Olbermann Has Angry Breakdown Over 9/11 Video Tribute

Photo of Geoffrey Dickens.

Just moments after MSNBC aired the Republican convention's video tribute to victims of 9/11, shown at about 8:40pm EDT Thursday night (September 4), Keith Olbermann offered this angry rebuke of his own network for doing so (CNN and PBS also aired it):

I'm sorry, it's necessary to say this and I wanted to separate myself from the others on the air about this. If at this late date, any television network had of its own accord showed that much videotape, and that much graphic videotape of 9/11, and I speak as somebody who lost a few friends there, it, we, would be rightly eviscerated at all quarters, perhaps by the Republican Party itself, for exploiting the memories of the dead and perhaps even for trying to evoke that pain again. If you reacted to that videotape the way I did, I apologize. It is a subject of great pain for many of us still and was probably not appropriate to be shown. We'll continue in a moment.

Click here for mp3 audio.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Let's take it further,

Let's take it further, Obermann. How about ripping apart every image of the soldiers hoisting the flag at Iwo Jima? Don't you think we've had enough of that, too? And Gettysburg. Why do we still maintain a battlefield there? That war's been over for 150 years, for God's sake. Let's also get rid of all those damn memorials in Washington, D.C. My goodness -- someone might see them.

Better yet, you need to go home, crawl under a rock, and never, ever expose your liberal ass to anyone again.

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

Don't forget. They show

Don't forget. They show footage of Katrina everytime it rains.

Obxray - and let's cancel Independence day as well !!

And might I add: staying withing Olbiedog's little box of self serving existence, I suspect that he should demand immediate legislation from congress to ban honoring Martin Luther King day, the 4th of July, Memorial Day, Pearl Harbor Day, Veterans Day (and Thanksgiving - my God, all those turkeys) for "for exploiting the memories of the dead and perhaps even for trying to evoke that pain again."

Katrina

Spot on obxray. 

I was in NYC too on 9/11. I am not offended. It was a tribute to those lost that day, the people lost since then in defense of our country and a reminder of what it is that we all stand for and the relentlessness of those who oppose us. 

The tragedy of 9/11 is undefinable, but in it's aftermath, we were a different country. We were united in a way I had not seen before and unfortunately since. That division does not come from videos or even unpopular wars. It comes from replusive creatures like Olbermann.  He and his kind are the true masters of exploitation; sitting behind a desk and feining disgust and sincerity while in reality they are engaging in a calculated partisan attack

As obxray mentioned, there was no shortage of Katrina footage last week. No lack in levying unwarranted blame on George Bush for taking precisely the same response for the same reasons as Obama did this time around No recognition for the sucessful efforts of the thousands during Gustav or the changes put in place by Bush and others from both parties. No tribute to the people lost in Katrina, lost trying to save others in the aftermath or the heroic efforts by those that made it through. No, only coverage of those who, 3 years and countless dollars later, still have their hands out for the free blender that they never knew they needed. 

Where are all the people from Iowa who were buried underwater in this years floods? Strange that we don't see them on the news each night, isn't it? That's because there is a difference in those people and the trash that the media uses as political pawns. The people in Iowa recognized that George Bush may be the most powerful man in the free world, but he is nothing compared to nature. They are people who, when they extend a hand, are doing so to help those around them and help themselves; not reach out for what they feel entitled to. 

Olbermann, you are an advocate for no one but yourself. Trying to pretend any different is an insult not only to the people who know better but also the people whom allow you to use them as pawn for your own self interest and in support of your twisted beliefs. This is a free country. The people that you condemn are the one's who ensure that you can continue to make millions from your hate speech. If it is so terrible here, you are free to leave as well. 

Next time you decide to claim victimhood for the memories of 9/11, remind me of what it is that you did to help anyone. For all your claims of advocacy, I didn't see you digging in the rubble. Nor did I see you while I helped cooworker from center to center, trying to find word on missing loved ones. No, you were were you always are, at your bully pulpit critcizing the work of heros for the sin of exposing your own worthlessness by contrast. 

Wow!

Two very good posts right out of the box!

KayO was probably pleased as peaches with the major magazine cover engaging in advocacy journalism through it's exploitation of the image of the Marines raising the flag on Iwo Jima's Mount Suribachi and would twist himself in knots trying to justify it.

He's probably danced a jig to the display of images of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina interspersed with images the President looking out the window of Air Force One and an exasperated "Brownie."

Far left biased news media, thy name is Keith Olbermann and MSNBC.

CNN's....

Wolf Blitzer said much the same thing a few minutes ago...What a couple of whiners. Only pinheads from MSNBC and CNN would find a problem with a video tribute to 9/11 victims.  

"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." President Ronald Reagan, January 20, 1981

Isn't it funny....?

How the media never seems to lose it's appetite for showing violence on T.V. if they can use it to hammer Bush.How many times have we seen smoldering marketplaces in Iraq or recieved a daily body count from the media?

Olbermann is upset because he knows that stoking up anger about 9-11 always helps a Republican and hurts a Democrat because many are aware of how Democrats were prepared to throw in the towel in Iraq.National security is not their strong suit and Keith would prefer it if no one brought it up.

 

Victory in Iraq.

Liberals suck.

McCain for Preznint.

The Irony of it all Supercon

Feminists who can't wait to get out of the house and leave the kids to a sitter, nanny or day-care center are now lecturing the GOP and Palin about being fit mothers.

Women who'd rather abort their Down-Syndrome baby the minute the  ultrasound confirms it are now wondering if Sarah can take care of the kid?  What does the baby need?  Love and Care, not a death sentence for being un-worthy of being born.

How about Mz magazines deplorable issue of 100 women bragging about how their careers took-off after the abortions and how glad they were they did.

How about NTY articles about couple "agonizing" over the decision to abort their "deformed" babies rather than subject them to such a "rough" life.

You also hit the nail on the head, TV lives for showing riots and violence but hey, if it'll get BHB elected let's spike all good news out of Iraq and help the country forget 9/11.  How dare anyone remind us of that tragic "Accident"  that was really "no ones fault" except maybe GWB for not ready the "memo".

What nonsense. 

They got that double standard thing going.

A few weeks back you couldn't get the media to pick up on the Edwards scandal even if you were holding their families hostage.Babies and unwed mothers had no place in politics it seemed until Bristol Palin came along. On the Daily Kos they even let Elizabeth Edwards publish a diary in which she asked for privacy in this troubling matter.They were so sympathetic to her.

Of course Elizabeth....you're right.It's a private matter.

No one seemed to care who the father was and no one camped out on the lawn of Rielle Hunter.

Jump ahead a month later and now it seems the rules have changed.Instead of privacy and sympathy we saw a lynch mob screaming to for every detail of the pregnancy of Bristol Palin.They left no stone unturned to get every juicy tidbit.

 

Victory in Iraq.

Liberals suck.

McCain for Preznint.

Olbermann is upset because

Olbermann is upset because he knows that stoking up anger about 9-11 always helps a Republican and hurts a Democrat

Correct, supercon!  Heaven forbid we should remember what they did to us!!  Olbermann and his ilk don't want to be reminded, because then we might get angry at Muslims again, and we can't have that!

Maybe if they had kept showing the video right after, and every once in a while in the succeeding years, we wouldn't have all these liberals whining about "profiling" in airports, and pregnant women and grandmothers getting searched while young Muslim men waltz right by; maybe they wouldn't be crying about the "injustice" of wiretaps, or the "conditions" at Guantanamo, and wanting to provide trials and lawyers for the  captured combatants.

in the same sentence?

supercon, what does Iraq have to do with 9/11?

Hrm...

Good question. However, before anyone answers it, I want you to answer the question, "What did Germany have to do with Japan bombing Pearl Harbor?" Think about it, consider it, and when you actually answer it with respect to the reasoning we got into World War II, the answer to your question should present itself.

__________________________________________________________
If homosexuality is genetic, then it must be a birth defect. If it is a birth defect, then stem cell research might provide a cure.

put on your thinking caps everyone

Germany and Japan had a military alliance which necessitated that they declare each other's enemies as their own enemies. Following that agreement, when Japan and the US declared war on each other, Germany followed suit by declaring war on the US.

Now, if you can take that sentence and substitute the words "al Qaeda" and "Iraq" with a straight face, than maybe we can talk.

How about this,

  Islamic Extremists declared war on the U.S. back in the Carter years.  They attacked us repeatedly, until Al Qaeda finally succeeded in attacking us on our own soil.  The United States in turn declares war on Terrorism in general, but Al Qaeda primarily.  President Bush said that he would take the fight to ANY nation that is a state sponsor of Terror.

  At the end of the original Gulf war a ceasefire was drawn up with conditions.  We would stop kicking the Iraqi's a55es, as long as he agreed to abide by certain standards; namely destroy and be able to account for the destruction of his WMD program, allow continuous monitoring by UN weapons inspectors, abide by a no fly zone, and follow strict sanctions (which was eventually compromised to allow the oil for food program).

  Just as the numerous attacks by terrorists were ignored or dealt with weakly, so were the numerous violations by Sadaam.  Eventually 9/11 happened and we began the War on TERROR (notice the word terror and not Al Qaeda).  We knew that Sadaam had been paying out $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.  Our intelligence may have been wrong about close ties between Sadaam and Al Qaeda, but it wasn't that much of a stretch when we have documented cases of Al Qaeda coming and going from Iraq in addition to Sadaam's support of Palestinian suicide bombers.  This and the fact that Sadaam had violated all of his ceasefire agreements, including firing on our jets as they attempted to enforce the no fly zones.

  Hmm... strange how Al Qaeda and Iraq don't seem so unrelated after all.

 

  Don't forget that President Bush gave Iraq 6 months (18 months after 9/11) to air out it's dirty laundry, and then in one last chance effort at diplomacy, offered Sadaam one last out.  President Bush said that there would be no war if Sadaam resigned and took his sons into exile.  Russia already offered them refuge, and with the money that they stole from the oil for food program, they would have lived like Kings.

 

  I said all of that with a straight face, but am now smiling at the spasms and contortions you face must be going through right now. 

come on...

look, the simple analogy doesn't work because in WWII, the US faced three countries that had a military treaty to support each other, whereas in the War on Terror, you have states and non-state actors who have no formal and, in many cases, no informal ties. (You could make the argument that you made about Iraq supporting other
terror campaigns, but the facts, as admitted by the Bush
administration, not to mention O'Reilly today, are that al Qaeda had no
links to Iraq before the invasion.)

If you wanted to argue that Japan's surprise attack is analogous to the al-Qaeda planned attacks on 9/11, I would agree--but then for the analogy to fit you would have to argue that Iraq declared war on the US (which is what Germany did).

Or put it this way: most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, right? So, I'm all for dealing with terrorist networks, but the evidence would seem to suggest that the terror organization was elsewhere than in Iraq--why didn't we start with clearing out madrassas in good old Saudi Arabia?

*shakes head*

1) Saddam funded the attack in 1993.  Clinton should've went after him then.

2) Al Qaeda trained in Iraq throughout the 1990's.  On top of Saddam giving money to terrorist causes, he opened his land to their causes.

3) It was KNOWN by intelligence in the 90's that Saddam was still developing WMD's.  Clinton pussy footed about attacking him, and the dems in congress at the time, even went after the guy saying we shouldn't go in there right now.

4) It was KNOWN by ALL intelligence agencies prior to going into Iraq, that Saddam was still developing WMD's, and he was playing mind games with the inspectors.  AFTER BEING ATTACKED, was our President supposed to just wait for another attack on our nation or another nation?

5) Iraq is better off now under their frail democracy than they were under the iron fisted islamic rule of Saddam Hussein.  When you protest the war efforts, you are PRO Saddam Hussein and all the terrorist actions he made.

6) Alot of those Hijackers that were Saudi were trained in madrassa's in Germany.  The problem is systemic of Islamic Jihad.  Until we are willing to take on that Non-PC war, we will have to take the small victories we can.  That includes bringing freedoms to these countries in the middle east.  Do you realize how symbolic it is that we are winning the war against terrorists in Iraq?  How much that will move the average muslim to fighting against the radical jihadis among them so that they can have that freedom as well?

Palin has accomplished great things, while Obama has continued to make empty promises that the world owes you a living.

we're not going to agree

The issue at stake here, mbuel, is that a lot of commenters on this post argue that showing 9/11 footage is damaging to the Democrats because the Democrats are soft on the war in Iraq--not about whether or not past presidents should have gone after Saddam or Osama before.

 (I happen to agree with you--I think past presidents might have done more. Particularly I'm disappointed in the Bush administration for ignoring warnings that Osama had plans to fly planes into buildings. Also, while I agree that a brutal dictator is not good, you have to agree that he was only in power because Bush Senior didn't push the first Gulf War--and I hope you'll agree that there are quite a few dictators in the world that we haven't gone after, some of whom we support.)

But the real issue that we're not going to agree on is whether Iraq posed a clear and present danger to the US. First, no, there was no link between al Qaeda and Iraq--this was clear to most people then who realized that just because people are evil, doesn't necessarily mean they like each other, and has become clearer now that people have looked into Iraq's security documents. Iraq and al Qaeda has no links

 Second, no, Iraq did not have WMDs--this was the conclusion of the UN weapons inspectors then, and it has become the conclusion of the Bush administration now. In fact, it looks to people like he stopped his WMD development around the time of the first Gulf War, due partly to sanctions. (And people are always saying diplomacy and sanctions don't work.)

 Third, when you say that protesting the war is being pro-Saddam, that's really where we'll never agree. That seems to me to be an instance of the sort of "you're either with us or against us" thinking that makes it harder for us to see who the real threats are. (Again, Saddam, not a threat. Just like the Omar al-Bashir, who is in charge of Sudan and the genocide in Darfur is not a threat--although he's a pretty bad man, and a lot of people in Sudan would be better off if we invaded.)

In my own mind, the center

In my own mind, the center of gravity of our foes in the GWOT is the Islamic Fascist Ideology that they feed tot he masses of the middle east from the minarets, the internet, and on Al Jazeera.

In order to defeat this center of gravity, we need to present a counter ideology to the peoples of middle east to compete and defeat Islamo fascism. In that theory, if an enemy sought to do the same thing to us, that is present a counter-ideology - where would they seek to gain a foothold and gain access to the media? Ely Minneota, or New York City?

Likewise, Afghanistan is considered a backwater - even by the islamic peoples. No one would ever desire to use it to try and influence a population. But Bagdhad? I would take Bagdhad.

But you probably do not see this as you see the GWOT as a law enforcement function rather than a war.

ah, a war. but a war on a feeling?

BD, by that logic, shouldn't we bomb the internet? 

also, I can get behind a war on terrorism, but a war on "terror"? how can there be a successful war prosecuted against a feeling? On one level, I'm joking here, but I'm also serious--even the name of this war shows how poorly it was conceived and executed by the Republican Bush administration.

nicholas

What part of these many GREAT current conditions and results post-9/11 -- all thanks to the decision-making and leadership of the Bush administration -- do you have a problem with?:

* Iraq, a geographically strategic country in the heart of the volatile and heavily Islamic Middle East, once an unstable rogue state with a dangerous dictator at the helm, now a young and struggling, but very legitimate, democracy with a constitution. This sets a very important example to neighboring countries and isolates Iran further.

* Afghanastan, another key country in the M.E., once controlled by the Al-Queda-favoring Taliban that governed as if it were the 700's, overthrown and also now a burgeoning democratic country with a president and a constitution.

* No attacks on our soil or directly on our interests since 9/11/2001.

* No major Al-Queda/other group-sponsored terrorist attacks worldwide -- specifically on targetted western countries -- since Madrid in early 2004.

* Nothing coming out of the top ranks of Al-Queda -- #1 OBL (most likely dead now) and #2 Al Zawahiri (sp? like I care :p and probably dead, too) -- for quite some time.

* Scores of terrorists killed around the world thanks to specific targetted American strikes, including in Somalia, Afgahnistan, Indonesia, etc..

 

* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change

the issue at hand: 9/11 and Iraq--no link

Hi MrShy,

The issue under question here is whether Iraq had links to al Qaeda, and the answer is, no, there were no links between them. I've already said it a few times, and I feel repetitious, since I'm jus repeating things that the Republican administration and pundits have said.

(Previous commenters here have disagreed with me on that--with me, with Pres. Bush, with O'Reilly, and a bunch of other conservatives who have said the same thing. I'm sort of tired of pointing this out to people--if they want to say that they can't trust Bush and O'Reilly, that's their problem. So, let's move on to your argument.)

Is the world better off (i.e., have less terrorists in it) thanks to Bush? I'm not so sure--I don't disagree with most of what you said.

(Except for that part about Iran being isolated because of the invasion of Iraq--you do remember that the biggest enemy of mostly Shi'a, mostly Persian Iran was (Baathist) Sunni-controlled, mostly Arab Iraq? I mean, they did fight a big war in recent memory--and not like a little, "oops, I seem to have invaded Granada," sort of war, but a vicious, knock-down, drag-out fight. These were two countries that were never going to work together until the death of Saddam, which, surprise, came a little earlier than expected. Don't misread me: Saddam was evil and deserved execution. But his death was what they call a game-changer, suddenly making Iran into a potential ally and source of weapons for insurgents in Iraq.)

But do I really think the world has less terrorists? The idea of fighting them there instead of fighting them here is attractive, but you know war has casualties, and a lot of people can get worked up over revenge (see: America after 9/11). So, while Bush policies have done much to combat terrorists, I think the America-triumphant image that his policies have projected have done much to create an atmosphere in which terrorism seems like a good option for a lot of people for whom it wouldn't have had an appeal before.

Or, to go to Vietnam, this isn't a war to win by blowing up bodies--we have to win hearts and minds.

The issue under question

The issue under question here is whether Iraq had links to al Qaeda,

That question is immaterial.  It would be material if only the GWOT was viewed through the paradignm of law enforcement.

SInce it is not, it is not germaine to the issue.

...whether Iraq had links

...whether Iraq had links to al Qaeda, and the answer is, no, there were no links between them.

You are repeating completely discredited talking points.  No only did al Qaeda have training camps set up in Iraq, there are reams of captured documents showing numerous paper trails between the Iraqi governemtn un Sadam and al Qaeda.  But don't let the facts get in the way, enjoy another sip of kool-aide.

And...

 don't forget Libya.  condi Rice is on her way to meet with Kadhafi.  Libya was a huge thorn in Reagan's side during the 80's.

 

  Something most people don't understand is that the war on terror isn't just in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Those are just the two most public battlefronts.  The GWOT spans many countries from Indonesia to Chechnya (I don't remember how it is spelled), from the Middle East to London to Canada to Sudan.  The US has been involved all over the world with negotiations with Pakistan, to special ops into Somalia from Ethiopia, to prosecutions in Canada.

  The Bush Administration has done a poor job in reminding the American people of what he said 7 years ago.  He said that this effort would be long and difficult, and while some battles will take place in the public eye, most will actually be hidden away out of sight.

  At least one good thing came out of the NYT's need to publish any National secret it could get its hands on, we do know that the Bush Administration has been fighting the war all over the world, even if we don't see it.  

  There was a study that came out, I believe a month ago that said that overall global terror attacks have been dropping since 2001 (other studies that claim the opposite actually include threats in their talley), so I think that Bush has been doing a pretty good job.

A feeling? Islamo

A feeling? Islamo Fascism?

No, it is an ideology inimicable to our way of life. Much like nazi'ism, Mao'ism, Stalinism, and garden variety Communism.

Like other defeated ideology, it was not defeated by bombs and bullets or even the bayonet - no it is defeated by a competing more attractive ideology. But in order to insert the approriate competing ideology we need access to the population. Iraq provides just such access.

You obviously are not understanding warfare except in some law enforcement form. Sadly, many suffer from this - I blame the "Law and Order" effect.

The issue at stake here,

The issue at stake here, mbuel, is that a lot of commenters on this
post argue that showing 9/11 footage is damaging to the Democrats
because the Democrats are soft on the war in Iraq--not about whether or
not past presidents should have gone after Saddam or Osama before.

Frankly I would agree with such commentators. Look at the DNC, they never mentioned the war in Iraq, or the GWOT.

(I happen to agree with you--I think past presidents might have
done more. Particularly I'm disappointed in the Bush administration for
ignoring warnings that Osama had plans to fly planes into buildings.

The warnings weren't that clear, and part of the problem was that Berger stole alot of the intelligence data.

Also, while I agree that a brutal dictator is not good, you have to
agree that he was only in power because Bush Senior didn't push the
first Gulf War

Bush Senior was a total push over to the democrats in congress.

But the real issue that we're not going to agree on is whether Iraq
posed a clear and present danger to the US.

Same old song and dance. You complain that Bush didn't do enough to stop 9/11 but when he acted (in support of majority of democrats at the time) to prevent a possible pre-emptive Terror attack by Iraq...

MY GOD, How dare Bush act pre-emptively.

So do you really want him to act pre-emptively or not?

First, no, there was no
link between al Qaeda and Iraq

I'm sorry but this is flat out wrong.

Yousef came to New York from Pakistan on a false Iraqi passport in 1992.

Who do you think helped get this guy (Yousef was the attempted 1993 WTC bomber) a false IRAQI passport?

Second, no, Iraq did not have WMDs--this was the conclusion of the
UN weapons inspectors then, and it has become the conclusion of the
Bush administration now.

This is totally ludicrous as well. Did you know that they've never found an official gas chamber in the jewish internment camps? Do you doubt that jews were gassed?

The fact is it's easy to convert ANY factory into WMD development, and we KNOW that Saddam has deployed gas weapons in the past on the Kurds and on the Iranians.

So to make this statement that he did not have WMD's is totally ludicrous, and contrary to intelligence available at the time. Intelligence that the Clinton administration agreed with.

Like I said above... you want it both ways. Bush is responsible for not acting to stop 9/11. And he's responsible for trying to protect us and the world from Iraq.

Third, when you say that protesting the war is being pro-Saddam

So, do you think Saddam was a good leader?

You seem to think he wasn't a threat even though we know he complicitly helped terrorists, and killed citizens within his own country and his neighboring countries.

Is the world better off without Saddam?

although he's a
pretty bad man, and a lot of people in Sudan would be better off if we
invaded.

You aren't going to get disagreement from me on that one. I think we should have a draft and use economic and military force to change the world for the better. get rid of the tin pot dictators, marxists, etc, and give the people freedom, democracy, and capitalism.

 

EDIT:

Another thing... do we really REALLY believe that the UN inspectors are to be trust worthy?  Look at how many countries were involved in the oil for food scandal! 

_________________________________________

Palin has accomplished great things, while Obama has continued to make empty promises that the world owes you a living.

Okay... no problem

Okay... now that you have stepped into this one, I am pleased to answer your questions...

Al Qaeda and Iraqi Intelligence were well known to meet with each other prior to our invasion and ultimate dismissal of Saddam Hussein. Whether they planned, together, actionable intentions, is irrelevant to their actual meetings.

Having stated that, the War on Terror, is a War on TERROR, not a War on Al Qaeda. As such, we have to determine what terrorism is. Terrorism is defined as:

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. 
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government. 

Each and every single definition defined here, defines the government and "political" attacks of Saddam Hussein. As such, a War on Terrorism would be inclusive to the regime of Saddam Hussein who was nothing more then a terrorist organization leader, not unlike Osama bin Laden. The only difference, is that bin Laden had to hide in a country, whereas Hussein already "owned" his own country. In either event, they each sponsored terrorism.

These are undeniable truths.

In World War II, Roosevelt wanted to get involved. However, he was unable to do so. The Congress would not allow the United States to enter into combat, since the devastation of World War I was so horrific. Roosevelt and Truman knew that unless Germany was stopped, there was no chance of us protecting ourselves should Hitler become exceedingly ambitious. He wanted to help our allies in Europe, but his hands were tied by Congress. As such, when Pearl Harbor was bombed, we were immediately immersed into combat both in the Pacific, as well as Europe. In just over a month, US troops were in place in Great Britain, with intentions of fighting Germany. Now, it seems to me, that the mere timing of this shows an absolute intention of preparing ahead of time. In other words, we were already prepared to hit Germany from Europe, we were just waiting for the excuse is all. Why? Quite simply because of the timing. We had sent several divisions to Europe, had to have been, within days of Pearl Harbor occuring. In order for this to occur, it takes several days to mobilize active duty troops, which means they had to be moblized and prepared prior to the attacks of Pearl Harbor to occur.

Do you see what I am getting at yet? In other words, to make it simple, we already had intentions of attacking Germany regardless of what the deciding factor was to get us involved -- we were just waiting for the excuse to get involved.

As I stated previously, if you answered the question that I posed, then you would have the question you asked answered. To, again, simplify this, we invaded and dispatched Saddam Hussein in Iraq because he, himself, was a terrorist -- which we are in a war against: terrorism. Trying to differentiate one terrorist, from another, thinking we are in a war against Al Qaeda, is the reason why it is so difficult for people to actually understand the war ultimately. In World War II, we were NOT in a war against Japan. We were in a war against the Axis powers -- from the beginning.

__________________________________________________________
If homosexuality is genetic, then it must be a birth defect. If it is a birth defect, then stem cell research might provide a cure.

precisely

Because Al Qaeda was the one that really caught us with our pants down we're only supposed to go after them? not Hezbollah, or the Holy Land Foundation? or other extremist muslim groups?

 

 

Palin has accomplished great things, while Obama has continued to make empty promises that the world owes you a living.

In my own mind, the center

In my own mind, the center of gravity of our foes in the GWOT is the Islamic Fascist Ideology that they feed tot he masses of the middle east from the minarets, the internet, and on Al Jazeera.

In order to defeat this center of gravity, we need to present a counter ideology to the peoples of middle east to compete and defeat Islamo fascism.

In that theory, if an enemy saought to do the same thing to us, that is present a counter-ideology - where would they seek to gain a foothold and gain access to the media?  Ely Minneota, or New York City?

Likewise, Afghanistan is considered a backwater - even by the islamic peoples.  No one would ever desire to use it to try and influence a population. But Bagdhad?  I would take Bagdhad.

But you probably do not see this as you see the GWOT as a law enforcement function rather than a war.

Wrong question

The correct question is what does Iraq have to do with terrorism, genius. 9/11 is synonomous with terrorism, genius.

Until you guys get that through your thick skulls instead of trying to frame the question to promote your hatred of President Bush, we will never be able to bring the threat of ISLAMIC TERRORISM to an end; which by the way, President Bush and the Conservatives have done more in 7 years to advance the ball in defeating terrorism when it took Wild Bill Clinton 8 years to allow it to incubate. 

Go back to your closet and

Go back to your closet and stay there until we figure out what to do with you.

 I hear they have a vacancy at GITMO!

 

Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/  

45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goal

Have You Forgotten???

I've never understood the reluctance of the MSM to show the videos from 9/11.  I know people died.  I know it's painful for the families and friends of the victims.  But as the song "Have You Forgotten" says, "If it were up to me I'd show it every day."  The libs can't stand for the American people to be reminded WHY we're at war.  And it isn't for OIL.  I can't imagine what it's going to take for them to finally decide it's time to fight.

And you know what, Keith?  This isn't about YOU!!!!! 

Olberdouche

Needs to STFU!  Sanctimonious POS...

Soldiers died so that you could be a weenie

Mr. Olbermann needs to remember that our country was attacked and that we are still at war.  Do you hear me?  We are still at war.

Men and women have died in Iraq and elsewhere to help defend Mr. Olbermann's freedom to be a weenie--yes, a big wussie weenie.

Mr. Olbermann needs to remember, as we all do, that we were attacked.  Yes, war is painful and not always fun to look at.  But if Mr. Olbermann will put down his Britney Spears CDs and teddy bears long enough to get serious, he might remember this. 

MSM

 

Wasn't MSNBC one of the ones that wanted to show the coffins of the solders killed in Iraq?

 

KO is a sick man and needs to be commited. 

Did his lower lip tremble?

Olbermann is not the news.  He's a product of poor potty training who can read copy.  How that makes him a political player is beyond me.  Ditto Mr. Spritz on Noballs.

Keith, bubby, pisher - nobody gives a bleep what you think.  Get over yourself.

Ever thought of maybe doing sportscasting?

----

Here's the problem.

Even if he had a point (he doesn't), because Olbermann has a lengthy record of over-the-top, inaccurate, hopelessly slanted commentary, he has no credibility when he addresses what he views as a legitimate point. (It isn't.)

The video of the 9/11

The video of the 9/11 attacks should not only be shown on a regular basis on broadcast networks, it should be part of the curriculum in schools across the country.  The vicious and cowardly attacks are now etched in history, and Keith Dolthead has no say in the matter.  Showing this video is in no way an afront to the victims or their families, but it is a reminder of why our soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan do not fight for nothing.  It is a reminder of why losing is not an option.

I teach high school, and on

I teach high school, and on the anniversary of 9/11 each year, I play footage of the first video tape I have of 6 or so I made back then. --- I had popped a tape in the VCR soon after the first plane hit and kept recording.

I play part of that first tape each anniversary and then let the teens discuss it however they want.

It is important to remember.

I can remember a teacher in my high school days who showed footage of the atmoic bomb drops in Japan.

I wonder, does MSNBC or NBC run footage of that every year?

I know we commemorate the anniversary of the atomic bomb drops every year - and I can remember some short clips usually being shown along with the announcement of the anniversary.

I can also remember periodically the news media will do more indepth stories about that event on that anniversary -- usually doing a story with survivors who remember the horrors of the blast and aftermath & with WWII vets who offer a perspective of why the bombs were dropped.

Maybe Newsbusters can look back at the TV news coverage of the anniversaries of the atomic bomb droppings --- and see how often the media showed graphic footage - and how often they decided to do more indepth coverage of that event in American history.

It really isn't a surprise the likes of Olbermann find value in reminding Americans about something like the US government dropping nuclear weapons on some nation ---- but go into a kanipshin when someone dares air footage of an event that stirs up patrioticism in the hearts of most Americans....

 

 

How do they reconcile not

How do they reconcile not wanting to show buildings falling down in flames because people died in them, but wanting to see mangled bodies of soldiers because the people need to know? The answer is obvious, but the question must be asked.

 

I think we do need to show pics from Iraq as well as pictures and video from 9-11. We need to see what is happening now but not forget what happened in the past. But we can do both of those without showing dead bodies.

it is over 60 years and

it is over 60 years and every December 7th we pay homage to the Attack on Pearl Harbor.

 

Olbermann though makes you want o feel it is his pain "he " lost friends and no one else on 9-11

all I can is what selfish bastard he truly is. Just a pitiful selfish bastard..

Are these the same people

who file lawsuits to so that they can snap pictures of the coffins of dead soldiers when their remains arrive in Dover DE?

Don't get Olbermann started on Pearl Harbor

He really hates it when anyone mentions that

What has Olbermeister said about Pearl Harbor?

LWE,

I would like to know what this pathetic jackass has said about Pearl Harbor and when he said it because I will personally write to his left-wing network to give him and them my two cents about the issue. 

Those will be fighting words as I am the son of a Pearl Harbor survivor. My father was aboard the U.S.S. Maryland in battleship row on the day of the attack, parked on the inside row next to the U.S.S. Oklahoma which was hit and capsized during the attack.

My father served on the Maryland throughout WWII, had only one 30 day leave throughout the war, and he and his shipmates fought like hell for the freedoms that left-coast, bleeding-heart, 'do as I say, not as I do' journalistic morons like KO now abuse on a daily basis.

9/11 was an act of terrorism as was 12/07/1941! Should we be reminded of and remember them both? Absolutely!

That video was shown at the RNC to remind us, too, as to how the previous administration of Slick Willy Clinton, who, in 8 short years, gutted our military, took no action against terrorists when they were bombing the U.S.S. Cole, planted themselves on our shores preparing for 9/11 and all the while playing the appeasement game with "peace loving" muslim nations - just like Osama Bama is doing now and will continue to do if gets into the White House!

Olbermeister is a sorry excuse for a "journalist" and a human being - makes me wonder how he sleeps at night?

"The sun's not going down - the horizon's moving up!" - Firesign Theatre

 

There's more

What about

D-day, Pearl Harbour, Civil War stills, Korean war footage.  He hates it because it reminds him what a colossal failure Bill Clinton was on National Security.  Why does he so much want to show the coffins with dead Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines in them?  They are not shown because of the family and the privacy of the family.  People he does not know and will never understand.  He is not man enough to go to St. Paul for fear of people shouting at him.

But he will whine about showing that pivotal moment in American history.  Olbermann is a loser.  We were at dinner and did not see it.  Did anyone call him on it?  I doubt it but I figured I would ask.

Hard to make a judgement

Hard to make a judgement without seeing the video first-hand. 

I have to disagree.  It

I have to disagree.  It does not matter what it showed.  We all know that it was not tasteless.  The only tasteless thing here is KO.  He is an awful awful human being.  And I mean that.

Olbermann is over the top,

Olbermann is over the top, hyperbolic. But I'd still like to see the video for myself. 

I understand

I know what you are saying.  I will post if my mind is changed.

Probably on the net

Probably on the net somewhere, if not now, it may be tomorrow.

Olby is a freakin MORON! 

I saw the video, and Olby is a freakin MORON!  Pissed off because his party won't use those images.  Why?  Because they can't.  It would be too transparent and obvious that it's simply images on a screen.  Did 9/11 happen to America?  Yea Olby it did.  I guess he prefers that we not be reminded of it, because doing so just might continue to reinforce in the American mind that we ARE at war with the idiotic, moronic, cowardice, crap-for-brains radical Islamic fundamentalists.  He and his ilk don't want Americans to be cognizant of that.  He'd prefer those images stay hidden, and the longer they are, the more they fade from the American mind, and the easier it is to get do-nothing, pandering, appeasing liberals he so dearly loves elected to positions of power in the United States.  My United States, YOUR United States.  And yes, his too.  Fortunately for him there are people who are not too STUPID, as he is, to realize that we are at war and it is important that we all understand and recognize the FACT.  If America were made up of just those minds like Olby, it's days would be numbered and the number would not be a large one.

Freakin idiot!  I just heard his crap.  Olby is a whiner.  Those of you who above mentioned all those other war things of our past, you are correct.  "IF at this late date" he says.  Well 9/11 isn't as late as showing any other war images.  I guess Olby would want those also to never be seen again.  What an IDIOT!  Whining because images of the REASON we are at WAR being shown?  No problem here, show them every damn night if you ask me.  Americans have forgotten it, forgotten what exactly can happen when America sleeps.  SHOW IT MORE OFTEN!!!!!!

I can't stand the liberal mind.

Edward R Olby....what

Edward R Olby....what emotion, what integrity, what an a**.  MSNBC has got to do something with this idiot.

GREAT! JUST GREAT

BLOWBERMAN NOW JOINS THE TRUTHERS ALONGSIDE RON PAUL!

 

JUST GREAT!  NBC ONCE AGAIN PROVES IT'S THE NAZI BROADCASTING COMPANY!

When I was young

I remember seeing black and white films of the concentration camps.It left a impression on me.Maybe if more people had seen them there wouldnt be the "Killing Fields" of Cambodia or Rwanda.With the showing of 9/11 maybe more folks will understand why we have to take a stance.It just isnt a bumper sticker slogan.

Acting

If he is crying it is because BO can not use the footage and the footage might help send BO back to the community.  When I see that video I get pissed off.  I get pissed off for Bill Clinton not doing more.  I get pissed off at the people who exploited the event, KO to hammer Bush.  But unlike KO I am most pissed off at the filthy soulless bas###ds that did this to this great nation.  I want them all to burn in whatever hell they believe in.  May their hearts and souls be wrapped in bacon and fed back to that pigs brother.  But KO does not think like that.  He thinks like a defeatist.  Just like Clinton.  And that is part of the reason and chain of events that lead to those towers hitting the deck.

KO is soon to have another breakdown.  Our country will be better off when he leaves the airways.

 May God have mercy on KO's empty soul.

9/11 is a part of our

9/11 is a part of our history and heritage now.  It reminds us why we should always be on the lookout for evil and its many forms.  For example, Marxism, Communism, Naziism, terrorism and ofcourse the MSM.

The question is -- again

The question is -- again without having seen the video -- was it too much? Did it cross the line from tribute to something else?

Here's the video bal

http://www.youtube.c...

My answer to your question, it was a carefully editted tribute with a voice over directed at reinforcing the Republicans strong stance against terrorism. I don't think it crossed the line, but only a fool can't see that it was an emotional set up to get the crowd hyped for the patriotism message that McCain pushed thurs nite.  Imo, if they wanted to do a straight tribute video they would left out the voice over.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with using it, but it is what it is. 

As for Olberman, I think part of his reaction came from the fact that the DNC didn't think to do something similar. :-} I think he was legitly upset, but I have zero sympathy for the guy after the shit that he says on a regular basis. 

 

If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love youBut if you really make them think, they'll hate you.

Don Marquis 1878-1937

Olberdouche was not

Olberdouche was not offended by the video, he is offended by Republicans and conservatives and Christians.   If it would benefit the democrat party in any way, he would play a 9/11 video non stop around the clock without an ounce of hesitation. But it hurts his party by reminding people of why we are in a war against terror so he feigns indignation.

He is a pompous ASS wipe of major proportions, forgive my french.

When asked if he went to war with Iraq  to derail the impeachment vote:  “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).

olbermann has no clue of history ...

for "those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it"

 

so, olbermann ... stuff your head back where it belongs ... between your cheeks ... and let the rest of us deal with the problems of the world.  because as long as there are people who are willing to remember things like 9/11, the less likely we will be unprepared for it happening again in the future.  yeah, sometimes we need a reminder as to how bad that day was almost 7 years ago ... otherwise we'd get complacent ... like you. the same complacency we practiced after the first world trade center bombing.

 

so, to accomodate keith olbermann, let's just forget:  independence day/d-day/pearl harbor/VT massacre/columbine/MLK,JFK,RFK assassinations/armistice or veterans' day/memorial day/shuttle disaster(s) ... then we can focus on the "meat and potatos", like the suits obama wears, joe biden's comb-over and things that send a "thrill" up his buddy matthews' leg.  

 

 

Keith Olbamamann is such a

Keith Olbamamann is such a hack.

Let me quote you own words Mr. Olbermann, sir.....

Grow Up!

 

Good night and good luck.

 

These are the same people

These are the same people that lampooned Pat Tillman's death,  trumpeted each major milestone in military deaths, and bemoan the fact that they can't make a spectacle of our soldier's coffins coming home to their final resting places.

You replay attrocities so you never forget them.   9/11.   The holacaust.   Countdown with Keef Olberdouche reruns.

When asked if he went to war with Iraq  to derail the impeachment vote:  “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).

Just for arguments sake, how

Just for arguments sake, how often do you think MSNBC would replay it if it had turned out BushCheneyInc really HAD planned it?

No Olbermann

Only the 25%'ers react the way you do.

 

Palin has accomplished great things, while Obama has continued to make empty promises that the world owes you a living.

Olbermann losing friends on 9/11

Many of his other friends, however, continue their efforts with al Qaeda

LOL!   His "friends" were

LOL!   His "friends" were the pilots.

When asked if he went to war with Iraq  to derail the impeachment vote:  “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).

There you go, making Olbermann's pain worse

I'm telling ya, he's haunted about this

Post-partisan Olby

Good to know that Mr. "We Must Ignore Partisanship" is still practicing his 'unbiased' 'journalism' (both words applied very loosely, of course).

"...and I speak as somebody who lost a few friends there..."

Olby has/had actual "friends"? First I've heard of it. I'm sure none of them were "Re-thug-licans."

Olbermann figures if the

Olbermann figures if the news isn't going your way, why not go ahead and ...CREATE SOME!

You're Obstructing Our View of America...

The liberal media has been wanting to "get past" 9/11 since the first anniversary. They didn't want to show footage of the events then, because they said it was too disturbing. Back then, at least they had half a leg to stand on. But, a couple of years ago, one of them announced in print that -- it was officially time to put 9/11 behind us.

That is what they have wanted to accomplish from day one.

Because, 9/11 obscrues the rest of America from any potential of sharing their world view of America.

And that really bothers them.


They can't handle that the bulk of America does not see -- the United States as the #1 problem in the world.

That is why they refuse to allow a public airing of Obama's associations with Ayers, Rev. Wright, Davis and so on.

Given those associations, if Obama were to be open and honest about how he personally views American society, like he did in his autobiography, and like his wife has hinted at a couple of times, the liberals that staff the media in America would agree with everything he had to say. They'd walk up and shake Obama and Rev. Wright's hands and thank them after a nationally televised discussion about what all is still so terribly, terribly wrong with America. ----- And Obama would lose the election in the most lopsided defeat in US history....

Which is exactly why Obama refuses to talk about his old friends --- or simply repeat what all he said in his biography --- and why the media helps him keep all that stuff buried.

Which is also exactly why Olbermann and others can't stand the memory of 9/11 being brought up.

9/11 was the historically breaking point away from the Vietnam War 1950s-70s Era. Unlike a few on the fringe, a fringe the media is all too comfortable with, most Americans knew that America did not "deserve" the attacks. Beyond those attacks, Americans knew (and know) we have come a long way from the days of Segregation - the days before the Civil Rights and other movements of the 50s-70s changed America for the better.

Liberals, like those who people the media, are stuck in the 60s. They still want to fight that good fight against bad old America. And they can't stand that that view of the United States just doesn't sell anymore....

And the patriotic feelings images of 9/11 are so far from the feeling they believe people should have about American society ---- it sends them into kanipshin like Olbermann just had.

(and as an after-thought -- I bet this is one of the key reasons - if not the key reason - the media turned on Hillary and worked so hard to pump Obama up and move him past her. Bill and Hillary were part of that generation (more than Obama) of the Vietnam Era --- but they are not part that still views the US as a bigger problem than solution in the world.

In short, Hillary wouldn't agree with a Rev. Wright.

Obama obviously did.

And the media picked --- and fought heavily for --- Obama.

Well --- that makes it clear as day........Don't know why I didn't see it that way before.......)

can anyone supply an email

can anyone supply an email address for MSNBC?

 

JW

Not sure if this is it, but it should be

Let GE know what you think!

http://www.ge.com/co...

Earlier today I offered someone in the investor services a pointer to a relevant NB post, and asked them a few pointed questions about what they think they are achieving with their promotion of bias.

I urge others to do the same.

Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.

I have another suggestion.

Mr. O,

Should we also stop showing the atrocities of the death camps of Nazi Germany too? Have the families of those who suffered been subject to enough?

I believe that we HAVEN'T seen enough of the events of 9/11. I want to make sure my daughters realize evil, should they be faced with it in the future.

You are unprofessional, and a coward and when the ratings books are in after this election season, you may find yourself on a 300 watt radio station in some market south of Tijuana - if you're lucky.

www.ArmchairEnergist...

More

I think that the networks and cable news outlets aren't showing the video of the 9/11 attacks enough.  Too many have forgotten how evil those attacks were, and that evil is still out there looking for any way to strike again.  After 168 people were killed in the Murrah Bldg. bombing in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, Oklahomans  declared, "We will not forget."  As Americans, we can not forget September 11, and if that means viewing video of the attacks again and again and again, then so be it.  The Democrats want the American people to forget because it helps their case in proving that there is no threat.  Unfortunately, if there is another attack on U.S. soil, and the Democrats are in charge, the only question will be how quickly they will surrender.  Olbermann certainly knows that - he's probably brushing up on his Arabic for his new job with Al Jezeera. 

MS-NBC is an absolute joke

And Olbermann and his fellow "journalists" will continue to laugh off accusations of media bias and that they're totally in the tank for Obama, pretending the "fussing" is just the usual campaign tactics of the big, bad republicans.

Nah. No bias here. We saw the same kind of bashing of the Democrats at last week's convention, right?????

UNBELIEVABLE that NBC picked this dope to anchor their coverage of the 2008 Republican National Convention. Maybe FOX should have recruited Michael Savage as the anchor for the Dem convention.

Take Him Out Back

Somebody needs to take this moron out back and whip his ass good!

He's an embarrassment to all Americans and should be banned from showing his face in public again.

 Hey Barack, your biggest fan Keith O-dumbass is working overtime for you!

You all have got this wrong...

Olberloon is a drama queen... plain and simple (or simple and plain if you're under 21).

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

It Hurts

Olbermann knows there are millions of people (voters) who will react positively to the memorial tribute to 9/11. He knows big trouble this way comes for the dems, and he's a little depressed. This did not go well at all for the libs.

AND THE EMMY GOES TO....

 

The guy from MSNBC who was also the dad in the American Pie movie!

 

 

 

email for msnbc

reality check: 9/11 and the War in Iraq

a lot of comments have been posted here arguing that Olbermann doesn't like the 9/11 footage because the Democrats are weak on Iraq. Just to be clear, you all did watch Bush that one time at a news conference when he stated that there was no connection between the terrorists who conducted 9/11 and Iraq, right? (Or did you watch the piece on O'Reilly tonight with Obama, where Obama pointed out that there are Sunni and Shia branches of Islam, and how al Qaeda is one, Saddam and the Baathist Party was another.)

So just to be clear: Iraq was not involved in 9/11.

a lot of comments have been

a lot of comments have been posted here arguing that Olbermann doesn't like the 9/11 footage because the Democrats are weak on Iraq.

This is essentially correct, but do esn ot go far enough.  democrats are week on ALL defense related issues.

Just to be clear, you all did watch Bush that one time at a news conference when he stated that there was no connection between the terrorists who conducted 9/11 and Iraq, right?

Yes, but since the GWOT is not a law enforcement function (See -no "Law and Order" but rather "Patton")

(Or did you watch the piece on O'Reilly tonight with Obama, where Obama pointed out that there are Sunni and Shia branches of Islam, and how al Qaeda is one, Saddam and the Baathist Party was another.)

See again that the GWOT is not a law enforcement function, but rather a war.

The essentially goal is not to capture and prosecute, but rather defeat enemies and seize center of gravity at Strategic, Operational , and Tactical levels.

So just to be clear: Iraq was not involved in 9/11.

Nor was French Morrocco, Algeria, Tunesia, and Libya involved at Pearl Harbor, but they lay on the road to victory in WWII just the same.

 

We all lost someone!

"and I speak as somebody who lost a few friends there"  Oh, that makes it OK?  Kind of like saying, "I know a lot about medicine because my dad is a doctor."  That rationale for your outburst doesn't work Kieth.

Folks, I have said it before, vote with you wallet.  Do not watch channels owned by NBC, and contact companies that advertise with them and tell them you will quit buying their products.

Want these folks to hear you?  Take money away from them.

"Not for fame or reward, not for place or rank, not lured by ambition or goaded by necessity.  But in simple obedience to duty." - From the barracks at Ft. Benning

awffp

Good points.Just say no to GE.

That's not a breakdown,

we want a "real" breakdown.

I mean in the front yard; down on the lawn; in his soiled briefs; sobbing like a child breakdown.

Neighbors standing around cautiously as the emergency lights make their way up the street.

Can I get a text message when this happens?

Letter I just posted to GE

Keith Olbermann exemplifies everything that is wrong with GE. It is not a coincidence that the stock price has been tanking ever since he has taken the wheel at MSNBC. It is cause and effect.

Why is this man still there? Ratings? Ratings from people who despise corporate America, or the original American values? Who wants to sell to those people? Do they have any money?

At least Fox (News Corp.) has enough sense not to give Hannity or Limbaugh an open mic at the DNC convention, and perhaps that's the reason why they are still trouncing MSNBC in the ratings.

Sense.

Olberman is a contagious sickness.

It's disgusting how this idiot and all his like-minded idiots attack us for "exploiting the memories of the dead".  We vowed we would never forget this monumentally life- and world-changing event, and damn it, that's what we're doing!   

And how does one properly respect the memories of the dead?  According to Keith, the best way is to just pretend 9/11 never happened.  You can't exploit memories of the dead if you have no memories of them.  Wipe the historical slate clean of 3,000 dead in a single morning and all will be well. 

It all comes down to political advantage.  If we faithfully mark history and learn from it, the Political Right gains.  If we do like the Soviets and erase names, dates and events from the public record, then the Political Left gains.  This is what Keith is advocating.   He believes that it is wrong to exploit people's emotions with images of 9/11 for political gain.  Well, I think what he is doing is far worse.  He's trying to deaden people's emotions with a watered-down redacted version of 9/11 that is dishonest.  He wants us to forget the friends that he has chosen to exploit in this little speech of his.  Why does he do it?  For political gain.  According to his own words, he should be "rightly eviscerated at all quarters" for doing something so disgusting.

And one more thing, if the Left showed video of 9/11 like this and played to the emotions of such an attack against our home, our people and our way of life, no Republican would take offense.  We would all clap the Left on the back and say, "Welcome Home!  You've finally seen the light.  Now let's combine forces once and for all send these truly evil monsters of the world back to the Middle Ages where they belong."

What words can describe this guy, Keith Olberman?  He is a sickness.  He shouldn't be, but he's a contagious sickness.

I'M GONNA' SIT HERE...WAITING...

...and I speak as somebody who lost a few friends there, it, we, would
be rightly proud, for explaning why we went to war with those that gave us the memories of the dead and perhaps even for
trying to evoke that pain again.

Waiting....

=============================================

I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.

SORRY KO

Sorry KO 9-11 could have been prevented by Slick Willie but he was too busy with other things to be bothered with Bin Laden. To his credit however, he did win two wars - the massacre in Waco Texas and the massacre in Ruby Ridge Idaho. I wonder if Algore ever investigated to find out how much the flamethrowers in Waco contributed to global warming. Over 400 federal agents went to Ruby Ridge to attack a peaceful family in their own home. An FBI sniper killed Vickie Weaver while she was holding her baby. So much for democrat family values.

yeah, sure keith

...and I speak as somebody who lost a few friends there, it, we, would
be rightly proud, for explaning why we went to war with those that gave us the memories of the dead and perhaps even for
trying to evoke that pain again.

who is he kidding?  he has no friends who aren't paid for. 

I hope his next hot meal comes out of the rear end of a dog. 

 

Don't ever forget 9-11 because you can bet the terrorists won't.

LMAO

Enjoy your next meal Keith.

You could not be more wrong.

The last friend he ever had perished on 9/11.  While I pray for his friend, I am certain they are in a better place then here with KO.

and his next cocktail...

...comes from the bladder of a pig

Olby has finally gone bonkers

It's only a matter of days before the men in the white outfits come to take him away.

Drill ANWAR

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!

Let me translate Olbermann's heartfelt reaction from Dem-speak (i.e., Orwellian "newspeak") into actual words:


"I'm sorry, it's necessary to say this"


Please allow me to unapologetically offer my completely uneccesary opinion.


"and I wanted to separate myself from the others on the air about this"


OMG, I'm *sooooooo* different from the rest of the other liberal media pundits, so therefore you should pay attention to what I'm saying. I mean, for god's sake I'm sooo close to tears! Doesn't the fact that I almost cried mean anything to you people? (NOTE: I don't mean the actual "god," of course. I don't want to offend the wiccans and pagans or anyone else. God forbid. Whoops!)

"and I speak as somebody who lost a few friends there"


OMG, you guys, I have so much street-cred about this whole"nine-eleven" thing because I say that "I lost some friends there." My sadness and solmenity and almost-crying trumps all arguments.

"it, we,"


Is "is" is? Depends.

"would be rightly eviscerated at all quarters, perhaps by
the Republican Party itself, for exploiting the memories of the dead
and perhaps even for trying to evoke that pain again."


Seriously, let's just forget the past and moveon (dot org). Who needs the past anyways? It's all just a bunch of those annoying facts and stuff. Let's just forget that stupid old stuff. Who needs facts and rationality when you can have emotions? ... LOOK!!! SOMETHING SHINY!!!

" If you reacted to that videotape the way I did, I apologize."


Let's have a cry-fest together on Oprah. I'm going to lead the crying, and start off by crying harder than anyone has ever cried!!! I'm going to cry so HARD that nobody will ever be able to stop me! And that's why you should belive me!


"It is a subject of great pain for many of us still"

... </sarc> OK, so I have to break "character" to actually acknowledge that Keith made an excellent point here. He's right that it's a subject of great pain. But his response is "never bring it up again or ever talk about it because it's *just* *too* *painful*. Forget... Forget... Listen to me, my sheeples... Forget..."

God Damned right it's painful. And that's why we should never forget, and why we should always remember the pain and devastation to our nation, our families, those who were murdered, and those who chose to sacrifice their lives both in the efforts to rescue people from the rubble of the World Trade Centers, and those who gave their lives on foreign soil to fight the enemy on his homeground, and protect us here, at home.

My response to Kieth is this: Never forget. Always remind us of the pain we, as a nation, felt when they hit us where it hurts. Always remember where you were on that day.

I was in Hawaii visiting my sister on 9/11. My girlfriend called me at 3am (HI time) and told me to turn on the TV. I turned it on right after the first plane flew into the WTC. I watched in disbelief as the second plane hit the other tower. I watched as the towers collapsed. I'll never forget that day, watching the deaths of many proud, hardworking Americans, murdered by Islamic terrorists, like it was some sort of spectator sport, on a teeny little television, on Oahu, in Hawaii, raging that I couldn't have been there to help, raging that I couldn't do anything about it.

Don't forget 9/11. Constantly remind yourself of the pain. It hurts us to think of it, especially those who lost loved ones and friends. I don't pretend to share the pain of those who knew victims of 9/11. I didn't know anyone in NYC at the time. But I cried for them the same, because they were fellow Americans. Because they were fellow humans.

Every time we tear off the emotional scabs of the wounds we received that day, we honor those we lost by remembering. It's easy to criticize those who choose to remind us of this as trying to garner some sort of emotional response by expoiting a tragedy. But those who claim that we shouldn't remind ourselves of 9/11 because it's "*just* *too* *painful*" are dishonoring the memory of those we lost. They claim that we should be free from the "inconvenience" of sadness and the emotional stress caused by talking about and remembering 9/11. My response to Kieth's crocodile-tears, faux-emotional rhetoric is this:

You know what? At least you're alive to be able to cry, like the big blubbering baby you are. You're not even willing to "sacrifice" your fragile emotional state to remember those who died. It must be inconceivable to you that other, brave, Americans are willing to sacrifice, and have given, their very lives to defend your ability to dye your hair and pontificate about the evilness of the very nation that provides you the freedom to do so. </rant>


"and was probably not appropriate to be shown."


And I wish we could just all forget that terrorists murdered people that did things they couldn't hope to do, and destroyed things they couldn't have built, using technology they don't understand. Remembering things is just soooo non Progressive.

Despite all my misgivings about providing contact information on public forums, I belive in what I just wrote strongly enough that I'm going to provide my personal info. I refuse to hide behind anonymity. Bring it on.

Duane Bolick
baboo.locke(at)gmail.com

-Leave it better than you found it.

 

OUTSTANDING baboo!

Allow me to be the first here to say, F@CKIN A! Well Done!

I appreciate and admire your courage to put yourself out there the way you did. You got a big brass set my friend.

If anyone goes crybaby on ya, just give em a shot of this.

Once again very well done. Thank you. 

 

 

 

 

If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love youBut if you really make them think, they'll hate you.

Don Marquis 1878-1937

It's Their Ditch, Let Them Lie In It

Of course, if it had been Obamarama or his crew reminding viewers of the horror that was it would have been regarded as a brilliantly grim necessity in demonstrating the dimwit's grasp of the current shape of the world. What Mr. Odorman is most worked up about is knowing damn well that his boy couldn't dare show such footage and tie it to national security issues without cheezing off their moonbat core base of ultra-liberal dingbats who are STILL convinced it was some sort of a ridiculous, absurd, insulting, improbable, easily disproven and completely cockamamie conspiracy with George Bush, the Mossad, the Knights Templar, "rogue elements" (my favorite, since it means you don't even have to identify a culprit) the Duke Lacrosse Team or whoever somehow having pulled the strings.

The liberal media has done everything they can to subtly fan the fires of discontent within the body politic about 9/11, specifically deciding who has the moral prerogative to show images that powerfully remind people of the horror that was. And the only people who do have that right, according to 455holes like Keith Odorman are the media themselves, who feel they are the only sect of our culture with enough hallowed discretion to pick and choose which images are appropriate & how they should be shown. The only group that gets a pass other than the press is the 9/11 conspiracy movement, who can utilize whatever they want, so long as a conspiracy of some sort lurks at the finish line of their reasoning.

The whole idea also that people like Mr. Odorman have any kind of moral prerogative because they knew people who perished is also insulting: We ALL knew people who perished by now, thanks in part to their coverage of the event in the first place and their own modus operandi of putting a human face or 3,000 on the event and telling us the stories of those who were killed. It is the seat of elitist idiocy to imply that any group within American culture has a prerogative to remind other Americans of that day, and that others do not, or to try and set the terms by which that reminder is appropriate or not.

If the democraps chose to ignore it or bypass it, that's their own fault, and subconsciously Oderman knew that he and his agenda driven colleagues hell bent on deciding this election for us had been totally owned. 

Wasn't it nice to watch NBC

Wasn't it nice to watch NBC football without this duefuss making comment? I didn't watch half time so he could been on there as part of NBC's coverage of the convention. 

If pro is the opposite of con what is the opposite of progress? Congress!

Remember Pearl Harbor!

It's history!

"...I speak as somebody who

"...I speak as somebody who lost a few friends there."

Liar. Does ANYBODY actually believe this basket case has had, now or in the past, 'friends'?

You're in Luck Obee...

"If at this late date, any television network had of its own accord showed that much videotape, and that much graphic videotape of 9/11, and I speak as somebody who lost a few friends there, it, we, would be rightly eviscerated at all quarters,"

You should be happy to know that the mainstream wouldn't ever think of going near anything like remebering those who perished.  And don't worry, you're still bell of the clown ball... 

"PDS...the new and improved BDS"

Actually Keith, you are not

Actually Keith, you are not appropriate to be shown, but MSNBC keeps on causing pain for its viewer (oh and all the NB staff that watches your blather to keep tabs on you).

 

“it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.” - Justice Antonin Scalia

Screw You Olberputz

If I had my way the full length version of 9/11/01 would be shown once a week every week as a reminder of the failure of a democrat administration's foreign policy that killed over 3000 of our citizens, took down two skyscrapers along with other buildings and almost destroyed our economy.

Who gives a rats ass how you reacted to it, you're just a small, pathetic attention grabbing maggot posing as a journalist!

Do us all a favor DROP DEAD AND GO TO HELL!!! 

The only emotion KO feels

The only emotion KO feels when he sees scenes from 9/11 is the "Thank goodness I wasn't there to get hurt" emotion.  He doesn't give a flying flip about what happened to those poor people.  He's just glad he wasn't in the line of fire. 

One of my dearest friends was in the North Tower that day.  She was 200 feet below the first plane and saw it go into the tower. She narrowly escaped with her life.  Thank God she was not physically hurt, but her mind was jacked up for a very long time.  Even so, she doesn't EVER want people to forget what happened that day and how it changed us all.

"I speak as somebody who

"I speak as somebody who lost a few friends there..."

I'm am getting sick and tired of this "I knew people who died on 9-11 and so I am uniquely qualified to comment".

Memo to Keith: A lot of people who had family members die on 9-11 want to see memorial films to the events of that dark day. You don't want them shown because it plays to the Republican strength of keeping something like this from ever happening again - so stow your phony self righteous crap because we can see right through it.

McNotObama '08

"...pain again?"

" If you reacted to that videotape the way I did, I apologize."

I imagine getting a woody while wearing a thong would be painful.

MSNBC

Does NBC have to declare its operating expenses for MSNBC as Campaign Contributions to the Democrats?