Scarborough Rebukes Colleague Olbermann...

  • Bookmark and Share

...but not by name.

Keith Olbermann’s tired hour-long rehashing of liberal talking points on “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” are legion and often unremarkable in and of themselves. Same noise, different night. But it is noteworthy when a fellow MSNBC host has had enough and calls out Olbermann. That is exactly what happened when “Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough rebuked the “Countdown” host for a misplaced attack on Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) during the opening of Olbermann’s July 22 “Countdown.”

Olbermann began his show by ridiculing McCain for claiming that the surge was responsible for the success of the Anbar Awakening. Olbermann opined:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Tonight has proven that he [Senator McCain] does not understand one of the fundamental facts about the surge. In an interview with the CBS Evening News, earlier today, the presumptive Republican nominee, getting the basic time line and history of the surge completely wrong.

The basis of Olbermann’s attack on McCain was that the Senator was trying to connect the success of the Anbar awakening with the success of the surge. Olbermann inferred that such a connection could not be possible because the Anbar awakening happened months before the surge started:

The military commander he mentioned, general Shawn McFarlane, then a colonel, briefed the media on the Anbar awakening on September 29th, 2006, at least two months before rumors of the mere possibility of a surge of U.S. troops in Iraq and it is Senator McCain in portions of the interview that CBS did choose to air who insisted that Obama does not understand what is happening and what has happened Iraq.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Fellow MSNBC host, Joe Scarborough admonished Olbermann this morning and argued he’s missing the point. Even liberal co-host Harold Ford Jr agreed with Scarborough that the surge enabled the success of the Sunni awakening to continue long-term:

The bottom line is, it started in the fall of 2006. And I can't believe that I'm having to explain this. But hopefully some of the talk shows hosts that were so shocked and stunned and deeply saddened last night -- about the CBS, whatever that was. Maybe they can follow me here, slowly. The Anbar awakening started in the fall of 2006. World war2 started in December of 1941. That battle continued. The invasion of Normandy happened three years later.

 

Good things happen. The surge happened six months later. And That's when things started getting better in Anbar province. In fact, got a Washington Post article here right now that talks about how it continued -- that it continued forward from that point. So its, to say it started and the surge didn't help it out is ridiculous.

While Scarborough never mentioned Olbermann by name, the “Morning Joe” host discreetly implicated the “Countdown” host:

Let me tell you, and I know a couple of hosts ran this last night, made a huge deal because a liberal blogger picked it up, I will guarantee the hosts that ran it waving their arms had no idea whether the Suni awakening or the surge began at the same time.

With Olbermann’s vitriolic liberal bias escalated during campaign season, MSNBC needs more “Morning Joe” to balance out Olbermann’s nightly venom. The transcript follows:

KEITH OLBERMANN: Senator John McCain now staking his candidacy entirely on the surge in Iraq, Entirely on his claim that he believed in the need for a surge of U.S. forces in Iraq, even before President Bush did. Tonight has proven that he [Senator McCain] does not understand one of the fundamental facts about the surge. In an interview with the CBS evening news, earlier today, the presumptive Republican nominee, getting the basic time line and history of the surge completely wrong. We can not play that portion of the interview for you because CBS curiously to say the least it on the edit room floor. It aired Katie Couric’s question but in response it inserted part of McCain’s answer to another question instead.

And how do we know this? We consulted a transcript of the entire original interview which was available on the CBS News website. Reading from the interview as it actually transpired, Couric asking “ Senator Obama says while the increased number of U.S. troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awaking and the Shiite government going after militias. And says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What’s your response to that?

Sen. McCAIN answering: I don’t know how you respond to something that is such a false depiction of something that actually happened, Colonel McFarlane was contacted by one of the major Sunni Sheiks because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that Sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awaking. I mean, that’s just a matter of history.

OLBERMANN: Senator McCain is either wrong or lying. The military commander he mentioned, General Shawn McFarlane, then a colonel, briefed the media on the Anbar awakening on September 29th, 2006, at least two months before rumors of the mere possibility of a surge of U.S. troops in Iraq and it is Senator McCain in portions of the interview that CBS did choose to air who insisted that Obama does not understand what is happening and what has happened Iraq.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Let me tell you, and I know a couple of hosts ran this last night, made a huge deal because a liberal blogger picked it up, I will guarantee the hosts that ran it waving their arms had no idea whether the Suni awakening or the surge began at the same time. They also -- anybody that would argue that the Suni awakening would have survived in Al Anbar province without the surge, anybody that would make that argument is so ignorant on the facts on the ground in Western Iraq, Alanbar province and what the Sunni sheiks were doing throughout 2007 that they are too stupid to be on tv. So I hope they don't carry that argument much longer because it is laughable...

SCARBOROUGH: The bottom line is, it started in the fall of 2006. And I can't believe that I'm having to explain this. But hopefully some of the talk shows hosts that were so shocked and stunned and deeply saddened last night -- about the CBS, whatever that was. Maybe they can follow me here, slowly. The anbar awakening started in the fall of 2006. World war ii started in December of 1941. That battle continued. The invasion of Normandy happened three years later. Good things happen. The surge happened six months later. And That's when things started getting better in anbar province. In fact, got a "Washington Post"article here right now that talks about how it continued -- that it continued forward from that point. So its, to say it started and the surge didn't help it out is ridiculous.

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.

Go get em Joe

Olbermann will try to get back at Scarborough.  He'll snipe at him tonight.  Even money.

"Don't let the bastards grind you down."

Red

Thanks to Scarborough

Yeah, thanks.

The world ain't a debate club where anything you say can be defended because it is "defensible".

Olberman is the worst kind of propagandist. He is so bad that he is not even useful to his own cause. His type of "logic" alienates the moderates and centrists whose votes are the only ones up for grabs.

 

Tired of it all

Lately, I get the impression that Joe is just tired of all the bulls*#t at MSMBC.

Although I have no concrete evidence, I'm also getting the impression that since Mr. Russert passed, there is an all out war over there. 

I know I'm sadistic. But I

I know I'm sadistic. But I actually think it would be fun to see a full-fledged war like this play out over on MSNBC. Can you imagine if Olbermann turns around and names Joe Scarborough one of his Worst People in the World? Oh, that would be something.

Although I don't agree with Mr Scarborough on a lot of things politically. I do have to give him a lot of credit on this one. He strikes me as the type who would be willing to give up a lucrative career at MSNBC before he would let his bosses tell him what to say and who not to criticize.

That would be great. But,

That would be great. But, Keith is gutless. Boy, I'd love to see those two in face to face run in. Joe would wipe the floor with him. Scarborough also had a great rant against the hypocrisy and cowardly comedians who pretend to speak truth to power but won't touch Obama. He humiliated Harwood who was blissfully ignorant of the racist left wing cartoons about Condi Rice.

I give Joe a lot of credit

I give Joe a lot of credit too, for telling it like it is. I hate the network he works for.

A star for Joe.

"It takes two people to lie Marge" 

"One to lie and one to listen...."

 

He is dead right. The Awakening happened and succeeded b/c the U.S. said it would stay the course, it was our words and actions (i.e. the Surge) gave them confidence to step up and take action against AQI. Same thing with the Mahdi Army and other Shiite militias, they saw we were staying and increasing our force levels as well as increasing the IA's and IP's force levels, they chose a cease fire to avoid getting massacred.

Thing is, the Mahdi Army acted up in Basra and S. Iraq and thought they could push the IA and IP around....the Iraqi Govts operations in Basra, Sadr City and Amarra proved them dead wrong.

Accepting nominees

Accepting nominees for who, in your opinion, does the best job of subscribing to this.

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

"Fighters are fun but bombers make policy"

I would like to see Joe and

I would like to see Joe and Keith debate this. But again, Keith would have to put himself in a situation with someone who isn't echoing his own beliefs. I do not ever see that happening.

28 more minutes...I may

28 more minutes...I may actually tune into KO tonight...ugh, perish the thought! I will just wait to read Newsbusters to see if anything happened.

Seriously, I do not know how you guys keep your sanity watching all the Liberal bias...

Remember all of the MSM attention to the Anbar awakening..

Remember all of the MSM attention to the Anbar awakening.. now think about this. Olbiedog is suddenly all educated and excited about the successes back in Sept., 2006. Somehow, I bet he could have given a hoot about back then. (my bold):

General Shawn McFarlane, then a colonel, briefed the media on the Anbar awakening on September 29th, 2006, at least two months before rumors of the mere possibility of a surge of U.S. troops

Oh yea - just like all the rest of the accomplishments that the media was briefed on in Iraq, our MSM and the Olbiedogs of the media, picked right up on those breifings and in the pride of the moment almost always forgot to report that very news to their readers and viewers.

Olbiedog wants to have it both ways - I'm hoping that someone sticks it to him from both ends.

Excuse my French, Obama

Oh man, I just watched the

Oh man, I just watched the beginning of Countdown, it's not just that he picks the Obama friendly, anti McCain slanted stories, but his tone is actually mocking when he speaks of McCain.

How this guy can pass himself off as unbiased is absolutely ridiculous.

I am glad I do not watch this show, and i am sure this is nothing new to you all.

Here's a fair and balanced

Here's a fair and balanced challenge.

    Given the fact that McCain is running almost exculsively on his foreign policy credentials, defend -- honestly, with a straight face, no spin -- defend his inability to get basic foreign policy facts straight.  

   For example: He refers to non-existent countries such as Czechoslovakia despite the fact that the Czech Republic is a future site of missile defense interceptors and/ or radar sites -- a real hot topic nowadays in foreign policy circles.

   For example: The surge and his early support for it are supposed to be his "Ace-in-the-Hole" against Obama. Yet the timeline surrounding the surge and the decrease in violence that followed aren't actually fresh in his memory at all.  He talks and plans all day every day and yet he can't get simple facts straight.

  Simple fact: Iraq does not border either Pakistan or Afghanistan.

   If these mistakes do not warrant criticism, what does? 

Flash

So I take it, you'll be pulling the lever for Obama come November, correct?  

 

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

Hey Shy...What's going

Hey Shy...What's going on?  I was watching O'Reilly between 8:00 and 9:00 talk about how fair and balanced Fox News is, and how well he has treated Obama, and then for almost the entirety of his show proceed [along with his guests] to relentlessly trash Obama, the far left hate sites, NBC, liberals and Democrats in general--with absolutely zero balancing opinion.  I have had my head in a bucket of ice for the past half hour or so.

Oh yeah, I know what I was going to say:  In addition to the gaffes that flash referenced, apparently McCain has now given the surge credit for saving the life of the leading anti-Al Qaeda Iraqi sheik in the Anbar province.  Unfortunately, it seems the sheik was assassinated nearly a year ago. 

I just hope Mr. McForeign Policy doesn't decide to brush up on economics.  We could really be in trouble.

Jer

Suggested response to: I

Suggested response to:

I have had my head in a bucket of ice for the past half hour or so.

At least that's an improvement over where you normally have your head.

<rim shot>

Going grocery shopping...if anyone's interested.

Jer

 

Jer

It's hard to criticize you when you are willing to make fun of yourself.

By the way, although O'Reilly and his guests were trashing the sites you mentioned (as they should), the only comment regarding Obama was that they expected Obama to criticize those far left hate sites as well for putting forth the race-baiting angle.  O’Reilly has been more than fair (too fair as far as I’m concerned) with Obama because he wants an interview with Barack in the worse way.  For this reason he has, unfortunately, been going out of his way to defend Obama when any guests attempt to criticize him.  

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm voting for Barack Obama now that an unbiased AP poll shows people would rather barbecue burgers with Barack Obama than with John McCain.

Rush fan...You may be

Rush fan...You may be right.  After fairly steady O'Reilly watching for years, I have taken a Factor break for the past few months and only sporadically tune in.  I had noticed on those occasions that he seemed to be leaving most of the stronger criticism of Obama to his guests, and I likewise attributed this to BOR's desire for an interview [which I believe Obama should agree to, by the way].  Nevertheless, I thought the anti-Obama [and anti-liberal] theme was a little excessive this time.  With O'Reilly, the lady Republican strategist, and even Juan Williams engaging in a liberal-stomping slamfest; then Dick Morris, Dennis Miller, and the lady from the conservative website townhall.com--the show was essentially a one-sided pileon.

Jer

Hmm, one sided, no

Hmm, one sided, no arguments from the other side, no neutrality whatsoever? Sounds familiar...

"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008

Restless...

Hmm, one sided, no arguments from the other side, no neutrality whatsoever? Sounds familiar...

Lemme guess.  I know...you're thinking of Rush Limbaugh!

Ok...KO, but unlike MSNBC [with Scarborough and until recently Tucker Carlson] and CNN [with Glen Beck and arguably Lou Dobbes] which provide conservatives with his or her own show, Fox doesn't offer a single program hosted by a liberal advancing a liberal political agenda.  Except on very rare occasions, Van Susteren and Geraldo [the latter's immigration views are an exception] don't do politics.

Any suggestion that Hannity & Colmes is "balanced" is flatout laughable.  In all the years I have watched the show, I have yet to see or hear a segment tease consisting of something like "you won't believe the latest Republican outrage...stay tuned!"  Colmes is a foil--a liberal stooge--and he plays that role well.

But, again, I don't object to Fox's bias--only to the network's claim of "balance".   I also wish there was more conservative input on the other networks than currently exists.  In my view, CNN's Crossfire was the ideal political format.  Perfect ideological equilibrium.  No agenda.  Issues debated by adversaries of, and with, equal standing.  And Jon Stewart got the show canceled.  Thanks a helluva lot, Jon.  [Another show with excellent balance is The McLaughlin Group on PBS.]

Jer

 

Really?

Fox doesn't offer a single program hosted by a liberal advancing a liberal political agenda.

 

Listen to Shepherd Smith. If he is not a liberal view then CNN is the bastion of conservatism.  Smith gives Wolf Blitzer a run for his money.

expatriot... I've

expatriot...

I've listened to Shep Smith a lot.  I've heard him say some things that make him appear conservative, and other comments that seemed somewhat liberal, but mostly he seems to play it right down the middle--and, in my view, is perhaps Fox's most apolitical program host.  [Erik Burns was also very ideologically non-specific, but he got canned.]

Jer 

Jer.... What do you mean

Jer....

What do you mean Jon Stewert got Crossfire cancelled?

I watched if for umpteen years....I also got mad because all the leftists on the show screamed/talked over the conservatives/right side guests...always....

As far as what did the show in, in my opinion was Begala, Carville ect...the destroyed it....unless I'm thinking of the one before it that they used to have on...Inside Politics I think it was.

..."America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

"But, again, I don't object

"But, again, I don't object to Fox's bias--only to the network's claim of "balance".   I also wish there was more conservative input on the other networks than currently exists. 

** In my view, CNN's Crossfire was the ideal political format.  Perfect ideological equilibrium.  No agenda.  Issues debated by adversaries of, and with, equal standing. And Jon Stewart got the show canceled.  Thanks a helluva lot, Jon. **

[Another show with excellent balance is The McLaughlin Group on PBS.]"

 

Jer, is this you??? :p I'd like to think Jon doesn't wield that much influence... that's a scary thought.

Man, was his punky arrogance in that appearance of Crossfire disgusting. I would have clocked him. Jon is also THE hypocrite of all liberal weenie hypocrites, coming on self-righteously telling them that both-side shows like that just fuel a more partisan and biased atmosphere, meanwhile he smugly comes on every night CLEARLY leaning his comedy on the left and bashing Bush/Cheney all over the place with jokes, even when there's no news there at the time.

How was grocery shopping yesterday? :p 

  

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

I was watching Crossfire

I was watching Crossfire when he torched the show.  I couldn't believe he had the gall to make those ridiculous statements on air about the show when he was an invited guest.  It's one reason I have boycotted Stewart's show--even though I have seen video excerpts and know that he can be extremely funny on occasion.

My teen-aged son decided to go to the grocery with me at the last minute.  One side of the cart contained fruits, yogurt, whole wheat bread, etc....the other side Cheetos, Fruit Loops, chocolate doughnuts, and some cupcakes with pink icing on top.  I can't believe the junk the kid eats. 

Jer 

bt... See MrShy's comment

bt...

See MrShy's comment about Stewart's appearance on the show.  Crossfire had enjoyed a long run and was slipping in popularity [having been moved from its evening slot to the afternoon].  Still, it was hanging on, but Stewart's appearance and televised over-the-top trashing of the show and its hosts is generally considered to have been the nail in the coffin.

Most conservatives couldn't stand Begala or Carville, and most liberals couldn't stand Novak.  Most liberals can't stand Hannity, and most conservatives can't stand Colmes.  That's sort of the way things work.

Jer

Jer (only one)

Bulletin: Fox leans right...... thank GOD we have ONE network that leans in that direction. It still hardly balances out the atrocious imbalance existing currently in the MSM.

Btw, so I take it, you, TOO, will be pulling the lever for Obama come November, correct? 

 

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

Shy... Still need to go

Shy...

Still need to go get groceries...so I'll be brief.

a.  I don't mind that Fox leans right--it's just the "balanced" crap that gets me nuts.  I would love for all the networks to be truly balanced.  None of them are, including Fox.  So, if Fox would just can the "fair and balanced" slogan, I would have no problem with its bias.

b.  Pulling the lever for Obama?  Probably, although reluctantly.  I wish both parties would have a do-over.  But, I suppose the republic will survive either one.  [I expect a centrist government no matter who wins.]

Basically, I worry about Obama's inexperience and naivte, and McCain's age and temperament. 

Jer 

shortly

a) Fox is one of the only networks with shows that present both opinions balanced.  (like hannity and colmes, etc.)

b) Pulling the lever for obama is suicide.  Listen to the guy speak, he can't even BEGIN to connect two thoughts together.

As for Obama being a centrist? he's only playing one, where McCain actually is one.  Obama has been flipping around so much on his viewpoint though, that who the hell knows where he stands on anything!  That's the most dangerous part of his "experience".  We don't know where he stands.

C) it's not just his inexperience and naivete (which are HUGE) he's an absolute nimrod.  Seriously, go and listen to him speaking in the middle east.  He barely has a spark of intelligence!

As for McCain.  Not a huge fan either, but honestly, I'd take that age (experience) and temperment, any day of the week over the uhm, uh... ahm, great orator Glow-Bama.

mbuel... a.)  Re. Fox,

mbuel...

a.)  Re. Fox, see my response to Restless above.

b.) and c.)  I think both Obama and McCain are determined to reverse the polarization that has trended for a number of years, and intend to be consensus builders despite the inevitable pressures from the ideologues.  I also recall Limbaugh predicting that Clinton would be the most liberal President in history.  Clinton proceeded to govern from the center [and alienated many on the left].

One does not become the editor of the Harvard Law Review by being a "nimrod" or by lacking the ability to connect two thoughts together.  I think he is a much better speaker than you give him credit, but, it might also be well to remember that Thomas Jefferson was a very poor speaker and yet is arguably the most brilliant of all the Presidents.

Jer

Mr Shy -- Maybe that's part

Mr Shy -- Maybe that's part of your problem, you view every issue through an ideological lens. My vote in the fall has no bearing on the facts of the case.  You can deflect and you can spin but by doing so you're acting like a hired political hand -- not like a concerned citizen striving to enrich the country.

   Senator McCain is chronically wrong and that is a fact, not a partisan attack.  If you are willing to overlook foreign policy incompetence of this nature because he's a republican then what's next, where does it stop, what level of misunderstanding are you willing to accept and call kosher just to stick up for a grand old party that gives a fig for you?

Um, do you know who you're

Um, do you know who you're voting for this fall? Not sure what I put in my post that triggered the above rambling.

Anyway, I could just as easily send what you wrote right back to you, swapping out a few words/names, and it would be truly applicable in that direction. But again, "anyway", I was asking who you think you'll be voting for. Remember?

 

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

Are they still speaking Arabic in Afghanistan?

Just curious.

Criticize all you want. But

Criticize all you want. But why don't you do it to both of them. If domestic policy is such a strong area for Obama, then shouldn't he know the US has only 50 states? Or that a elected President can only serve 2 terms,8 yrs and not 10 yrs.? 

the MSM goes after McCain but doesn't go after Obama, hence the MSM bias!

KO & Cooper

Both KO & Anderson Cooper (the Earl Cannebert of cable news) acted like this was some huge, breaking story last night.  Turns out McCain was right and new tactics were employed in Anbar pre-surge. The surge allowed for these tactics to be carried out across the entire country.  I wonder if that will be a huge breaking story tonight for KO or Cannebert, er, Cooper?

Also, Joe may claim he was attacking Cooper, not the KO Kid. 

MSNBC should fire them both

MSNBC should fire them both for arguing that the surge worked.

Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" five years ago.

Things are under control in Berlin too.

Time to go home. Let's have a big paraded down A1A for the boys. I'll
get the first 20 beers at LuLu's. Just don't fall off the third deck.

I know how to win wars!

For Biff McCain

Bush declared mission accomplished.

Now we define what mission was accomplished. The Mission he was speaking of was Saddam was forced from power. Saddam was no longer president of Iraq. That was the first mission that the military had. Now wars are a series of missions. First thing you learn in the military is, "Mission First". Each mission is an individual objective. An entire war is not a mission, but a series of missions. Just for you non military personel, that is folks with no military training or experience. You know who you are. The ones with a mouth shouting loud that you know all, while cowering under your bed in your ma ma's house.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Bass, You really had me

Bass,

You really had me going until I looked up Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech. Where the first words out of his mouth were:

"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended."

If 130,000 troops in a foreign country isn't major combat operations...

Cureboy 775 minus 100 .... What was Bush standing upon ?

When Bush gave his Speech, he was standing on an Aircraft Carrier, with a Mission Accomplished hanging ON the Aircraft Carrier.....this particular Carrier was out of Ammo, out of Bombs, out of cruise missles, out of JET FUEL and that Carrier was pretty much done with  MAJOR COMBAT in the Iraq War.  It was Relieved by another Carrier in the Iraq War, and that replacement Air Craft Carrier mission's NEVER REACHED the previously experienced "Major Combat" levels again.

Major Combat put Saddam in a Spider hole, and American Troops in Downtown Baghdad.

When 100 of  Bombs are NOT dropping, Combat missions Shring by over 50%, when Aircraft carriers go Home, when the Tanks are parked, Major Combat is over.

Planting IED's and run and hide is not Major Combat....you've been watching too much MSM ... you're Brainwashed. 

 

The Republican Revolution will not be Televised

Fair enough. I'm not sure

Fair enough. Though I'm not sure the kids in Iraq who have their limbs blown off by these IEDs or the American soldiers who watch their every step to avoid these IEDs or even worse, lost their lives because of these IEDs would say its not Major Combat.

But, hey, as long as we're out of jet fuel it must mean we're not in combat. I'll contact the folks at Webster's Dictionary to have them make the appropriate update.

 

 

Cureboy675, Please do not

Cureboy675,

Please do not insult our great men and women in the military by calling them kids.  They are men and women who freely chose to serve this nation so you can criticize the current administration.

These "kids" have more guts and glory than you, me and actually all of Newsbusters.org members combined! 

RESPECT THE TROOPS!!!! 

You can bet your behind that self-righteous individuals like you are not exactly respected by the "kids" that you claim to care so much about.  Let us not forget that the military, overwhelmingly, votes Conservative/Republican. 

These "kids" are MEN and WOMEN.  Stop demeaning them by using the word kid which implies that they are babies who didn't have a choice. 

RESPECT OUR TROOPS!!!  GOD BLESS THEM!!!

The "kids" in Iraq I was

The "kids" in Iraq I was referring to are the Iraqi kids themselves.  (In case you haven't heard, they're being mutilated by these non-combat IEDs)

That's why I addressed the American soldiers as American soldiers and added the "or" separator in my statement.  Re-read my statement, but without any predetermined anger. 

I respect and admire our troops, despite the fact that the Commander-in-Chief, who ultimately gives them their orders, doesn't have the first damn clue about what he's doing.  (Believe it or not...It is possible for there to be a difference)

you care about kids:)? we

you care about kids:)?

we have 3000 scheduled for abortion today, and tomorrow, and on and on and on

they will be "losing alot of limbs"

Curekid....I'm sure that if you are parked in a Port...

If your particular Aircraft carrier is Parked in a Port, within American Waters, with empty Gas Tanks and Ammo running low, your Major Combat operations are over, and your particular Mission was accomplished if you went thru what that Aircraft carrier went thru.

THIS was the "NEWS" that went un-Reported by the MSM, THIS was the REAL story of Major Combat Operations. 

Just as this Very Week in Iraq, Obama is NOT the Major Iraq Story, the Success of the Military in Iraq is the Major Iraq Story that is NOT  being Reported....Obama is in no way the BIG Story in Iraq....the MSM just doesn't want to Report Victory while their "Boy" is still running for President on a Failed "PULL OUT NOW" Strategy for Iraq.

And I would ask you this....is 15,000 Murders a Year in the USA considered MAJOR COMBAT to you..?  Maybe we should PULL OUT OF Detroit, Phillidelphia, Baltimore, DC...yes, that would Solve the Problem, wouldn't it.

The Republican Revolution will not be Televised

15,000 murders in the

15,000 murders in the United States.  Good analogy.  But then again, is our president ordering 130,000 American citizens to risk their lives by living in the city of Detroit?

Jay Tee...You are correct

Jay Tee...You are correct from a strictly military perspective, especially when further limited to that particular ship and its crew.  But even the Bush people have conceded it was a polical blunder. 

They reaped the public relations benefit from staging a spectacular televised drama of our Commander in Chief emerging from a massive air craft he helped pilot, then striding across the carrier deck--appearing like a warrior-god in splendid flight suit--and standing beneath that huge banner reading "Mission Accomplished" and proclaiming what America interpreted as Victory in Iraq-- albeit stated in the form of "major combat operations are over." 

But they also risked the consequences if the next phase failed to unfold in the expected manner, and the pacification and democratization of Iraq resulted in months and years of violence, bloodshed and death.

One of the political consequences of a bloody insurgency was that the opponents of the war could point to the premature victory party--and especially the words on that banner--and turn them against the administration.  The Republicans would have no doubt used it against a Democratic President.  If it was reasonable to ridicule Dukakis for riding around and looking goofy in a tank, then this, too, was clearly fair game.

Jer 

Curboy675, You aren't

Curboy675,

You aren't much of a historian, are you?

I would urge you to look up how many troops the USA left in Europe, Japan, the Pacific, etc after the end of the end of WWII, after the USA declared victory over Germany and later over Japan.

The number of troops left in a theater is NOT an indication of whether or not major combat operations are over. 

However, something you also do not know about is that the French, Germans, even Russians and many other countries promised to help in Iraq after Hussein had been toppled from power.  This is one of the reasons why that speech was giving in the carrier. 

I will agree with you that mistakes were made during the Iraq War, but the mistakes are no less than mistakes made in WWII.  Look up The Battle of the Bulge which almost caused WWII to come to a draw instead of a win for the USA.  I am not excusing it, but rather showing that mistakes happen in all wars and that we must adjust, as we have done and WIN!! as we are winning and it looks like already won in Iraq. 

No problem.  If somebody

No problem.  If somebody can look me in the eye and say, "When George W Bush hung up that banner and announced the end of major combat operations, he knew very well that we would have 130,000 troops in Iraq five years later"

Then, I promise you, I will buy into everything.

 

 

 

Cureboy, in 1955, some say

Cureboy, in 1955, some say that was more than 5 years after the end of WW II, we had 269,260 troops in Germay. Troops in Germany have been constantly been in the 200,000 range untill 1992. In the 1970's US troops were used to secure sections of Germany aginst the Badder Minehoff gang and other terrorist groups. In reality,the troops had rather be out hunting bad guys, no matter where they are, than sitting in the motor pool, changing oil and washing vehicles. Or cleaning or painting something.

Your argument wont hold water, unless you can point to past wars and support your argument. And you cant. The only war that was ever fought, and US troops completely pulled out, was Vietnam. And we see how long it took for the North to move in after we pulled all support. Support means money for bullits, beans, weapons, fuel and spare parts.

Sounds to me like your pushing for the same results in Iraq. If you do not know military history, nor have any military experience, you should not suppose to know it all.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

My argument doesn't hold

My argument doesn't hold water?  We've lost 4,000 American troops since Bush declared the end of combat operations five years ago.

I'm very curious:  In the nearly 50 years that we had 200,000 troops in Germany, how many of them were killed?

There IS a difference.  You all want to cling to some notion that because military jets aren't flying over downtown Baghdad or because an aircraft carrier is in a certain position, that Bush is wise and his Mission Accomplished nonsense will be remembered in the annals of history as the truest of declarations. 

But 4,000 dead American troops since "the end of combat operations".  Put another way, an average of more than 2 troops killed each and every day for the past 5 years.  That tells me something different, OK.  

 

Cure, the mission

Cure, the mission accomplished is factual. Like it or not. You can scream, yell, jump up and down all you want. But the fact is still there, glaring you in the face. True, we have had to root out some of the terrorists in various places. But it has been done. 2 troops a day, like it or not, is a very low average. As a matter of fact, never has there been a lower average in the history of warfare. What it tells you is not what it tells our troops. You have no concept of war, or what is involved. If you were to get some first hand experience, ( I will not hold my breath), you may start to understand.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

You're right. 

You're right.  The Mission Accomplished banner was smack-bam factual if it was only referring to removing Saddam Hussein from power.  Bush's speech about the end of combat operations, however, still gives me pause.

Because, if I am understanding your statement correctly, what we have going on in Iraq right now is a war, right?

So, basically, we are in a war...but its just not combat operations?  Is that right?  I mean its important to clear this up because the difference between the two is like night and day.

 

LOL Cure...you really dont

LOL Cure...you really dont have any concept of combat operations as related to combat missions as related to wars have you? Really Cure...I have not the time or the patience to go into a class on the military and the way it works. The reason training lasts so long is to instruct the troops on how it works and why it works that way. My best advice to you, if you really want to learn, is to walk over to the recruiting office and join one of the services. Get some experience and first hand knowledge. After that there will be no need to ask all of these questions.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

bass

It's like trying to explain electricity to a cave man.

Seriously, these liberals and their talking points have become exceedingly tiresome.

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

True Blonde. But I think,

True Blonde. But I think, if you break it down, and can get a liberal into a conversation, alone, they are mostly good people. Misguided, but most are close minded and need to be informed of the truth. Once you break through the liberal fog, and educate them on the subjects and if, (IF), you can get them to use logic, they come around. Most liberals are young and inexperienced, and need guidance.

But some of them, the older ones for example. Are just plain Marxist, have no understanding of what the Constitution sayes or means, and judging from commits from Pelosi and the such, are stupid. Just plain stupid and power hungry.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

these people have no

these people have no problem calling Obama's eurotrash vacation a "TOUR OF DUTY" on "O-FORCE ONE"

as if their "mission accomplished" bitching had any credibility in the first place

it's sure as hell down the tubes this week

Hey not a problem.  In the

Hey not a problem.  In the future, it might behoove the president to refer to this as "The Iraqi Training and Education Seminar" instead of "The Iraq War". 

Otherwise the millions and millions of uneducated voters, like me, who never walked to the nearest recruiting office might think our president is just plain full of it and decide to vote for another party.

He's got the rope.  Its up to him to decide whether or not to hang himself with it.

Cure, your party is not

Cure, your party is not running aginst Bush. I hate to break this to you, but Bush is not running for president. And you cannot compare Mac's experience to Obama's. Obama dosen't have any. Military or other wise.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Nope.  Not running against

Nope.  Not running against Bush again (thank God for the 22nd Amendment!).  But with John McCain we might as well be when it comes to Iraq.  Actually, it'll probably be worse.  If McCain is inaugurated in January, we'll probably be invading Iran by Valentine's Day.

Thats a bad thing?

So protecting ourselves from a regime that has called for our downfall and the destruction of Isreal innumerous times is bad? Listen to what they say and maybe you won't be surprised when something bad occurs in the US. The Iranian regime is funding Hezbollah which is destabalizing Lebanon and with additional aid from Syria is launching attacks against Isreal daily. These people are not a threat?

Oh dear.  Definitely not

Oh dear.  Definitely not in the mood for the pros and cons for invading Iran.  I will at least give Bush credit on Iran...He's been able to at least show some restraint on that front.

I did not say invade.

I did not mention invading the country.  I honestly believe Obambi would be quicker on the draw than McCain due to the fact that he would have to prove himself as strong and assertive.  My post was highlighting the fact that the country is run by lunatics who are openly supporting a terrorist organization, and probably many more, and that have made the announcement that they will destroy Isreal and then take down the good ole US of A.  The last nut job to announce his plans was Uncle Adolph in Mein Kampf.  Nobody believed him until he almost took over the world.  Just sayin'......

22 amendment...might want

22 amendment...might want to tell that to BHO,  he said he be dealing with this for 8 to 10 yrs if elected.....

But Iraq has improved..so why change tatics when they are working.   If you want to go back and debate whether we should have gone in or not that's fine, done but fine. That's right, Obama is for change. Tatics working and situation getting better we better change. smart move!

Also, your pal has said all options are on teh table when it comes to Iran...sounds like he has a plan for invasion and military strikes brewing....or atleast that's how the left always interprets the same statement from Pres. Bush and the administration.

Bless your hearts, you

Bless your hearts, you guys.  Really, the whole 8-10 years thing...Again? 

Like I just said in another response, I'm actually happily surprised at the restraint Bush has managed to show with Iran.  McCain, on the other hand, doesn't strike me as being capable of any restraint.  He strikes me as the type who drop an atomic bomb on Karachi if a Pakistani cab driver cut him off in traffic.

 

So libs and others can

So libs and others can continually bring up verbal gaffes by Pres. Bush and McCain but when conservatives or anybody else for that matter bring them up about BHO it's an oh please!!!!! Oh Please! heaven forbid one decides to have a little fun at BHO's expense....

But no comment on all options on the table from Obombs?

No feel free.  Be my

No feel free.  Be my guest.  Like I said in some other thread, we've had eight great years having good hearty belly laughs at the expense of George W Bush and the goofy things he says. 

I'm willing to give you guys your turn.

still no comment on Barak

still no comment on Barak and all options on the table?

I would be worried if Obama

I would be worried if Obama *didn't* have all the options on the table.  I would be worried if Bush or McCain didn't have all the options on the table.  You have to be ready for every possibility.

The restraint with which you utilize those options, though, is very important.  Just because it is one of  your options...That doesn't mean it always has to be your first option.

Bless your hearts, you guys.

Bless your hearts, you guys. Really, the whole 8-10 years thing...Again? C'mon, I mean, Gosh! That is, like, SO totally, like, 2 seconds ago.

Can't we stick to substantive topics like McCain singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb... bomb, bomb Iran" and, like, the whole "Mission Accomplished" debacle? I mean, like, really.

Once again...there is no

Once again...there is no script in war. At the time, the commanders felt that major operations would/could end hence the President's statement. the conditions on the ground changed...our military adapted and changed as well.

If you are looking at words made by pols then you should read Ralph Peter's piece in the NY Post today....Obama...end the war and bring our troops HOME. now those troops would head to Afghanistan according to BHO and his new ever changing plan. I'm sure those "kids" you refer to are not from  Kabul, so.....I would hardly call Afghanistan home.

Exactly.  There is no

Exactly.  There is no script in war.  You'll get no argument from me on that.  And Bush jumped the gun with his Mission Accomplished business.  I will agree with anybody who admits that.

But listening to people try to defend Bush's statement as accurate by making arguments that essentially say, "You see, Bush meant the end of this *particular* mission and not the more difficult mission.  You see, because we don't have jets in the air it doesn't really count as a war or combat operations"

Its absurd.

The mission was

The mission was accomplished for that particular crew and ship. Also, you might be failing to remember that it was Gen Frank's idea for the banner. He has come out and said as much.

He also said in his speech that there are still difficult times ahead...

At the time, the commanders on the ground believed that major, shock and awe and other operations of that magnitude, were over.

Once again I will refer to D-Day. We had a lot of success prior to the need for that invasion. The conditions on the ground changed and the plan was put in place.

That banner might very well

That banner might very well have been somebody else's idea.  But nevertheless, here we are five years later debating about it and there's many many people who, right or wrong, look back at it now as woefully inaccurate and blame Bush for it.

If they had it to do over again, would they conduct that ceremony the exact same way?

to paraphrase your man:

to paraphrase your man: OBAMA: Well, no, keep — these kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult. Hindsight is 20/20.

It's someone elses idea, it was acknowleding the accomplishment of that crew....the debate rages on by those inflicted with BDS. they look back on it and do not understand what it was for. I'll refer to the post sby bassndude. He seems to have summed it up and explained it very well. Thanks bass!

I would imagine that knowing how some people, you included, have reacted to it and tried to keep it alive, I would say they wouldn't do it "exactly" the same way. However, they would have still had a ceremony of that magnitude.  

would it be ok if the ceremony and speech took place without the sign? however, if one of the major commanders if not the lead commander of forces at that time said it would be a good idea to put the sign up, as he did, i would imagine it would still go up.

Actually.  I have no real

Actually.  I have no real problem with the banner and the celebration itself.  Removing Saddam Hussein from power was a victory for the entire world. 

But, to me, the president's attitude at that celebration was one of "The job is done.  The fighting is over and we have won, plain and simple"

And yet, here we are, five years later and we are still there, losing lives and...In some cases...Increasing the number of troops to stop the violence and the fighting.

Those two things just don't go together for me.  It tells me the president was unprepared for the possible aftermath.

Now it's his attitude.

Now it's his attitude. Wouldn't you be proud and also what to show the troopps how prouod you are of them. Yoou just got rid of Saddam, think that's somethingn to be proud of. After all Bill and Albie had Iraqi regime change on their agenda....But the troops under Bush did it.

He never said the job is done and the fighting is over....

So it was just Pres Bush that was unprepared for the aftermath? Might the commanders have also been unprepared? Might the democrates who sided with Bush have also been unprepared for the aftermath? might the iraqies themselves been unprepared? might the Brits and other coallition forces been unprepared for the aftermath? you get the point?

Yes.  His attitude.  That

Yes.  His attitude.  That whole "end of military combat operations" thing.  You can argue it nine ways to Sunday, but to me that says he didn't anticipate us being in Iraq for very much longer.

And nope.  It wasn't just Bush who was unprepared.  But is he not the Commander-in-Chief?  Does the responsibility not ultimately belong to him?  If the buck doesn't stop with him, then please point me to who it does.

and there you go

and there you go again....he didn't say combat operations would end. he said major combat operations would end, will refer you to bassndude for clarification. he also said in that speech that there will be tough times ahead our job is not yet done. he is the buck stopper and he would be the 1st to admit it as would i. when you are given intel and advice from experts you make that buck stopping decision with that info in mind.

if you did the something that benefited the world wouldn't you be proud?

Like I said.  Nine ways to

Like I said.  Nine ways to Sunday.  Nitpicking over "Major combat operations" versus "Combat operations" isn't really going to sway me.

Bush knew very well he was conveying a message of "We've done the job, the battle is over and we've got mainly blue skies from here on out" on that aircraft carrier when he was giving that speech. 

If he didn't realize that...He is even more ignorant than I imagined and those who wrote that speech need to be fired.

Cure, Cure, Cure

Here's the bottom line.  They screwed up and did not plan for anything after the major combat operations were completed.  The thinking was that the Iraqis would welcome us in and we would get rid of the Baathists and turn the country over to the new Iraqi government.  Bremmer, Rumsfeld and the planners in the pentagon blew it.  That I will admit.  Now, we have a new and different situation and it is turning out pretty well.  The Iraqi Gov't is actually starting to work and progress is being made.  The good news continues with the flood of reporters out of the country.  Good news is no news so they are going home.  Bush received bad advice but they corrected course and things are improving dramatically.  So get off of it.  Ancient history in today's America. 

excellent...also they, the

excellent...also they, the dems and libs, want their representative gov't up and running yesterday with no issues. we have been at it for over 200 years....and still have our issues. do as i say not as i do!

let's not even mention that that potential Sec of State Joe Biden wanted to divide Iraq up into 3 seperate sections? that would work well here wouldn't it Joe....do as i say not as i do!

If people are willing to

If people are willing to admit that, then I have no purpose in going back and forth on this...Because I agree 100% with your assessment. 

That's all I'm really trying to argue.  That Bush didn't realize we'd be there for the long haul and that its not out the realm of possibility to say that declarations of a victory made five years ago might not have been completely on target...Which is the point I was arguing when I began in this thread.

Its OK to admit the guy you support made a mistake.  I will freely admit Obama has made some real doozies. 

Cure

What is disturbing is people making a hash of what is going on now.  All leaders rely on their staffs to keep them informed and to propose policies, strategies and other plans.  I don't care if you are the president, working in big business or have your own small business.  The boss always receives input and makes decisions based on the input.  That is what President Bush did and he corrected some bad input.  Now things are getting better and there is some new blood in the staff.  Nobody is seeing the transformation of the Bush White House Staff and the improvements and corrections that are being made.  The biggest reason is the MSM with their BDS problem.  This country is weathering everything thrown at it and is still moving along in a positive manner.  Get off the past and look where things are heading in the future.  You cannot change the past.

Absolutely.  There is no

Absolutely.  There is no point in playing endless rounds of recrimination and blame. 

However, you can't just ignore the past.  There is one valuable thing that the past gives us:  Lessons to learn about what to do the next time.  If you realize that things have gone wrong and where they went wrong, there is a stronger chance that you won't be apt to repeat that same mistake. 

I don't know...In a way, I actually think that Bush has learned that lesson with Iraq and that's why he isn't as anxious to invade Iran.  And if that's true, then Bush is a wiser man.  And I have to give him credit on that.  I just hope John McCain feels the same way. 

 

 

 That is why the surge

 That is why the surge happened...a surge that Barak and others doomed from the begining

But Barak wants to...since it shouldn't have happened in the 1st place then i don't need to comment on it or address it....

the differences between iraq and iran are quite significant....that might be the main reason why he isn't looking to invade as you say...

Oh that's right, since Pres. Bush will not take anything off the table then he must be up to no good, perhaps a military strike or invasion,,,

the speech was made 5yrs

the speech was made 5yrs ago...with the conditions and intel in hand for that time! no one is saying that mistakes weren't made.

based on hindsight you wanted the President and his administration to have had a crystal ball.

i would love to be able to change things and not have said things 5-10 yrs ago that have been shown to be off the mark with todays infomation.

His advisors tell him  things...he takes them at their collective words....5yrs ago. he makes a speech...things don't go according to plan...and you want to re-write history...

Should Clinton have taken Bin laden in '96? based on todays infoI would say yes....Clinton had his info and advisers tell him things...he took them at their word.....

"We have difficult work to

"We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We are pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We have begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We are helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. And then we will leave — and we will leave behind a free Iraq.

The war on terror is not over, yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory."

Does this sound like the POTUS thought we were finished in Iraq?

I don't in any way think

I don't in any way think that's how they thought people would interpret the banner.

Crickets chriping here Biff.

 

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

bass

I don't even hear crickets.

"Time to go home. Let's have a big paraded down A1A for the boys. I'll get the first 20 beers at LuLu's. Just don't fall off the third deck." 

Libs = All hipster joking, all the time. So much time spent on comedy they'll enjoy together, so little time spent thinking outside their "cool" box.

 

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

LOL Shy...very

LOL Shy...very true...

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

flash, How can you in

flash, How can you in seriousness go after McCain's gaffes while ignoring your guy's.

You are very selective...What about Obama making up seven extra states, or not realizing his home state borders Kentucky (too name a few). They both have been making these gaffes, only one candidate's get reported widely (as you just proved).

What about "seeing" vets in the crowd when he said we were honoring them on Memorial Day? That was a classic. "I see dead people."

I can make the same argument as you. Obama is supposed to be so in touch domestically, yet he can't get basic USA facts straight.

Biff, GWB never declared

Biff, GWB never declared "Mission Accomplished."

Maybe he thought it, but he never said that, get your facts straight.

It was a banner hung up by a sailor. Say what you want about it, but Bush never said that.

Sailors may have hung the

Sailors may have hung the banner, in the same way they scrubbed the
deck, but the Bush people had it printed -- everyone knows that.
Get your facts right.

I know how to win wars!

The mission was

The mission was accomplished, Biffy.  

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

What a joke.

Like it was Washington's soard, they put Bush's "Mission Accomplished" taxi on display.

"The S-3 that served as "Navy One" was retired from service and placed on display at the National Museum of Naval Aviation in Pensacola, Florida on July 17, 2003. "

I bet you have to wait in a long line to see this baby.

http://en.wikipedia....

I know how to win wars!

So Biff, suppose

So Biff, suppose you educate us on the use of the term "mission" as used in military objectives. IF you read my post above, you will see that the term is factualy correct. Bush did not declare the war won, only that the mission was accomplished. And it was. Now what was the mission that had been accomplished that had been laied out before the resumption of hostilities with Iraq?

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

All the S-3's are retiring

All the S-3's are retiring after about 30 years of service.  They are worn out.  Those that don't go to museums will be "recycled".

Of the 187 S-3s manufactured, which one would you choose to put in the Pensacola Museum if you were the Navy?  The type isn't exactly known for its distinguishing moments.

"Mission Accomplished

"Mission Accomplished banner"... "he stole the 2000 election".... blah blaah... blaaaaah....

The poor guy is done in six months, and yet you still itch to drag out all this tired, utterly irrelevant-to-now stuff from a bygone era. Why do you expend so much energy, day in -- day out, resenting the man with such passion and vigor?

Libs have been so intensely devoted to crapping on this president, it's a wonder they live lives outside of this (sometimes I DO wonder...)

 

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

I actually believe that deep

I actually believe that deep down inside Olbermann is hoping for a McCain victory. I mean, without a Republican president to bash each and every night for the next 4 or 8 years, he'll be lost. I'm serious.

    gopsteve -- be

    gopsteve -- be intellectually moral. You know that the "57" state thing was a slip of the tongue not a slip of the facts. But that's what you wanted me to say so that you could argue that same applies to McCain. Well it doesn't.

    Every candidate knows how many states there are and there is no political advantage to adding 7 to the total.  There is a political advantage to some of McCain's misstatements (if accepted as facts).

   Furthermore, what candidate's gaffes get edited out of the news, contrary to that networks "standards and practice" policy? In case you didn't know that's CBS editing out McCain's mistakes on the basic facts of the surge

   You better be careful with that argument. I believe it is a loser. You know it too. But reality is not on your side. 

Q

I am by no means a huge supporter of McCain, and I can see he has faults. You are so in love with Obama, he is perfect in your eyes no doubt, so there's really little reason to carry this on.

You talk about the CBS report, are you kiddin' me? Obama has had a virtual free ride this year, more than any candidate I can remember. You can once again pick one example that fits your argument and act like you have made your point.

Have you net read this site? Obama gets better than 2-1 coverage on TV, way more news magazine covers, the NY Times (+ CNN NBC CBS MSNBC ABC, et al) have all but endorsed him. 90% of the media admit to being Dems...McCain gets a break (in the midst of the continuing Obama Lovefest this week), and you hold that up as some sort of proof that the msm is going soft on him?

Sorry to go so long, but speaking of "politcal advantage," even Couric got frustrated trying to pin down on his thoughts/facts of the surge. Iran was not a threat, then it was a threat a week later. I bet you actually believe his Rev is not the Reverand he knew for 20 years.

I can admit McCain's flaws (immigration for a big one), but you are so enamored with Mr. "Present," he can do anything, and you will justify it.

Thanks for the time.

perfectly said, GopSteve!

Flash, go pull the lever for Mr. 3-Pointer/Fist-Bumper/Ultra Cool in November and leave us alone. Really.

Knock yourself out. You have a man there of incredible integrity, with an unwavering core of beliefs, a fresh vision, and on and on.... Most importantly, of course, is he's half-black, charming as all heck, and almost like a "rock star", so he's just * GOTTA BE * the real thing.

For all I/we know, should he win, he might not be all that bad... (man, I'm almost barfing saying that. What's wrong with me?)

But really, do your thing in November and then pat yourself on the back. 

 

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

   Stop it please.

   Stop it please.  Answer a simple question: do you honestly believe that Obama thinks there are 57 states? You don't really believe that but you misrepresent the facts constantly just to score cheap points.  There is another term, often used in the old days when facts mattered, to describe you. Liar. When you tell a lie, you are a liar. Even one lie makes you dishonest. You cannot be trusted.  You are the boy who cried "Rove."

Come on. You've got to

Come on. You've got to give them a break. Of course they don't believe Obama thinks there are 57 states. But for 8 long years they've had to listen to people ridicule the goofy things said by George W Bush. These goofy Bushisms don't even make the news anymore, people are so used to them.

Some real jewels (lifted from a site rife with them)

--------------------------------------------------------

"I remember meeting a mother of a child who was abducted by the North Koreans right here in the Oval Office." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., June 26,
2008

"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." —Greater Nashua, N.H., Jan. 27, 2000

"Make no mistake about it, I understand how tough it is, sir. I talk to families who die." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Dec. 7, 2006

"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.'' -George W. Bush, Feb. 21, 2001

"And, most importantly, Alma Powell, secretary of Colin Powell, is with us." -George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Jan. 30, 2003

"Border relations between Canada and Mexico have never been better." -George W. Bush, in a press conference with Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien. Sept. 24, 2001

--------------------------------------------------------------

And thats just a small sample...So a certain part of me wants me to go ahead and let them enjoy a couple Obama goofs.

 

 

F king

"When you tell a lie, you are a liar. Even one lie makes you dishonest. You cannot be trusted. You are the boy who cried 'Rove.'"

One lie huh? Well then, you may want to look for a new messiah.

"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008

Do they still speak Arabic in Afghanistan?

By your twisted line of logic, this whopper from Obama makes him just as nefarious as McCain.

How about The Bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor?

I mean do you honestly believe that Obama thinks it was just One Bomb?

Ooops! No Senate Banking Committee over here.

That is not the Senate Committe I knew.

Ich Bin Ein Beginner

One comment

Way to go Joe. Sometimes the old Joe shows up.

I hope he comes back often!

One comment

Way to go Joe. Sometimes the old Joe shows up.

I hope he comes back often!

I made many typos, sorry,

I made many typos, sorry, it's just late and muggy here!

I Thought That's What Real JOOURNALISTS Do! Check the FACTS!

This morning, right-wing former
congressman Joe Scarborough essentially said that Keith Olbermann is
"too stupid to be on television."

Here is the story, which is
much more important than the rantings of former right-wing politicians
who become cable television politicians.

The soon-to-be-fired,
low-ratings CBS anchor Katie Couric did interviews last night with both
McCain and Obama. In her McCain interview, the candidate who makes a
growing list of factual errors wrongly said that the Sunni Awakening
was a result of the surge. He referred to a conversation between Sunnis
and then-Col. (now Gen.) McFarlane that he falsely claimed resulted
from the surge.

Problem is, the conversation McCain quoted
happened long before the surge. The Sunni Awakening happened many
months before the surge. In fact Sunni leaders approached the U.S.
military more than a year before the surge, but were rebuffed.

In
short, the Sunni Awakening happened well before the surge, had zero to
do with the surge, and McCain had his facts (again) completely wrong.

Enter
Ms. Couric, who used the interview on air, but edited out the McCain
misstatement. Enter Olbermann, who did what is far too rare in cable
political news: real reporting. He pointed out and documented the
latest McCain mistake.

Of course, this was too much for
Scarborough, who foamed at the mouth, did not intelligently discuss the
McCain misstatement or the Couric protection of McCain when she kept
his mistake out of the broadcast.

No, Scarborough said that
the issue had been raised by others on MSNBC, and that anyone who
raised it (referring to Olbermann) is too stupid to be on television
(his phrase).

Mika Brzezinski, who knows better, made a face
but said nothing. Harold Ford, the voice of the Democratic Leadership
Council, who never met a camera he didn't like, simply smiled his
television smile and smoothly agreed with Scarborough's cheap shot at
Olbermann. Ford then, as ever, referred to how close to Obama he wants
to appear. (With friends like these …)

For now, two points:

First,
McCain repeatedly lowers the quality of discourse in American politics.
The man who ran in 2000 has disappeared; the face of Bush 44 has taken
his place with these Rove-like low blows. It is McCain who has always
been the fair-haired boy of the press.

Second, John McCain has
made a long series of substantial factual errors that will become a
major issue. Whether the problem is age or sloppiness, partisanship or
tiredness, on issue after issue McCain says things that are factually
incorrect.

Couric protected McCain by editing out his latest
and very substantial factual error, gaffe, falsehood or mistake (call
it what you will). Scarborough works to protect McCain by demeaning
Olbermann, the messenger, who should be praised for doing real
reporting (heaven forbid).

McCain’s Rove-like attacks and his
serious and repeated factual errors on major issues will be a major
topic in the election and do neither John McCain nor our political
discourse any service.

Is real journalism WRONG? Or just WRONG for those who do it right!

(yawn)

(yawn)

I second that (yawn). If I

I second that (yawn). If I may, let me add two more (yawn) (yawn).

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Which political party is invested in our defeat in Iraq?

LOL!  :-)   "They're

LOL!  :-)

 

"They're both doofuses!" --Mark Levin (speaking of Obama and McCain)

long-winded for your first

long-winded for your first post, and not too convincing.

Exhibit A:

"McCain repeatedly lowers the quality of discourse in American politics"

Nice job of citing there and I really liked the way you presented your case, full of facts.

Exhibit B:

"John McCain has made a long series of substantial factual errors that will become a major issue."

I love the way you list the long series of substancial factual errors bullet point by bullet point. It's so easy to dismiss McCain as incompetent because of your great reporting.

Exhibit C:

"Scarborough works to protect McCain by demeaning
Olbermann, the messenger, who should be praised for doing real
reporting."

Excellent use of links showing Scarborough's payoff by the McCain campaign. And yes, Olbermann is doing a real good job of reporting just the facts. How do I know, because its Olbermann. A man who takes journalism seriously and has an excellent record of honesty and reverence to the profession.

Maybe you should cut your losses and try to figure out that whole google toolbar search thing. It can produce what we like to call links to credible news sources, proving assertions made in our posts. 

 

"I don't have time for this. You all can continue your co-dependency posts and make yourselves feel all chummy... Frankly, you all don't represent where America is going and you might as well get used to it."

--The "Dooper

Yeah, keith olbernotaman,

Yeah, keith olbernotaman, that paramount of journalistic intergrity.

"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008

The fact Jack

You are wrong, sorry...

In her McCain interview, the candidate who makes a
growing list of factual errors wrongly said that the Sunni Awakening
was a result of the surge.

And the truth is...

“This counter-insurgency was initiated to some degree by Col. McFarland
in Anbar province, relatively on his own. And I visited with him in
December of 2006. He had already initiated that strategy in Ramadi by
going in and clearing and holding in certain places,” McCain said.
“Later on, there were additional troops, and General Petraeus said that
the surge would not have worked, and the Anbar awakening would not have
taken place, successfully, if they hadn’t had an increase in the number
of troops.”

"Nuke 'em 'til they... oh hell, just shoot 'em!"