On Wednesday's Countdown, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann's latest "Special Comment" attack on President Bush accused the President of "panoramic and murderous deceit," and of "creating" an America that "includes 'cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives,'" contending that "they are those in, or formerly in, your employ, who may yet be charged some day with war crimes." He further accused Bush, whom he referred to as having an "addled brain," of "laying waste to Iraq to achieve your political objectives" in an "insurance-scam, profiteering, morally bankrupting war." Outraged by Bush's declaration that he had given up playing golf out of respect for those killed in Iraq, Olbermann called on the President to "Shut the hell up!" Video of Olbermann's rant can be seen here. (Transcript follows)
The Countdown host was responding to comments the President made during an interview with Politco.com. When asked what was the "worst that could happen" if U.S. troops were withdrawn from Iraq, Bush argued that extremists could feel "emboldened" to engage in "another attack on the United States," and referred to the "ideological struggle" in Iraq "against cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives."
The MSNBC host thought it was insightful to take President Bush's words about terrorists and apply them to the Bush administration. Olbermann: "Mr. Bush, at long last, has it not dawned on you that the America you have now created, includes 'cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives?' They are those in, or formerly in, your employ, who may yet be charged some day with war crimes."
Olbermann continued: "Through your haze of self-congratulation and self-pity, do you still have no earthly clue that this nation has laid waste to Iraq to achieve your political objectives? 'This ideological struggle' you speak of, Mr. Bush, is taking place within this country."
He soon accused the President of forming in Iraq "an American viceroyalty, enforced by merciless mercenaries who shoot unarmed Iraqis and then evade prosecution in any country by hiding behind your skirts, sir," and charged: "Terrorism inside Iraq is your creation, Mr. Bush!"
The MSNBC host referred to what he called Bush's "panoramic and murderous deceit" as he recounted recent Republican losses in Congress:
And as a final crash of self-indulgent nonsense, when the incontrovertible truth of your panoramic and murderous deceit has even begun to cost your political party seemingly perpetual congressional seats in places like North Carolina and last night Mississippi, you can actually say with a straight face, sir, that the members of Congress, "the political heat gets on and they start to run and try to hide from their votes," while you greet the political heat and try to run and hide from your presidency, and your legacy, 4,000 of the Americans you were supposed to protect are dead in Iraq, with your only feeble, pathetic answer being, "I was told by people that they had weapons of mass destruction."
Olbermann was most offended at the President's declaration that he had given up playing golf out of respect for those lost in Iraq, as the MSNBC host thought Bush instead should have chosen to give up the war effort: "Sir, to show your solidarity with them you didn't give up your pursuit of this insurance-scam, profiteering, morally and financially bankrupting war."
After accusing Bush of having an "addled brain," of "helping funnel billions of taxpayer dollars to lascivious and perennially thirsty corporations like Halliburton and Blackwater," and of "sending 4,000 Americans to their deaths for nothing," Olbermann concluded by advising President Bush to "Shut the hell up!" Olbermann:
When somebody asks you, sir, about Democrats who must now pull this country back from the abyss you have placed us at; when somebody asks you, sir, about the cooked books and faked threats you foisted on a sincere and frightened nation; when somebody asks you, sir, about your gallant, noble, self-abdicating sacrifice of your golf game so as to soothe the families of the war dead; this advice, Mr. Bush: Shut the hell up! Good night and good luck.
Below is a complete transcript of Olbermann's "Special Comment" from the Wednesday, May 14 Countdown on MSNBC with critical portions in bold:
Finally tonight, as promised, a "Special Comment" on two topics a lot of us had foolishly thought and naively hoped we would not again have to address, and a third topic nobody thought a President would ever seriously mention in public, unless perhaps he'd just been hit in the head with something and was not in full possession of his faculties, how he expressed his empathy with families of the dead in Iraq by giving up golf.
President Bush has resorted anew to the sleaziest fear-mongering and mass manipulation of an administration of a public life dedicated to realizing the lowest of our expectations. And he has now applied these poisons to the 2008 presidential election, on behalf of the party at whose center he and Mr. McCain lurk. Mr. Bush has predicted that the election of a Democratic President could, quote, "eventually lead to another attack on the United States." This ludicrous, infuriating, holier-than-thou and most importantly bone-headedly wrong statement came yesterday during an interview with Politico.com and online users of Yahoo.
The question was phrased as follows: "If we were to pull out of Iraq next year, what's the worst that could happen, what's the doomsday scenario?"
And the President replied: "Doomsday scenario, of course, is that extremists throughout the Middle East would be emboldened, which would eventually lead to another attack on the United States. The biggest issue we face is, it's bigger than Iraq, it's this ideological struggle against cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives."
Mr. Bush, at long last, has it not dawned on you that the America you have now created, includes "cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives?" They are those in, or formerly in, your employ, who may yet be charged some day with war crimes.
Through your haze of self-congratulation and self-pity, do you still have no earthly clue that this nation has laid waste to Iraq to achieve your political objectives? "This ideological struggle" you speak of, Mr. Bush, is taking place within this country. It is a struggle between Americans who cherish freedom, ours and everybody else's, and Americans like you, sir, to whom freedom is just a brand name, just like "Patriot Act" is a brand name or "Protect America" is a brand name.
But wait, there's more: You also have said "Iraq is the place where al-Qaeda and other extremists have made their stand and they will be defeated." They made no "stand" in Iraq, sir, you allowed them to assemble there!
As certainly as if that were the plan, the borders were left wide open by your government's farcical post-invasion strategy of "they'll greet us as liberators." And as certainly as if that were the plan, the inspiration for another generation of terrorists in another country was provided by your government's farcical post-invasion strategy of letting the societal infrastructure of Iraq dissolve, to be replaced by an American viceroyalty, enforced by merciless mercenaries who shoot unarmed Iraqis and then evade prosecution in any country by hiding behind your skirts, sir. Terrorism inside Iraq is your creation, Mr. Bush!
It was a Yahoo user who brought up the second topic upon whose introduction Mr. Bush should have passed, or punted, or gotten up and left the room claiming he heard Dick Cheney calling him. "Do you feel," asked an ordinary American, "that you were misled on Iraq?"
"I feel like, I felt like, there were weapons of mass destruction," the President said. "You know, 'mislead' is a strong word, it almost connotes some kind of intentional, I don't think so, I think there was a, not only our intelligence community, but intelligence communities all across the world shared the same assessment. And so I was disappointed to see how flawed our intelligence was."
Flawed. You, Mr. Bush, and your tragically know-it-all minions, threw out every piece of intelligence that suggested there were no such weapons. You, Mr. Bush, threw out every person who suggested that the sober, contradictory, reality-based intelligence needed to be listened to, and damned fast. You, Mr. Bush, are responsible for how "intelligence communities all around the world shared the same assessment." You and the sycophants you dredged up and put behind the most important steering wheel in the world propagated palpable nonsense and shoved it down the throat of every intelligence community across the world and punished everybody who didn't agree it was really chicken salad.
And you, Mr. Bush, threw under the bus, all of the subsequent critics who bravely stepped forward later to point out just how much of a self-fulfilling prophecy you had embraced, and adopted as this country's policy in lieu of, say, common sense.
The fiasco of pre-war intelligence, sir, is your fiasco. You should build a great statue of yourself turning a deaf ear to the warnings of the realists, while you are shown embracing the three-card monte dealers like Richard Perle and Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. That would be a far more fitting tribute to your legacy, Mr. Bush, than this presidential library you are constructing as a giant fable about your presidency, an edifice you might as well claim was built from "Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" because there will be just as many of those inside your presidential library as there were inside Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
Of course, if there is one overriding theme to this President's administration it is the utter, always-failing, inability to know when to quit when it is behind. And so Mr. Bush answered yet another question about this layered, nuanced, wheels-within-wheels garbage heap that constituted his excuse for war.
"And so you feel that you didn't have all the information you should have or the right spin on that information?"
"No, no," replied the President. "I was told by people, that they had weapons of mass destruction."
People? What people? The insane informant "Curveball?" The Iraqi snake oil salesman Ahmed Chalabi? The American snake oil salesman Dick Cheney?
"I was told by people that they had weapons of mass destruction, as were members of Congress, who voted for the resolution to get rid of Saddam Hussein.
"And, of course, the political heat gets on, and they start to run and try to hide from their votes."
Mr. Bush, you destroyed the evidence that contradicted the resolution you jammed down the Congress's throat, the way you jammed it down the nation's throat. When required by law to verify that your evidence was accurate, you simply resubmitted it, with phrases amounting to "See, I done proved it," virtually written in the margins in crayon. You defied patriotic Americans to say "The Emperor Has No Clothes," only this time with the stakes, as you and the mental dwarves in your employ put it, being a "mushroom cloud over an American city."
And as a final crash of self-indulgent nonsense, when the incontrovertible truth of your panoramic and murderous deceit has even begun to cost your political party seemingly perpetual congressional seats in places like North Carolina and last night Mississippi, you can actually say with a straight face, sir, that the members of Congress, "the political heat gets on and they start to run and try to hide from their votes," while you greet the political heat and try to run and hide from your presidency, and your legacy, 4,000 of the Americans you were supposed to protect are dead in Iraq, with your only feeble, pathetic answer being, "I was told by people that they had weapons of mass destruction."
Then came Mr. Bush's final blow to our nation's solar plexus, his last reopening of our common wounds, his last remark that makes the rest of us question not merely his leadership or his judgement but his very suitability to remain in office. "Mr. President," he was asked, "you haven't been golfing in recent years. Is that related to Iraq?"
"Yes," began perhaps the most startling reply of this nightmarish blight on our lives as Americans in our history. "It really is. I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died, to see the Commander in Chief playing golf. I feel I owe it to the families to be as, to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal."
Golf, sir? Golf sends the wrong signal to the grieving families of our men and women butchered in Iraq? Do you think these families, Mr. Bush, their lives blighted forever, care about you playing golf? Do you think, sir, they care about you?
You, Mr. Bush, you who let their sons and daughters be killed. Sir, to show your solidarity with them you gave up golf? Sir, to show your solidarity with them you didn't give up your pursuit of this insurance-scam, profiteering, morally and financially bankrupting war. Sir, to show your solidarity with them you didn't even give up talking about Iraq, a subject about which you have incessantly proved without pause or backwards glance, that you may literally be the least informed person in the world? Sir, to show your solidarity with them, you didn't give up your presidency? In your own words "solidarity as best as I can" is to stop a game? That is the "best" you can? Four thousand Americans give up their lives and your sacrifice was to give up golf! Golf. Not "Gulf," golf.
And still it gets worse. Because it proves that the President's unendurable sacrifice, his unbearable pain, the suspension of getting to hit a stick and a ball together, was not even his own damned idea.
"Mr. President, was there a particular moment or incident that brought you to that decision, or how did you come to that?"
"I remember when de Mello, who was at the U.N., got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man's life. And I was playing golf, I think I was in central Texas, and they pulled me off the golf course, and I said, it's just not worth it any more to do."
Your one, tone-deaf, arrogant, pathetic, embarrassing gesture, and you didn't even think of it yourself? The great Bushian sacrifice — an Army private loses a leg, a Marine loses half his skull, 4,000 of their brothers and sisters lose their lives — you lose golf, and they have to pull you off the golf course to get you to just do that?
If it's even true. Apart from your medical files, which dutifully record your torn calf muscle and the knee pain which forced you to give up running at the same time — coincidence, no doubt — the bombing in Baghdad which killed Sergio Vieira de Mello of the U.N. and interrupted your round of golf was on Aug. 19, 2003. And yet, there's an Associated Press account of you and photographs playing golf as late as Columbus Day of that year, October 13, nearly two months later.
Mr. Bush, I hate to break it to you 6 ½ years after you yoked this nation and your place in history to the wrong war, in the wrong place, against the wrong people, but the war in Iraq is not about you. It is not, Mr. Bush, about your grief when American after American comes home in a box. It is not, Mr. Bush, about what your addled brain has produced in the way of paranoid delusions of risks that do not exist, ready to be activated if some Democrat, and not your twin Mr. McCain, succeeds you.
The war in Iraq, your war, Mr. Bush, is about how you accomplished the derangement of two nations, and how you helped funnel billions of taxpayer dollars to lascivious and perennially thirsty corporations like Halliburton and Blackwater, and how you sent 4,000 Americans to their deaths for nothing!
It is not, Mr. Bush, about your golf game! And, sir, if you have any hopes that next January 20 will not be celebrated as a day of soul-wrenching, heart-felt thanksgiving, because your faithless stewardship of this presidency will have finally come to a merciful end, this last piece of advice:
When somebody asks you, sir, about Democrats who must now pull this country back from the abyss you have placed us at; when somebody asks you, sir, about the cooked books and faked threats you foisted on a sincere and frightened nation; when somebody asks you, sir, about your gallant, noble, self-abdicating sacrifice of your golf game so as to soothe the families of the war dead; this advice, Mr. Bush: Shut the hell up! Good night and good luck.
—Brad Wilmouth is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Darn that Olby...more air
May 15, 2008 - 07:25 ET by taterDarn that Olby...more air whizzing out of his head. Bush caused the terrorism...me thinks Olby missed out on the Hussien adminstistration.
That's my argument I'll let others pick this clown apart.
"They need to have a course in college called common sense and everyone should take it. Problem is there isn't too many people that could pass or teach it." -my grandfather
Just shut the...hell up!!
May 15, 2008 - 11:14 ET by kgYou fat a$$ed chicken sh_t (Yes, Mister Olbermann, I am talking about you, sir!) have absolutely no clue about what Iraq is really about. According to you Mister Moron, the President not supposed to weigh the intelligence and make an informed decision. You, Mister Dumbass, overlook
the facts because you, sir, cannot comprehend that we got into this war
because Iraq was not cooperating with the UN resolutions as well as catering to terrorists. All of your rantings Sir, spin around the minor side issue of WMD's. Mister
Olbernut, Sir, make no mention that your previous mentor's administration is
the one who assessed that Iraq had WMDs. It doesn't matter on Olby
Planet that those hundreds of truckloads of weapons were moved to Syria
right before the much advertised military actions.
So my advice to you, Sir is to pull your head out of your fat a$$,
stop reading KOS for your information, and Shut the... hell up!
"Forget change, I want improvement!"
in America, you have the right to be a lunatic
May 15, 2008 - 11:16 ET by TruthMongerif you can drool-bucket loony-bin rant like this on nationwide TV every day for the rest of your life, olby...
thank a Republican president like Bush for protecting your right to do so:)...
Take your own advice, Mr.
May 15, 2008 - 07:29 ET by motherbeltTake your own advice, Mr. Olbermann.
Shut up. Just. Shut. Up.
Hypocrisy in action...
May 15, 2008 - 11:29 ET by CortillaenOn a nation-wide program, no less. Olby feels he has not only the right, but an imperative, to spout his hateful rants, but the President should shut up. How, pray tell, does he manage to remain ignorant to this degree? It shouldn't be humanly possible.
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
Keith, Keith, Keith...
May 15, 2008 - 07:32 ET by Tom in NCI'm 100% sure that his cheese has finally slipped off his cracker and I can just picture him singing "They're coming to take me away haha" while he is being fitted for a straight jacket.
Welcome Mr Olbermann, reservation for one at the Rubber Room Ramada
They're coming to take me away,
May 15, 2008 - 07:42 ET by NorthCoasterthey're coming to take me away aha oho, to the Funny Farm where life is beautiful all the time......
K.O. ---Put a lid on it! you're getting to be boring!
...and I'll be happy to see
May 15, 2008 - 07:44 ET by Hero Squad...and I'll be happy to see those nice young men in their clean white coats...
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
more free publicity - for Republicans
May 15, 2008 - 11:18 ET by TruthMongerthe RNC really ought to be paying this guy
but i guess he loves to work for free
Continued after a brief pause . . .
May 15, 2008 - 12:11 ET by Mica the Magnificentand they're coming to take me awaaaay haha!
Olberman, dont ever come to Ohio...
May 15, 2008 - 07:45 ET by dronetekIf I ever see this man, his next memory will be waking up in a hospital. The guy is obviously unhinged and is being aloud to get on national TV every night and spew this innacurate hate speech. DNVTV should be ashamed, although I know they arent.
To think, Oberman is now
May 15, 2008 - 07:58 ET by ThisnThatTo think, Oberman is now the face NBC wants all its viewers to see. I can block channels I don't want to see in my Cable TV preview list. Anything with "NBC" in it is on that list, along with the so-called spanish, QVC, and PBS channels. But NBC is on the top of that list. They can thank people like Oberman.
I only with Newsbusters had a similar option, so I wouldn't have to read this crap in the morning and get my blood pressure up.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Nurse Ratchet
May 15, 2008 - 09:29 ET by CobraManIt's time to call in Nurse Ratchet for poor widdle Olby. I think he skipped a few of his treatments and needs a couple more thousand volts applied.
To qoute Spicoli:"You dick!"
May 15, 2008 - 07:41 ET by the strugglerTo qoute Spicoli:"You dick!"
Isn't Olbermann's theory
May 15, 2008 - 07:42 ET by Hero SquadIsn't Olbermann's theory debunked by the fact that he's still alive and broadcasting?
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
Yes, and as usual, irony is
May 15, 2008 - 07:47 ET by PeskyDaneYes, and as usual, irony is lost on the libtards.
That would require reflection
May 15, 2008 - 08:54 ET by KC MulvilleOlbermann is an intellectual vampire -- he has no reflection at all. Olbermann's accusations are like the villagers in The Holy Grail, rushing to burn a woman by accusing her of being a witch.
Olbermann's modern version: "Why is Bush so evil?" "He destroyed all our civil liberties, like freedom of speech!!" "But aren't you speaking freely now?" "..........."
When he spouts these unreflective, self-contradicting bursts of bile, he means to provoke outrage. Instead, most of us either get outraged at him, or simply laugh at him. Later, of course, after having smeared Bush with cries of murder and tyranny (and claiming that Democrats needed to save us from the abyss), he'll warn us of how the Republicans will use smear tactics. And he'll have no sense of his own hypocrisy, because he has no self-reflection.
Hahaha
May 15, 2008 - 07:44 ET by BacchusStop it, NewsBusters, please. I can't take it any more.
Hahahaha.
(Must. stop. laughing.)
I couldn't stop laughing
May 15, 2008 - 07:53 ET by taterI couldn't stop laughing after looking at the picture...I can't tell if he's having a proctology exam right there in the studio, thinking about Bill O killing him in ratings, or if he's imitating Janet Leigh in the old psycho movie.
"They need to have a course in college called common sense and everyone should take it. Problem is there isn't too many people that could pass or teach it." -my grandfather
Aww, I think it's a lovely
May 15, 2008 - 11:22 ET by CortillaenAww, I think it's a lovely picture. A picture is worth a thousand words, after all, and this one is spending the majority of its word-count on synonyms of "insane", "angry", "lying", and "blathering". I count myself lucky to have never witnessed one of his tirades. Transcripts are quite sufficient.
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
I saw this last night and it
May 15, 2008 - 07:49 ET by Free ThinkerI saw this last night and it was the best special rant ever! This guy lives in another world. He chose to take on reality last night and reality kicked him in the tail. The President is obviously very confident in his legacy and the conviction one has to have to make the decisions he has been forced to make. You can't say the same for Olbermann who must be embarrassed to give up a decent career as a sports guy to become the joke that he now is. I know President Bush has too much class, and quite frankly doesn't care, but I'll say it - Keith Olbermann I think it is time for you to shut the hell up!
If President Bush and K
May 15, 2008 - 08:05 ET by ThisnThatIf President Bush and K Oberman were greeters at the front gate of any military base, and the soldiers had to greet one, and only one of them, by the end of the day President Bush would be a rich man and Oberman would simply be the embarassment we all know he is.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Keith Olberman
May 15, 2008 - 08:57 ET by NKurucI still, to this day find it hard to believe that any network would allow the useless day in and day out diatribe that comes from the fools that have shows on MSNBC. Morning Shmoe (with Mika, and all of the other fools that come on), Matthews, Olberman, Abrams, etc. all saying basically the same things.........Obama is great and can't lose, our President is a fool and war monger, has ruined the economy, and finally Fox News is the devil. What the hell??? I know we watch this for ironic entertainment value, but NBC veiws this a a sincere form of flattery.
The usal suspects around
May 15, 2008 - 07:52 ET by PeskyDaneThe usal suspects around here must be so proud. Well, Bal,
Jer, et al? Does Olberman speak for you?
curiously absent so
May 15, 2008 - 11:20 ET by TruthMongercuriously absent so far
defending this may take quite a bit of time-consuming googleresearch
Don't be ridiculous, TM...
May 15, 2008 - 15:44 ET by JerDon't be ridiculous, TM...do you think I'm cowering somewhere in embarrassed silence? Think again.
Jer
Does Olberman speak for
May 15, 2008 - 15:37 ET by JerDoes Olberman speak for [me]?
Not at all...nor does anyone else. And I am no more inhibited now about condemning this over-the-top Olbermann rant than I have been in the past. Check the archives if you like. While doing so, maybe you can produce some examples where conservative NewsBusters members have condemned inflammatory rhetoric by, say, Limbaugh or Coulter.
Jer
Jer - I've spoken out against Coulter before
May 15, 2008 - 15:52 ET by Dee Bunkbut she is nowhere near as offensive as Olberman and She's not a news anchor. I think that it's great that you think he's a jerk but unfortunately most in your party don't.
My mother-in law watches him and likes him. He's a hero in most liberal circles. The moderates in your party are either silent or gone.
Dee...
May 15, 2008 - 16:14 ET by JerI've spoken out against Coulter before
Good for you...it's a rarity here. I guess we'll just disagree about who is more offensive, however. And despite MSNBC characterizations of Olbermann's status, I don't think anyone actually considers him to be a "news anchor".
Jer
Jer - he's on every day on prime time
May 15, 2008 - 16:16 ET by Dee BunkHow often is Coulter on?
Dee...so is O'Reilly [twice]
May 15, 2008 - 16:38 ET by JerDee...so is O'Reilly [twice]
And Ann gets plenty of face time.
Jer
Jer - now you bring O'Reilly into it - you didn't before
May 16, 2008 - 08:16 ET by Dee Bunkbecause just about every conservative has complained about him. And "plenty of face time" to you is what? Once a week? No she's not on once a week. Once a month? Maybe she's on once a month. Is that plenty of face time and comparable to Olberman who is on every day? When Ann is on - Is she allowed to ramble unchallenged? And if so for how long? I don't think I've ever seen her on unchallenged, but if she was it's only for a few minute segment, not a whole show.
O'Reilly gets plenty of complaints from conservatives for being too hard on conservatives and too soft on liberals but Olberman doesn't get any complaints that I know of about being to soft on conservatives. O'Reilly and Olberman are not comparable at all.
Yet again, another blatent
May 15, 2008 - 07:51 ET by WolfremYet again, another blatent example of Freedom of Speech only applies to the "tolerant" left but not to the right. I have lost count of how many laws the print and broadcast media have violated.
Another example I found this morning of do as I say not as I do.
"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana
Hey, NB staff...keep that
May 15, 2008 - 07:59 ET by motherbeltHey, NB staff...keep that photo....it's our very own Islamic Rage Boy
This was the first thought
May 15, 2008 - 07:59 ET by taterThis was the first thought in my head when I saw the photo.
http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/071029/horrormovies/psycho_l.jpg
"They need to have a course in college called common sense and everyone should take it. Problem is there isn't too many people that could pass or teach it." -my grandfather
And the movie title....
May 15, 2008 - 10:33 ET by SanityClauseBoth the picture and the movie title are consistent with Bathtub Boy.
come to think of it - I've
May 15, 2008 - 11:25 ET by TruthMongercome to think of it - I've heard OBL and Mookie use this exact same BDS rant before - olby you shameful plagiarist...
GET YOUR OWN DAMN MATERIAL OLBERMANN!!!
friends forever,
Osama Bin Laden
President and CEO, Al-Queda
"We're the 9/11 people"
I think this guy needs
May 15, 2008 - 07:57 ET by Delsaa mental evaluation! STAT !
MSNBC is such a disgrace!
They are CNN on steroids!
Get the guy a doctor quick!
DKOS and the mainstream
May 15, 2008 - 11:27 ET by TruthMongerDKOS and the mainstream Democrats are still un-impressed, i can tell you...
he deliberately left out all kinds of "bush-crime-family" stuff...
CONSERVATIVELY-BIASED OLBY IS OBVIOUSLY IN THE TANK FOR BUSH:(
When Mr. Bush leaves
May 15, 2008 - 08:09 ET by ConservativeRexWhen Mr. Bush leaves office I would pay to see him slap the hell out of Olbermann. Do you like what you hear from MSNBC? Put an Obama in as president and you'll not hear a Conservative on TV again, with the possible exception of Fox News. All the rest of the networks will treat Republicans as MSMBC does to Mr. Bush now. Bright future isn't?
As if Fox News is
May 15, 2008 - 08:16 ET by PeskyDaneAs if Fox News is "conservative."
PeskyDane, I don't consider
May 15, 2008 - 09:01 ET by ConservativeRexPeskyDane, I don't consider Fox News Conservative. Did you ever see a Conservative on any network other than Fox? I haven't either.
Wow ob, I’m not sure if I
May 15, 2008 - 08:21 ET by USA4freedomWow ob,
I’m not sure if I ever saw him on the street that I would be able to resist kicking his ass.
This guy is totally and completely mentally unstable.
I wonder why liberal talk radio does not make it.. I know, it sounds like him too much.
Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party, the party left me.
Insert: your name, 2008, and the Republican party.
Romney / Jendil 2012 (if,we survive)
There is something truly
May 15, 2008 - 08:19 ET by charlietexasThere is something truly wrong with this guy. It seems he only does this on wednesday night, I guess for ratings. He's one sick person. We need to call MSNBC and protest or boycott their advertisers. MSNBC should be accountable for this creep and get him of the air. He has no respect for the White House at all.
MOM
banning advertisers
May 15, 2008 - 08:57 ET by ArcherBAny idea where we can get a list of these advertisers? I don't want to have to watch the show to find out.
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary." Ernesto "Che" Guevara
boycott G.E., I guess, I
May 15, 2008 - 11:45 ET by charlietexasboycott G.E., I guess, I dont want to watch PMS NBC either. Laura Ingraham has a link to GE.......check it out....mom
Deep breaths
May 15, 2008 - 08:24 ET by notinstlClearly there isn't much oxygen on Keith's planet. I have never seen such self-serving, egomaniacl drivel in my life. He thinks he is being insightful and clever by spending (wasting) MSNBC's airtime on personal attacks against Bush while ignoring the reality in the world and in the middle east in particular. He was bad at sports...he is insufferable as a "commentator". He is also delusional if he thinks he is somehow comparable to E. R. Murrow. Oh, and try to post on the Newshole blog anything that doesn't agree with his comments...they never show up. Newshole is half right.
11 positive comments so
May 15, 2008 - 08:35 ET by tater11 positive comments so far...we've doubled that in the short amount of time this post has been up.
"They need to have a course in college called common sense and everyone should take it. Problem is there isn't too many people that could pass or teach it." -my grandfather
If anyone tells you there
May 15, 2008 - 08:24 ET by SickofLibsIf anyone tells you there are no venomous snakes in Manhattan, don't believe them.
Hmmm?
May 15, 2008 - 08:49 ET by JPR1"cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives?"
Wasn't there some speculation that this kind of thing occured during the previous administration?
Speculation, yes, but that's not the point
May 15, 2008 - 08:55 ET by ArcherBI know for a fact that this kind of thing was going on in Iraq before Bush put a stop to it. I guess Ubermann doesn't consider Iraqis to be actual people.
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary." Ernesto "Che" Guevara
Put up or Shut up!
May 15, 2008 - 08:53 ET by ArcherBI want to see this guy go to Iraq and tell this to the people there. Really, I would love to actually see it. It would be the biggest ratings MSNBC has ever had. I want to see him go up to a Kurd, Iraqi with one hand missing, or father who saw his daughters and or wife raped and killed by Saddams henchmen and tell them exactly what he has said here.
If he's not willing to do this, then he really needs to STFU.
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary." Ernesto "Che" Guevara
Mary Hart of Entertainment Tonight
May 15, 2008 - 08:58 ET by lareeFor some reason this reminds me of a lawsuit against Mary Hart by someone who watched Entertainment Tonight, claiming that listening and watching Mary Hart caused phyiscal harm when the person watched her...I never understood why the person didn't just stop watching Entertainment Tonight. And I can't understand why anyone is watching K.O.
Do we have a lawyer online? Keith Olberman hazardous to health?
May 15, 2008 - 09:03 ET by lareeCatherine Criers of Court TV said it was reminiscent of the 1991 case of Dianne Neale vs. Entertainment Tonight (ET). In that case, the summary stated that Mrs. Neale sued ET due to the fact that Mary Hart’s Voice caused her to go into a spontaneous epileptic seizure.
More love from the Left.
May 15, 2008 - 08:59 ET by mattmIt would be one thing if these hate-filled blowhards had some fact-based logic and reason behind their vitriol, but they don't.
Olbermanic is one of those who has a spaz every day yet will accuse Rush, Hannity and others of the very thing he epitomizes.
This, in a nutshell, is a perfect picture of a Liberal - full of hate and hypocrisy, empty of facts, logic and reason.
First Post Ever
May 15, 2008 - 09:08 ET by JTNYCHi All,
I read the site all the time and love most of the comments i read from posters. My first post is simply to express my disgust in the despicable sub-humanoid that has become the outhpiece of NBC. I just wrote NBC a letter letting them know how offensive these comments are and they should be ashamed for giving a podium for this uninformed ultra-biased clown to speak from.
Probably wont see me post much, but I'm always reading.
Best to you all.
hi JT!
May 15, 2008 - 09:15 ET by candanceYou're welcome to post anytime! No one on here bites (well, Leon did, but he's gone now).
Keep it up Olbermann
May 15, 2008 - 09:13 ET by chiefpayneRant some more...just a little bit more...yep, throw in nonsensical stuff and rant some more...
Maybe that brain aneurysm you've been working on since President Bush took office will FINALLY hit and we won't have to hear from you for very long.
Of course you probably DO have an unruptured aneurysm because some of the symptoms are: Thinking or processing problems, Speech complications, Perceptual problems, Decreased concentration, and Short-term memory difficulty.
Oh yeah...those are ALSO symptoms of liberalism!!!
Keith looks headed for a stroke
May 15, 2008 - 09:17 ET by ChrisMillsWell, from the picture and the text, we probably won't have to listen to the paranoid schizo much longer. I don't know how long he can keep going when the voices in his head keep getting him so worked up. I give him to just after McCain's election before he starts suffering from impaired speech and loss of control for half his voluntary muscles.
Well, that depends. If it's his left side, he'll lose all of em...
Nice Drive!
May 15, 2008 - 09:29 ET by SyriusThanks for the video!
I missed KO's special comment last night. I was alarmed early yesterday in reading Bush's sacrifice in news reports. I was wondering who would have picked it up. It wasn't reported here at Newsbusters, of course. Lo and behold, KO did a fine job in commenting on Bush's sacrifice. It's great to see the video here on Newsbusters with the usual commentary from the Dubya supporters. Most of you are in the 29% range of Americans who support Bush and that the Iraqi invasion has gone "swimmingly"(h/t Coulter), correct? The reality of the facts are overwhelming even Dubya and his stranglehold on his own lies. His display of ignorance on the facts leading up to the war with Iraq shows a man not leading a country only following the direction of Cheney and gang. If you don't see it that's your folly. 4000 dead, thousands injured, families and communities disrupted, a national debt beyond comprehension, an economy on the brink of recession, civil liberties trampled...and all for... what? Gosh, it's hard being Dubya, his golf game is in the toilet. He'll be okay after January 20th, he can start it up again! Tee up, Dubya, it's not that big of a deal. (SARC ON)
Syrius
The reality of the facts
May 15, 2008 - 10:09 ET by BDThe reality of the facts are overwhelming even Dubya and his stranglehold on his own lies.
And what exactly would those facts vs lies be? Please be specific as I am looking for fresh meat today.
never mind, BD - he's a
May 15, 2008 - 11:31 ET by TruthMongernever mind, BD - he's a believer - 72 virgins and the whole bit
that's some "syrius" cool aid he's been drinkin:)
Jim Jones would be proud
Ditto...
May 15, 2008 - 10:21 ET by ontheright...I'm curious to see this "facts vs. lies" list too!
Interesting
May 15, 2008 - 11:03 ET by chiefpayneI notice Syrius has not responded with these "overwhelming facts" he touts.
Further, he seems avoid answering challenges to his previous posts about my not being in Iraq rather than Afghanistan.
So how about it, Syrius? Care to bring your arguments and "facts" to the table with people who have actually BEEN in the places you claim are disasters?
how could he possibly
May 15, 2008 - 11:32 ET by TruthMongerhow could he possibly respond?
the facts are so overwhelming!!!!
he must be feeling faint
Respect
May 15, 2008 - 09:30 ET by capavI do not care how anyone feels about the war. Both sides have points to be made. One thing I do care about is the office held by the President of the United States. It is a position that deserves respect regardless of who holds it.
I recently watched Congressional hearings regarding fuel prices. A Congresswoman from California chastised the person answering questions for interrupting the chairman. She suggested respect should be shown. I wonder if she would care to comment on the respect shown to our President by her side of the aisle supporters?
It totally amazes me the MSNBC airs a commercial with this jerk in it in which he says "it's time to put aside partisan feelings". Is that a joke or what?
amen to this my
May 15, 2008 - 11:34 ET by TruthMongeramen to this
my three-year-old behaves better than these political hacks
The "Bush lied" smear
May 15, 2008 - 09:35 ET by ArminiusMy real concern is that this "Bush lied" lie that Olbermann and his fellow moonbats constantly repeat will eventually be accepted as fact. The truth is that even Hillary Clinton and John Edwards have admitted that the intelligence regarding Iraq was consistent from Bill Clinton to Geroge W. Bush. The Olbermanns of the world would have you believe that the Clinton administration was telling the truth about Iraq having WMD when they left office in January 2001. Then, without anyone else in the world but the Bush administration knowing it, Saddam destroyed his WMD between January 2001 and March 2003. Bush merely continued to claim that Saddam had WMD so he could invade Iraq and take over their oil. The Olbermanns, however, can't explain why, if Bush would do that, he failed to take the next logical step and plant WMD in Iraq.
I have written a book on this topic. I began writing it when Hillary was the "inevitable" Democrat nominee. Needless to say, I'm probably going to have to do some serious rewriting. Until then, the book is available for free as a PDF at www.sinsofthehusband.com
Olbermann's Terrorist Talking Points
May 15, 2008 - 09:35 ET by BarkerMahmoud Ahmadinejad could have made the same rant as Olbermann, with much less spittle.
Wait we know of all those
May 15, 2008 - 09:44 ET by RbastidWait we know of all those who "died" from the Clinton camp.....
We know that Obama is friends with people who tried to kill or hurt people as well as friends who feel Farrakhan, who incited many deaths, is a great guy.
Yet its Bush's people who would kill for political gain? yeah....
Everyone does their hardest to twist around Bush's words, or maybe those reporting are just semi......Fully-Retarded.
Bush isn't saying he's giving up golf as a penance, he's just saying as a whole he gave up things that don't look presidential in a time of war. He doesn't want to get news of someone dying in Iraq at say, when he's in a dance party in NYC and has to give his response. He's not saying these men sacrificed their lives/time so he's sacrificing golf....but thats never how things will be show in the news.
For those
May 15, 2008 - 09:48 ET by chiefpaynewho keep saying things aren't going well in Iraq and Afghanistan, I suggest you take a trip out there and see for yourselves. I've been there (at least to Afghanistan), was there from Feb 2006 - Mar 2007 in Kandahar first then Bagram, and made trips all over the country FOB hopping.
While it's not paradise, it's a whole lot better than before we got there! We've done a tremendous job of helping the people there. We've even started their very FIRST bank...which took some doing because the concept was lost on them in the beginning.
Those who say it's not going well, ASK the people there if it's going well or not...and while your at it, ask them if they would like us to leave any time soon. I can tell you, the majority of the people I met not only liked us being there but wouldn't be upset if we NEVER left.
Sorry, it's not that easy...
May 15, 2008 - 09:59 ET by SyriuschiefP,
Oh no, you didn't! You described one place- Afghanistan, while commenting on two places- Iraq & Afghanistan. So, from your own reporting...things are going well in Afghanistan...I'll wait for the update on Iraq when you get back...that is...if you get back.
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
And obviously you've been to
May 15, 2008 - 10:02 ET by FoolicanAnd obviously you've been to Iraq, right? So you know that it's all chaos and destruction and that the troop surge isn't working and that U.S. soldiers are dragging dead women and children in the streets behind their Jeeps.
Okay, I have been to Iraq,
May 15, 2008 - 10:12 ET by BDOkay, I have been to Iraq, TWICE. Am I allowed to say things are going well?
And by the way, Your comment ...that is...if you get back.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR FALSE CONCERN regarding weither any of us return from a combat zone. If you ever meet me or any other person in uniform on the street, you can avert you gaze as you are not worthy.
Game, set, match! BD
May 15, 2008 - 10:18 ET by motherbeltGame, set, match! BD
Well done BD...
May 15, 2008 - 10:27 ET by ontherightIt's slime like syrius who would spit on the returning warriors who are protecting their rights all because they hate "Bush's war".
I guess these liberal slime balls have completely forgotten 9/11 and are too "thick" to research the ties to Iraq/Terrorism and only accept the MSM as the gospel of what has happened and is currently happening. Wake up liberals or you will be on your knees facing the west several times a day before you know it.
Shame on you and your ilk, Syrius
My answer is below
May 15, 2008 - 10:49 ET by chiefpaynein case you ACTUALLY want to read it.
As for me getting back, the odds were with me and I DID make it back...AND I'm going AGAIN...this time to Iraq. So perhaps the next time we discuss this subject, I will have first hand experience to tell you how wrong you are.
Oh BTW, if I were you, I wouldn't travel to Washington DC right now...the crime rate there is such that I will have FAR better odds surviving Iraq than YOU would getting out of DC alive!
Have a NICE day! :^)
LA and Miami vs. Iraq
May 15, 2008 - 11:39 ET by TruthMongerhey everybody - statistically you are less likely to make it back from Los Angeles or Miami than Iraq...
so make sure you remember that when planning summer trips:)!
Syrius?
May 15, 2008 - 10:23 ET by mofosesameFirst post and I don't care if this gets me banned -
Syrius, you're an asshole. You don't deserve to live in the United States.
Although I find myself
May 15, 2008 - 10:25 ET by FoolicanAlthough I find myself disagreeing with Syrius more often than not, I have to defend him in this instance. If there's one thing I don't like to see in political debate and commentary, it's an ad hominem attack. It's xenophobic and it stifles rational thought.
Ad Hominem
May 15, 2008 - 10:31 ET by mofosesameYou should look away.
Syrius said "...if you come back"
That doesn't bother you?
If it doesn't, you bother me.
Everything about him bothers
May 15, 2008 - 10:33 ET by FoolicanEverything about him bothers me, but I like to hold everyone to the same standard of living. It's only fair - most of all, it's mature.
It's not immature to call
May 15, 2008 - 10:36 ET by mofosesameIt's not immature to call someone an asshole.
sesame,
May 15, 2008 - 11:06 ET by Karmasesame,
Take candances' advice. Sis should be treated like the spoiled brat throwing a tantrum; ignore him.
Syrius/Hater
May 15, 2008 - 11:11 ET by mofosesameSyrius is Hater
I respect most of you on here but I don't need advice on this one.
One and done.
wait...
May 15, 2008 - 11:15 ET by candanceThe prevailing wisdom is that Leon was Hater, and Syrius joined us way before Leon got booted.
Leon/Hater/Syrius
May 15, 2008 - 11:22 ET by mofosesameCandance, I'm going waaaay back - you weren't around.
I'm sure if I dig deep I can name a few more he's used.
now I see
May 15, 2008 - 11:29 ET by candanceUsing the length of your membership to one-up me, how nice.
I didn't have any problem with mofo's sentiment as I was equally bothered by Syrius' words, just his use of profanity stuck out to me as unnecessary.
But apparently the majority has spoken and profanity is welcome on here.
I said the same thing Candance and I'm not trying to one up you
May 15, 2008 - 11:32 ET by Dee BunkWhy are you so defensive? Those of us who have been here a long time know how to recognize hater.
So glad you didn't leave. I posted below that I agree with you
May 15, 2008 - 11:30 ET by Dee BunkIt's wild that you have been here for a long time and just posted. What restraint! As I said below - I agree with you and was almost going to say the same thing before you did. You are my kind of person mofoesame - I can tell already and I hope you stick around.
Candance - You haven't been here that long
May 15, 2008 - 11:27 ET by Dee BunkI know you have been here a lot more than I have lately but hater has been here for a long time and he always posted under more than one ID. I agree that Syrius is very likely to be Hater/Leon. If nothing else he's an SFN buddy of his.
don't worry about it Dee
May 15, 2008 - 11:33 ET by candanceThe totem pole is clearly established, meaning I won't be allowed to argue on here until I've surpassed my counterpoint in seniority. I'll see myself out and let you all decide what you want NB to look like.
See what the...
May 15, 2008 - 11:40 ET by ontheright..."drive-by" liberals cause? The tolerant types? We don't need in-fighting - I think we all agree that Syrius, et. al. are AH's - and I think we all agree that there should be certain level of decorum here. Let's find the middle ground and put the Syrius' back where they belong, in the gutter.
not everyone has spoken
May 15, 2008 - 11:43 ET by TruthMongerbravo to you for promoting civility candance
swearing here gets deleted most of the time
syrius' and friends bitterness regarding our phenominal WOT success is not really worth the anger IMO - pity is more like it
This from the guy who calls everyone a bigot
May 15, 2008 - 12:11 ET by Dee BunkThat's really funny TM.
actually the exact process is
May 15, 2008 - 14:26 ET by TruthMongerI simply (and politely) request respectful commentary regarding all faiths
for which I am called the "douchemonger"
to which I counter with the word "bigot," yes
whereby I'm labeled a terrorist-apologist-appeaser
but thank you for lying - yet again:)
and again, candance - thanks for your efforts
dee, well...maybe someday we'll see you at the grown-ups table
It seems to me that you
May 15, 2008 - 15:05 ET by BDIt seems to me that you refuse to acknowledge the cultural facts and history of Islam, towhich - it is a religion based on tribal violence. That this Tribal warrior based religion is more apt than others to create terroristic violence. This is indiputable.
When this is pointed out to you, you take the ultra-PC Defensive step of saying that we are not respecting it as a religion.
Candance BD and I will be at the grown-ups table but
May 15, 2008 - 15:13 ET by Dee BunkI think it will be a while before you get there. Here you are calling me a liar when you admitted to saying what I said you did. I haven't been around for every conversation but I see you calling people bigots all the time for no good reason. You are a name caller and you know it.
That is rediculous candance
May 15, 2008 - 12:00 ET by Dee Bunkthere is no seniority rule here. You have more clout on here than I do because you have been here more recently for longer. That doesn't mean you own the place and are exempt from criticism. Why do some of you people act as if I'm a Queen Bee or something. I really don't get it. If I disagree with someone it's all the sudden all of Newsbusters behind me? Hardly. They delete my comments - do they delete yours? Do you even see one other person agreeing with me? BT is the only one I know who has said similar things and Well99 agreed with us on another thread. I have nothing against you at all Candance. I just disagree with jumping on new conservatives for minor infractions here.
I don't know what you want NB to look like but I know that I want it to look like a conservative site, not a liberal one. I spent a lot of time here sticking up for liberals who got bombarded but it was more like a helping friendly hand than a tear down the other person thing.
Now I find those same liberals ganging up on new and old conservatives who come here and I don't like it. New conservatives should at the very least be treated with as much respect as new liberals. People need to get things out once in a while. Leon/ Syrius/ hater are surely no model of behavior yet they are allowed on again and again. I don't care about them either. I'm glad they are here.
And that is my opinion - no one else's - nothing more. I have no influence at NB. My opinions are my own. As I said before to some other conservative who took my criticism as some type of sweeping thing, I'm a heart on my sleeve type and I say what I'm feeling and I really don't care if it's popular at the time or not.
I feel horrible that you would even consider leaving here just because I don't agree with you. That really blows my mind. I'm sorry.
Too bad I wasn't quick enough - I'm getting sick of this
May 15, 2008 - 11:19 ET by Dee BunkWe are losing lots of people because of the PC police and I'm sick of it. If you are still here sesame please read my post below.
I openly welcome mofossame and his/her comments
May 15, 2008 - 11:17 ET by Dee BunkI'm glad that the idiot motivated him to post. What he said was extremely offensive and I don't think most would blame you. We do try to avoid using swear words and name calling here, but new people usually have to get some frustration out first. So don't let the PC police keep you from posting please. I'm glad to have new people like you here myself.
I've been here for a long time and I still just called Syrius a name. It happens. It will always happen with someone as obnoxious as he is.
Thanks, Dee Bunk
May 15, 2008 - 11:29 ET by mofosesameThanks for the support.
I promise to refrain from using profanity in the future - ;) unless another liberal says something similar to what Syrius just said.
Thanks!
May 15, 2008 - 12:08 ET by Syriusmofo,
I appreciate the civility. I meant no harm and apologize for getting you so upset with me. I'll try to stop getting you so upset with me in the future. Hopefully, we'll see more educated and developed responses instead of immature flashes of vulgarities and schoolyard antics.
Thanks for your future civil responses...
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Ok, Syrius
May 15, 2008 - 15:07 ET by mofosesame"Hopefully, we'll see more educated and developed responses instead of immature flashes of vulgarities and schoolyard antics."
There is nothing immature about calling a spade a spade.
And, stop crapping on our troops. I know your kind.
»→ Mofo
May 15, 2008 - 11:07 ET by Cool ArrowIsn't "sphincter" more descriptive?
♣ a seal
you're justified, mofosesame...
May 15, 2008 - 11:39 ET by jpatchI'll back you up on this one.
"Syrius" is an anal sphincter...nothing good is allowed in, and only sh*t comes out.
Rock on, mofosesame.
Welcome to NewsBusters...please help us save America from lunacy.
"Lighten up, Francis!"
May 15, 2008 - 11:27 ET by Syriusmofo,
Actually, read the comment, read it again. If I were to make the same comment only differently- you or others would have jumped all over it. Something to this effect...(I apologize to chiefpayne for reusing his comment in a different way. It's just to make a point.)...
For those who keep saying things are going well in Iraq and Afghanistan, I
suggest you take a trip out there and see for yourselves. I've been
there (at least to Afghanistan), was there from Feb 2006 - Mar 2007 in
Kandahar first then Bagram, and made trips all over the country FOB
hopping.
While it's not a paradise, it's a whole lot better than before we got
there! We've done a tremendous job of not helping the people there. We've
even started their very FIRST bank...which took some doing because the
concept was lost on them in the beginning and still is.
Those who say it's going well, ASK the people there if it's
going well or not...and while your at it, ask them if they would like
us to leave any time soon. I can tell you, the majority of the people
I met not only hated us being there but wouldn't be upset if we NEVER came.
This comment is more in line and reflects similiar comments from my families and friends who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Pile on...only the truth remains...change is coming.
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Cute Syrius
May 15, 2008 - 12:49 ET by chiefpayneBut my comments about Afghanistan stand...and I think I'm pretty qualified to speak about it since I spent slightly more than a year there.
Actually, the biggest problem they DO have with the UN being there is, the UN is trying to remove their poppy fields WITHOUT giving them another cash crop that can provide an equal amount of funding to support their families.
hello sesame
May 15, 2008 - 10:43 ET by candanceWelcome to NB. As someone who has become a regular around here, I invite you to comment as often as you like. That said, profanity and personal insults do not become conservatives.
Yes Syrius said something incredibly rude and insensitive - this is his normal tone around here. Yes you have a right to be annoyed at him. But don't go down to his level of vulgar language.
You asked another poster to avert their eyes from your profanity. I'm asking you to observe the same courtesy: either engage Syrius with a polite tone or avert your eyes.
We don't need to become the Republican version of Huffington Post.
Mofo
May 15, 2008 - 11:04 ET by mofosesamecandance - I've been with Newsbusters from the beginning - as an observer but a daily observer.
It was one comment.
He set me off and he deserves what he gets.
oh I get it
May 15, 2008 - 11:06 ET by candanceSo us conservatives don't want those words on TV but it's okay to post them on a public discussion board as long as someone has it coming...
That's you
May 15, 2008 - 11:16 ET by mofosesameI'm obviously not as sensitive to these kinds of things as you are.
Like I said, I'm one and done. I'll now go back to being an observer.
Loosen up, candance - this does not define me
No vulgarities in my speech or language...
May 15, 2008 - 11:09 ET by Syriuscandance,
I pointed out the flaw in chiefpayne's comment and make a snarky comment refering to the chaos in Iraq and I'm to be skewered. Pleeze people lighten up. Actually, in all honesty, I do wish chiefpayne a safe return from Iraq. I would like to see him not go in the first place and, hopefully, as change begins to happen after January 20th of next year, he'll never have to go back.
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
sorry Syrius
May 15, 2008 - 11:11 ET by candanceHey I'm on your side here (re: profanity) can't you cut me a little slack? Besides, if I didn't throw in a little criticism of you people would start to think I liked you.
; -)
I meant to say thanks...
May 15, 2008 - 11:42 ET by Syriuscandance,
I appreciate civility in any debate. I enjoy debating and pointing out flaws in arguments, statements, and comments. Believe me, I know when I make a mistake! If all debate ceased on this site it would be boring as all get out. Continued carping of GOP talking points and preaching to the choir without any opposing views would stop the exploration of differing views. Some on this site will either soften or strengthen their views. I must admit I've learned quite a bit in the past few months...good and bad. My opinions have changed a bit (not that it matters to anyone). I don't really care about offensive personal attacks, I'm not allowed to punch back with the same vigor (it's a little one sided on this site). So, I'll point out contradictions and voice the opposing side's opinion. Since I was one of you back in my past, I'll play devil's advocate just to get some of these posters to start thinking and possibly realize there is always another side to their argument.
Thanks again, I hope to return the favor.
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
I'm thinking, all right
May 15, 2008 - 12:45 ET by CobraMan"I'll play devil's advocate just to get some of these posters to start thinking"
I'm thinking, all right. I'm thinking that you're ether just trying to argue for the sake of arguing, a very childish attitude I might add, or that you really are ignorant about this whole issue and that you believe in what your saying only because you‘re justifying you‘re judgments on those things you hear about in the press that reflects and justifies you‘re predisposed opinions. That doesn't reflect very well on your intelligence or your judgment. But, hay, that's just my opinion.
Game Over, Poser!
May 15, 2008 - 13:20 ET by CobraManYou just made a critical error, Syrius. You just pointed out that you're really not defending your positions, you're simply taking the opposite position in order to "have fun" by arguing with someone. I'd have more respect for you if you really did try to defend your position because you actually believe in it. But you're not, are you? You're just being a poser, aren't you? You shouldn't have admitted that. By revealing your cards you've lost the game, poser.
What a crock Syrius
May 15, 2008 - 14:12 ET by Dee BunkIf you really cared about debate and opposing opinions then you wouldn't be here spewing the liberal talking points that are everywhere in the media. You'd be giving the conservative arguments that are not discussed and speaking out it ways that made sure they would be allowed to be discussed.
We all know the other side to the argument. We hear it every day in the media. You have not said anything that everyone hasn't already heard before. You constantly change the subject and never address things that people ask you to. You are not interested in debate, only demonizing.
You still never addressed or defended the liberal position on Welfare for illegal aliens and instead tried to turn it into support for worker training and the two are completely different. Even if they were completely tied together, we shouldn't be providing worker training for illegals either.
Syrius is just a poser
May 15, 2008 - 14:22 ET by CobraManSyrius is just a poser who's only interested in arguing with people because it's "fun" and not because of any particular stance. It's all just a game. Well, that's one game I won't be playing any more.
Unfortunately you kind of have to cobra
May 15, 2008 - 14:34 ET by Dee Bunkbecause he leaves so much misinformation out there. Like in the last thread I argued with him, he basically gave the conservative argument for why welfare wasn't good and used it as if it applied to the liberal one. You know how conservatives believe you give someone a job, not a hand out. He wouldn't answer any questions or justify why illegals should be allowed to get welfare and just acted as if the argument were about job training and jobs for U.S. citizens.
You can't just leave his crap out there because people who don't follow a whole thread could be misinformed so you have to keep calling him on his bull.
Dee, You're right that
May 15, 2008 - 15:20 ET by KarmaDee,
You're right that Sis leaves crap all over the place. The problem is he feeds on the attention. Deny him his food/attention, and Siss' sphincter will speak no more. Unless, of course, he develops coprophagia. Then were screwed.
What chaos?
May 15, 2008 - 11:32 ET by CobraMan"I pointed out the flaw in chiefpayne's comment and make a snarky comment refering to the chaos in Iraq and I'm to be skewered."
What chaos are you referring too? Most of Iraq hasn't been experiencing the terrorist attacks that has befallen parts of central Iraq in the last 3 years. This isn't Lebanon in the 80's, you know. There isn’t a civil war going on in Iraq, and Iraq is not experiencing the mass chaos those type of conflicts usually inspire, especially in the Middle East. Most of the citizens in Iraq support us and wish us no harm.
You're not the only one who knows people who served in Iraq. I have a nephew that served two tours in Iraq (after serving a year in Afghanistan and a year in Kosovo), and he volunteer for his second tour in Iraq (he even want to return again as a civilian contractor employee as he likes the Iraqi people and wants to help them), and he never ONCE saw any combat. Not a single attack while he was on patrol. Not a singe IED exploding around him. Not a single shot fired by him at any time other than for training. As a matter of fact, nether has the majority of the 130,000 or so troops that are stationed in Iraq. The majority never see combat or come under enemy attacks like IED’s, car bombs, mortar attacks, suicide bombers, and the like. Seems to me that your chaos theory is grossly overstated.
Anyone with an objective viewpoint would realize that most of Iraq is NOT experiencing chaos and that most of the Iraqi citizens are actually doing fine now that Saddam and his government is out of the way. There's more work to be done, for sure, but that's true even here in America. So, tell me again, what chaos are you talking about?
I have pointed out the flaw
May 15, 2008 - 11:36 ET by BDI have pointed out the flaw in your postings, but you have not responded. Why is that?
Because facts are...
May 15, 2008 - 11:48 ET by ontheright..."inconvenient" for liberals. Their distorted view of reality is all that matters, to them. Facts be damned!
Typical. Don't let your story (read: lie) get tripped up by those darned 'ol facts.....LMAO!
It seems that as soon as
May 15, 2008 - 14:40 ET by BDIt seems that as soon as you ask a lib for Logic and facts rather than emotion, they FLEE!!!!
"When danger raised its ugly head, Sir Robin turned his tail and Fled"!!!
BD - it's that or change the subject
May 15, 2008 - 15:00 ET by Dee Bunkthe two things Syrius is best at
Syrius, I read one of your
May 15, 2008 - 10:29 ET by Free ThinkerSyrius, I read one of your earlier posts as well as this one and I can say you are following the lunatic fringe left rules for debate perfectly - dismiss facts and follow up with as many hateful comments as possible to distract from your limited understanding of reality. You pepper your comments with the same tired and dismissed liberal talking points and cling to them as if you are smarter than anyone else while looking like a fool. I don't mind the kooky comments but to wish someone ill will is just plain disgusting. Very tolerant of you.
Tell you what...
May 15, 2008 - 10:45 ET by Tom in NCSyrius, why don't walk down the streets of Youngstown, Ohio after dark and report back...that is...if you get back.
Maybe Syrius meant that it
May 15, 2008 - 11:12 ET by Hero SquadMaybe Syrius meant that it has become so nice in Afganistan that when your visit is concluded, you will want to bring the wife and kids to live there.
And if I believe that one, perhaps you have a Brooklyn Bridge that I can buy from you?
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
Un HUH
May 15, 2008 - 10:11 ET by chiefpayneSyrius,
"I'll wait for the update on Iraq when you get back...that is...if you get back. "
Sir, I worked in the Casualty Operations center of Afghanistan and coordinated with the Main office in Kuwait which obtains statistics from BOTH countries. Further, I was in contact with various colonels and sergeants major who had to travel to, and attend meeting concerning strategy in BOTH countries, so I did get first hand information from both countries.
However, if you still want further information from people who were in Iraq, I suggest you try these sites:
http://www.mideastmonitoring.com/
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=34&Itemid=55
At these places you will get the unvarnished truth, I believe.
BTW, we had a total of 250 casualties in Afghanistan during the year I was there...with 48 being KIA, and approximately 53 being very seriously wounded.
Then I'm correct.
May 15, 2008 - 11:00 ET by SyriuschiefP,
It doesn't make any sense to report on Iraq as going as well as Afghanistan from a "personal" account on Afghanistan and then hearsay accounts on Iraq. You were told how well it was going in Iraq from others who were in Iraq. This is the same as listening to reports which also show the opposite of what you hear. I pointed your comment out to show how many of us make assumptions on one place and then automatically assuming it's the same elsewhere. I have friends and family members serving in both places. Their reports are much different from the glowing accolades on Iraq of others on this site.
All of the members of the military and their families have my utmost respect and support. It would be unpatriotic not to stand up and demand their safe return. It's time to start listening to them and start bringing them home.
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Indeed
May 15, 2008 - 11:23 ET by chiefpayneSyrius,
"It doesn't make any sense to report on Iraq as going as well as Afghanistan from a "personal" account on Afghanistan and then hearsay accounts on Iraq. You were told how well it was going in Iraq from others who were in Iraq. This is the same as listening to reports which also show the opposite of what you hear. I pointed your comment out to show how many of us make assumptions on one place and then automatically assuming it's the same elsewhere. I have friends and family members serving in both places. Their reports are much different from the glowing accolades on Iraq of others on this site."
First, you are listening to second-hand reports as well - so I must ask, why are YOUR second-hand reports more accurate than mine? Seems to me we BOTH are listening to people we know have been there. Further, my intelligence was based on personnel who had left the country days after being there. Finally, as I was in the theatre of operations, there was no reason for anyone to lie, enhance or take away from the truth of what was going on there.
Second, I too have friends and family in both places and I receive info from them as well. Further, I am scheduled to go there next year, so again, I should be able to give first hand accounts later. Of course you could listen to BD who HAS been there and has said things are going fine.
"All of the members of the military and their families have my utmost respect and support. It would be unpatriotic not to stand up and demand their safe return. It's time to start listening to them and start bringing them home. "
Sir, if you have a plan to return them home without leaving Iraq in chaos, I suspect you would have an audience. For myself, the plan I think would work is relatively suscinent. We need to build a permanent post in Iraq and fund it and man it with funds and personnel from closing unneeded posts in areas like Germany. This would accomplish a number of things: 1. Provide proof to the government we will not abandon them 2. Provide the same proof of support to the military 3. Prove to al Qaeda that we are there for the long haul and 4. maintain one of three perfect launching sites for future military operations (if required) in the hottest hotbed, politically speaking, in the world (Isreal, and Afghanistan being the other two).
If you have a better plan which will not result in ethnic cleansing, I would be more than happy to hear it, Sir!
I couldn't agree more with your observations.
May 15, 2008 - 19:30 ET by Syriuschiefpayne,
First, I will apologize for my off-handed comment. It was out of line and for all intents and purposes I wish you goodwill and good luck to you and your buddies. I wish you a safe return. Thank you for your service. I appreciate the well thought out plan you laid out...
"We need to build a permanent post in Iraq and fund it and man it with
funds and personnel from closing unneeded posts in areas like Germany.
This would accomplish a number of things: 1. Provide proof to the
government we will not abandon them 2. Provide the same proof of
support to the military 3. Prove to al Qaeda that we are there for the
long haul and 4. maintain one of three perfect launching sites for
future military operations (if required) in the hottest hotbed,
politically speaking, in the world (Isreal, and Afghanistan being the
other two)."
You are correct in most of your points and I support them. Israel may not need our help as much. Kuwait and Dubai are very good from an operational standpoint.
As for BD, I always appreciate insights from personal experiences. I wish he would have expanded on his own personal stories instead of thinking I was disrespecting him. I think we all need to understand the reporting of both sides of the war and everything in between. It doesn't serve any purpose to constantly be at each other's throats on whether or not Iraq is progressing or regressing. It's not good. That's not to say it will get worse or better. I think your plans are good...now how do we get there...?
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
So Syrius....
May 15, 2008 - 11:30 ET by ontheright...your contention is, the second-hand tripe that you get from the MSM is more reliable than the "boots on the ground?" Interesting angle. It's no wonder you are dazed and confused.
Oh, that last time I looked, the US Military is made up of volunteers. As such, they knew there would be a chance of going into combat. As I have several family members who are currently in the military, I can say (whether you call it hearsay or not) that the MSM's portrayal of events and status in IRAQ is extremely, if not completely biased (against President Bush and "his" war) and is mostly based on 1/2 truths. Of course the liberal Dimocrats had nothing what-so-ever to do with our troops being in IRAQ - and don't start with the "Bush lied" BS either.
One more thing, those in the military understand the chain of command. It is not up to us, the US citizens, our "trustable" govt., or anyone other than the Military commanders who should be responsible for executing and/or ending the war once WE HAVE WON. The vocal minority that you refer to when you say ..."it is time to start listening to them..." are not in the position to "demand" an end to the war. If you did understand anything about military chain of command, you would listen more closely and try to understand when General Patreus reports from the field.
The chain of command ends...
May 15, 2008 - 11:56 ET by SyriusOTR,
...with the civilian leadership. As most liberals have pointed out Dubya as our current commander-in-chief had relinquished his duties to Cheney and gang in the run up to war. Once again, I've stated clearly...after January 20th of next year, change will happen and the boots on the ground will see the change from above as the mission will be finally defined and achievable. If the new commander-in-chief says, "I want them out, now!...no if, ands, or buts..." by all means, those generals are going to say,"Yes, sir!".
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Really
May 15, 2008 - 12:03 ET by chiefpayneThe chain of command ends...
Syrius ,
"Once again, I've stated clearly...after January 20th of next year, change will happen and the boots on the ground will see the change from above as the mission will be finally defined and achievable. If the new commander-in-chief says, "I want them out, now!...no if, ands, or buts..." by all means, those generals are going to say,"Yes, sir!". "
So you believe the mission will be finally defined and achievable? Ok...so are you saying that Obama can do that? A first time Senator with limited political experience and some military experience will be able to do that?
Oh and he will be able to say "I want them out NOW!" and like waving a magic wand, it will be done? And if it IS done and there is (as most predict as an inevitability) a bloodbath ensues, will Obama take the blame for that as well?
I say Obama because Hillary is taking a more practical approach to this saying the war must continue.
Again, my exit plan is below in which I make the point we should build a permanent post there and man it.
The idea of just pulling everyone out is not only irresponsible...it's not practical and frankly, it's an insane idea!
Please provide proof that
May 15, 2008 - 12:09 ET by BDPlease provide proof that any orders have been provided directly to the US military or any other agancy involved inthe GWOT by the Vice President.
P-R-O-O-F!
The statement of "As most liberals have pointed out" is as vacuous a statement as has been posted recently. You complained that Chief had no first hand experience from Iraq? Then you post "As most liberals have pointed out".
change will happen and the boots on the ground will see the change from above as the mission will be finally defined and achievable.
Most likely it will NOT be change for the positive. I keep hearing the Obama campaign comment that they will remove "All Combat Troops" from theater and wonder if they truly understand how disaterous that portends? They cannot possibly.
For the record. if they remove all combat troops (Infantry, Armore, Cav, Artillery, etc) then:
The comment "Combat troops" prior to reduction shows just how little the left understands about Operations.
More Liberal BS
May 15, 2008 - 12:34 ET by CobraMan"As most liberals have pointed out Dubya as our current
commander-in-chief had relinquished his duties to Cheney and gang in
the run up to war."
That's just more liberal bs. Show me any documentation that indicates that Cheney has, or had, any control over Iraq. Show me a single memo that asserts Cheney was given authority over the military. Show me any documentation that Cheney is giving orders to General Petraeus. Show me any evidence AT ALL that President Bush has relinquished his command authority to ANYONE! Cheney has no authority over the military, he's just another civilian.
Time to put up or shut up, Syrius. Show me actual evidence as opposed to baseless assertions by the Washington Post, or stop making claims that you know you can't defend.
second-hand tripe that you
May 15, 2008 - 12:01 ET by TruthMongersecond-hand tripe that you get from the MSM
not only is it second, third, fourth, and fifth hand - it's run and re-run through the BS DNC blender for petty partisan political gain - at the complete expense of military personnel safety and morale on the front lines
talk about scum-sucking MSM evil
That's typical
May 15, 2008 - 12:07 ET by Tom in NCYou come here and make slanderous remarks against a poster and then you get called on it and next thing you do say how patriotic you are and how you respect the troops.
You are neither, you are like most liberals, an intolerant, anti-American socialist that would love to see are troops fail in their mission and be disgraced before the world.
DON'T COME HERE WITH YOUR MOONBAT THEOLOGY AND STINK UP THE PLACE!!!
Freedom is one of the deepest and noblest aspirations of the human spirit. Ronald Reagan
40th president of US (1911 - 2004)
chiefpayne, Thank you for your service.
May 15, 2008 - 15:00 ET by upcountrywaterI book marked your link.
BTW you catch this band?
The POPE says, GOD BLESS AMERICA!! Liberals/are/crazy/IranianUranium/<sleep>
Lengthy...
May 15, 2008 - 10:12 ET by ontheright...but well worth the read. It seems to be acutely appropriate as rebuttal to the "everything is President Bush's fault..." crowd / argument. Unfortunately I couldn't find the original link.
By Charley Reese --
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems
and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered why, if both
the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?
Have you
ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high
taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal
budget. The president does.
You and I don't have the
Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of
Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I
don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary
policy, The Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435
congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human
beings out of the
300 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible
for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the
Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress.
In 1913, Congress delegated its Const itutional duty to provide a
sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.
I excluded all the
special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal
authority.
They should have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or
a president to do one cotton-picking thing.
I don't care if they offer a
politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician should have the morals
to reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's
responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of
their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They
cooperate in this common con regardles s of party.
What separates a politician from a
normal human being is an excessive amount of gall.
No normal human being would have the
gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating
deficits.
The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the
Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the
supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of
Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.
Who is the speaker of
the House?
She
is the leader of the majority party.
She and fellow House members, not
the president, can approve any budget they want.
If the president vetoes it, they can
pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a
nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand
convicted -- by
present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility.
I can't think of a
single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545
people.
When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the
power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is
what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the
budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.
If the Marines are
in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ
If they do
not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not
available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble
government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom
they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobb yists, whose gifts and
advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to
regulate and from whom they can take this power.
Above all, do not let them con you
into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like 'the
economy,' 'inflation' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an
oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and
they alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held
accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided the
voters have the
gumption to manage their own employees.
We should vote all of them out of
office and clean up their mess!
Charlie Reese is a former columnist
of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper
Link with photo copy and text
May 15, 2008 - 12:40 ET by kgLink with photo copy and text
http://www.apfn.org/...
"Forget change, I want improvement!"
What we fight for....
May 15, 2008 - 10:30 ET by spiderdanIt's hard, but one of the things we spend precious lives and treasure defending is Olbermann's right to be a complete and total buffoon.
I've often told liberals and other left wing dolts: "I gave ten years of my young adult life defending your right to be a complete and utter moron. I see you've taken my service and sacrifice to heart."
I don't watch that show, as no legitimate American should. But, somehow, enough left wingers have stolen cable so that they may view the rectal spew that often drips from that network. A major source of inaccuracy and distortion -- not a shred of journalistic integrity among the bunch. I would hold sponsors of the program responsible....seriously. Sponsor that program, expect not one dime of my business.
Olbermann just keeps
May 15, 2008 - 10:39 ET by Chris NormanWow. Olbermann just keeps topping himself in rage level. At this point, it looks like there's no holding him back - unless he has a brain aneurism, stroke, or heart attack while on one of his deranged screech-fests. Does he really hate Bush this much or is he a scenery chewer?
I'll stick to Olbermann,
May 15, 2008 - 10:44 ET by rammingspeedI'll stick to Olbermann, who is a seriously disturbed human being. Everything he talks about is based on allegation, innuendo, and the old "you know how they are," type reasoning. He accuses Bush of disregarding facts showing that Hussein did not have WMDs, and then of persecuting those who went against him. Again, where's the beef? Where are the indictments, the depositions, the grand juries and John Does that would occur if Olbermann were citing the truth? Pouting journalists and Bush Derangement Syndrome "investigators" who couldn't prove a have a case because they didn't have one don't count as reliable sources.
His belief that some from Bush's administration may some day be facing charges as war criminals is as specious and flat-out stupid as were the charges that Karl Rove "outed" Valerie Plame.
The man is sickening, and the fact that he has traction only with the biggest nutballs in the country is proof of that fact.
Where in the hell......
May 15, 2008 - 11:00 ET by richarddid I put my Louisville Slugger? Seems like it's time for a coupe de grace. Poor, poor Keith!
Keith Olbermann
May 15, 2008 - 11:04 ET by nandrelliI hate to say this again, but Olbermann was an idiot when he was on ESPN, he is an idiot now, and it is safe to say that he will always be an idiot. The fact that his show is either #1 or #2 on MSNBC is a sad commentary on the mentality of people who watch MSNBC.
He should really be made to answer for his unfounded and uncorroborated statements and opinions, but frankly he isn't worth the effort. The saying "A wise man never argues with a fool because passers-by can't tell the difference" was written specificly for him.
Prozac as sponsor?
May 15, 2008 - 11:36 ET by wizardjrI guess he stops his meds the morning of The Rant to prep for the show. He's the poster boy for lithium and Prozac.
Keith Olbermann...you're fired!
May 15, 2008 - 11:51 ET by AgentAmerican...we can only dream that MSNBC comes to their senses and realize they have a smelly turd covered albatross around their neck.
Drill ANWAR
Is he Max Headroom or Keith Olbermann
May 15, 2008 - 11:54 ET by tracker1973I used to miss Max Headroom, but since finding Keith Olbermann, I don't feel as lonely any more.
Stephen
tracker -- good spot. Max
May 15, 2008 - 12:24 ET by Jack Bauertracker -- good spot. Max Olberroom? Keith Headmann.
I do expect his head to start vibrating manically liek Max.
Max Olberroom / Keith Headmann
May 15, 2008 - 13:51 ET by tracker1973I should add, Max was funny, Keith is a joke.
Beginning today, I will use: "Max (Olbermann) Headroom"
And MSNBC actually pays
May 15, 2008 - 12:03 ET by misterbee241And MSNBC actually pays this lunatic for this tripe? If he was a conservative he'd be charged with hate speech.
There is none so blind as they that won’t see. Jonathan Swift 1667-1745
I bet if we were to look up Olbermann's family tree...
May 15, 2008 - 12:20 ET by R D Helm...we would find this guy.
MSM is EVIL, thank you keith, for your part ushering in
May 15, 2008 - 12:26 ET by upcountrywaterBO our next CIC.
We will be on the front row, of America destroyed.
The POPE says, GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
Liberals/are/crazy/IranianUranium/is/good
To say that Keith O is
May 15, 2008 - 14:10 ET by marpelTo say that Keith O is mentally ill would be excusing this behavior.
I can't think of any network or any person on any network who has ever gotten away with this behavior.
I think we should flood MSNBC with emails asking that this megalomaniac be fired immediately. Or, he should be shot before a firing squad for treason. This goes way beyond hate speech.
Keith O is a terrorist, no doubt.
olby
May 15, 2008 - 14:30 ET by ronlet's see now. olby hates the President and "his" war. olby works for msnbc. ge owns msnbc. ge received a 20 million dollar military contract from the government may 15th of this year. hey keith. show us your principles by quitting your job in protest of your employer making money off Bush's war . YOU ARE A JOKE AND TOO DUMB TO REALIZE IT
Keith, can you get it up?
May 15, 2008 - 14:41 ET by demobaterI don't know how many of you saw the story about a year ago, a woman infatuated with ole Keithy boy, arranged to meet him for a redevouz. She said that Keithy boy turned out to be a huge dissappointment in the bedroom.
She said that he was embarrassed and left quickly and tried to blame her. She came away with a different opinion of Keithy boy.
Keithy, is that why you are always so angry, what's the matter captain, can't get it up. Shoot, with all the viagra on the market you should be able to fix that. C'mon Keithy we know what your problem is and it isn't Bush or the Right, it is your own pitiful little self. Be a man Keithy, not a metrosexual...
;-)
Levin covered that story...
May 16, 2008 - 01:59 ET by AgentAmerican...the great one quoted the woman that Keith Goebbelsmann "was hung like a thumb tack".
Drill ANWAR
I'm sorry, but I have got to
May 15, 2008 - 14:37 ET by marpelI'm sorry, but I have got to say that I don't know of any other man living or dead, who has been elected twice as our President, being insulted and verbally abused more than George W Bush.
I don't care what the hell the MSM says, or what a cheap network like MSNBC stands for, GWB is our President, and he should not be disrespected like this.
I admire the hell out of Bush, and am thankful to him for keeping us out of harm's way during his terms.
I don't know how he has stood it. The left doesn't deserve his service to them. And, it shows he's a lot stronger than I could ever be. His family too. He's a hero just putting up with the MSM and the likes of Keith Olbermann....now THAT'S a terrorist.
Is it me...
May 15, 2008 - 14:48 ET by unkeeafOr would you just like to kick this guys ass?
I'll help you kick his
May 15, 2008 - 14:56 ET by marpelI'll help you kick his ass... :o)
In...
May 16, 2008 - 02:25 ET by AgentAmericanLock him in a cage with O'Reilly The Irish Button and The Great One...Mark Levin!
Drill ANWAR
Levin Would Toast This Guy
May 16, 2008 - 07:03 ET by reasonsjesterI would pay to see that!
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius
Freedom? Don't talk to me about freedom.
May 16, 2008 - 07:44 ET by reasonsjesterHere is what the self-righteous one Olbermann had to say about freedom:
"'This ideological struggle' you speak of, Mr. Bush, is taking place within this country. It is a struggle between Americans who cherish freedom, ours and everyone else's, and Americans like you, sir, to whom freedom is just a brand name, just like the 'Patriot Act' is a brand name or 'Protect America' is a brand name."
This proves the addage in propaganda that if you're going to lie, go big. First of all, it is NOT freedom to live in terror of a megalomanical dictator who can haul you off to be executed while your wife is raped and your child sent to prison, all for a rumor that you may not agree with the regime. Even by the accounts of the leftist UN, Hussein may have killed as many as 800,000, and some report over a million, when you count the starvation, rightly, as Hussein's fault.
Secondly, those we can most legitimately say care about freedom, ours and everyone else's, are those soldiers who volunteer to put their lives on the line, day in and day out, in defense of others' freedoms. The deaths of Iraqi civilians, in the aftermath of the "Shock and Awe" campaign that forced the Baathists into hiding, have been predominately due to the acts of insurgents, terrorists and Shi'ite militia (some of them aided by Iran). To say that Bush "created" these terrorists is to deny that people have moral culpability for their own actions; a baby-killing suicide bomber is as evil before a U.S. invasion as after a U.S. invasion, and all the more reason to help implement a system of law and order that can restrain the evil potential of certain individuals, if not only for the safety and well-being of the local populace, but our own as well.
And, following from your argument, if caring about others' freedoms implies perpetual inaction and the absence of war, then we must reasonably infer that the Iraqis were living in a state of freedom in the status quo ante bellum, an absurd proposition. The insinuation becomes even more absurd when you consider the great sacrifice of our soldiers in Iraq in defense of the life and freedoms of the Iraqi population. We should rightly draw from the operational strategy of the "surge" that Bush and the troops desire to stabilize the country by securing territory and to help the country become prosperous economically, which can only be considered nefarious by egghead pundits with an ideological axe to grind aforehand.
The aspersions to evil cast at President Bush and by implication, the troops of the armed forces, by Mr. Olbermann and MSNBC, are to be fairly interpreted as unpatriotic: It not only goes against the President, who is the elected representative of the American people, but against the principles we hold dear - and most importantly, an accurate and meaningful interpretation of what it means to be free.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius
Nice to see that you care
May 18, 2008 - 15:27 ET by daenku32Nice to see that you care so much about Iraqis. So how do you interpret the President's take on the "worse case scenario" in pulling out of Iraq, in that there might be a terrorist attack on US soil? Wouldn't the "worse case scenario", if you actually cared about Iraqis, be that their situation would get much worse? After all, even the 9/11 attacks pale in comparison to the deaths accumulated in Iraq in the past five years.
That this administration cares for a single Iraqi person is a delusion. You might personally care for them, but our policies do not.
Can you get me a roadmap?
May 18, 2008 - 18:23 ET by reasonsjesterI can solve a rubik's cube in the dark in 30 seconds, but I can't seem to connect the points in your twisted logic.
Here is how it works: Security in Iraq is bound up with our security.
(1) If we fail it will embolden our enemies.
(2) If Iraq is beset by sectarian conflict, terrorist strikes, and Iranian aggression it will become more unstable than when we entered. This could lead to a more united front against the United States by terrorists.
Actually, I'm done holding liberals' hands by explaining why it is good to win wars and bad to lose them. If you liberals are that disingenuous, I'm not going to lose precious seconds of my life trying to teach you all how not to be stupid.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius
I'm done holding liberals'
May 18, 2008 - 19:12 ET by JerI'm done holding liberals' hands by explaining why it is good to win wars and bad to lose them.
That was always the argument of last resort to justify continuing bad wars. [See e.g. the British in America, the French in Algeria, the French and the U.S. in Viet Nam]
Jer
Please explain in detail
May 19, 2008 - 09:49 ET by BDPlease explain in detail why the US in Vietnam was "Bad".
Do you think the people of Saigon are "Freer" now than they were in 1973?
Please explain in detail
May 19, 2008 - 23:21 ET by JerPlease explain in detail why the US in Vietnam was "Bad".
In detail? I don't have enough time or fingers for the task.
But distilling the reasons to their essence, our premises for going there and for staying there were fundamentally flawed. If the war were "bad", we should never have become involved militarily, and once there, should have withdrawn earlier. Conversely, if the war were "good", it should have been waged differently, with far less political restriction. Thus, in either case, it was a colossal blunder.
Jer
"But distilling the reasons
May 19, 2008 - 23:39 ET by MightyMouth"But distilling the reasons to their essence, our premises for going there and for staying there were fundamentally flawed"
Only if you consider supporting an Ally and fighting Communism as "flawed". No, the mistakes were made by liberal Democartic presidents and a congress that cut off funding even after a military victory had been achieved . Vietnam was lost on the home front by those of a generation (unlike their parents) who were unwilling to defend their country. I lived through Vietnam and will not easily forgive the "hippies" and elitists who "lost' that war.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Supporting which ally?
May 19, 2008 - 23:47 ET by JerSupporting which ally? France, and its effort to maintain a colonial foothold in southeast Asia?
Jer
Hello, McFly? tap tap..
May 19, 2008 - 23:59 ET by MightyMouthHello, McFly? tap tap.. Communism. Remember the cold war? Communism bad, Capitalism good? Before your time? No problem. I am sure treaties between nations mean nothing?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Wars
May 20, 2008 - 00:22 ET by sarcasmoHave nothing to do with capitalism, they're generally just massive waste nobody wants to admit is waste at the time. And the size of the US government -- even in the Vietnam era -- was already lookin' more like socialism than capitalism. And the Founders were right, entangling alliances matter.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Sorry, youngster...I was
May 20, 2008 - 00:22 ET by JerSorry, youngster...I was reading about the collapse of the French at Dien bien Phu before you were even born.
Jer
Sorry Jer, but you simply
May 20, 2008 - 08:51 ET by BDSorry Jer, but you simply buy inot the failed liberal orthodoxy that the War in Vietnam was inherently UNWINNABLE and Evil in and of itself.
It is why we cannot allow foolish Liberals to win elections.
BD...
May 20, 2008 - 18:43 ET by JerDid you overlook my previous statement that
"Conversely, if the war were 'good' [e.g. critical to our security interests], it should have been waged differently, with far less political restriction."
...or did you simply dismiss it.?
Jer
That is a sidestep from the
May 21, 2008 - 15:29 ET by BDThat is a sidestep from the issue. The question is not whether a war being fought poorly is worth fighting at all.
The question is, of course, was the war worthy of fighting.
regarding both.
1.) The war was fought WELL, though not perfectly.
2.) The fight to preserve freedom from tyranny is ALWAYS worthy of fighting.
Ever been to Dien Bien Phu?
May 20, 2008 - 08:53 ET by bassndudeEver been to Dien Bien Phu?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
No.
May 20, 2008 - 18:38 ET by JerNo.
Jer
Clarify
May 22, 2008 - 00:24 ET by reasonsjesterNo, you won't suck on a croissant, or no you don't think an instant replay of Pol Pot's Cambodia in South Vietnam (which nearly happened), would have been a step closer to a "happier" (i.e. "better") world?
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius
Dien Bien Phu - Thanks for Nothing Henri Navarre
May 20, 2008 - 22:07 ET by reasonsjesterOnly a lib like you Jer could think that an instant replay of Pol Pot's Cambodia in South Vietnam would be a step closer to a happier world. If only those nasty evil American would have stayed out and allowed the commies to mass murder millions like the Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Gramscian brochure indicates (?) Go suck on a croissant.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius
Gee, I do not remember the
May 20, 2008 - 08:47 ET by BDGee, I do not remember the US troop presence being there until AFTER the frogs cut and run.
BUt I am sure if I consult my military history I will see the 82nd Airborne dropped intoDien Bien Phu in support of the French paratroops. Whats that.... 1965? REALLY. Never mind.....
BD...As a student of
May 20, 2008 - 18:34 ET by JerBD...As a student of military history, I am sure you realize we were significantly underwriting the French effort in Indochina at the time of its defeat, or are you?
Jer
So, your complaint is not
May 20, 2008 - 08:43 ET by BDSo, your complaint is not against the cause, only in the manner in which itis waged?
That is cold comfort to the survivors of the Re-education camps.
A noble, but misguided
May 20, 2008 - 22:54 ET by JerA noble, but misguided cause, poorly proscecuted at senior political and military levels. Generally, magnificent execution at the tactical level. My opinions, of course.
Jer
Regarding the efficacy of
May 21, 2008 - 00:01 ET by BDRegarding the efficacy of the US involvement, your point is highly debateable. After all , the US was never defeated on the battlefield or even at the bargaining table. The press and the American Left being swayed by the bad guys is another matter.
Yet it remains that the population is enslaved by a murderous regime. And you approve?
Or should Barry Obama fly to Saigon (oops, Ho Chi Mihn City- SCREW THAT, it is Saigon) and "Negotiate" for their freedom?
Jer, we did not lose the
May 20, 2008 - 09:01 ET by bassndudeJer, we did not lose the Vietnam war. Siagon did not fall untill AFTER we pulled out all of our troops. And even then, not untill the Dems in congress decided to cut off all military aid to Vietnam. The South had no parts, equipment, fuel to fight the war. One reason today that we suffer from disrespect in the world is we did not honor our word, or keep our promise to the South Vietnamese to keep them in bullets,weapons and parts. Thanks to the dems.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
bass... I realize the
May 20, 2008 - 22:39 ET by Jerbass...
I realize the U.S. withdrawal from Viet Nam was more a function of "quitting" rather than "losing" the war, and am likewise familiar with the chronology of events leading to the fall of Saigon as well as with the argument that the termination of military aid was the proximate and determinative factor snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Indeed, this is a central thesis of Lewis Sorley's "A Better War"...a book I haven't read , but have had the good fortune to hear an extensive lecture by Dr. Sorley on its subject matter. I was enormously impressed by him and the power of his arguments, but not completely convinced of the validity of his case.
Jer
So you concur that the fall
May 21, 2008 - 00:04 ET by BDSo you concur that the fall of the south and subsequent communist enslavement of the population is the fault of the American Left who crippled the effort.
Thank you.
Didn't say it...don't
May 21, 2008 - 00:20 ET by JerDidn't say it...don't believe it.
But, you're welcome, anyway.
Jer
Another bobble-headed student?
May 21, 2008 - 01:52 ET by reasonsjesterYeah Jer, I hear Marxists, Maoists, Leninists and Stalinists everyday at my university, but I have the good sense to know what doe-eyed tripe it is. Oh, and doe-eyed tripe that leads to mass murder. Nice ideology you got there lefties. And as far as lambasting the right, most people on the right in the U.S. are not "blue-blooded" European conservative types who clamor for war because that is all the know how to do. Most people want to protect the Constitution, liberty, and the right to work and raise their family in peace. Only to a lefty could that seem nefarious.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius
reasonsjester...
May 21, 2008 - 18:52 ET by JerAs far as lambasting the right...
A curious choice of words, rj...since the direction of the ideological lambasting seems unmistakably right to left.
That is unless you view the pronouncement that "the Left will ROT IN HELL" more beneficiently than I.
Most people want to protect the Constitution, liberty, and the right to work and raise their family in peace.
Me too. Apparently, we have much more in common than you (and others here) suspect.
Jer
Most people want to protect
May 21, 2008 - 21:22 ET by BDMost people want to protect the Constitution, liberty, and the right to work and raise their family in peace.
Me too.
Apparently except if those people live in South East Asia or Iraq, in which case Liberty and raising a family in peace goes out the window.
Regarding work, apparently only those who belong to select Unions are allowed to work. That is, unless you belong to that very small "Anti-Union" portion of the Democrat party. I believe they are having a right to work rally at a Circle K in Abilene tonight in lieu of a national convention.
BD...I suggest you make a
May 21, 2008 - 23:01 ET by JerBD...I suggest you make a list of every nation whose people are currently suffering under the yoke of tyranny and petition the leaders of your party to reinstate the draft, train and equip an army of, say, ten or fifteen million, thereinafter to be dispatched around the globe with the mission of liberating the oppressed.
Please don't insinuate a lack of concern on my part for the welfare of the people of southeast Asia three decades ago, or for the Iraqi populace today. However, I do confess to a bias in favor of the security amd safety of the United States and the well-being of its citizenry. Just a quirk of mine, I guess.
Jer
Strawman argument
May 22, 2008 - 00:18 ET by reasonsjesterConservatives are the ones who live in the real world of scarcity, not the woolly infantile blanket of moral absolutism that coddles left-leaning knee-jerk liberals. An intelligent foreign policy recognizes that you have to choose the appropriate foreign policy tools based on the situation at hand, and the "level" of confrontation and resolution that may be required to resolve or mitigate the effects of an adversarial relationship. If a third world dictator in a sandbox in the middle of the Sahara desert wants to execute millions of Christians, like the Muslims in Sudan did, then you might not be able to commit hundreds of thousands of troops to disarming or vanquishing the enemy, and rebuilding a state after the invasion (which includes sometimes healing mental wounds that keep peoples from coming together to form a functional political society in the aftermath). But the Middle East, a region whose political instability affects our economy and the security of the only democratic ally in the region, is a completely different matter. And it also happens to be a region that has seen an uptick in the export of international violence in the last 60 years, since the formation of Israel. One can agree or disagree with us allying with Israel, but the truth is that the area near Jerusalem has been fought over for millenia, and no one group can claim monocratic homogenous rule over the area. No group, therefore, can claim any more legitimate administration over Israel than any other. And it should be noted that Israel was essentially promised land to be given to Zionists by the Balfour agreement when Palestine was being ruled by Britain. This makes Israel a legitimate state - equally so if it were run by Jews or by Palestinians, but Jews in Israel happen to have international law on their side. This is all a long way of saying that Israel is a legitimate ally, and as events like the Six-Day War prove, many Muslims would like nothing better than another Jewish holocaust. Would it surprise you to learn, or do you not care, that Mein Kampf is the second-best selling book after the Koran in the Middle East?
The U.S. interest in the Middle East is real and legitimate, the tragic brutality of dictatorial regimes the world over, though sad,may or may not warrant the intervention of American troops. But the bottom line is American national security interest - which cannot be gauged by cute formulaic notions like "did Hussein actually have wmds or not"? (As if that is the end-all be-all measure of a dictator's threat to our interest).
Hussein had been a thorn in the U.S.', and the world's, side since the first Gulf War. He massacred Kurds, tortured and killed tens of thousands, shot at Brit and American planes in the no fly zone, sent money to support Palestinian terrorists, rearmed with anti-aircraft components from Russia, bought French Exocets, Chinese Silkworms, and Russian Kalashnikovs. He bought sealant from the French for the internal combustion chamber for long-range Scuds, was developing biological weapons made from ricin and bacteria used in germ warfare, and was using the sanctions as a pretext to starve his own people while he made billions. And, as the topper might prove, the Russians either assisted him in removing and hiding wmds that were NOT accounted for by weapons inspectors, or assisted him in keeping them out of country - like Hitler did with Stalin before World War II, and Hussein did with aircraft that he sent to his arch-enemy Iran during the first Gulf War. And let us not forget that in the war authorization resolution the U.S. reserved the right to go to war technically because Hussein refused inspections, not becaus he was proven to "possess" wmds. The case against Hussein, again, had been building for years and years, and Clinton had made it an explicit policy, backed by Democrats, to overthrow the Hussein regime. And when Bush came to power, many of the same Democrats, again, voted to overthrow the regime, except this time by granting Bush the power to go to war. The continuity of the foreign policy, so to speak , was pretty consistent between the Clinton and Bush Jr. admins. The escalation for war with Hussein was warranted, in the aftermath of 9/11, by the recognition that only by fomenting democratic institutions and governments in the Middle East was there to be a change of the scale and quality in the region that might head off an attack on the United States by nuclear, biological or chemical weapon from a potential terrorist. This strategy entails helping the people themselves become informed, active and responsible citizens able to hold their governments accountable for aggressive actions against the United States that might evoke a negative response, and who will pressure their governments to police radicals who might incur vengeance from the United States back on them. This is a logical plan if you take wmd proliferation seriously, and one is able to connect the dots that Russia and China might be seriously considering a strategy of arming Islamic radicals to fight a proxy war against the United States. For, as we know with nuclear weapons, retaliation implies an attack of territory, and plausible deniability is the only way to make use of the devastating military technology. So democratic reform of the Middle East in the long run view is the best effective measure we have to prevent a holocaust-like scenario in the United States emanating from the Middle East from occurring.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius
De Oppresso Liber - thats
May 22, 2008 - 01:47 ET by BDDe Oppresso Liber - thats about right.
When US forces are committed in efforts to defend liberty and further security gains for the US, then they should be supported.
Each fight we are in today (Iraq, Philippines, Horn of Africa, & Afghanistan) perform both functions, indeed both functions are mutually supportive, since it is precisely the aim of the US to use democracy to defeat our Islamo Fascist enemies.
I am always ticked off when I hear liberals who moan about evil US imperialism, US denial of rights in foreign lands, the evils of US atrocities in Vietnam, etc, yet will not defend those rights amongst the oppressed in those foreign lands when offered the choice.
Ergo, the comments about Jane Fonda, SDS, Jerry Rubin, Abbie Hoffman et al rotting in Hell. THe US was SOOO evil to defend those people, but no concern registers in them for the significnatly LARGER atrocities committed by our enemies, former enemies both before, during, and after our participation.
Then, those who actually defended the oppressed return home to scorn from those on the left? I grew up in the Army post Vietnam and recall what it is like to be called a "Babykiller" because I was in uniform. Aint happenin again without a fight.
Regarding our current force structure. I would prefer our army were at the strength we had at the tail end of the Reagan Adminitration (Roughly 18 Active Divisions). And he did it without a draft.
Clarification
May 21, 2008 - 23:02 ET by reasonsjesterI realize I should have been more clear: 'The right to work and raise a family in peace' is one clause. I did not intend to imply that work is a right, lest socialists should become more confused that they usually are. This statement should be, "the right to the opportunity to work and the right to raise one's family in peace."
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius
Then you are obviously in
May 21, 2008 - 08:05 ET by BDThen you are obviously in denial. YOu are much like the cancer patient who realizes that tsomething is wrong, but refuses the Doctors diagnosis.
Lets go over your previous statement and I will highlight the appropriate passages.
You are obviously in
May 21, 2008 - 13:41 ET by JerYou are obviously in denial. You are much like the cancer patient who realizes that something is wrong, but refuses the Doctors diagnosis.
Good analogy...bad application. It would more accurately describe the trajectory of American policy regarding Viet Nam over the course of three decades.
So you admit the end came after an undefeated force was required to quit the fight.
It is historical fact that the fall of Saigon and the military and political collapse of South Viet Nam occurred after the completion of the withdrawal of American combat forces [which had not been defeated on the battlefield].
Okay, so you have cause, then effect. Yet you are still unwiling to make that last logical step of determining causation?
Your argument is becoming wobbly. The first statement presupposes that causation is established and acknowledged by me. The second one suggests otherwise. Be more precise in your characterizations of "cause" and "effect".
Perhaps you believe that US forces were amongst those overwhelmed at the end of the war in the south. Or perhaps you believe that we were making Arclight strikes on the North Vietnamese Armored Formations on the last day of the war north of Saigon?
I don't believe in fictions. The former obviously never occurred. Nor, to my knowledge, did the latter.
Yeah Doc, I see that mass in the X-ray and it sure looks like Cancer, but it does not mean anything is wrong."
This is almost as good as the liberals failing to realize that it was their policies that broke up the traditional family unit in the US. Priceless.
Huh? Your argument has now fallen completely off the tracks. Maybe you would like to add a comment on the minimum wage, too.
Jer
It is historical fact that
May 21, 2008 - 15:38 ET by BDIt is historical fact that the fall of Saigon and the military and political collapse of South Viet Nam occurred after the completion of the withdrawal of American combat forces [which had not been defeated on the battlefield].
Also key for understanding was the republics entire defensive strategy was predicated on promised support (Logistics, Fires, Transportion) in the event of an all out attack from the communists. Naturally, the left in the US then stabbed them in the back by withholding such promised support.
Thus, the defeat of the Army of the Republic of Vietnam and its government are the responsibility of the left in the US.
For which they will obviously ROT IN HELL.
The logic is there, but if you do not wish to see it, then you are in denial.
Since you now seem to be
May 21, 2008 - 16:59 ET by JerSince you now seem to be not only an expert on American foreign policy, but also an authority on the spiritual salvation of others, I am curious...
Will it just be those specific congressmen who voted to cut off aid who will be rotting in Hell, or will it be all who were opposed to the war--even some conservatives--suffering eternal damnation as a consequence?
Jer
Will it just be those
May 21, 2008 - 17:33 ET by BDWill it just be those specific congressmen who voted to cut off aid who will be rotting in Hell, or will it be all who were opposed to the war--even some conservatives--suffering eternal damnation as a consequence?
That is a question worthy of the archangel Michael himself.
But you gotta admit, it does not bode well for Jane Fonda, the SDS, and those who defiled US troops upon their return.
"General Offensive, General Uprising,"
May 21, 2008 - 15:05 ET by SyriusBD,
Thieu's Gambit
South Vietnam's president, Nguyen Van Thieu, took
advantage of Hanoi's decision to refit and re-equip,
extending the South Vietnamese hold on territory wherever
possible. The result was that the South Vietnamese
army was spread out over a large area and by late 1974
was ripe for an attack. Its condition was worsened
by the drying up of US assistance, a drastic increase
in inflation, and, as always, flagrant corruption.
The January 1973 Paris peace accords led to a near-total
withdrawal of US forces in early 1973. In fall 1974,
leaders in Hanoi had decided upon a two-year program
to conquer the South and unite the two countries under
Communist rule. Called "General Offensive, General
Uprising," the program was designed so that a
series of major military offensives in 1975 would bring
the South Vietnamese population to the point of revolution
and permit a conclusive victory in 1976.
North Vietnam was well aware of the disarray in American
politics since President Richard M. Nixon's August
1974 resignation, and it decided to test the waters.
In January 1975, it conquered Phuoc Long province on
the border with Cambodia. North Vietnamese regular
units, supplemented by local guerrillas, routed the
South Vietnamese army in a mere three weeks. More than
3,000 South Vietnamese troops were killed or captured,
and supplies worth millions were lost to the invaders.
Although Phuoc Long was not particularly important
in either military or economic terms, it was the first
province the North Vietnamese had taken since 1972-and
it was only 80 miles from Saigon.
This absolutely crucial event was scarcely noted in
the American news media. Washington had pledged to "respond
with decisive military force" to any North Vietnamese
violation of the 1973 accords. In the end, however,
the US did nothing at all. Hanoi doubtless was encouraged
to continue.
Taken from Walter J. Boyne...
http://www.afa.org/m...
Stop the blame game. It was the leadership of the United States not having the support of the country as a whole. Facts, facts, facts...we are beginning to see the same thing happening as the Iraqi War continues...all sides are becoming increasingly anti-war. Solutions are forming and time tables are being conceived even by McCain. Facts, facts, facts...
Syrius
Syrius, if I remember
May 21, 2008 - 15:19 ET by bassndudeSyrius, if I remember correctly, 1974 was the physical year that congress cut off aid and funds to the South. May have been 73. You can take the general uprising out of your post. The so called uprising is nothing more than north propaganda and never happned. It was the NVA in soviet built tanks. They tried it in An Loc and a few other spots in 72, but it did not work out then. And it was the South Vietnamese that fought those engagements, with a few American MACV advisors. At An Loc, we Americans were very few and far between. The South Vietnamese acquitted themselves well at An Loc.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
South Vietnam's president,
May 21, 2008 - 15:49 ET by BDSouth Vietnam's president, Nguyen Van Thieu, took
advantage of Hanoi's decision to refit and re-equip,
extending the South Vietnamese hold on territory wherever
possible. The result was that the South Vietnamese
army was spread out over a large area and by late 1974
was ripe for an attack.
Its condition was worsened by the drying up of US assistance, a drastic increase in inflation, and, as always, flagrant corruption.
Washington had pledged to "respond with decisive military force" to any North Vietnamese violation of the 1973 accords
BD, not so quick...
May 21, 2008 - 17:35 ET by SyriusBD,
Jeffery Record, who served a tour as a civilian State Department adviser in the
Mekong Delta and was later a legislative assistant to Senators Sam Nunn
and Lloyd Bentsen, declares at the outset that in his view the main
causes of the American defeat in Vietnam were a misinterpretation of
both the significance and nature of the struggle; an underestimation of
the enemy's tenacity and fighting power; an overestimation of United
States political stamina and military effectiveness; and the absence of
a politically competitive South Vietnam.
He writes off the American news media and the domestic antiwar
movement as having made any significant contribution to the war's
outcome, and instead apportions the blame thus: ''I contend that,
whereas the primary responsibility for the U.S. share of the war's
outcome clearly rests with civilian decision-making authorities --
which were, after all, constitutionally and politically responsible --
the military's accountability was significant and cannot and should not
be overlooked.'' The armed forces, he argues, contributed to their own
defeat in Vietnam ''by fighting the war they wanted to fight rather
than the one at hand.''
The continuing debate over whether an American victory in
Indochina was undermined by a flawed war policy, Record says, may well
be irrelevant. ''A decisive U.S. military victory in Vietnam,'' he
writes, ''was probably unattainable except via measures -- an invasion
of North Vietnam or an unrestricted air attack on its population --
that were never seriously considered by either civilian or military
authorities.''
No one is spared. here's the link as a reference...
http://www.nytimes.c...
...and later in the article...
In the end it all boils down to one question: Could we have won a
military victory in Vietnam? Record's answer is: Yes, but not at any
price even remotely acceptable to the American people. One thoughtful
former infantry battalion commander told me he had reflected long and
hard about what would have resulted from unlimited war, including an
invasion of North Vietnam: ''We could have won a military victory
without question. But today my sons and yours would still be
garrisoning Vietnam and fighting and dying in an unending guerrilla
war.'' The war was ours to lose, and we did; it was for the South
Vietnamese to win, and they could not.
As I have said, stop the blame game, and now, the damning of others...BOOM!
Syrius
Jeffery Record, who served
May 21, 2008 - 18:11 ET by BDJeffery Record, who served a tour as a civilian State Department adviser in the Mekong Delta and was later a legislative assistant to Senators Sam Nunn and Lloyd Bentsen, declares at the outset that in his view the main causes of the American defeat in Vietnam were a misinterpretation of both the significance and nature of the struggle; an underestimation of the enemy's tenacity and fighting power; an overestimation of United States political stamina and military effectiveness; and the absence of a politically competitive South Vietnam.
Another wonderfully unhinged
May 17, 2008 - 10:30 ET by Jinx McHueAnother wonderfully unhinged Special Comment from Special Keith.
He is right on the money
May 18, 2008 - 15:21 ET by daenku32Bush has twisted intelligence all through the years and now wants to accuse of his political opponents of not sacrificing enough. The whole war started on the premise to give Bush an imagine of "strong war president", and to find justification for years of Republican post 9/11 rhetoric, while ignoring any evidence that pointed to a very likely quackmire. The contractors that Keith referred to have still not come under jurisdiction of any court.
I'd like to see posts where you show where Keith was wrong. After all, for now it looks only like you are mad because he dared to call out your Republican president.
awww
May 18, 2008 - 16:23 ET by candanceOne of Keith's fans decided to come here and defend him. How nice.
The whole war started on the premise to give Bush an imagine of "strong war president", and to find justification for years of Republican post 9/11 rhetoric,
Actually, the war started on this premise here.
Agreed. I'll support you on this one.
May 20, 2008 - 14:29 ET by Syriuscandance,
Too many times, I've seen a person's thoughts and beliefs get in the way of facts (my own included). Clinton had described the situation based upon insightful intelligence and diplomacy. The facts do speak volumes. It's a true shame Bush didn't follow Clinton's lead sooner rather than later. My belief, which seems to be supported by facts as they leak out, was President Bush was more preoccupied with his own image as a "strong president" faced with an impossible task of waging war on Afghanistan and finding Bin Laden(too difficult). He didn't want to create a weak image with a fiasco in Afghanistan like the Russians. So, by attacking a country like Iraq with it's rich target environment he could display an image of power and strength. By ridding the world of Saddam, he would be able to show he wasn't a wimp and had the testicular fortitude to proceed and stay the course. It was a win/win situation and a deflection from finding Bin Laden. Here we are in 2008 with the mission accomplished several years ago, still in Iraq, still "looking" for Bin Laden and still trying to prop up Bush's legacy as a strong president while Americans and Iraqis continue to be wounded and killed. All for what? Ego? Security? Someone said this struggle is "the greatest challenge to our country since Nazi Germany!"...actually, it was the Cold War with the Soviets. The Cuban missile crisis brought the world, the whole world to the brink of annihilation.
The GWOT seems to be a war without end and only seems to be a burden to the military and their families and friends. As the President would tell you- "Go out and shop." as he heads off to the golf course.(sarc on)
The hysteria and the fear-mongering only feed the apparatus to wage the continual war machine. Freedom? I don't call this freedom...
The change begins 01/20/09.
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Syrius: It's a true
May 20, 2008 - 15:41 ET by BDSyrius:
It's a true shame Bush didn't follow Clinton's lead sooner rather than later.
What, popping off a few SLCM at a couple of empty targets in the desert of Afghanistan that had been abandoned (Oh, and providing WARNING that it was coming first?) What other actions are you referencing?
After all, Bill Clinton was obviously the "Man of Action." Hahahahaha!!!!
He didn't want to create a weak image with a fiasco in Afghanistan like the Russians.
Please show me how we have had ANY form of a debacle in Afghanistan, now or in the past. How many maneuver companies have we lost???? ZIP!!! How much combat power have we lost? Minuscule. Which Cente rof Gravity have we lost in Afghanistan? Naddaaaaaaa!!!!
Please show me concrete proof that the administration THOUGHT they were in such a situation. NAAAADDDAAAAAAA!!!!!!
next fire mission please.
Here we are in 2008 with the mission accomplished several years ago, still in Iraq, still "looking" for Bin Laden
What is it with liberals that they FIXATE on Bin ladin as if this is a law enforcement exercise? Probably WAY too much "Law & Order" episode watching and they desire to see Sam Waterston go toe to toe with an ACLU lawyer who argues for Osama.
while Americans and Iraqis continue to be wounded and killed. All for what?
For the concept of using democracy as a weapon in the fight against radical militiant Islamism. You know, the STRATEGIC CENTER OF GRAVITY in this war.
The GWOT seems to be a war without end
Only if you think a week is a long time, and a decade forever. See above comment reference democratic process being used as a weapon.
Good lord, how did hte Dems defeat communism when that war went into its third decade. OOOPS, I am sorry, I forgot they Sided with Communism and did not defeat it.
and only seems to be a burden to the military and their families and friends.
That is okay, we know who is bearing the fight, and your false sympathy is not welcomed.
The hysteria and the fear-mongering only feed the apparatus to wage the continual war machine. Freedom? I don't call this freedom...
Really, you do not think you are free?
YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT LACK OF FREEDOM IS. You probably assume tyranny is not being allowed to paint your rear end day-glo orange and dance through the streets.
If you need to vent...
May 20, 2008 - 17:41 ET by SyriusBD,
...just let it out, Bud. Vent that rage, it's unhealthy to repress it. So, what do you really want to say to the majority of Americans who think like I do? That we all are civilian slime and we should just bend over and take it.
Candance referred to Clinton as the intellect behind the premise of the current war in Iraq in which I agreed with her. It was Bush & Co. who shoved Richard Clarke out of the way and his warnings on Al Qaeda's threat to the US. So, go ahead- vent and rage against the historical facts, we'll wait for you to settle down and so you can begin to listen to the truth.
I never said it was a debacle in Afghanistan at all, quite the contrary. I said Bush with the advice of Rumsfeld thought of Iraq over Afghanistan as a target rich environment. You assume everything to be going bad in the minds of people opposing your viewpoint? Here read slowly...Afghan-good, Iraq-bad.
By the way to fixate is to have a laser focus on the task at hand. Bush was not fixated on Bin Laden's location in Afghanistan only on Iraq where he wasn't. Facts, my friend, facts. Breathe in, let the rage surround you. Only vent towards those who have duped you.
The "Strategereic" Center of Gravity for this war is what our leaders choose it to be. The focus on Iraq? Once again go ahead and vent at the ones who duped us all.
Yeah, just good old Ronald Reagan, by his lonesome self, defeating those commie bastards without any financial help from the House of Representatives which was controlled by the Republicans? My history seems vague (sarc on). Again time for you to do some homework. Those Contras needed the cash...
Issues, you should get checked out...
Really, you do not think you are free?
foggy night and were hooded, led to a van and taken to a dith in the
woods. Then had a .32 caliber bullet fired into your head from behind
at a range of six inches in such a way that your dead body toppled into
a ditch?
a certain social caste? (okay, so you have been taxed by democrats,
close....) Don't forget the "products" from those liberal oil companies I put into my gas tank every week...
YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT LACK OF FREEDOM IS.
The TSA note that is left in my suitcase after they have searched it, the elderly who are just about stripped searched before being let on a plane, the unwarranted wiretaps and data mining of American citizens who are not in any way linked to terrorism,..the list goes on...
You probably assume
tyranny is not being allowed to paint your rear end day-glo orange and
dance through the streets. -you got me on this one, my only thought is of Cheney blowing an old man's face off who was in day-glo orange...and the old man apologizing for getting in the way! "
"You should be dancin' in the streets"-Mick & David signing a great tune!
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Syrius... Might as well
May 20, 2008 - 17:53 ET by Clear thinkerSyrius...
Might as well quit now. You are waaaaayyy out of your league.
As a new commercial announces "you would'nt know freedom if it sat in your lap and called you Momma".
"Abstain from McCain"
Til tomorrow...
May 20, 2008 - 18:04 ET by Syrius...as the world turns.
TaTa,
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Further
May 21, 2008 - 17:43 ET by BDFurther thoughts...
Really, you do not think you are free?
a certain social caste? (okay, so you have been taxed by democrats,
close....) Don't forget the "products" from those liberal oil companies I put into my gas tank every week...
...just let it out, Bud.
May 20, 2008 - 20:33 ET by BD...just let it out, Bud. Vent that rage, it's unhealthy to repress it. So, what do you really want to say to the majority of Americans who think like I do?
What do I think? You are uneducated as is obvious from your posting below, and a term of service in the military, or in an intelligence agency posting would do you well as the first step in proper education.
It was Bush & Co. who shoved Richard Clarke out of the way and his warnings on Al Qaeda's threat to the US. So, go ahead- vent and rage against the historical facts, we'll wait for you to settle down and so you can begin to listen to the truth.
No rage here, just disappointment. Just as I am disappointed in Richard Clarke and others in the Intelligence Community who backtrack, and reroute history to attempt to improve their standing.
I never said it was a debacle in Afghanistan at all, quite the contrary. I said Bush with the advice of Rumsfeld thought of Iraq over Afghanistan as a target rich environment.
Then why use the Soviet example? But never mind.
Actually, in that they are correct. Iraq is a significantly more lucrative target if the goal is to move the enemies (that being proponents of islamic fascism in the arabic world) center of gravity and secure victory.
Even the Afghani's will admit that as a possible position to insert the message of democracy, Afghanistan takes a backseat to Iraq for several reasons.
By the way to fixate is to have a laser focus on the task at hand. Bush was not fixated on Bin Laden's location in Afghanistan only on Iraq where he wasn't.
Bin Ladin is not the center of gravity in the current conflict, therefore fixation on his location is of secondary importance. Only a LAWYER would assume that prosecution of Bin Ladin is the highest goal in achieving victory in the GWOT. It is not. Innoculating the arabic islamic world with the unique strain that is democracy is the key to victory.
Ergo, Bin ladin could be hiding in Paraguay or on the beach in Miami for all it matters.
Breathe in, let the rage surround you. Only vent towards those who have duped you.
Why do you assume there is rage on my part? I see more examples of it in the left than on my side of the aisle as liberals are now beginning to harrass soldiers in the time tested 1960's style.... Please see Code Pink et al.
The "Strategereic" Center of Gravity for this war is what our leaders choose it to be.
Sadly, this proves you have little understanding of Strategy, Operations, and Tactical thought. Simply SELECTING a Center of Gravity (COG) because you wish it to be the COG is folly of the first order, much akin to Lyndon Baynes Johnson who thought if he could hurt the PAVN bad enough, he could cut a deal with Chairman Ho.
He used that COG (PAVN pain equals deal cutting by honest brokers) because it was what he "wanted" to believe was the COG. I recommend you study current doctrines and get back to me when you have an alternative to the ones currently in use.
By the way, if you propose a COG, I will analyze it for you at the Strategic, Operational, and Tactical levels. Then tell you where you are right or wrong, much like I do for my students. Consider it a free service.
The TSA note that is left in my suitcase after they have searched it,
Yes, Times be hard.... (Sarc- use voice of character from movie "Crossroads")) Hahahahahaha!
the elderly who are just about stripped searched before being let on a plane
Times be hard..... (Sarc) Hahahahaha!
the unwarranted wiretaps and data mining of American citizens who are not in any way linked to terrorism
I assume you are talking about the Terrorist Surveillance Program (or to leftists "Domestic surveillance")
Boy , that was fun.
Boo-Yaa
May 20, 2008 - 21:57 ET by reasonsjesterLet me take this chance to raise the gloves. Nameless lib - you can go back to your Starbucks to commiserate with your Haiku-writing friends.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius
"I'd like to see posts
May 19, 2008 - 23:43 ET by MightyMouth"I'd like to see posts where you show where Keith was wrong. After all,
for now it looks only like you are mad because he dared to call out
your Republican president"
Hate to tell you this, Bush is barely 2/3rds Republican and darn near a RINO!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I don't know about Iraq, but
May 20, 2008 - 13:52 ET by Jack BauerI don't know about Iraq, but you sure are a "quackmire."
You would think GE/NBC would be ashamed
May 21, 2008 - 21:26 ET by Free StinkerYou would think GE/NBC would be ashamed to have this jxckxss on the air, but . . .
"Don't forget to vote this fall. Not for McCain, not ever, but there might be a Conservative Rep or Senator that Needs Your Vote" --Free Stinker