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):
Click here for mp3 audio.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.
Comments Policy
Let's take it further,
September 4, 2008 - 20:01 ET by ThisnThatLet'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
September 4, 2008 - 20:57 ET by obxrayDon't forget. They show footage of Katrina everytime it rains.
Obxray - and let's cancel Independence day as well !!
September 4, 2008 - 23:39 ET by Gary HallAnd 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
September 5, 2008 - 01:12 ET by DamianoSpot 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!
September 5, 2008 - 09:03 ET by Wildcatter1980Two 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....
September 4, 2008 - 20:01 ET by PrairieSkyWolf 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....?
September 4, 2008 - 20:05 ET by superconHow 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
September 4, 2008 - 20:15 ET by exLibFeminists 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.
September 4, 2008 - 20:32 ET by superconA 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
September 4, 2008 - 20:39 ET by motherbeltOlbermann 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?
September 4, 2008 - 23:03 ET by nicholas nicklebysupercon, what does Iraq have to do with 9/11?
Hrm...
September 4, 2008 - 23:06 ET by Mr. BishopGood 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
September 4, 2008 - 23:14 ET by nicholas nicklebyGermany 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,
September 5, 2008 - 00:29 ET by 3strikesIslamic 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...
September 5, 2008 - 01:47 ET by nicholas nicklebylook, 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*
September 5, 2008 - 08:25 ET by mbuel1) 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
September 5, 2008 - 08:56 ET by nicholas nicklebyThe 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
September 5, 2008 - 10:24 ET by BDIn 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?
September 5, 2008 - 10:58 ET by nicholas nicklebyBD, 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
September 5, 2008 - 12:08 ET by MrShyWhat 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
September 5, 2008 - 12:35 ET by nicholas nicklebyHi 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
September 5, 2008 - 18:51 ET by BDThe issue under question here is whether Iraq had links to al Qaeda,
...whether Iraq had links
September 5, 2008 - 23:04 ET by PeskyDane...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...
September 5, 2008 - 12:46 ET by 3strikesdon'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
September 5, 2008 - 18:47 ET by BDA 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,
September 5, 2008 - 22:54 ET by mbuelThe 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
September 5, 2008 - 13:00 ET by Mr. BishopOkay... 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
September 5, 2008 - 22:57 ET by mbuelBecause 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
September 5, 2008 - 10:21 ET by BDIn 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
September 5, 2008 - 10:57 ET by cvgbuckeyeThe 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
September 4, 2008 - 20:07 ET by Clear thinkerGo 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???
September 4, 2008 - 20:07 ET by Secret ConservativeI'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
September 4, 2008 - 20:09 ET by thebronzeNeeds to STFU! Sanctimonious POS...
Soldiers died so that you could be a weenie
September 4, 2008 - 20:22 ET by attorneygirlMr. 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
September 4, 2008 - 20:20 ET by rick007Wasn'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?
September 4, 2008 - 20:22 ET by cest moiOlbermann 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?
----
September 4, 2008 - 20:22 ET by dahliatraversHere'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
September 4, 2008 - 20:22 ET by SmartypantsThe 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
September 4, 2008 - 21:56 ET by usinkoreaI 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
September 4, 2008 - 20:22 ET by n2soonersHow 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
September 4, 2008 - 20:23 ET by jkwtradingit 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
September 4, 2008 - 20:25 ET by allanfwho 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
September 4, 2008 - 20:27 ET byHe really hates it when anyone mentions that
What has Olbermeister said about Pearl Harbor?
September 4, 2008 - 22:39 ET by goldenthroatLWE,
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
September 4, 2008 - 20:27 ET by harqmanWhat 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
September 4, 2008 - 20:29 ET by balboaHard to make a judgement without seeing the video first-hand.
I have to disagree. It
September 4, 2008 - 20:33 ET by harqmanI 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,
September 4, 2008 - 20:43 ET by balboaOlbermann is over the top, hyperbolic. But I'd still like to see the video for myself.
I understand
September 4, 2008 - 20:50 ET by harqmanI know what you are saying. I will post if my mind is changed.
Probably on the net
September 4, 2008 - 20:34 ET by GregEProbably on the net somewhere, if not now, it may be tomorrow.
Olby is a freakin MORON!
September 4, 2008 - 20:46 ET by GregEI 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
September 4, 2008 - 20:37 ET by d1carterEdward R Olby....what emotion, what integrity, what an a**. MSNBC has got to do something with this idiot.
GREAT! JUST GREAT
September 4, 2008 - 20:40 ET by BobAnthonyBLOWBERMAN NOW JOINS THE TRUTHERS ALONGSIDE RON PAUL!
JUST GREAT! NBC ONCE AGAIN PROVES IT'S THE NAZI BROADCASTING COMPANY!
When I was young
September 4, 2008 - 20:44 ET by well99I 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
September 4, 2008 - 20:48 ET by harqmanIf 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
September 4, 2008 - 20:52 ET by mostlymoderate9/11 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
September 4, 2008 - 21:00 ET by balboaThe 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
September 5, 2008 - 01:05 ET by HillbillyKinghttp://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 you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
Olberdouche was not
September 5, 2008 - 22:48 ET by JerryOlberdouche 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 ...
September 4, 2008 - 21:02 ET by pmohbuckfor "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
September 4, 2008 - 20:57 ET by DerryKeith Olbamamann is such a hack.
Let me quote you own words Mr. Olbermann, sir.....
September 4, 2008 - 20:59 ET by gkm1959Grow Up!
Good night and good luck.
These are the same people
September 4, 2008 - 21:03 ET by JerryThese 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 reru