.....O'Relly's rant included a completely over-the-top rant about McClellan being a "Judas" and lamenting his appearing on "far-left" shows but not his own, .... along with an outright lie about how the so called "liberal media" doesn't have a conservative counterpart.

The difference beteen you and I is that while I dislike O'Reilly every bit as much as you dislike Olbermann, I am not cheering the possibilty of O'Reilly being tossed off the air the way you keep doing regarding Olbermann.

So I ask you once again:

1) - What is it that upsets you so much about a media voice you don't even have to watch?

2) - What makes you so anxious to see a voice you disagree with squashed just because you disagree with it?

3) - Why do you wish to see a return to a wimpy, pistol whipped, subservient media that literally helped get us involved in the Iraq war?

4) - Why is your wish to trample on my right to have a voice in the media silenced just because you disagree with it?

You called him a "weasel" for telling the truth

by mikeh

Scotty boy has not a shred of proof of anything, mikeh. It's ALL here say. No surprise, you believe everything you here from olbermahn.

>>>
That event 20 years ago isn't the reason we invaded and you know it.

by mikeh

Wrong. There was evidence of murder, rape and supression up till right before the "invasion" as you left wing lunatics like to call it. I guess olbermahn forgot to tell you that. Shocker!

How long will it be before Scott McClellan goes full "David Kuo" and announces that he, too, likes the anatomically correct chocolate Jesus?

Mike,

We invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein said that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. He did not comply with the UN Security Council Resolutions on WMDs. Had he done so, he would still be in power today, and millions of leftist dingbats would not be in a never ending 24/7, 365 days a year tizzy.

There goes Olberboy quoting cartoons (Family Guy) and attacking women (Kim Cattrall) again: "Like the line from Family Guy where he says the show is about three hookers and their mom."

Edward R. Douchebag is now referencing The Roadrunner AND Family Guy on (MS)NBC's "news show of record"?

What a hoot.

Scotty boy has not a shred of proof of anything, mikeh."....So tell me WHERE is the "proof" for all the right wing drivel you believe "without a shred of proof"?

"you believe everything you "here" from Olbermahn.".....And I believed it long before I ever heard of Keith Obermann.

"Wrong. There was evidence of murder, rape and suppression".....Those things are happening in third world countries all over this globe, and that emphatically is NOT why we invaded Iraq.

"up till right before the "invasion" as you left wing lunitics like to call it.".....And what do you right wing lunatics like to call it?

By MikeH on May 28, 2008 10:21 PM

Riddle me this Mike, why didn't McClellan bring any of this up when he was on Bill Maher's show a few months ago? He was no longer part of the Bush administration. Bill Maher would have certainly patted him on the back. The answer is MONEY. Press secretaries are not privy to the private conversations of the President. All a press secretary does is pass along messages to the press from the administration. McClellan was basically a PR flunky like every other press secretary. This is nothing but a money grab. McClellan is making accusations about information he would never be give

Rico: "We invaded Traq becaue Saddam Hussein said that Saddam Hussein had WMDs."......Funny, I just don't remember his saying that....In fact, I distinctly remember him being quoted as saying he had destroyed all of them.

Rico: "He did not comply with the UN Security Council Resolutions on WMDs.".....Are you referring to that same "UN" that refused to go along with the invasion?

Rico: "If he had, he would still be in power today".....And if we didn't have a narcacistic president more concerned with creating a great legacy for himself than he was with acting in our own best interests, 1) - over 4000 soldiers would be alive today that are not, 2) - Our dangerous debt to China would be many billions less than it is, 3) - Iran would still have a buffer against the rest of the Arab world, & 4) - America would still retain a modicum of Internaional respect.

Rico: "and millions of leftist dingbats would not be in a never ending 24/7, 365 day a year tizzy"......And would the millions of rightist dingbats still be in their tizzy?

The horror of it all! ..... A tizzyless America!

Factor, you asked me a question...but then you gave your own (wrong as usual) answer.

Of COURSE he wrote the book for money! You would too if you had a TRUTH to tell that the public was willing to pay for. It's called Capitalism, which is something you claim to love beyond all else based on the many ridiculous commie accusations you've made in the past.

Now.....tell us where he lied?

Did KO mention who published the book and who owns it?

It was Public Affairs Books owned by Frank H. Pearl who has donated $34,ooo to the democratic party.

That's pretty suspect.

"That's pretty suspect."

So tell us where he lied?

By MikeH on May 28, 2008 11:45 PM
"That's pretty suspect."

So tell us where he lied?

Where did McClelland tell the truth? All he did was make unfounded accusations with no proof.

Oh, and it's good to know Mike that you are for only telling the truth when offered gobs money. People who have integrity tell the truth because it is the right thing to do, not the profitable thing to do.

Mike,

Are you with John Lennon on this stuff? I'm thinking "Yes".

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

"All he did was make unfounded accusations with no proof."

And exactly what "unfounded accusations" would those be?

MikeH says, "Now.....tell us where he lied?

I haven't read the book yet, have you?

He certainly is lying about covering up who outed Plame (herself actually). Richard Armitage was the source for the original Robert Novak column as everybody knows except the crackpots on the far left.

First he says...."I haven't read the book yet, have you?"

Then he immediately follows that up with this little gem...."He certainly is lying about covering up who outed Plame."

I thought you just said you "haven't read the book yet"?

And exactly what "unfounded accusations" would those be?

That he overheard Bush saying he can't remember if he did cocaine or not. Where is his proof?

How about the perjurer Valarie Plame? Who was first outed by her husband and then by Richard Armitage.

You seem to want a believe a man who says that he lied to you for years, but now that someone has waved money in front of his face, he will tell you the truth.

Mike,

When somebody says things that you agree with you never doubt their sincerity or veracity. In other words you are "partisan". You are allowed to be that, but we are allowed to be partisan on our side, too.

From the excerpts I've read so far, McClellan is being general enough in his "revelations" so you can't really pin him down on any specific inaccuracy. He wants us to believe that he knew the decisions being made by the White House were wrong, but he never said anything (until he got a book deal).

His mention of the president not remembering whether he used cocaine make me suspect that the rest of the book could be a second-rate, gossipy kiss and tell, rather than a serious, cogent assessment of the subject.

By MikeH on May 29, 2008 12:02 AM
***First he says...."I haven't read the book yet, have you?"

Then he immediately follows that up with this little gem...."He certainly is lying about covering up who outed Plame."

I thought you just said you "haven't read the book yet"?***

I'm responding to the excerpts. Also I noticed you had no comeback for my "little gem" so instead you try to insult me. That's typical for the Olby crowd 5 year old mentality.

If dissent means bullying by one person, I wish we didn't have any dissent here. I'm sorry, Mike. I couldn't even read your comment to me because it was too hurtful. I'm tempted to give up commenting at OlbyWatch altogether because of you. Again, I'm sorry, but that's how I feel. I take your attack very personally, and I don't care if that's a victory for the far-left by saying that. And just so you know, I'm center right. I'm a person that can't stand Michelle Malkin, but I'll defend her against people that speak ill of her on the left; in particular, the far-left.
This open thread was supposed to be about tonight's "Countdown" and, I guess, anything Keith-related. Instead, Mike, you've dragged us way off topic, just like before Bob introduced registered comments.
I'm done commenting in this thread. So, enjoy your win.

"Did they "choose" to be gassed, raped, tortured and repressed by Hussain and his sons?"

by olby sucks
>>
That event 20 years ago isn't the reason we invaded and you know it.

by mikeh
>>
"
>>>>Still spinning and back pedalling!!!!!!!

....Those things are happening in third world countries all over this globe, and that emphatically is NOT why we invaded Iraq.

by mikeh

Olbyloon Ed:

Second, as Newsmax's Ron Kessler observed, McClellan's book reads like it could have been copied from the editorial page of any liberal newspaper, since What Happened is full of accusations that President George W. Bush led a "political propaganda campaign" aimed at "manipulating sources of public opinion."

With those two points out of the way, The Cable Gamer herself will stick to commenting on the cable coverage. Newsbusters' Matthew Balan caught this item, for example, in which CNN's John Roberts told The Politico's Mike Allen that McClellan "articulates what we all came to believe."

Now who is this "we"?

And isn't "all" a pretty strong statement! Are the media really that unanimous?

They are to mikeh.

No, MikeC, MikeH didn't win. You can't win with falsehoods and lies. Shall we look at just one paragraph:

> O'Relly's rant included a completely over-the-top rant about McClellan being a "Judas"

False. O'Reilly's TPM said no such thing. The word "Judas" wasn't even used in it! Read the transcript. He could hardly have ranted about McClellan "being a Judas" because he never said that! Attn folks, MikeH is not telling the truth.

> and lamenting his appearing on "far-left" shows but not his own

What he said was that McClellan agreed to come on the show and then broke his word and weasled out. I'm sure MikeH that was just an oversight on your part.

> along with an outright lie about how the so called "liberal media" doesn't have a conservative counterpart.

Which may be another lie on your part. That's not what he said at all. It was either too intellectually complex for you to grasp or you decided to deliberately misrepresent it to try to make a cheap gotcha point using corrupted data.

I suppose you don't see why people like MikeC think Olbermann shouldn't be on the air. After all, what do you know about Keithy? You don't even read the recaps. Except when you do read the recaps. But you don't read the recaps. Whatever. It is apparently beyond your comprehension that people object to a serial liar spewing hate on television, comparing people to Nazis, calling names, lying about his successful competitors, and obstinately refusing to ever present anything other than HIS side of the story--and then being put forward as an impartial newsman for debates and primary nights. Just because you don't have a problem with that doesn't mean that others are as tolerant of filth as you are.

> Why is your wish to trample on my right to have a voice in the media silenced just because you disagree with it?

This is emblemmatic of the level of argumentation provided by the Olbyloon. For one thing, the sentence makes no logical sense: someone is trampling on your right to have a voice in the media silenced? Or does it mean something it doesn't say: someone is trampling on your right to have a voice in the media?

Guess what? It doesn't matter how you read it, it's nonsense either way. You have no "right" to have Keith Oralmann on MSNBC. You don't own the channel or program it. So MikeC could hardly be trampling on a "right" that you just made up out of thin air. And what's more, how does he, by typing words in a computer, trample on ANY right of yours? Is this the kind of logical thinking that makes Keithy so attractive to you?

Geez, reading Olbyloon drivel is even worse than Olby himself. I'm glad I don't have the brick handy or I'd need a new monitor by now.

>I suppose you don't see why people like MikeH think Olbermann shouldn't be on the air.
I know you meant me, Johnny. It's okay.
When I said he won, I meant he got to me, as many bullies/trolls have in my life. Nevertheless, thank you very much for your rebuttal. I'm glad to have you on my side.

Is there any chance that KO will point out that the Publisher of McClellan's book works for Gerorge Soros whose also behind Media Matters who are one of KO's Media Masters that give him his talking points?..no I don't think so either...new Murrow indeed.