See video at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15004160/#storyContinued
Text below:
______________________
MSNBC.com
A textbook definition of cowardice
Keith Olbermann comments on Bill Clinton's Fox News interview
SPECIAL COMMENT
By Keith Olbermann
Anchor, 'Countdown'
MSNBC
Updated: 8:01 a.m. CT Sept 26, 2006
The headlines about them are, of course, entirely wrong.
It is not essential that a past president, bullied and sandbagged by a monkey posing as a newscaster, finally lashed back.
It is not important that the current President's portable public chorus has described his predecessor's tone as "crazed."
Our tone should be crazed. The nation's freedoms are under assault by an administration whose policies can do us as much damage as al Qaida; the nation's marketplace of ideas is being poisoned by a propaganda company so blatant that Tokyo Rose would've quit.
Nonetheless. The headline is this:
Bill Clinton did what almost none of us have done in five years.
He has spoken the truth about 9/11, and the current presidential administration.
"At least I tried," he said of his own efforts to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. "That's the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They had eight months to try; they did not try. I tried."
Thus in his supposed emeritus years has Mr. Clinton taken forceful and triumphant action for honesty, and for us; action as vital and as courageous as any of his presidency; action as startling and as liberating, as any, by any one, in these last five long years.
The Bush Administration did not try to get Osama bin Laden before 9/11.
The Bush Administration ignored all the evidence gathered by its predecessors.
The Bush Administration did not understand the Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S."
The Bush Administration did not try.
Moreover, for the last five years one month and two weeks, the current administration, and in particular the President, has been given the greatest "pass" for incompetence and malfeasance in American history!
President Roosevelt was rightly blamed for ignoring the warning signs—some of them, 17 years old—before Pearl Harbor.
President Hoover was correctly blamed for—if not the Great Depression itself—then the disastrous economic steps he took in the immediate aftermath of the Stock Market Crash.
Even President Lincoln assumed some measure of responsibility for the Civil War—though talk of Southern secession had begun as early as 1832.
But not this president.
To hear him bleat and whine and bully at nearly every opportunity, one would think someone else had been president on September 11th, 2001 -- or the nearly eight months that preceded it.
That hardly reflects the honesty nor manliness we expect of the executive.
But if his own fitness to serve is of no true concern to him, perhaps we should simply sigh and keep our fingers crossed, until a grown-up takes the job three Januarys from now.
Except for this.
After five years of skirting even the most inarguable of facts—that he was president on 9/11 and he must bear some responsibility for his, and our, unreadiness, Mr. Bush has now moved, unmistakably and without conscience or shame, towards re-writing history, and attempting to make the responsibility, entirely Mr. Clinton's.
Of course he is not honest enough to do that directly.
As with all the other nefariousness and slime of this, our worst presidency since James Buchanan, he is having it done for him, by proxy.
Thus, the sandbag effort by Fox News Friday afternoon.
Consider the timing: the very weekend the National Intelligence Estimate would be released and show the Iraq war to be the fraudulent failure it is—not a check on terror, but fertilizer for it.
The kind of proof of incompetence, for which the administration and its hyenas at Fox need to find a diversion, in a scapegoat.
It was the kind of cheap trick which would get a journalist fired—but a propagandist, promoted:
Promise to talk of charity and generosity; but instead launch into the lies and distortions with which the Authoritarians among us attack the virtuous and reward the useless.
And don't even be professional enough to assume the responsibility for the slanders yourself; blame your audience for "e-mailing" you the question.
Mr. Clinton responded as you have seen.
He told the great truth untold about this administration's negligence, perhaps criminal negligence, about bin Laden.
He was brave.
Then again, Chris Wallace might be braver still. Had I in one moment surrendered all my credibility as a journalist, and been irredeemably humiliated, as was he, I would have gone home and started a new career selling seeds by mail.
The smearing by proxy, of course, did not begin Friday afternoon.
Disney was first to sell-out its corporate reputation, with "The Path to 9/11." Of that company's crimes against truth one needs to say little. Simply put: someone there enabled an Authoritarian zealot to belch out Mr. Bush's new and improved history.
The basic plot-line was this: because he was distracted by the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Bill Clinton failed to prevent 9/11.
The most curious and in some ways the most infuriating aspect of this slapdash theory, is that the Right Wingers who have advocated it—who try to sneak it into our collective consciousness through entertainment, or who sandbag Mr. Clinton with it at news interviews—have simply skipped past its most glaring flaw.
Had it been true that Clinton had been distracted from the hunt for bin Laden in 1998 because of the Monica Lewinsky nonsense, why did these same people not applaud him for having bombed bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan and Sudan on Aug. 20, of that year? For mentioning bin Laden by name as he did so?
That day, Republican Senator Grams of Minnesota invoked the movie "Wag The Dog."
Republican Senator Coats of Indiana questioned Mr. Clinton's judgment.
Republican Senator Ashcroft of Missouri—the future attorney general—echoed Coats.
Even Republican Senator Arlen Specter questioned the timing.
And of course, were it true Clinton had been "distracted" by the Lewinsky witch-hunt, who on earth conducted the Lewinsky witch-hunt?
Who turned the political discourse of this nation on its head for two years?
Who corrupted the political media?
Who made it impossible for us to even bring back on the air, the counter-terrorism analysts like Dr. Richard Haass, and James Dunegan, who had warned, at this very hour, on this very network, in early 1998, of cells from the Middle East who sought to attack us, here?
Who preempted them in order to strangle us with the trivia that was, "All Monica All The Time"?
Who distracted whom?
This is, of course, where—as is inevitable—Mr. Bush and his henchmen prove not quite as smart as they think they are.
The full responsibility for 9/11 is obviously shared by three administrations, possibly four.
But, Mr. Bush, if you are now trying to convince us by proxy that it's all about the distractions of 1998 and 1999, then you will have to face a startling fact that your minions may have hidden from you.
The distractions of 1998 and 1999, Mr. Bush, were carefully manufactured, and lovingly executed, not by Bill Clinton, but by the same people who got you elected President.
Thus, instead of some commendable acknowledgment that you were even in office on 9/11 and the lost months before it, we have your sleazy and sloppy rewriting of history, designed by somebody who evidently read the Orwell playbook too quickly.
Thus, instead of some explanation for the inertia of your first eight months in office, we are told that you have kept us "safe" ever since—a statement that might range anywhere from zero, to 100 percent, true.
We have nothing but your word, and your word has long since ceased to mean anything.
And, of course, the one time you have ever given us specifics about what you have kept us safe from, Mr. Bush, you got the name of the supposedly targeted Tower in Los Angeles wrong.
Thus was it left for the previous president to say what so many of us have felt; what so many of us have given you a pass for in the months and even the years after the attack:
You did not try.
You ignored the evidence gathered by your predecessor.
You ignored the evidence gathered by your own people.
Then, you blamed your predecessor.
That would be a textbook definition, Mr. Bush, of cowardice.
To enforce the lies of the present, it is necessary to erase the truths of the past.
That was one of the great mechanical realities Eric Blair—writing as George Orwell—gave us in the book "1984."
The great philosophical reality he gave us, Mr. Bush, may sound as familiar to you, as it has lately begun to sound familiar to me.
"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power...
"Power is not a means; it is an end.
"One does not establish a dictatorship to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.
"The object of persecution, is persecution. The object of torture, is torture. The object of power... is power."
Earlier last Friday afternoon, before the Fox ambush, speaking in the far different context of the closing session of his remarkable Global Initiative, Mr. Clinton quoted Abraham Lincoln's State of the Union address from 1862.
"We must disenthrall ourselves."
Mr. Clinton did not quote the rest of Mr. Lincoln's sentence.
He might well have.
"We must disenthrall ourselves and then we shall save our country."
And so has Mr. Clinton helped us to disenthrall ourselves, and perhaps enabled us, even at this late and bleak date, to save our country.
The "free pass" has been withdrawn, Mr. Bush.
You did not act to prevent 9/11.
We do not know what you have done to prevent another 9/11.
You have failed us—then leveraged that failure, to justify a purposeless war in Iraq which will have, all too soon, claimed more American lives than did 9/11.
You have failed us anew in Afghanistan.
And you have now tried to hide your failures, by blaming your predecessor.
And now you exploit your failure, to rationalize brazen torture which doesn't work anyway; which only condemns our soldiers to water-boarding; which only humiliates our country further in the world; and which no true American would ever condone, let alone advocate.
And there it is, Mr. Bush:
Are yours the actions of a true American?
© 2006 MSNBC Interactive
URL: '+url+'
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15004160/
© 2006 MSNBC.com
_________________
Greg Bledsoe
D. Gregory Bledsoe
Attorney at Law
1717 S. Cheyenne Ave.
Tulsa, OK 74119
918-599-8123
918-582-7830 fax
"Democratic government will be the more successful, the more the public opinion ruling it is enlightened and inspired by full and thorough discussion. The greatest danger threatening democratic institutions comes from those influences ... which tend to stifle or demoralize discussion."
Quotation on St. Louis' Keil Opera House by German-born
United States journalist and political leader Carl Schurz.
For more information on Carl Schurz see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schurz
Carl Schurz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
He should have stayed on ESPN...what a whiny, childish diatribe. He had more viewers in the first 30 seconds of his ESPN show than the entirety of viewers that turn on his show in an entire month now.
Boo hoo for poor Bill Clinton running from that vast right wing conspiracy.
The only thing more shameful than Clinton's purple-faced, hand-trembling meltdown on Sunday are his apologists who think he did a good job. The only thing missing from that frothing speech was a big Dean style YEEEEAAWWWW at the end.
I used to respect Clinton for his decorum and suave persona...
This was my favorite quote:
quote:
We do not know what you have done to prevent another 9/11.
Ummmm... how about 5 years and no terrorist attacks on US soil...how else do you measure success but by ultimate results?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
He should have stayed on ESPN...what a whiny, childish diatribe. He had more viewers in the first 30 seconds of his ESPN show than the entirety of viewers that turn on his show in an entire month now.
Boo hoo for poor Bill Clinton running from that vast right wing conspiracy.
The only thing more shameful than Clinton's purple-faced, hand-trembling meltdown on Sunday are his apologists who think he did a good job. The only thing missing from that frothing speech was a big Dean style YEEEEAAWWWW at the end.
I used to respect Clinton for his decorum and suave persona...
This was my favorite quote:
quote:
We do not know what you have done to prevent another 9/11.
Ummmm... how about 5 years and no terrorist attacks on US soil...how else do you measure success but by ultimate results?
He called Chris Wallace on sandbagging him with a question that was off topic. Sound familiar?
Besides, Clinton is to politics what Elvis was to music. Too bad. Bush is to politics what Johnnie Rotten was to music. Get it?
KO rules. He's no Murrow, but at least a newsman who will point out the hypocrisy of the presiduncy.
Please. Wallace had the questions divided 50/50, it wasn't his fault Clinton had a Geritol/Life Alert moment and made an donkey of himself. Of course, Dick Morris says that this is the real Bill Clinton.
Clinton's handler was clearly EMBARASSED by his behavior and was BEGGING the producer to stop the interview when Bubba flew off the handle.
I liked Clinton. I think he did a pretty good job overall, but Olbermann is just a hack and this rant is pathetic. Of course, Olbermann was as equally convinced that ROVE was the source of the Plame leak as well; quite the JOURNALIST!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8085423/
Olbermann is a joke and his lack of viewship proves it out.
Clinton also referenced Richard Clark's book about how he worked hard against terror. There are some pretty telling points in Dick's book that indeed, quite the opposite was the case.
Clinton made an donkey of himself in that interview; pointing and prodding, trying to physically intimidate Wallace.
This is just a left/right smear article. Left loves it, right hates it. The amusing part is that the OP thinks it's legitimate JOURNALISTIC material as opposed to a partisan rant.
He's the liberal version of a Sean Hannity without the viewship or following. Neither are JOURNALISTS as JOURNALISTS do not express personal opinion.
I tend to agree iplaw. Frankly, I'm tired of the hacks for either side with their obviously biased views. It's my opinion that both sides tend to look at the people of this country as sheep that need to be herded for their own political gain. They try to diffuse the facts, which makes it difficult for the average American who use ten and twenty second sound bites to formulate their opinions. Wallace's questions weren't out of line, but Bill Clinton's reaction to those questions was. And to suggest that Keith Olberman might be the new Edward R. Murrow? Please, don't even go there.
Also interesting to note is that Clinton has broken the un-written protocol of 200-plus years of the U.S. presidency: previous presidents don't criticize sitting presidents.
I'll admit there were things I admired about Clinton and some things I didn't like so well.
Interesting how the left shrieked for so long about mean-spirited and vitriolic right-wingers, KO's piece was as mean-spirited and vitriolic as any I've seen.
Personally, I don't think the presidency is shown the same respect it used to be shown by the media nor a public fueled up by pundits on Democratic and Republican payrolls- and yes, I'm defending both the Clinton and Bush White Houses here.
Maybe there is less respect for the President because Bush and Clinton have failed to earn it.
The office deserves respect irrespective of who occupies it at the time. Clinton was a good president and so is Bush. The 24 hour news cycle has created a citizenry of hateful and cynical naysayers in America. No one has a fair shot anymore because we do nothing but complain.
When unemployment goes down we say the jobs created are sub-par. When the jobs trend towards white collar we say the poor working are discriminated against. When the US is attacked we say, why didn't you protect us? When the government takes actions to protect us we ask why are you taking my rights? When children are victimized by predators we say that the children need to be protected, but when we put them on webistes we complain that we have no compassion for the perpetrator.
We are a schizophrenic nation who doesn't know up from down anymore, but we're damn good at criticizing the other guy if he speaks up or takes action, just don't ask us to offer viable alternative.
What's funny is when CARTER has the gall to criticize ANY president living or dead!!!
An interesting article, from Dick Morris, I believe.
The real Clinton emerges
From behind the benign façade and the tranquilizing smile, the real Bill Clinton emerged Sunday during Chris Wallace's interview on Fox News Channel. There he was on live television, the man those who have worked for him have come to know – the angry, sarcastic, snarling, self-righteous, bombastic bully, roused to a fever pitch. The truer the accusation, the greater the feigned indignation. Clinton jabbed his finger in Wallace's face, poking his knee, and invading the commentator's space.
But beyond noting the ex-president's non-presidential style, it is important to answer his distortions and misrepresentations. His self-justifications constitute a mangling of the truth which only someone who once quibbled about what the "definition of 'is' is" could perform.
Clinton told Wallace, "There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk Down." Nobody said there was. The point of citing Somalia in the run up to 9-11 is that bin Laden told Fortune Magazine in a 1999 interview that the precipitous American pullout after Black Hawk Down convinced him that Americans would not stand up to armed resistance.
Clinton said conservatives "were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day" after the attack which killed American soldiers. But the real question was whether Clinton would honor the military's request to be allowed to stay and avenge the attack, a request he denied. The debate was not between immediate withdrawal and a six-month delay. (Then-first lady, now-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) favored the first option, by the way). The fight was over whether to attack or pull out eventually without any major offensive operations.
The president told Wallace, "I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill bin Laden." But actually, the 9-11 Commission was clear that the plan to kidnap Osama was derailed by Sandy Berger and George Tenet because Clinton had not yet made a finding authorizing his assassination. They were fearful that Osama would die in the kidnapping and the U.S. would be blamed for using assassination as an instrument of policy.
Clinton claims "the CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible [for the Cole bombing] while I was there." But he could replace or direct his employees as he felt. His helplessness was, as usual, self-imposed.
Why didn't the CIA and FBI realize the extent of bin Laden's involvement in terrorism? Because Clinton never took the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center sufficiently seriously. He never visited the site and his only public comment was to caution against "over-reaction." In his pre-9/11 memoirs, George Stephanopoulos confirms that he and others on the staff saw it as a "failed bombing" and noted that it was far from topic A at the White House. Rather than the full-court press that the first terror attack on American soil deserved, Clinton let the investigation be handled by the FBI on location in New York without making it the national emergency it actually was.
In my frequent phone and personal conversations with both Clintons in 1993, there was never a mention, not one, of the World Trade Center attack. It was never a subject of presidential focus.
Failure to grasp the import of the 1993 attack led to a delay in fingering bin Laden and understanding his danger. This, in turn, led to our failure to seize him when Sudan evicted him and also to our failure to carry through with the plot to kidnap him. And, it was responsible for the failure to "certify" him as the culprit until very late in the Clinton administration.
The former president says, "I worked hard to try to kill him." If so, why did he notify Pakistan of our cruise-missile strike in time for them to warn Osama and allow him to escape? Why did he refuse to allow us to fire cruise missiles to kill bin Laden when we had the best chance, by far, in 1999? The answer to the first question — incompetence; to the second — he was paralyzed by fear of civilian casualties and by accusations that he was wagging the dog. The 9/11 Commission report also attributes the 1999 failure to the fear that we would be labeled trigger-happy having just bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade by mistake.
President Clinton assumes that criticism of his failure to kill bin Laden is a "nice little conservative hit job on me." But he has it backwards. It is not because people are right-wingers that they criticize him over the failure to prevent 9/11. It was his failure to catch bin Laden that drove them to the right wing.
The ex-president is fully justified in laying eight months of the blame for the failure to kill or catch bin Laden at the doorstep of George W. Bush. But he should candidly acknowledge that eight years of blame fall on him.
One also has to wonder when the volcanic rage beneath the surface of this would-be statesman will cool. When will the chip on his shoulder finally disappear? When will he feel sufficiently secure in his own legacy and his own skin not to boil over repeatedly in private and occasionally even in public?
I don't know if I have posted this, but it is a dead on reflection of modern American culture written almost 100 years ago:
But the new rebel is a sceptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book (about the sex problem) in which he insults it himself. . . . As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is a waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite sceptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything." -- G.K. Chesterton
Funny, I have a lot of respect for Jimmy Carter.
Wow that piece by Dick Morris is interesting. I wonder who would have more insight into what was really going on behind the scenes better than Morris? He certainly doesn't seem to have much respect for the president he worked for.
Its not THAT Dick Morris. It's this goon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Morris
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e0/Dick_Morris.jpg/180px-Dick_Morris.jpg)
That goon did work for Clinton.
http://www.olbermannwatch.com/
quote:
Originally posted by snopes
That goon did work for Clinton.
Yes, campaigning. Site your sources.
Apparently, you don't know Dick Morris from Dick Morris. There's more than one, this guys just a goon.
I'm citing your source from the wikipedia article mentioned above. I didn't make any other assertions.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Olbermann
Olbermann's ratings are often 4th for cable news in his timeslot, behind O'Reilly at Fox News, Paula Zahn at CNN, and Nancy Grace at CNN Headline News, and his is the 12th-most watched nightly cable news program overall. However, the show's ratings have increased by 41% in the last year.
In the first quarter of 2006, the ratings for Countdown surpassed CNN's Paula Zahn NOW in the 25-54 demographic, marking the first time in five years an MSNBC show has beaten a CNN show in prime time for this demographic. In April 2006, Olbermann's ratings continued to climb, showing a 35% increase in overall viewers from the previous month's ratings, while O'Reilly's had dropped to "his worst month in nearly five years among viewers age 25 to 54."
Recently, following the show's climb in the ratings preceding April, Countdown's ratings have slid, dropping 32% to 106,000 viewers in the 25-54 demographic as of June 2006, placing Countdown in 4th for the timeslot.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
This is just a left/right smear article. Left loves it, right hates it. The amusing part is that the OP thinks it's legitimate JOURNALISTIC material as opposed to a partisan rant.
He's the liberal version of a Sean Hannity without the viewship or following. Neither are JOURNALISTS as JOURNALISTS do not express personal opinion.
I actually kinda agree with IPLAW here...This is nothing more then an attempt to perpetuate the Right/Left paradigm. Leftys love it, Rightys hate it...moderates...whats a moderate? You are either Republican or Democrat because heaven forbid if you are an Independent or a Libertarian you are just wasting your time.
Then IPLAWs next reply he wrote...Bill Clinton was a good president and so is Bush. NO! WRONG, they are both very bad men, Clinton was just WAY better at his job.
and PS, Oberman rocks!
Oberman: There is Fascism Indeed (//%22http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9YToCzAJ9Q%22)
Losers in the ratings race love to point to small demographics to substantiate their claims. Total viewership is the only number that counts. The "money" demographic 25-54 is only used to determine profitability.
35% increase of a few thousand people isn't substantial.
Look for yourself. Here are the mediabistro stats for July, he's #24.
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/original/july06ranker.pdf
quote:
Originally posted by altruismsuffers
and PS, Oberman rocks!
Oberman: There is Fascism Indeed (//%22http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9YToCzAJ9Q%22)
No better endorsement for Olbermann than Alt's stamp of approval.
quote:
There's more than one, this guys just a goon.
If he loved Clinton he'd be your best buddy. No one dislikes Morris other than the Clintons and their apologists.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
There's more than one, this guys just a goon.
If he loved Clinton he'd be your best buddy. No one dislikes Morris other than the Clintons and their apologists.
As opposed to someone who simply campaigned for Clinton, resigned because he had an extra-marital affair with a prostitute, and is now a right-wing nut ball getting high praise by you.
I haven't defended anyone, except Dick Morris from snopes obvious and likely purposeful plagiarism. Get off my case.
What right do you have to mention his extra-marital affair? What a hatemonger. You must be a religious zealot.
You talk as if Dick Morris had a tangential relationship with the Clintons...
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
There's more than one, this guys just a goon.
If he loved Clinton he'd be your best buddy. No one dislikes Morris other than the Clintons and their apologists.
As opposed to someone who simply campaigned for Clinton, resigned because he had an extra-marital affair with a prostitute, and is now a right-wing nut ball getting high praise by you.
I haven't defended anyone, except Dick Morris from snopes obvious and likely purposeful plagiarism. Get off my case.
Since when did I attack Dick Morris and where does plagiarism come into the equation? Did I plagiarize anyone? Did Dick Morris plagiarize anyone? Stop bogart'n the bong long enough read my post and you'd see that neither of your comments make any sense.
Oh no! The debate is getting heated and "personal". When will the thought police step in again and lock this thread down?[;)]
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
What right do you have to mention his extra-marital affair? What a hatemonger. You must be a religious zealot.
Personal attack deleted beforehand...by MichaelCquote:
Did I plagiarize anyone?
Yes. You failed to drop a link, you copied and pasted an entire blog article and attributed it to someone you "believe" is Dick Morris. Yes, you did plagiarize. Add a link you
Personal attack deleted beforehand...by MichaelCquote:
Oh no! The debate is getting heated and "personal". When will the thought police step in again and lock this thread down?
Soon enough, I'm sure.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Wow that piece by Dick Morris is interesting. I wonder who would have more insight into what was really going on behind the scenes better than Morris? He certainly doesn't seem to have much respect for the president he worked for.
Dick Morris sux....
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
What right do you have to mention his extra-marital affair? What a hatemonger. You must be a religious zealot.
Personal attack deleted beforehand...by MichaelC
quote:
Did I plagiarize anyone?
Yes. You failed to drop a link, you copied and pasted an entire blog article and attributed it to someone you "believe" is Dick Morris. Yes, you did plagiarize. Add a link you Personal attack deleted beforehand...by MichaelC
quote:
Oh no! The debate is getting heated and "personal". When will the thought police step in again and lock this thread down?
Soon enough, I'm sure.
MichaelC
You obviously don't know the definition of plagiarism. Plagiarism is to use and pass off the ideas or writings of another as one's own. I DID NEITHER. Get yer facts straight before you make accusations you can't back up. Here's a link to the article.
http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/DickMorris/092606.html
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
QuoteOriginally posted by iplaw
What right do you have to mention his extra-marital affair? What a hatemonger. You must be a religious zealot.
Personal attack deleted beforehand...by MichaelC
Get a sense of humor. You're obviously not a religious person...
Hey, he accused me of plagiarism by not posting a link! It's no surpise that he's lacking in the humor department as well.
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Wow that piece by Dick Morris is interesting. I wonder who would have more insight into what was really going on behind the scenes better than Morris? He certainly doesn't seem to have much respect for the president he worked for.
Dick Morris sux....
Wow, what a well substantiated and articulate response aox. I bet you think Carville doesn't suck because he likes Bubba...I'm an astounding mind reader...
Anyways, I think we can dispatch with the idea that Olbermann is even close to a JOURNALIST.
Speaking of Carville.. Separated at birth? Oops, I suppose that could be construed as a personal attack and therefore the thought police will lock the topic.
(http://gcruse.typepad.com/Nosferatu.jpg)
Now a word from the Re-Elect the Republican Majority to Congress Committee..........!
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/bush_more.jpg)
[}:)]
Yeah. Too bad you just read the headlines instead of reading the documents for yourself...nice SPIN though Rico.
Are you preparing yourself for the imminent Democratic Harry Carry Fest in November after the GOP retains both the house and senate? Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin...
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Yeah. Too bad you just read the headlines instead of reading the documents for yourself...nice SPIN though Rico.
Are you preparing yourself for the imminent Democratic Harry Carry Fest in November after the GOP retains both the house and senate? Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin...
Sorry, I was not aware you had the Security Clearance to read the entire document...
But that makes sense... as George would have to have someone read it to him...
[}:)]
I didn't say I read the ENTIRE document...you just like to pick out the parts that suit you best...
BTW, was it just me or when Bubba was speaking did it sound like his Fixodent was losing it's grip? When he spoke it sounded like wind through a screen door in late May.
HEE HEE !!!! Knock Out!!!!!
9/25/06
"The headlines about them are, of course, entirely wrong.
It is not essential that a past president, bullied and sandbagged by a monkey posing as a newscaster, finally lashed back.
It is not important that the current President's portable public chorus has described his predecessor's tone as "crazed."
Our tone should be crazed. The nation's freedoms are under assault by an administration whose policies can do us as much damage as al Qaida; the nation's marketplace of ideas is being poisoned by a propaganda company so blatant that Tokyo Rose would've quit.
<snip>
You did not try.
You ignored the evidence gathered by your predecessor.
You ignored the evidence gathered by your own people.
Then, you blamed your predecessor.
That would be a textbook definition, Mr. Bush, of cowardice.
To enforce the lies of the present, it is necessary to erase the truths of the past.
That was one of the great mechanical realities Eric Blair—writing as George Orwell—gave us in the book "1984."
The great philosophical reality he gave us, Mr. Bush, may sound as familiar to you, as it has lately begun to sound familiar to me.
"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power...
"Power is not a means; it is an end.
"One does not establish a dictatorship to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.
"The object of persecution, is persecution. The object of torture, is torture. The object of power... is power."
Earlier last Friday afternoon, before the Fox ambush, speaking in the far different context of the closing session of his remarkable Global Initiative, Mr. Clinton quoted Abraham Lincoln's State of the Union address from 1862.
"We must disenthrall ourselves."
Mr. Clinton did not quote the rest of Mr. Lincoln's sentence.
He might well have.
"We must disenthrall ourselves and then we shall save our country."
And so has Mr. Clinton helped us to disenthrall ourselves, and perhaps enabled us, even at this late and bleak date, to save our country.
The "free pass" has been withdrawn, Mr. Bush.
You did not act to prevent 9/11.
We do not know what you have done to prevent another 9/11.
You have failed us—then leveraged that failure, to justify a purposeless war in Iraq which will have, all too soon, claimed more American lives than did 9/11.
You have failed us anew in Afghanistan.
And you have now tried to hide your failures, by blaming your predecessor.
And now you exploit your failure, to rationalize brazen torture which doesn't work anyway; which only condemns our soldiers to water-boarding; which only humiliates our country further in the world; and which no true American would ever condone, let alone advocate.
And there it is, Mr. Bush:
Are yours the actions of a true American?"
I'd vote for even Keith Olbermann over George Shrub. But thank the good we will not have him stealing anymore elections and creating tons more terrorists.
Now, let's get it on in the midterms. Change is good. Vote out the idiots who were guilty of over reaction by invading Iraq. That would include the entire Oklahoma delegation. And if not now, the next time. These goons made a huge mistake which will soon surpass the Spanish American and Vietnam wars as America's biggest failure ever.
More highbrow commentary from aox...you are quite the persuasive writer. Was it really necessary to re-copy the text of the speech, or did you think the added bulk would flush the rest of the comment down more easily? Next time just flush twice and jiggle the handle.
As Phil Hartman would say in his best Sinatra impersonation (regarding aox's post),
"It's all pops and clicks from here baby."
Persuasive writer? I think not. Maybe a good copy/paste technician.
Ya, that's it, a REALLY good copy/paste technician.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
I bet you think Carville doesn't suck because he likes Bubba...I'm an astounding mind reader...
Yer right! When it comes to charm, integrity and downright honesty, Carville can't hold a CANDLE to Rove! [}:)]
Did anyone see Carville get worked by Oreilly last night...quite amusing. Carville is a cartoon character just like Ann Coulter, both are blinded partisans and for the most part are justifiably ignorable by the majority of Americans.
Papa...didn't say that you were an Independent? The fact that you seem to have warm fuzzies for Carville makes me question that...[;)]
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Did anyone see Carville get worked by Oreilly last night...quite amusing. Carville is a cartoon character just like Ann Coulter, both are blinded partisans and for the most part are justifiably ignorable by the majority of Americans.
Papa...didn't say that you were an Independent? The fact that you seem to have warm fuzzies for Carville makes me question that...[;)]
You're making some pretty wild assumptions there, iplaw. I don't have the warm and fuzzies for ANYBODY other than Mama Spot, Little Spot and Baby Spot. I merely pointed out the yin to your yang. Don't put words in my mouth.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Did anyone see Carville get worked by Oreilly last night...quite amusing. Carville is a cartoon character just like Ann Coulter, both are blinded partisans and for the most part are justifiably ignorable by the majority of Americans.
Papa...didn't say that you were an Independent? The fact that you seem to have warm fuzzies for Carville makes me question that...[;)]
Why do you need me to post a link rather than copy and paste? It's safer and forces you to look at it which most here would rather turn their eyes from the page.
What simpletons and pinheads watch O'Reilly? He's been caught lying so often I am amazed he still exists anywhere but then there's Fox. And Carville's an easy scapegoat. Go for it.
WE ALREADY SAW IT FROM THE OP. Yeah, we just have to avert our eyes from the genius of Olbermann lest we be dazzled by his unmatched brilliance. Maybe you should read the ENTIRE thread next time.
FYI, generally a good place to start is the FIRST post, but what simpleton or pinhead DOESN'T know that?quote:
He's been caught lying so often I am amazed he still exists anywhere but then there's Fox.
I'd love to see something to back this up from somewhere other than Media Matters or Oreilly-sucks.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
WE ALREADY SAW IT FROM THE OP. Yeah, we just have to avert our eyes from the genius of Olbermann lest we be dazzled by his unmatched brilliance. Maybe you should read the ENTIRE thread next time. FYI, generally a good place to start is the FIRST post, but what simpleton or pinhead DOESN'T know that?
quote:
He's been caught lying so often I am amazed he still exists anywhere but then there's Fox.
I'd love to see something to back this up from somewhere other than Media Matters or Oreilly-sucks.
Try Al Franken. Lying Liars and the Lies they tell....and the other scribes.
Yeah...Stuart Smalley...GOOD authoritative reference there. Can I suggest you read "Godless" from Ann Coulter to get some "balanced" perspectives on liberals [xx(]...come on why didn't you just suggest that I listen to Air America...
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Yeah...Stuart Smalley...GOOD authoritative reference there. Can I suggest you read "Godless" from Ann Coulter to get some "balanced" perspectives on liberals...come on why didn't you just suggest that I listen to Air America...
Good one. She's respected......not.
Okies lag behind the advancement of our American civilization which can be one of our stronger points at times. Unfortunately, it's why so many go off to college never to return to Tulsa.
Watch Keith Olberman. He's got the guts to expose the hypocrisy and deviousness of our current leadership.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Yeah...Stuart Smalley...GOOD authoritative reference there. Can I suggest you read "Godless" from Ann Coulter to get some "balanced" perspectives on liberals [xx(]...come on why didn't you just suggest that I listen to Air America...
So, we should discount Reagan for Bonzo's existence. Shameful cover.
Not much for sarcasm?[B)] I'll be sure to warn you next time before I use such devious tactics and mind tricks.
As for the other crap. Take your OK bashing elsewhere...quote:
He's got the guts to expose the hypocrisy and deviousness of our current leadership.
For such a brilliant man he sure lacks any measurable following.
quote:
So, we should discount Reagan for Bonzo's existence. Shameful cover.
Are you replying to a different thread...your replies are often more confusing than ALTs.
About face? Bob Woodward: Bush Misleads On Iraq
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/28/60minutes/main2047607.shtml
"the reporter also claims that Henry Kissenger is among those advising Mr. Bush." OMG! The mad bomber of all people.
Read Olberman's new book:The Worst Person in the World: And 202 Strong Contenders...Henry must be there....
And this...
"The unspoken truth in all of this speculation is that there are simply too many all-news networks and only so many people to watch them. No. 1 Fox News has seen its year-to-date ratings in primetime fall 29%—and that's not because any of its cable-news competition has stolen away a huge share. CNN's primetime ratings are down by 23%, while MSNBC is basically flat."
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6374608.html
IPLAW.... a classic republijerk. Sheep.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Not much for sarcasm?[B)] I'll be sure to warn you next time before I use such devious tactics and mind tricks.
As for the other crap. Take your OK bashing elsewhere...
quote:
He's got the guts to expose the hypocrisy and deviousness of our current leadership.
For such a brilliant man he sure lacks any measurable following.
quote:
So, we should discount Reagan for Bonzo's existence. Shameful cover.
Are you replying to a different thread...your replies are often more confusing than ALTs.
You do realize that you arguing here on this thread the way that fool Altru argues, around the issues and at the edges, but never really able to dispute the facts about what Bush did and didn't do.
Nice try. The thread was about Olbermann and his stature with respect to Murrow not about Bush's policies.
If you wanna debate foreign policy start another thread.
quote:
And this...
"The unspoken truth in all of this speculation is that there are simply too many all-news networks and only so many people to watch them. No. 1 Fox News has seen its year-to-date ratings in primetime fall 29%—and that's not because any of its cable-news competition has stolen away a huge share. CNN's primetime ratings are down by 23%, while MSNBC is basically flat."
Read it and weep...
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/original/july06ranker.pdf
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
IPLAW.... a classic republijerk. Sheep.
OOOHHHH...is that a personal attack? You're always quite the wordsmith aox and always there with a well measured response.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Nice try. The thread was about Olbermann and his stature with respect to Murrow not about Bush's policies.
If you wanna debate foreign policy start another thread.
My point is that you are not arguing the accuracy of his report
It's leftist partisan propaganda. Just like reading some piece of crap written by Sean Hannity but this is for lefties. He's a political hack and a smear king who has some of the lowest ratings on TV.
Typical garbage. Left loves it; Right hates it and Moderates roll their eyes at both...
At least I have the common sense not to post something written by Limbaugh or Hannity and try to pretend it's anything other than party ego-stroking.
NO PERSONAL ATTACKS! THIS THREAD IS LOCKED!
hehe GOTCHA!!
Well...maybe not. We'll see, eh?
From Swake:
"My point is that you are not arguing the accuracy of his report"
Swake, that's an honest post so I'll try and respond. Since it's such a long article, I'll point out just a couple of things that stick out.
BTW. Just because I don't agree with his article in whole, doesn't mean that there aren't grains of truth in there somewhere. I just don't believe this guy is a true journalist and certainly not "the new Edward R. Murrow" as is inferred by the title of this thread.
Olberman: "It is not essential that a past president, bullied and sandbagged by a monkey posing as a newscaster, finally lashed back."
My Response: He starts off the article calling Mathews "A monkey posing as a newscaster." Hows that for good, hard, unbiased journalism? He also claims that Wallace "bullied and sandbagged" Clinton. I think any rational person watching that interview could tell who was the bully and who was the bully-er. As far as sandbagging, there were agreed upon rules prior to the interview; 5 questions about the Clinton Initiative, and 5 questions about whatever Wallace wanted to bring up. If anyone thinks Clinton is so dumb as to not think he would be asked about 9/11, then I've got some oceanfront property for them, just outside of Tulsa.
From the start, he wants to write off Bill Clinton's red-faced retort and focus on the "oh-so-difficult, biased, and unjustifiable" questions that Chris Wallace asked Mr. Clinton when in reality all Mr. Clinton was presented with was a question that could have been answered reasonably and without poking, prodding, and getting right up into the interviewer's face.
Olberman: He has spoken the truth about 9/11, and the current presidential administration.
My Response. If you'll read the article that I posted further back in this thread, it points out the inaccuracies in Mr. Clinton's version of things. Here's a link:
http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/DickMorris/092606.html
Oh, but yes, this article is from a biased political hack that doesn nothing but rail against the Clinton administration. The difference is that Dick Morris once worked for the President and helped to get him into office. If one prefers to use Keith Olberman as the voice of reason than I see nothing wrong with using Dick Morris' views as a counterpoint.
My point is that this guy is a very biased person and not a credible journalist. He exposes himself as such in the opening statement of his article. In my opinion, this guys is as much a hack for the Democrat party as Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannidy (sp?) are for the Republican party.
Here is an article from Ornery written by Orson Scott Card about Bill Clinton in 2000 after the Cole, since we don't have a problem posting articles from political hacks and passing them off as authoritative.
The Blood on Bill Clinton's Hands
October 25, 2000
I watched the memorial service for those who died on the USS Cole, and my heart went out to the families left behind, the hopes and dreams forever dashed, the faith tested, the yearning for the lost loved ones.
It's the price of war.
We are at war, by the way. That's the thing that everybody seems to miss. This was not a terrorist attack. Those who planned the attack might also have planned terrorist attacks like the bombing of the U.S. embassies in East Africa, but this attack, at least, followed the rules of war.
They attacked a military target. They attacked soldiers in uniform. They achieved surprise, at the cost of their own soldiers dying in performing the mission. But if this had been an operation by, say, Navy SEALs against an enemy power, we would regard it as a successful and legitimate military operation meant to unsettle and demoralize the enemy.
So when our news media persist in calling the attackers "terrorists," that leads us to a dangerous mindset. It makes us complacent -- this is a matter for police, we think, because we're dealing with brutal criminals, and our goal should be to arrest them and bring them to justice.
But in war, your goal is not to arrest the enemy. Your goal is to destroy the enemy's will and capability to fight.
In war, you don't have a trial. You find the enemy, you bring superior force to bear, and you win however you can. That's what they're doing. It's insane that we're not taking them seriously.
Sending an unescorted ship to refuel in a port where any rational person would recognize dire and immediate threat -- that's like the Israeli military sending their tanks to gas stations in Syria for a fill-up.
But the fact that our soldiers were given their orders by stupid commanders is neither unusual nor relevant at a funeral for those who died from enemy action.
Lots of soldiers die because they are following stupid orders. You still grieve at their funerals and honor their sacrifice.
Then Bill Clinton stood up and spoke. Every word sounded false coming from the liar's mouth, but we've had that for eight years, during which time he was reelected once and missed being thrown out of office by the Senate, so apparently most Americans are content having slime all over everything. Somebody gave Bill his script, and he put his oil on it and let it slide past his lips. He's the guy who gets to wear the suit while we're waiting to find a real President, so we let him do his bit even on our sacred occasions.
So I was relatively calm until he actually dared to accuse those who carried out the successful military operation that killed our soldiers -- to accuse them of not valuing human life.
Bill Clinton? Accusing someone else of not valuing life? Of not having moral sensitivities?
I think it's time that we remembered Bill Clinton's track record on valuing human life.
Let's start with his utter disregard for the weeks and months of slaughter in Rwanda. A sovereign nation. An internal matter. The U.S. couldn't intervene. Might lose a U.S. soldier, and after all, it was just a bunch of tribesmen killing each other with machetes. We can't police the world, right?
Bosnia. Uh-oh. This time it was Serbia backing their co-"Christians" in the territory of a breakaway nation. We watched as they herded thousands of Bosnian Muslim men into a stadium. We knew they were going to murder them all. But once again, Bill Clinton did nothing. Not the policeman of the world, yadda yadda.
Rwanda and Bosnia showed the world that we have learned nothing at all since the Holocaust. It not only can happen again, it has happened, and we stood and watched.
Dying for Monica
But then something remarkable happened to Bill Clinton. Suddenly one day he wakes up and decides that intervening in foreign countries is a good idea. The embassy bombings in East Africa had made the U.S. look impotent and showed just how useless our intelligence agencies can be against a determined enemy that can strike anywhere. It was suddenly in our vital interests to retaliate. You know, the way Reagan bombed Libya to retaliate for terrorist acts that Khaddafi had sponsored. FOOTNOTE
And there's suddenly a deadline for taking action. Clinton can't wait around for our intelligence services to determine who the bombers actually were. Because there's a matter of vital national interest that requires immediate action:
Monica's dress.
Got to have something on the front pages when the lab reports on the presidential sperm count. And those embassy bombings in East Africa are the perfect excuse. We've got to have the name of the perpetrators and we've got to take a big, splashy action against them.
So the missiles fly, the bombs drop, things blow up, and there's Bill Clinton, oiling his way through the explanation: It was this Osama bin Laden guy, and they were planning yet another imminent action and our bombs have definitely thwarted him.
Only there's one tiny problem. We didn't know where Bin Laden was, nor did we know anything about his plans.
Furthermore, our missiles and bombs were utterly useless and we knew it when they were fired. He's a guerrilla fighter, like Castro in the mountains of Cuba. We can't touch him with missiles.
So we bombed a medicine factory in Khartoum, with only the most ludicrous "evidence" that it was involved in chemical weapons production.
And we bombed "terrorist camps" in Afghanistan. Our intelligence was so bad that two of them turned out to be Pakistani-operated bases -- our allies -- and as for the ones that might have been associated with our enemies ... well, Mr. Bill tipped our hand by withdrawing nonessential U.S. personal from the area before sending the missiles. They had plenty of time to get out of the way.
So we achieved no surprise. If our missiles killed any terrorists or damaged any of their equipment, it was a lucky accident.
Of course, Mr. Bill and his apologists could claim complete success because, after all, there was an "imminent terrorist attack" and, after we fired all those missiles, the attack didn't happen!
That's like the old joke about the guy who walks along banging two pans together. "Why are you doing that?" "To scare the elephants away." "There aren't any elephants around here." "See? It's working."
There was no imminent terrorist attack. We did not know who set off those bombs in East Africa, and even if we had known, hitting those targets did not punish them in any way, did not prevent anything.
And here's what really sticks in my craw. People died from those bombs. Bill Clinton killed people in the name of the United States of America, for his own political gain.
Moreover, he grossly violated international law. He bombed the territory of two nations with which we are not at war. One is ruled by a hostile regime, and Afghanistan is barely governed at all. They may have provided shelter for those who attack us, but that doesn't change the fact that we have declined to declare war on them and do not have the right to simply bomb them whenever our president feels like it.
But for Bill Clinton, all that matters is that Sudan and Afghanistan are poor countries without the power to retaliate in kind. He could bomb them and kill people within their borders and blow up a plant that made medicine for half a continent, and nobody could do anything about it.
Only they can do something about it, can't they?
Killing Serbians
A few months later, the House was about to vote on impeachment. And guess what happens? Bill Clinton discovers that there is an emergency in Serbia which requires the bombers to fly yet again.
What was this emergency? Remember, this is the same president who thought that the murder of tens of thousands of Bosnian civilians was not worth so much as a single bullet. And now it isn't a fight between two nations. It's Serbia trying to deal with a revolution by an Albanian ethnic majority in the province of Kosovo. The Kosovar separatists have been assassinating Serbs and Kosovars whom they accuse of being collaborators. So far, however, the Serbs have been very restrained in their response (restrained, that is, for Serbs) -- only about fifty people are known to have died in the Serbian counter-revolutionary campaign up to that point.
And there was nothing happening that week that was different from the week before. No pressing emergency.
But there was that impeachment vote in the House ...
So our bombers flew. But they had to fly very, very high, because if Bill Clinton is anything, he's an absolute political coward -- he couldn't bear to face the possibility of even one U.S. pilot getting shot down. So our bombs fell from such a "safe" altitude that we were bound to kill civilians willy-nilly.
The Serbs took exception to this. They'd been trying to behave themselves (for Serbs), and hardly killed anybody in Kosovo, and now the U.S. was bombing them. Heck, nobody bombed them for killing tens of thousands in Bosnia! So if they were going to get punished like this anyway, they might as well go ahead and do the ethnic cleansing thing. Drive out all those Albanians and pretty soon, no Kosovo problem. Right?
Maybe the Serbs would have eventually gotten around to killing Albanian Kosovars or driving them out of Serbia. We'll never know. What we do know is, not only did the bombs Bill Clinton ordered kill Serbian civilians, they also provided the direct provocation or excuse for Milosevic to turn his boys loose on the Kosovar people. We know the results. The body count. The refugees. The destruction.
Months and months later, Serbia capitulated to our illegal bombing and allowed foreign "peacekeepers" to occupy their sovereign territory so that American bombers would stop killing people and wrecking their economy. I think the main lesson to be learned by other nations is:
When an American president is in political trouble, be afraid. Be very afraid.
Because the American President is the kind of man who kills foreigners in order to shore up his popularity with the American people. And as long as it's a liberal President who supports the right of women to kill their baby at any point before the head emerges from the womb, the American press will take his specious and obviously false excuses at face value and question nothing.
Those "terrorists" who bombed the USS Cole killed seventeen soldiers in uniform, and they gave their own lives to accomplish it.
They are our enemies, and we have a right to protect ourselves from them, and to honor and mourn for our soldiers who died at their hands.
But what Bill Clinton does not have the right to do is accuse them of having no regard for human life.
Clinton ordered bombings that killed hundreds of innocent civilians, and not in some noble cause, but solely to save his own political skin.
Add to those direct killings, done at his order, the deaths of thousands of others that he might have saved in Rwanda and Bosnia. But because he wasn't in danger of impeachment or political embarrassment at that time, he did nothing. Even if you don't find any of the blood of slaughtered Tutsis and Muslims on Clinton's hands, you have to admit that his inaction when they were dying utterly disproves any claim that he was intervening to save lives in Kosovo. He doesn't care about lives in Kosovo or anywhere else. He is what he accused them of being.
And Americans, when polled, say he's doing a "good job."
Indicting the Co-Conspirators
If America had a free press, of course, Clinton would have been politically destroyed after the bombing of Afghanistan and Sudan, months before he started killing people wholesale in Serbia. But we don't have a free press -- the American press is utterly controlled by, and mostly consists of, the ruling elite that gave us Bill Clinton in the first place.
You know, these are the people who give credence even to the most stupid and scurrilous rumors about George W. Bush, on no evidence at all, but who demand impossible levels of proof before they'll heed any accusation against Clinton.
Remember how they sniped at George Bush Sr. for the invasion of Panama?
Clinton killed a lot more people in Serbia, and achieved far less and took a lot longer doing it, but where was the sniping from the people who had loved peace so much only one president before?
Remember how radicals used to call Nixon a war criminal? I guess those guys are all too busy making money in Mr. Bill's boomtown to notice when we have a real war criminal in the White House.
Comparing Clinton and George Bush Sr.
When George Bush, our last real President, committed the U.S. to a foreign intervention, he:
1. Chose plans of action that protected civilians lives as the highest priority, and only afterward tried to protect American soldiers' lives.
2. Committed ground troops, because air attacks alone are incapable of achieving military objectives.
3. Risked his own political future completely with each intervention, because he regarded the interests of the United States as being more important than his own political survival.
4. Built consensus and assembled allies before taking military action. In Kuwait, he accomplished the incredible feat of getting European nations to commit troops and getting Islamic nations to cooperate with us in liberating a conquered Islamic nation. In Panama he had the cooperation of at least somewhat legitimate national leaders in getting rid of the tinhorn dictator who was running Panama like a personal fief.
5. Told us the truth about what we were doing and why we were doing it.
And remember Jimmy Carter? When he brought Israeli and Arab leaders together, his personal honor was part of the foundation on which a courageous man like Sadat could rely as he risked his life to build peace.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a president again?
The Longterm Cost
The trouble is, electing a real president to replace Mr. Bill won't undo the damage he's already done:
Legacy # 1. We now know that our absolutely partisan press will twist the news to preserve their own people in power, no matter what the cost. If a Republican president had done everything Clinton has done, the press would have hounded him out of office.
The double standard is firmly in place and continues today: Gore's lies are called "innocuous" or "irrelevant," while George W. Bush, who hasn't taken a drink in years, is ridiculed as a drinking, drug-using party boy. Bush, who has governed a difficult and divided state with remarkable effectiveness, is called "dumb," while Gore, who hasn't governed anything and changes personality with the polls, is considered "smart."
Only the Washington Times and Fox News ran with the story of Gore's secret deal with Russia to sell arms illegally to Iran and keep it a secret from Congress. Where is the liberal media? When they finally mention the story, I'll bet they spin it as an attack on the Republican Congress for "partisanship" -- even though Gore's signature on such a memo is prima facie evidence of a crime against the constitution, an offense that cries out for impeachment, except in the funhouse mirrors at the New York Times and the Washington Post.
No matter whom we elect, we still have the elitist press spinning everything with utter contempt for truth. Clinton was their boy; Gore is their kind of "leader"; they jeer at honorable men. And as long as all our journalists have to be passed through the filter of American journalism schools, I don't see how we're going to get a press that tells us the truth even when they don't like it.
Legacy # 2. Americans may pretend they don't know why Mr. Bill went a-bombing, but nobody in the rest of the world was fooled.
The Russian people had good feelings toward America, until we bombed Serbia illegally, killing their Slavic brothers for the crime of trying to keep control of their own territory ... and we did it to help Bill distract us from his well-deserved impeachment for the crime of oathbreaking.
And in Afghanistan, there were many who remembered how America helped them win their independence from the Soviet Union's attempt to rule them. But they saw that America was willing to violate their sovereignty and bomb their land ... for Monica's dress.
Hey, Mr. Bill! Thanks for the enemies!
Legacy # 3. Those in the Islamic world who already hated us now have far more support in their war against America. What Muslim now, however he might wish for peace, can seriously suggest that America is any kind of friend to any Muslim country? Clinton did not create our enemies -- he merely cut off our friends at the knees. Remember: When President Bush left office, our friends in the Islamic world knew we would stand by our allies. But America now chooses leaders whose word is worthless.
Which of our Muslim friends will dare to bet their future on American friendship now?
Legacy # 4. Mr. Bill made a hero out of Osama bin Laden. Monica's dress was the best thing that ever happened to him. Mr. Bill's most terrible legacy may be this: He has raised out of obscurity the charismatic leader who may be able to do what no other has been able to accomplish: unite Islam in holy war against us. When Muslims look at bin Laden, the man who can blow up American ships and laugh at American missiles, and at Bill Clinton, the man who kills foreigners and breaks oaths and plays sex games in the White House ... no wonder so many of them believe that God is on their side.
Legacy # 5. Our enemies everywhere have seen us revealed as cowards and bullies.
President Bush showed them that America would do whatever it took to roll back illegal aggression, and that America had the courage to put the lives of American soldiers at risk in order to do it.
But Clinton has shown them that Americans, after throwing out a strong president, will elect and reelect and continue to support an abject coward who will only do "safe" things like bombings from high altitude, and then only when it suits his political purposes. In 1991 we were viewed with respect even by our enemies. Now we are viewed with contempt even by our friends.
And when your enemies and your friends have contempt for you, the world is an infinitely more dangerous place. They now will dare what they would never have dared before, because they have seen how soft and selfish and scared we are.
Sound reminsicent of the crap being floated around about Bush now doesn't it? Amazing how crazy it sounds when it comes from the "other" side about your guy.
Orson Scott Card IS THE new Edward R. Murrow. [}:)]
/absurdity off
You know, folks, you're assailing Olbermann for being "biased" when there's a prominent tag on the corner of the screen that says "Special Comment."
He also prefaces the speech by calling it a "special comment."
If you're doing commentary, that's when you show your biases and opinions. That's what a commentary is. OF COURSE it's biased.
I remember when a reader wrote Roger Ebert and asked him to leave his opinions out of his movie reviews. Ebert wrote back and said: "I will when you leave your opinions out of your letters."
Olbermann's a lot more transparent in what is news and what is commentary than Limbaugh, Hannity and other right-wingers you cite, who don't bother to make the distinction.
IPLAW....garbage. Clinton admitted he failed. Dubyah never could do that. And Dubyahs' failures are much more damaging to our world's future than Clinton's errors.
This is a political forum. Do not take things personally here. That is just the nature of the forum.
rwarn, good post.
quote:
Clinton admitted he failed.
So that makes it okay? That makes him somehow LESS culpable. NONSENSE.
What you two geniuses fail to COMPREHEND is that the OP was trying to compare Olbermann to Murrow. You can't compare a
political hack to a respected JOURNALIST.
quote:
Do not take things personally here.
I don't but the moderators here seem to. If I had my way I would say much more than I do here especially to you aox...I hold back about 60% of what I have to say.
quote:
Olbermann's a lot more transparent in what is news and what is commentary than Limbaugh, Hannity and other right-wingers you cite, who don't bother to make the distinction.
Neither one of those individuals purports to be a journalist, ever. Apparently someone should clue Olbermann into the fact that he is NEVER one even part time.
No one is denying him the right to spout his childish, half-witted smear. What I deny is that his views support REALITY as opposed to JUST his opinions. Anyone who thinks 100% of what he said is true is a KoolAid drinking liberal stooge.
quote:
And Dubyahs' failures are much more damaging to our world's future than Clinton's errors.
Really...not according to James Woolsey who was the director of the CIA under Clinton.
Bin Laden GATE (//%22http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/535793/posts%22)
...bureaucratic feud and President Clinton's indifference kept America blind and deaf as bin Laden plotted.Intel Failures (//%22http://frontpagemag.org/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9672%22)
Face it. The sword cuts both ways. Both were responsible and merely saying "I failed" doesn't protect one from scrutiny.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
You know, folks, you're assailing Olbermann for being "biased" when there's a prominent tag on the corner of the screen that says "Special Comment."
He also prefaces the speech by calling it a "special comment."
If you're doing commentary, that's when you show your biases and opinions. That's what a commentary is. OF COURSE it's biased.
I remember when a reader wrote Roger Ebert and asked him to leave his opinions out of his movie reviews. Ebert wrote back and said: "I will when you leave your opinions out of your letters."
Olbermann's a lot more transparent in what is news and what is commentary than Limbaugh, Hannity and other right-wingers you cite, who don't bother to make the distinction.
Murrow came from the old school of un-biased journalism. Comparing Olbermann, (or Limbaugh, or Hannity, or Franken) to Murrow is like comparing Mussolini to Mother Theresa.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
You know, folks, you're assailing Olbermann for being "biased" when there's a prominent tag on the corner of the screen that says "Special Comment."
He also prefaces the speech by calling it a "special comment."
If you're doing commentary, that's when you show your biases and opinions. That's what a commentary is. OF COURSE it's biased.
I remember when a reader wrote Roger Ebert and asked him to leave his opinions out of his movie reviews. Ebert wrote back and said: "I will when you leave your opinions out of your letters."
Olbermann's a lot more transparent in what is news and what is commentary than Limbaugh, Hannity and other right-wingers you cite, who don't bother to make the distinction.
Murrow came from the old school of un-biased journalism. Comparing Olbermann, (or Limbaugh, or Hannity, or Franken) to Murrow is like comparing Mussolini to Mother Theresa.
Here....I will pass this on....
Peggy Noonan normally makes mw want to slap her, but in this one... she concedes some nice points. A kinder gentler Peggy Noonan. Is she ill?
Media Anarchy Has Its Downside
We got freedom but lost standards.
Friday, September 29, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
We are talking past each other, the left and right in America. I suppose we always did, but I'm noticing it more. We have different intellectual styles (rather too emotive, arguably too linear), start with different assumptions, and recognize different data. We could be speaking different languages. Which is odd, since all half the country does is talk. (The other half puts roofs on houses.) You'd think they'd find a way to break through.
And so I come to Bill Clinton and Fox News Channel. A week after it aired, the interview still dominates the dinner party. Did he rouse his base? I think so. Did he remind everyone else of what they find objectionable in him? I know so.
But in Manhattan this week at gatherings of hungry liberals--they are feeling frisky, they can smell victory coming, though this is not necessarily indicative of anything, as Manhattan liberals are traditionally the last to know, and occasionally and endearingly concede they are the last--the conversation wasn't really about Clinton, but Fox News.
One can't exaggerate how large Fox looms in the liberal imagination. They see it as huge and mighty and credit it with almost mythical powers. It is a propaganda channel whose mission it is to destroy the Democratic Party. That's part of why Clintons' performance had such salience. Finally he was standing up to an evil empire.
It is odd that they are so spooked. In October America is set to become a nation of 300 million. What a big country. Fox News's average evening prime-time viewership is less than two million. Its average daytime is less than a million. And if my mail is an indication, they're already Republicans. Fox's power is that it is an alternative to the mainstream media. It did not take its shape by deeply inhaling liberalism and slowly breathing it out.
The left sees Fox as a symptom and promoter of anarchy. The old unity, the old essential unity one used to experience when one turned on the TV in 1950 or 1980, has been fractured, broken up. We are becoming balkanized. Fox, blogs, talk radio, the Internet, citizen reporters--it's all producing cacophony, and heralds a future of No Compromise. No one trusts the information they're given anymore, as they trusted Uncle Walter. This is bad for the country.
It is an odd thing about modern liberals that they're made anxious by the unsanctioned. A conservative is more likely to see what's happening as freedom. It isn't that honest and impartial news lost its place of respect, it's that establishment liberalism lost its journalistic monopoly. And it was a monopoly.
Not everyone believed Uncle Walter. Uncle Walter, and Chet and David, were all there was. But while they reigned, Americans were buying "Conscience of a Conservative" by Barry Goldwater, and Reagan was quietly rising way out in California, and Spiro Agnew and Bill Safire were issuing mainstream hits like "effete snobs" and "nattering nabobs." In the time liberals think of as the last great unified era, Americans were rising up.
The new media did not divide us. The new media gave voice to our divisions. The result: more points of view, more subjects discussed, more data presented. This, in a great republic, a great democracy, a leader of the world in a dangerous time, is not bad but good.
But nothing comes free. All big changes have unexpected benefits and unanticipated drawbacks. Here is a loss: the man on the train.
Forty and 50 years ago, mainstream liberal media executives--middle-aged men who fought in Tarawa or Chosin, went to Cornell, and sat next to the man in the gray flannel suit on the train to the city, who hoisted a few in the bar car, and got off at Greenwich or Cos Cob, Conn.--those great old liberals had some great things in them.
One was a high-minded interest in imposing certain standards of culture on the American people. They actually took it as part of their mission to elevate the country. And from this came..."Omnibus."
When I was a child of 8 or so I looked up at the TV one day and saw a man cry, "My horse, my horse, my kingdom for a horse!" He was on a field of battle, surrounded by mud and loss. I was riveted. Later a man came on the screen and said, "Thank you for watching Shakespeare's 'Richard III.' " And I thought, as a little American child: That was something, I gotta find out what a Shakespeare is.
I got that from "Omnibus."
Those old men on the train--they were strangers, but in the age of media a stranger can change your life.
And because the men on the train had one boss, who shared their vision--he didn't want to be embarrassed that his legacy was "My Mother the Car"--and because the networks had limited competition, the pressure to live or die by ratings was not so intense as today. The competition for ad dollars wasn't so killer. They could afford an indulgence. The result was a real public service.
Now the man on the train is a relic, and no one is saying, "As the lucky holders of a broadcast license we have a responsibility to pass on the jewels of our culture to the young." In a competitive environment that would be a ticket to corporate oblivion at every network, including Fox.
TV is still great, in some ways better than ever. Freedom works.
And yet. When we deposed the old guy on the train, it wasn't all gain. No longer would the old liberals get to impose their vision. But what took its place was programming for the lowest common denominator. Things that don't make you reach. Things you don't want to teach. Eating worms on air-crash island with "Jackass."
I spoke with a network producer a few weeks ago, an old warhorse who was trying to explain his frustration at the current ratings race. He wrestled around the subject, and I cut with rude words to what I thought he was saying. "You mean it's gone from the dictatorship of a liberal elite to the dictatorship of the retarded."
Yes, he said. And it's not progress.
When liberals miss something in the media, that's what they should be missing. Not a unity that never existed but standards that were high. When conservatives say there's nothing to miss, they're wrong. We lost some bias, but we lost some standards, too.
I disagree, iplaw. Murrow had his own opinions about freedom and the Constitution, and he stated them during the McCarthy era. He saw what he thought was a demagogue, and he wasn't afraid to say so.
To call him unbiased simply isn't true. I certainly agree with Murrow and his assessment, but I'd never call him unbiased.
Bias comes from our life experience, logic and education. It's just that some have more experience, logic and education, and thus, more credibility, with this bias than others.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
And Dubyahs' failures are much more damaging to our world's future than Clinton's errors.
Really...not according to James Woolsey who was the director of the CIA under Clinton.
Bin Laden GATE (//%22http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/535793/posts%22)
...bureaucratic feud and President Clinton's indifference kept America blind and deaf as bin Laden plotted.
Intel Failures (//%22http://frontpagemag.org/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9672%22)
Face it. The sword cuts both ways. Both were responsible and merely saying "I failed" doesn't protect one from scrutiny.
"James Woolsey, who served as a CIA director under Clinton, has also become an advocate of the view that Iraq was behind the first World Trade Center bombing." Oh bull. If Woolsey were any good at this espionage stuff he'd still be there committed to service instead of running around portraying the truth for money.
You see, what Clinton did was respect foreign rule. His was an attempt to contain world disturbances. And Bush has seemed to be quite the opposite and the magnitude of his mistakes far exceeds transgressions and indiscretions by Clinton.
Watch Keith Olberman on MSNBC 50 at 7 and replayed at 11....more entertaining and honest (balanced?) than any other news of the day....
quote:
"James Woolsey, who served as a CIA director under Clinton, has also become an advocate of the view that Iraq was behind the first World Trade Center bombing." Oh bull. If Woolsey were any good at this espionage stuff he'd still be there committed to service instead of running around portraying the truth for money.
Let me see if I can translate this from Bull$hit to English:
I can't ever accept the fact that Clinton screwed up so I have to ignore any legitimate criticism from people who worked with him that directly contradict Bubba's absurd assertions. But he apologized for being a wimp and screwing up so that makes him A-Okay in my book.
quote:
You see, what Clinton did was respect foreign rule. His was an attempt to contain world disturbances.
His was a presidency that disgraced by actions like Somalia. Why did he not respect that foreign rule? We had no right to disturb that autonomous soverign state, and when we did we left with our tail between our legs to which Bin Laden laughed as Clinton showed his true character...weakness.
Sums it up by a nutshell. "His was a presidency that disgraced by actions like Somalia. Why did he not respect that foreign rule? We had no right to disturb that autonomous soverign state, and when we did we left with our tail between our legs to which Bin Laden laughed as Clinton showed his true character...weakness."
Boy, talk about a rewrite of history. And do you really think that in 20 years we will reflect on that mishap more than this debacle of "strength" in Iraq.
Remember to watch Keith Olberman tonight at 7 and replay at 11.....50 on Cox.
quote:
Boy, talk about a rewrite of history.
Please point out the flaws in my reasoning. What part of autonomous soverign nation do you not understand? I thought only Bush attacked soverign nations? What part of the "cut and run" that we did in Somalia don't you understand? Did you not know that Osama discussed Somalia directly or was that another news story that passed you by?
Hmmm...I can't imagine why I would say we looked WEAK...thanks Bubba:BIN LADEN: We experienced the Americans through our brothers who went into combat against them in Somalia, for example. We found they had no power worthy of mention. There was a huge aura over America -- the United States -- that terrified people even before they entered combat. Our brothers who were here in Afghanistan tested them, and together with some of the mujahedeen in Somalia, God granted them victory. America exited dragging its tails in failure, defeat, and ruin, caring for nothing.
America left faster than anyone expected. It forgot all that tremendous media fanfare about the new world order, that it is the master of that order, and that it does whatever it wants. It forgot all of these propositions, gathered up its army, and withdrew in defeat, thanks be to God.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Boy, talk about a rewrite of history.
Please point out the flaws in my reasoning. What part of autonomous soverign nation do you not understand? I thought only Bush attacked soverign nations? What part of the "cut and run" that we did in Somalia don't you understand? Did you not know that Osama discussed Somalia directly or was that another news story that passed you by?
Hmmm...I can't imagine why I would say we looked WEAK...thanks Bubba:
BIN LADEN: We experienced the Americans through our brothers who went into combat against them in Somalia, for example. We found they had no power worthy of mention. There was a huge aura over America -- the United States -- that terrified people even before they entered combat. Our brothers who were here in Afghanistan tested them, and together with some of the mujahedeen in Somalia, God granted them victory. America exited dragging its tails in failure, defeat, and ruin, caring for nothing.
America left faster than anyone expected. It forgot all that tremendous media fanfare about the new world order, that it is the master of that order, and that it does whatever it wants. It forgot all of these propositions, gathered up its army, and withdrew in defeat, thanks be to God.
Yep, better to cut and run than get waste deep in big muddy with a damn fool saying to push on. Especially in comparrison of Somalia and Iraq. What part don't you get?
Here, Rudy's one of yer boys...
Giuliani defends Clinton on anti-terror
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060928/ap_on_re_us/giuliani_clinton;_ylt=AozXfZfeAeI55G9RLxDdG82s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-
Watch KO tonight...he will cover lots of interesting tansitions of the day...
Like seeing the Senate further erode our rights created by our forefathers...and weakens our stature as a defender of human rights....http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060928/ap_on_go_co/congress_terrorism;_ylt=AkxdiEXEgCM7s7POeaxG1Mes0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
and like maybe this...http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-gonzales-judges,1,2558676.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
I disagree, iplaw. Murrow had his own opinions about freedom and the Constitution, and he stated them during the McCarthy era. He saw what he thought was a demagogue, and he wasn't afraid to say so.
To call him unbiased simply isn't true. I certainly agree with Murrow and his assessment, but I'd never call him unbiased.
Bias comes from our life experience, logic and education. It's just that some have more experience, logic and education, and thus, more credibility, with this bias than others.
And some people are less educated, less experienced, and they fail to recognize hack journalism for the electioneering that it really is. They take a biased commentary and for some reason think it's credible because it was on their TV, radio, or favorite blog spot. People think just because someone is being paid a six, seven, or eight figure income to spout their opinion that they have credibility.
Rush Limbaugh is arguably the highest paid pundit and far as I know, he dropped out of college. He's made some points over the years that are good and shone the light on some things we never otherwise would have heard of, but overall, he's a mouthpiece for the conservatives and if he wasn't being paid as much as he is for his opinions, he'd be an afternoon drive guy on a local radio station or sportscaster on a local affiliate.
Many of these "credible" pundits we see on TV aren't there because they had credibility to start with- they had entertainment value. Entertainment sells advertising. "He fits the suit, he's got an acid tongue, and he's charming, nevermind he's a nitwit we'll tell him what to say."
Every journalist has personal bias, no doubt. At least as late as the 1980's when I was taking comp and journalism courses, it was drilled into your head that unless you were writing on the Op-Ed page, you were to keep your opinions neutral when reporting. I'm not sure if this code of honor is even taught anymore or not.
Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite and the like were men of honor, I don't see any honor in the pundits on the Republican and Democratic payrolls.
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Boy, talk about a rewrite of history.
Please point out the flaws in my reasoning. What part of autonomous soverign nation do you not understand? I thought only Bush attacked soverign nations? What part of the "cut and run" that we did in Somalia don't you understand? Did you not know that Osama discussed Somalia directly or was that another news story that passed you by?
Hmmm...I can't imagine why I would say we looked WEAK...thanks Bubba:
BIN LADEN: We experienced the Americans through our brothers who went into combat against them in Somalia, for example. We found they had no power worthy of mention. There was a huge aura over America -- the United States -- that terrified people even before they entered combat. Our brothers who were here in Afghanistan tested them, and together with some of the mujahedeen in Somalia, God granted them victory. America exited dragging its tails in failure, defeat, and ruin, caring for nothing.
America left faster than anyone expected. It forgot all that tremendous media fanfare about the new world order, that it is the master of that order, and that it does whatever it wants. It forgot all of these propositions, gathered up its army, and withdrew in defeat, thanks be to God.
Yep, better to cut and run than get waste deep in big muddy with a damn fool saying to push on. Especially in comparrison of Somalia and Iraq. What part don't you get?
Here, Rudy's one of yer boys...
Giuliani defends Clinton on anti-terror
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060928/ap_on_re_us/giuliani_clinton;_ylt=AozXfZfeAeI55G9RLxDdG82s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-
Watch KO tonight...he will cover lots of interesting tansitions of the day...
Like seeing the Senate further erode our rights created by our forefathers...and weakens our stature as a defender of human rights....http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060928/ap_on_go_co/congress_terrorism;_ylt=AkxdiEXEgCM7s7POeaxG1Mes0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
and like maybe this...http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-gonzales-judges,1,2558676.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true
AOX-
Twelve of your beloved liberals broke rank on that vote. Secondly, it's being done to protect the rights our forefather's envisioned for us to remain sovereign and to be able to protect ourselves. Why are you more interested in the rights of our enemies than the rights of our citizens?
Somehow, I have this odd feeling that if I were to cut and paste a conservative's commentary as you do liberal commentary, you would castigate me for having no original ideas.
Conman, I don't think so. You do not know what your enemies look like.
You eunichs keep calling me liberal. In Oklahoma, you really don't see true liberals.
Time to stop being liberals and start being the opposition again.
Look for this on KO tonight.....perverts! I bet Rush defends him....
Republican Foley resigns House seat
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060929/pl_nm/usa_politics_foley_dc_2
The really sick and juicey stuff comes after 5 on Fridays. That's why KO is fun to watch on Fridays.....
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
Conman, I don't think so. You do not know what your enemies look like.
You eunichs keep calling me liberal. In Oklahoma, you really don't see true liberals.
Time to stop being liberals and start being the opposition again.
Aoxymoron- well spoken and predictable drivel from you.
Nice pathetic dodge and weave away from my post. I'll give you one more chance to make your case.
quote:
Here, Rudy's one of yer boys...
Giuliani defends Clinton on anti-terror
Did you actually read that? He praised Bush right along with Clinton...so I take it you are in agreement with him? What a yutz...
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Nice pathetic dodge and weave away from my post. I'll give you one more chance to make your case.
quote:
Here, Rudy's one of yer boys...
Giuliani defends Clinton on anti-terror
Did you actually read that? He praised Bush right along with Clinton...so I take it you are in agreement with him? What a yutz...
well duh. can Rudy afford to distance himself from shrub...no.
And yes. I am proud to be a member of the opposition. Beats being a lemming....
Can't wait to see Foley get ripped. Co chair of subcommittee on child abuse as he sends suggestive material to underage male pages. This hypocrisy in the Republican ranks is unparallel. Stay tuned. Next week Bob Woodward. Do you wonder if they can keep Abramoff scandals quiet until after the mid terms?
Watch Olberman to get the real raw stories....with a touch of humor despite all the sadness.....
COUNTDOWN RULES!!!!
Where else could we find out that there is no plan for Iraq. Today, a weekend long curfew was instilled because of rumors of a potential military coup. Nowhere else can you find this news.
Then the Rodger (FOX FOUNDER) Ailes media advisor who in the Raygun years held up cue cards to Veep Shrub Senior to attack Dan Rather during an interview...Fox is merely an extension of the Republican party. No doubt.
The Oddball section was really funny tonight.
Then the George Allen segment. Wow. A rugby coach's wife, Pat Waring, testimonial that Sen. Allen used the N word over and over during late 70's rugby games. Instead of Allen admitting youthful indiscretion, he ducked and ran upon being confronted on the issue by Ms. Waring. What? And this guy thought he was Presidential material? Loved Keith's story about Coach Allen soliciting KO to help with plays for a flag football game. IMPOSTERS!
I loved hearing Hasterts rendition of our anthem....speaker of the house? He does not know our national anthem. What a joke!
Great show Keith. Show America's political bastards reality.
Oh. Foley need not be ripped. He screwed himself. What a pervert.
This really has nothing to do with Mister Olberman or Mister Murrow...
However: it is just one of those things that makes you go hmmmmmm..
The following News Report, in regards to the urgent curfew in Baghdad Iraq, has me wondering...
"Thailand 2"?
BAGHDAD, Sept 30 (Reuters) - Iraq's government shut down the capital with a one-day curfew on Saturday, ordering all cars and pedestrians off the streets, but giving no reason for the measure.
The curfew would remain in place until 6:00 a.m. (0200) on Sunday, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's office said in a one- line statement. The U.S. military did not comment.
The announcement came after a week of clashes and bombings heralded the start of the holy month of Ramadan. U.S. commanders say the past week saw a record number of suicide bombings and the last two weeks have seen a surge in violence.
Although no explanation was given for the curfew, residents of the Adamiya neighbourhood in the north of the capital said they heard gunfire and explosions near dusk on Friday.
The above article coupled with the recent escalation in violents and recent threats made by Kurdishstan in regards to Oil Exploration Rights...
Has to make one wonder...
How long before the Iraqi Military is ready to take complete and absolute charge of the Country....?
I've been watching Keith for over a year now. O'Reilly is right-wing hack with a volume problem. What kind of a moron denies a person the right to say Keith Olbermann's name on air and then threatens to send "Fox Security" to 'pay you a little visit'?
The NeoCons are hard pressed to even be in the same room with the Decider-in-Chief. He's abusing his powers, and now he's essentially pushed a bill that will suspend the writ of Habeus Corpus.
What's next? The repeal of the 22nd Amendment? (For those of you not wanting to search and don't know, that amendment is the one that limits the term of president to two terms only)
I gave Bush and his croneys plenty of support in 03, when they made the push into Iraq. Cheney said he couldn't see being in there more than six months. Well, here it is, three years and over 3000 soldiers dead later.
Bush is this generation's Nixon.
quote:
Originally posted by Rico...
How long before the Iraqi Military is ready to take complete and absolute charge of the Country....?[/black][/size=2]
Cheney and company are probably hoping never...
Hoss! Snap brutha!
Who else has balls here!
Watch Olberman on Monday. Maybe he can answer why Mark Foley was not arrested and led away in handcuffs yesterday for soliciting sex from an underaged person.
Let me know if any other news reports ask this question.
HOSS wrote: "The NeoCons are hard pressed to even be in the same room with the Decider-in-Chief. He's abusing his powers, and now he's essentially pushed a bill that will suspend the writ of Habeus Corpus."
By all means, let's afford all the due process rights to these terrorist bastards/pu$#ies that we afford American citizens. After all, our two soldiers that were captured in Iraq received due process and were granted federal court habeus reveiw. They were beaten, tortured, cut to pieces, one beheaded, and publicly displayed to the world. Oh, let's not forget about the terrorists appreciation for a free press (ask Daniel Pearl's widow). We can go on and on about the due process rights that were given to those on the U.S.S. Cole, the nearly 3,000 innocent persons in the twin towers, the hundreds killed in bombings in Spain, Great Britain, and Southeast Asia, or the innocent persons killed in the bombings of our embassies in west Africa, or even our soldiers killed in Beirut 23 years ago.
By the way smart guy, here are some of the "neocons" in the U.S. Senate that voted for the bill you and Olbermann are whining about:
Tom Carper (Del.)
Tim Johnson (S.D.)
Mary Landrieu (La.)
Frank Lautenberg (N.J.)
Bob Menendez (N.J)
Bill Nelson (Fla.)
Ben Nelson (Neb.)
Pryor (Ark.)
Jay Rockefeller (W. Va.)
Ken Salazar (Co.)
Debbie Stabenow (Mich.)
Joe Lieberman (Conn.)
Incidentally, last time I checked, we have not had a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. I guess Bush and the "neocons" do not get credit for that.
The anthrax mailings weren't a terrorist attack?
Some folks sure have bad memories ...
Originally posted by iplaw. quote:
Are you preparing yourself for the imminent Democratic Harry Carry Fest in November after the GOP retains both the house and senate? Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin...
Excellent Point....!
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
Watch Olberman on Monday. Maybe he can answer why Mark Foley was not arrested and led away in handcuffs yesterday for soliciting sex from an underaged person.
Let me know if any other news reports ask this question.
Profound Counterpoint....!
[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
HOSS wrote: "The NeoCons are hard pressed to even be in the same room with the Decider-in-Chief. He's abusing his powers, and now he's essentially pushed a bill that will suspend the writ of Habeus Corpus."
By all means, let's afford all the due process rights to these terrorist bastards/pu$#ies that we afford American citizens. After all, our two soldiers that were captured in Iraq received due process and were granted federal court habeus reveiw. They were beaten, tortured, cut to pieces, one beheaded, and publicly displayed to the world. Oh, let's not forget about the terrorists appreciation for a free press (ask Daniel Pearl's widow). We can go on and on about the due process rights that were given to those on the U.S.S. Cole, the nearly 3,000 innocent persons in the twin towers, the hundreds killed in bombings in Spain, Great Britain, and Southeast Asia, or the innocent persons killed in the bombings of our embassies in west Africa, or even our soldiers killed in Beirut 23 years ago.
By the way smart guy, here are some of the "neocons" in the U.S. Senate that voted for the bill you and Olbermann are whining about:
Tom Carper (Del.)
Tim Johnson (S.D.)
Mary Landrieu (La.)
Frank Lautenberg (N.J.)
Bob Menendez (N.J)
Bill Nelson (Fla.)
Ben Nelson (Neb.)
Pryor (Ark.)
Jay Rockefeller (W. Va.)
Ken Salazar (Co.)
Debbie Stabenow (Mich.)
Joe Lieberman (Conn.)
Incidentally, last time I checked, we have not had a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. I guess Bush and the "neocons" do not get credit for that.
How many did we have BEFORE?
What was the foreign terroist death toll for Americans in the United States in the 50 years before 9/11? What is it? Six?
So yeah, way to go in the last 50 months, but, also nice job taking away rights for no good reason, spying on Americans illegally, spending $200 billion and 2,000 soldiers lives to not get Bin Laden and find no WMDs.
Think on that and think about your phone records in some NSA datafile and watch as little old ladies get pulled out of line at the airport and get searched for bombs.
Think about those dead soldiers and how much money Halliburton has made off the American taxpayer as part of the war. Think about Americans using torture, and the President Of The United States defending it's use.
Think about to the no-negotiate rule in the $400 billion Medicare drug plan. Think about how an "improved" FEMA performed in New Orleans and Missippi as part of Homeland security.
Way to go Bushie, way to go.
Think about what it means to have a misguided teenager not really suited for college but you as a parent know the army, marines, or navy would be a positive influence. Then think about the possibility he'd end up in Iraq for years to come. Not a good choice anymore.
Do you ever see that story on Fox or CNN or the networks?
Not even KO does those human interest stories.
RW: Is that the best you can go, the "anthrax attacks." Heck, let's throw in the D.C sniper, the OU student blowing himself up, and the Muslim who drove his car into people out west. You are right, we have had other terrorist attacks since 9/11.
Swake: First, way to completely ignore my point. By the way, thanks for merely repeating democratic underground talking points. Halliburton, blah blah blah... Here's a thought, why don't you tell me how to fight the war on terror. What should we do? Should we treat terrorists like common criminals (which Hoss and AO apparently want) and arrest them, give them jury trials? Should we only act after we are attacked and after our citizens are killed? Give me a solution rather than just whining about how awful Bush is. Oh, that's right, the democratic underground talking points are to whine and complain and not offer solutions.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
RW: Is that the best you can go, the "anthrax attacks." Heck, let's throw in the D.C sniper, the OU student blowing himself up, and the Muslim who drove his car into people out west. You are right, we have had other terrorist attacks since 9/11.
Swake: First, way to completely ignore my point. By the way, thanks for merely repeating democratic underground talking points. Halliburton, blah blah blah... Here's a thought, why don't you tell me how to fight the war on terror. What should we do? Should we treat terrorists like common criminals (which Hoss and AO apparently want) and arrest them, give them jury trials? Should we only act after we are attacked and after our citizens are killed? Give me a solution rather than just whining about how awful Bush is. Oh, that's right, the democratic underground talking points are to whine and complain and not offer solutions.
Yes, you treat them according to the rules of Geneva convention, not because they deserve it, but because it's the right and moral thing to do, a just and good society and nation does not use torture.
The other thing you do is you don't invade damn Iraq, you put 300,000 troops into Afghanistan and get the bastard that did it. period. Iraq had nothing do do with 9/11. The you rule Afghanistan yourself, with enough troops to ensure security. You treat the locals humanely and fairly and impress them with your pains to do so. You make them forget the Talliban by making the life of the average Afghani so much better they could not imagine going back to the old ways. You impress the world with your commitment to your own ideals making the terrorist groups claims about you absurd.
And then you make the Palestianians and Isrealis do the same for each other.
Lastly, by making the heads of these groups personally responsable you scare the hell out of them. By taking over Afghanistan with an iron fist you scare the hell out of nations that would support terrorists.
Lastly you don't give Pakistan or Saudi Arabia passes for Al Queda, becuase Al Queda is a Saudi Wahabini sect creation and the Talliban were a Pakistani secret service creation.
You do what needs to be done and take the moral high ground in doing so. Terrorists have no state to attack and take over, they have no morals. The fight with a terrorist group is really one for hearts and minds of the larger pubic from where the terrorist came. You must be shown to be stronger and more moral then they are. When you prove you are, then the terrorists lose.
Oh, and yes, you try, convict and jail the people that attacked us, just like Clinton did with the first World Trade Center bombing.
In an open court of law in front of the world.
We MUST prove we are better. We are better.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
By all means, let's afford all the due process rights to these terrorist bastards/pu$#ies that we afford American citizens.
Your grandstanding fails to take one minor point into consideration. Without due process, how do you know for sure that they're "terrorist bastards/pu$#ies"? There's some pretty powerful evidence that some of the people being held at Guantanamo have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. Even the military has admitted as much. They were standing in the wrong place at the wrong time. Of course, if you operate strictly on emotion and not on any kind of intelligence or common sense, you probably don't mind sacrificing a few dozen innocent brown skinned people.
quote:
After all, our two soldiers that were captured in Iraq received due process and were granted federal court habeus reveiw. They were beaten, tortured, cut to pieces, one beheaded, and publicly displayed to the world. Oh, let's not forget about the terrorists appreciation for a free press (ask Daniel Pearl's widow). We can go on and on about the due process rights that were given to those on the U.S.S. Cole, the nearly 3,000 innocent persons in the twin towers, the hundreds killed in bombings in Spain, Great Britain, and Southeast Asia, or the innocent persons killed in the bombings of our embassies in west Africa, or even our soldiers killed in Beirut 23 years ago.
Good point. We should start acting like terrorists. That's sure to get us the respect of the world that Bush has squandered since 9/11.
<guido wrote:
RW: Is that the best you can go, the "anthrax attacks." Heck, let's throw in the D.C sniper, the OU student blowing himself up, and the Muslim who drove his car into people out west. You are right, we have had other terrorist attacks since 9/11.
<end clip>
You considered the anthrax attacks a minor inconvenience?
Anthrax, if untreated within the first crucial hours of infection, is 100 percent fatal. Making weapons-grade anthrax (which it was) is a lot more complex than just driving a car into a crowd of people, shooting bystanders, or committing suicide by explosion (which the OU thing was; don't confuse it with murder). The anthrax mailings targeted politicians in Washington and national newscasters. The really unfortunate part of it is the anthrax killed people who barely came in contact with it.
So, yes, I consider it a terrorist attack. I'm disappointed that you're so glib about the subject, and -- as you've proved in subsequent responses -- so disdainful of the transparency and remarkable fairness of our court system.
RW: You and I have argued numerous times and by now you should have figured out that: 1) I am very familiar with our system of justice; 2) I do not give a rat's rear about the rights of murdering, raping, cowardly terrorists; 3) support for our troops is my top priority; and 4) we will never agree on foreign policy. Fair enough?
By the way, I know that anthrax is deadly. We know that in the wrong hands it can be used as a deadly weapon--which was one reason why we went into Iraq. To get weapons of mass destruction and prevent the proliferation of these weapons. We knew that Saddam had at one point chemical weapons and we knew that he had used them on his own people and during the Iran-Iraq war. This was part of the reason for President CLINTON'S policy of regime change.
Papa: Exactly how many innocent people are at Gitmo? As far as your "brown-skinned people" comment, I believe the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan has liberated approx. fifty million "brown skinned people" from oppresion and tyranny. I believe that fifty million "brown skinned people" will be voting and participating in government. I believe that untold hundreds of thousands (or perhaps millions) of "brown skinned people" will not be routinely gathered up, executed, and buried in mass graves. I believe that thousands of "brown skinned" women will not be brutalized in Saddam and his boys' rape rooms.
Swake: Excellent job of Monday morning quarterbacking the war on terror. Would you be complaining about Iraq if stockpiles of weapons were found? In any case, we are in Iraq now. We do not have 300,000 troops in Afghanistan now. Should we withdraw all of our troops from Iraq or put more in. Should we invade Pakistan or Saudi?
For now, let's coddle these terrorists at Gitmo. Let's give them lawyers and access to our civil and criminal courts (at taxpayer expense of course or should we make profiteering Halliburton pay for it). By all means, let's give the terrorists a stage to perform on--kinda like we did with Moussawi.
I know this is not a foreign policy thread, but what I have read is the exact mentality shared by Olbermann. This guy hates Pres. Bush to the point where the death of our soldiers is not a somber time but an opportunity to attack.
<guido wrote:
Papa: Exactly how many innocent people are at Gitmo? As far as your "brown-skinned people" comment, I believe the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan has liberated approx. fifty million "brown skinned people" from oppresion and tyranny. I believe that fifty million "brown skinned people" will be voting and participating in government. I believe that untold hundreds of thousands (or perhaps millions) of "brown skinned people" will not be routinely gathered up, executed, and buried in mass graves.
<end clip>
Haven't you been following the news? Iraqis are killing each other by the thousands because of sectarian violence. The populace is overwhelmingly against the U.S. being there any longer. The NIE report flatly states that Iraq is causing more terrorism, not preventing it. The country is demonstrably in worse condition than when we went in.
From what exactly have we saved them from?
And one more question: If a Democrat was president instead and this Iraq operation and the conditions of that country are the same as they are now, would you be as supportive?
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Papa: Exactly how many innocent people are at Gitmo?
That's exactly my point, thank you. How would I know? How would YOU know? How would ANYONE know without due process?
quote:
As far as your "brown-skinned people" comment, I believe the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan has liberated approx. fifty million "brown skinned people" from oppresion and tyranny.
Did it? Torture and killings are more rampant now than before we "liberated" them.
quote:
I believe that fifty million "brown skinned people" will be voting and participating in government. I believe that untold hundreds of thousands (or perhaps millions) of "brown skinned people" will not be routinely gathered up, executed, and buried in mass graves. I believe that thousands of "brown skinned" women will not be brutalized in Saddam and his boys' rape rooms.
You don't keep very close tabs on the news, do you? Not only do these things continue but conditions are much worse than before we "liberated" them. As far as your claims about WMDs, you need to turn on the news or break out a newspaper once in awhile. In spite of Bush's claims of having proof and even knowing the location, there WERE NO WMDs. Yeah, he had 'em a DECADE EARLIER before the first Gulf War. You seem to be about the last person in the world that doesn't know this.
quote:
This guy hates Pres. Bush to the point where the death of our soldiers is not a somber time but an opportunity to attack.
It's downright HYPOCRITICAL for EITHER SIDE to complain about the other side exploiting the deaths of the military. That includes YOU.
Monday morning quarterbacking, so you admit it was wrong to invade? This has been my position since before Bush invaded Iraq.
So you want to know what do we do now? We have few options that are poor, and none that are good. We are in a very tight spot. We look weak due to our inability to provide security in Iraq. We look stupid in the Middle East too as the government there is a beholden to our enemy Iran as they are to us. If we leave, Iran runs Iraq and that scares the hell out of the rest of the Middle East.
We have two options in Iraq, neither good ones.
Option one: We choose a side in the civil war. And probably not the side you would expect, we get rid of the "democratically" elected government and back the Sunnis (and thus the Bathists) against the Shi'ite, whom we have as of now placed in power. We add a lot more troops in doing so and put the clamps down on the whole nation. We start fighting against Iran's attempt at hegemony in the Middle East by backing the other side, which is the real threat to us now. Iraq in Sunni hands is a good counter balance to Iran, that's why we backed and armed Saddam for so long, that's reason 1 that Bush senior didn't invade Iraq.
Option two (this is what I would like done): We hold a referendum on our staying. If the Iraqi's vote for us to leave (which they most like will) we send the troops in Iraq to Afghanistan and we leave the current government in power and the whole mess becomes Iran's problem, then the huge Sunni insurgency (which we should then back) is fighting Iran and Iran's proxies.
We are then able to solve the issue in Afghanistan properly then and we become the good guys (somewhat) by doing what the people in Iraq asked by leaving. We become stronger (somewhat) by making our enemy (Iran) weak. Iran would then have the problem of fighting the insurgency. They should beware what you wish for. If by chance they vote us to stay we dissolve the government there now, add more troops and we partition the country into three nations along ethnic and religious lines. Like what was done with India and Pakistan.
Bin Laden may well be dead according to current reports, but we crush the resurgent Taliban (that really did back and support the attacks on us) and get what is left of Al Queda. We get the people that attacked us.
We threaten the Saudi with not protecting their stupid asses any longer, we don't have to invade there, we are their protection and Iran scares them badly. We force them to change their support, governmentally and personally of the teaching of radical Islam. We make them grant rights to women and open their repressive society.
We threaten Pakistan in the same way, they let us quietly come in as needed to get Al Queda, they also need to get rid of the radical teachers of Islam in Pakistan. Our threat here is we are going to do it anyway, and screw them if they don't like it, and if they don't play our game, we become very good friends with India and stop working to suppress the war for Kashmir that has been building for so long. We threaten to properly brand Pakistan a terrorist state for supporting the Taliban and for supporting terrorist in Indian Kashmir.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Bin Laden may well be dead according to current reports,
What reports are you talking about, Swake? Is there some new evidence that he's dead? I checked Google News and couldn't find anything new on his status as an organism.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1538569,00.html
Thanks, Swake.
iplaw, you seem to appreciate detailed, factual sources in defending arguments. I am surprised by your statement:
"I'd love to see something to back this up from somewhere other than Media Matters or Oreilly-sucks."
Media Matters is scrupulously honest and always provides proper context for their posts and reporting. Media Matters is a liberal organization whose goal is to combat conservative bias in the media, but they are absolutely trustworthy. You can disagree with their objectives, but not with their facts.
Olberman is off for the weekend. The thread is dead until his honor returns. Lots of babel in the meantime....
"The only hope for the White House that voters won't notice the growing number of reports of connections between administration officials and Jack Abramoff is for the Predatorgate scandal and coverup among House Republicans to eat up a significant amount of newsprint and cable television time. And this appears to be happening -- though that's probably not a good thing for Republicans, either..."
http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/10/1/04116/9107
"every minute the FBI delays in seizing Foley's computers... gives him the chance to scrub them of evidence."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2273785
"COVERING OUR donkey"
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061016/eisenberg
A little comic relief....
http://pabloonpolitics.com/foley.htm
I will be sitting in for Keith while he is off....ha ha
I am no Murrow. But Keith is a close second....despite what rightwingnut radio sez.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Monday morning quarterbacking, so you admit it was wrong to invade? This has been my position since before Bush invaded Iraq.
So you want to know what do we do now? We have few options that are poor, and none that are good. We are in a very tight spot. We look weak due to our inability to provide security in Iraq. We look stupid in the Middle East too as the government there is a beholden to our enemy Iran as they are to us. If we leave, Iran runs Iraq and that scares the hell out of the rest of the Middle East.
We have two options in Iraq, neither good ones.
Option one: We choose a side in the civil war. And probably not the side you would expect, we get rid of the "democratically" elected government and back the Sunnis (and thus the Bathists) against the Shi'ite, whom we have as of now placed in power. We add a lot more troops in doing so and put the clamps down on the whole nation. We start fighting against Iran's attempt at hegemony in the Middle East by backing the other side, which is the real threat to us now. Iraq in Sunni hands is a good counter balance to Iran, that's why we backed and armed Saddam for so long, that's reason 1 that Bush senior didn't invade Iraq.
Option two (this is what I would like done): We hold a referendum on our staying. If the Iraqi's vote for us to leave (which they most like will) we send the troops in Iraq to Afghanistan and we leave the current government in power and the whole mess becomes Iran's problem, then the huge Sunni insurgency (which we should then back) is fighting Iran and Iran's proxies.
We are then able to solve the issue in Afghanistan properly then and we become the good guys (somewhat) by doing what the people in Iraq asked by leaving. We become stronger (somewhat) by making our enemy (Iran) weak. Iran would then have the problem of fighting the insurgency. They should beware what you wish for. If by chance they vote us to stay we dissolve the government there now, add more troops and we partition the country into three nations along ethnic and religious lines. Like what was done with India and Pakistan.
Bin Laden may well be dead according to current reports, but we crush the resurgent Taliban (that really did back and support the attacks on us) and get what is left of Al Queda. We get the people that attacked us.
We threaten the Saudi with not protecting their stupid asses any longer, we don't have to invade there, we are their protection and Iran scares them badly. We force them to change their support, governmentally and personally of the teaching of radical Islam. We make them grant rights to women and open their repressive society.
We threaten Pakistan in the same way, they let us quietly come in as needed to get Al Queda, they also need to get rid of the radical teachers of Islam in Pakistan. Our threat here is we are going to do it anyway, and screw them if they don't like it, and if they don't play our game, we become very good friends with India and stop working to suppress the war for Kashmir that has been building for so long. We threaten to properly brand Pakistan a terrorist state for supporting the Taliban and for supporting terrorist in Indian Kashmir.
Swake, interesting points and an interesting flow of events as to how to solve the issue in the ME. Not being a smartass here, just digesting your solution. I can't say I agree 100%, but you bring up some interesting ideas.
The only problem as I see it is that the political and military infrastructure appears in such disarray in Iraq, that Iran could just walk over the border and say "Welcome to Iran" at this point.
Please correct me if I'm reading you wrong, but it sounds like: The Iraqi's vote and tell us to leave. We leave. They continue their civil war, then Iran attacks, that galvanizes the various factions in Iraq to come together and fight off the Iranians. Is that what you are getting at?
I'll admit, in hindsight, that it would have likely been smarter to keep Saddam on a tight leash until we had totally rooted out AlQuaeda and the Taliban and kept that as job 1. I think if we would have accomplished our objectives in Iraq in 6 months we'd look a lot smarter than we do now.
Conan wrote:
I'll admit, in hindsight, that it would have likely been smarter to keep Saddam on a tight leash until we had totally rooted out AlQuaeda and the Taliban and kept that as job 1. I think if we would have accomplished our objectives in Iraq in 6 months we'd look a lot smarter than we do now.
<end clip>
I've been saying that for 3 1/2 years.
I'm not exactly a super-duper expert on foreign policy. But I seem to be smarter than those dopes Bush has advising him.
That's what's so frustrating about this. That's why this is making me so mad. It just astounds me that someone in that much power can be so dumb or allow himself to be so misled.
"We'd look a lot smarter than we do now"...
The Iranians need not walk into Iraq. If we leave, the two countries would meld together.
One massive mistake in modern times....letting the Supremes put Dubyah in power. Our country will never regain it's prominence. Henry Kissinger can't live forever.
Can we get back on topic?
What will Countdown offer up tonight?
1) Repugs " were far more eager to retain Foley's House seat than do a thing about his gross dereliction of duty".
2)Abramoff scandal... "It's a pity that all of us, as a nation, largely wander between a state of deception and a state of denial, led by men and women who neither have a clue what they're doing nor are humble enough to own up to the fact that they've undoubtedly wrecked American foreign policy and our image abroad. "
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/1/0185/88184
3)State of Denial...
4)"The president would like to make a change," Card said, using a time-honored formulation that avoided the words "resign" or "fire."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/27/AR2006092700106.html
"The president himself made no contact with Powell after Card's call. "
5)'US paying Pak $70-80 million a month'
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2038420.cms
6) a little brevity?
http://www.ironictimes.com/
This list is as of now. But breaking stories about the opposition seem to be happening every hour. So this list could get an override due to more exposed hypocrisy by our rulers.
Stay tuned for the countdown....
rwarn: "I'm not exactly a super-duper expert on foreign policy. But I seem to be smarter than those dopes Bush has advising him."
has "the dope stops here" replaced "the buck stops here" as the sign on our white house desk?
Kind of, the largest group in in Iraq, the Shi'ite, have strong ties to Iran and would welcome Iran in.
Iran doesn't even have to attck, just come in when we leave and support and rule Iraq by proxy. Like Hilter in Austria, bloodless, but unlike Austria, Iraq has other groups that hate the Shi'ite, hate them a lot.
The problem for Iran then would be the problem we are having, the other 40% of Iraq that is Sunni would continue, maybe even intensify the insurrection. They hate the Shi'ite and hate and don't trust Iran. They would continue the civil and would likely include Iran in that that war.
"We threaten Pakistan in the same way, they let us quietly come in as needed to get Al Queda, they also need to get rid of the radical teachers of Islam in Pakistan. Our threat here is we are going to do it anyway, and screw them if they don't like it, and if they don't play our game, we become very good friends with India and stop working to suppress the war for Kashmir that has been building for so long. We threaten to properly brand Pakistan a terrorist state for supporting the Taliban and for supporting terrorist in Indian Kashmir."Swake
What does all this do for the future except breed more hatred?
Swake, you have a real awareness of the world map. Yet, it seems that our men in power still prefer fire over diplomacy. Why is that as of IraqII, we are looked on as equals amongst our allies and enemies?
Sometimes you might ask, "what would Gandhi do?"
quote:
Originally posted by swake
They would continue the civil and would likely include Iran in that that war.
Okay, then what happens? How does that affect the stability of the rest of the ME, and ultimately, rein in rogue terrorists?
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Conan wrote:
I'll admit, in hindsight, that it would have likely been smarter to keep Saddam on a tight leash until we had totally rooted out AlQuaeda and the Taliban and kept that as job 1. I think if we would have accomplished our objectives in Iraq in 6 months we'd look a lot smarter than we do now.
<end clip>
I've been saying that for 3 1/2 years.
I'm not exactly a super-duper expert on foreign policy. But I seem to be smarter than those dopes Bush has advising him.
That's what's so frustrating about this. That's why this is making me so mad. It just astounds me that someone in that much power can be so dumb or allow himself to be so misled.
I believe that Bush's advisors thought they could have us out and a puppet installed in 12 mos. or less, but grossly under-estimated the resistance and how long it actually takes to set up shop in a country where there's never been a concept of democracy.
It's not the first conflict we've gotten into that has gone on far longer than expected nor the first that appears poorly advised. Without top security clearance though, it's really difficult for any of us to accurately sit back and second-guess what the intel was at the time.
I'm not making excuses for Bush, I'm just stating that we supposedly have the best intelligence-gathering network on earth between our own NSA and CIA and that of other countries. They can tell us what the existing dangers are but they cannot pull out a crystal ball and tell us with any accuracy as to how long it will take to accomplish our objectives. It's a big risk for any president to go into war.
Well, if Bush had such bad advisers, Conan, why doesn't he fire them?
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Well, if Bush had such bad advisers, Conan, why doesn't he fire them?
It's that damn river in Egypt....
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Well, if Bush had such bad advisers, Conan, why doesn't he fire them?
That's a good question. Keep in mind though his advisors were relying on information from supposedly non-partisan intelligence agencies (and yes, I know his father used to run one of them).
What story will you be talking about tommorow?
Attacking Bob Woodward.
Condi Rice being told, warned about Bin Ladin's intentions before September in July of 2001 and she brushed it off.
And this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8JZ8t051EY
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by swake
They would continue the civil and would likely include Iran in that that war.
Okay, then what happens? How does that affect the stability of the rest of the ME, and ultimately, rein in rogue terrorists?
Where do you think the support and money for terrorists come from? Iran.
And if we aren't there in the middle east, and aren't the "great satan" supposedly trying to rule the middle east, what do you think happens to the success that Al Queda will have in finding new recruits?
And like in WWI, I don't buy the idea that taking out the leaders doesn't matter, cut off the head often enough eventually the body will die. Get the people running the show.
Also, remember, take away the support from the Saudis and Pakistan (which for Pakistan has already largely happened) and make Iran have other things to worry about and the problem will largely go away. You will be left with an already nervous Syria as the last major sponsor of terrorism.
And, above all, solve Isreal/Palestine and terrorists, at least ones that focus on us, will go away.
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
"We threaten Pakistan in the same way, they let us quietly come in as needed to get Al Queda, they also need to get rid of the radical teachers of Islam in Pakistan. Our threat here is we are going to do it anyway, and screw them if they don't like it, and if they don't play our game, we become very good friends with India and stop working to suppress the war for Kashmir that has been building for so long. We threaten to properly brand Pakistan a terrorist state for supporting the Taliban and for supporting terrorist in Indian Kashmir."Swake
What does all this do for the future except breed more hatred?
Swake, you have a real awareness of the world map. Yet, it seems that our men in power still prefer fire over diplomacy. Why is that as of IraqII, we are looked on as equals amongst our allies and enemies?
Sometimes you might ask, "what would Gandhi do?"
Look, sorry, I'm not voting for singing Kum Bay Yah and hoping it all works out.
I vote for the "Speak softly and carry a big stick" and for doing the right thing as much as is possible in the world. Be the beacon that we should be at all times. But make that stick really, really big.
Powell was a great general, he didn't use enough troops in the first Gulf war, he used way, way, way too many. And it made the world tremble at our might, and when we left after we were done without creating a colony or getting into "nation buiding" they were scared and impressed.
KO on Letterman Tuesday.... unless he gets pre-empted by monkey's.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by swake
They would continue the civil and would likely include Iran in that that war.
Okay, then what happens? How does that affect the stability of the rest of the ME, and ultimately, rein in rogue terrorists?
Where do you think the support and money for terrorists come from? Iran.
And if we aren't there in the middle east, and aren't the "great satan" supposedly trying to rule the middle east, what do you think happens to the success that Al Queda will have in finding new recruits?
And like in WWI, I don't buy the idea that taking out the leaders doesn't matter, cut off the head often enough eventually the body will die. Get the people running the show.
Also, remember, take away the support from the Saudis and Pakistan (which for Pakistan has already largely happened) and make Iran have other things to worry about and the problem will largely go away. You will be left with an already nervous Syria as the last major sponsor of terrorism.
And, above all, solve Isreal/Palestine and terrorists, at least ones that focus on us, will go away.
Swake,
All logical points.
The problem as I see it is that Al Quaeda is only one terrorist group in a long chain of many others. Sure, you keep cutting off the heads and it eventually dies. But there are more OBL's out there to start other radical terrorist groups.
Even if we had no interests in the ME, which you and I know will never come to pass, there are still the fundamentalist nut-jobs in Islam who think anyone who is not a Muslim must be conquered and brought into submission under their Allah. These are people who don't stand in awe of our might and power. These are people who believe it is the highest honor to die in the name of their religion. You cannot beat sense into people like this who have been indoctrinated to believe war and conflict are more a part of their religion than peace.
You and I and others here will never agree as to whether there was any good reason to go into Iraq in the first place. In hindsight we can all see that it is bogging down efforts that could be better spent elsewhere, though I find it more than coincidental that no more attacks have happened on American soil.
Before 9-11, what was the last attack by terrorists on American soil?
1993 WTC bombing and OKC in 1995. What's your point?
John Brown's raid in 1859.
[8D]
The point is that terrorists will strike when they see an opening to get away with it. That may take years. They are more patient than we are and they do not over react. They know our mentality and are eager to set us up. If you think that we are any safer than before then it's a smokescreen. The odds of one of us being hit by terrorists are greater than lightning striking us.
Watch KO tonight on MSNBC and get the feeling that things are getting better all the time. The light is beggining to expose the darkness of our leaders.
Right...all 5 of you can continue to enjoy your new found messiah...the rest of us will continue to live in the real world.
Jeff Cohen: Is Olbermann on Thin Ice?
Tue, 10/03/2006
by Jeff Cohen, author of Cable News Confidential
I fear for Keith Olbermann.
Like so many others who hunger for some journalistic independence on TV news, I often marvel at Olbermann's dogged reporting and unique commentary. In a cable news environment of conformity and conservatism, the MSNBC host takes on the Bush administration for "demonizing dissent," for abusing our Constitutional traditions, for "taking cynical advantage of the unanimity and love [following 9/11], and transmuting it into fraudulent war and needless death."
Only Olbermann talks about Team Bush "monstrously transforming [9/11 unity] into fear and suspicion, and turning that fear into the campaign slogan of three elections." He was virtually alone on TV news in seriously reporting on 2004 election irregularities in Ohio , and in exploring the pre-Iraq war Downing Street Memos indicating White House deception. In recent months, his prime targets seem to have evolved from softer ones like Bill O'Reilly to bigger game: Bush and his minions.
It's worth noting that strong criticism of an extremist presidency hardly makes Olbermann a leftist. I remember him as the whimsical sports guy on ESPN. I remember his first go-round on MSNBC in 1998 when he could have sued his bosses for repetitive stress disorder for having to host scores of Lewinsky episodes on the road to Clinton 's impeachment - an impeachment that may well have been impossible if not for the complicity of TV news.
It's obvious his bosses at MSNBC/NBC/GE never envisioned the increasingly bold Olbermann of recent months. It's likely that Olbermann himself could not have foreseen his current role as the lone voice of those who feel assaulted by a cable news business dominated by the O'Reillys and Hannitys.
So why do I fear for Olbermann? Because I know his bosses. In the runup to the Iraq war, I too worked for MSNBC - as an on-air pundit and a senior producer on the primetime Donahue show.
As I detail in my new book Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media, the Suits at MSNBC/NBC muzzled us and ultimately terminated us. They feared independent journalism and serious dissent. They smeared Bush critics, with MSNBC's editor-in-chief actually going on air - without evidence - to accuse Iraq WMD skeptic Scott Ritter of being a paid agent of Saddam Hussein.
Olbermann has been gaining in audience ratings. That provides him some security. But perhaps not enough.
When Donahue was terminated three weeks before the Iraq invasion, it was MSNBC's most watched program. Canceling your top-rated show doesn't happen often, but it happened to Donahue. Who knows what will happen to Olbermann?
With Donahue, management cared less about building up audience than tamping down dissent. While independent outlets and blogs were soaring in audience by questioning the rush to war, our bosses imposed straightjackets on us that prevented similar growth.
In the last months of Donahue, management gave us strict orders: if we booked a guest who was antiwar, we needed two who were pro-war. If we booked two guests on the left, we needed three on the right. When a producer proposed booking Michael Moore, she was told she'd need three rightwingers for ideological balance.
Olbermann's increasingly bold dissent has been occurring at a time when Bush's approval ratings are low and Bush's war is in shambles. That gives him some added security.
During Donahue's tenure at MSNBC on the eve of war, Bush's popularity was high. And media conglomerates were particularly concerned about not ruffling the White House at that moment - as they were lobbying hard to get FCC rules changed to allow them to grow still fatter.
The day after Donahue was terminated, an internal NBC memo leaked out; it said that Phil Donahue represents "a difficult public face for NBC in a time of war." Why? Because he insisted on presenting administration critics. The memo worried that Donahue would become a "home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity."
NBC's solution then? Dump Phil, stifle dissent, brandish the flag.
NBC's solution now? So far, Olbermann appears to be on more solid footing - mostly because the political zeitgeist is much changed from four years ago.
But MSNBC is still owned by GE's conservative bosses, and managed by NBC's ever-timid executives. Olbermann knows this reality as well as anyone; six months ago on C-SPAN, while expressing confidence that good ratings would keep them at bay, he remarked: "There are people I know in the hierarchy of NBC, the company, and GE, the company, who do not like to see the current presidential administration criticized at all."
I'm pulling for Olbermann; I'm one of the multitudes who find his commentaries online (perhaps more see them on the Web than on TV) - and forward them far and wide.
But with each new broadside against the Bush administration, I fear for his future. His best security is us, an active citizenry. It's media activism, organized heavily on the Net. It's media watch groups like FAIR and Media Matters for America . It's the movement that resisted the FCC changes in 2003, challenged Sinclair Broadcast propaganda before the '04 election, and recently exposed the 9/11 "hijacking" of ABC by rightwing Clinton-bashers.
In the epilogue of Cable News Confidential, I lauded this movement: "My only regret was that such a potent movement had not coalesced by 2002 - to flex its muscles against MSNBC brass in defense of an unfettered Donahue."
If Olbermann gets muzzled or terminated for political reasons, it will be up to us to fight - not only for him, but for the concept that without serious dissent, democracy is a sham.
Jeff Cohen is the founder of the media watch group FAIR, and author of Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media http://www.cablenewsconfidential.com/.
Personal attack removed.
Personal attack removed.
Personal attack removed.
Personal attack removed.
Personal attack removed.
Personal attack removed.
Yeah, Cohen is real top shelf material:
http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2006/09/msm_ko_bandwago_9.html
He's more famous now for his constant whining about being fired by MSNBC and Donahue being fired by MSNBC. He wants to blame it all on a tepid management at GE/NBC, nevermind that their ratings sucked.
[Personal attack removed.
Not exactly smoking gun material:
"The meeting was an opportunity for Tenet and Black to brief Rice on the al Qaeda threat, Time said, something Tenet was reportedly very concerned about. The magazine said the DCI's message was that he " couldn't rule out a domestic attack but thought it more likely that al-Qaeda would strike overseas.""
Well, Duh...[:o)]
My Daughter, who was 11 at the time, could have told you that there was a possibility of domestic or foreign attacks by terrorists.
Now, how does this fit into your worship of Olbermann again?
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Not exactly smoking gun material:
"The meeting was an opportunity for Tenet and Black to brief Rice on the al Qaeda threat, Time said, something Tenet was reportedly very concerned about. The magazine said the DCI's message was that he " couldn't rule out a domestic attack but thought it more likely that al-Qaeda would strike overseas.""
Well, Duh...[:o)]
My Daughter, who was 11 at the time, could have told you that there was a possibility of domestic or foreign attacks by terrorists.
Now, how does this fit into your worship of Olbermann again?
KO reports it first....others follow. If they are on hillbilly heroin (oxy) or lousy journalists it never gets mentioned.
You people attack each other personally entirely too much...I saw Good Night and Good Luck tonight...great movie. I hope old KO starts standing up more and the American people will not let them get rid of him. The media is their source of control and we need to take it back.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
1993 WTC bombing and OKC in 1995. What's your point?
Actually, it would be the Alfred P. Murrah building in 1995.
On second thought, it would be the Alabama birth control clinic bombing in 1998.
...unless we're not counting American terrorists.
quote:
Now you don't bother to read links because it's liberal? I read both sides of the issue. There is no other side to this one.
Something delightfully self defeating about this quote. There's always two sides of the story...except this time. Good job aox; you're never dissapointing in the logic department.
Yeah...you're quite the independent thinker. I love it when people feign objectivity.
Here's something for you to read since you like reading stories on both sides of the issue.
Clinton Lied About Bin Laden (//%22http://www.suntimes.com/news/novak/79586,CST-EDT-novak02.article%22)
Out of morbid curiosity, I tuned in to Olbermann last night, they had a female sub on. They reported very high-brow and educational things like two men claiming paternity with Anna Nicole and about a Meerkat soap opera with a missing character named Shakespeare.
Then I stuck around for Scarborough. Naturally, they wanted to talk about Foley. They had two liberal commentators and Pat Buchanan.
I was struck by the snarkiness, smugness, and shrillness of the liberals on the program, how they were allowed to get a complete point out without interruption, but yet when Buchanan would be half way through a point, he would be interrupted by Scarborough and the other two libs.
He wasn't trying to defend Foley, nor defend anyone else if, in fact, there was a cover-up but they wouldn't even let him complete a sentence.
I find it fascinating how liberal journalists and pundits point out the folly's of the members of the GOP with such glee.
Feh. Buchanan's a nutjob, has been for years. The program couldn't have gotten someone a little saner?
Good article IP. I prefer, however, to hear how we should fight the war in Iraq and on terrorism from the horses' mouth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GagguViz3rg
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Feh. Buchanan's a nutjob, has been for years. The program couldn't have gotten someone a little saner?
Maybe he should have had THIS on instead...(cue the sexy Barry White theme music)
(http://www.pipelinenews.org/images/helenthomas.jpg)
I'm more of a Solomon Burke fan myself, iplaw. [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Feh. Buchanan's a nutjob, has been for years. The program couldn't have gotten someone a little saner?
Yeah, I'm sure you also said "feh" when it was pointed out that there were Democrats on Abramoff's payroll. Or would your reply conveniently be something like: "Feh, there were far more Republicans taking money from him."
That's part of the point. Scarborough was like watching a cartoon. They find one of the biggest conservative cranks they can because it makes it easier to dupe people into believing Buchanan is somehow representative of the average Republican.
My point is, the liberal pundits last night approached this scandal with big toothy grins and made fun of of a serious situation. I've said it before when I've heard the gloating of right-wing commentators when a scandal has blown up involving a Democrat. Partisan gloating is childish, and refuses to acknowledge that our Congress in general is a playground for the rich, priveledged, stupid, and perverted and we as voters allow it to continue.
Calling for Hastert's head on a plate is nothing more than Democrats trying to hi-jack more seats by trying to imply that the actions of one sick Congressman is a reflection of an entire party. It's bogus electioneering.
If I honestly felt that changing party majority in both houses would change the pattern of corruption in Washington, I'd gladly buy in, but based on history, a change in parties won't change a thing. I think we all realized that with the un-fulfilled "Contract For America" in 1994.
That's because Abramoff *is* a Republican scandal, Conan. The ones in legal trouble are Republicans. None of Abramoff's personal money went to Democrats. Abramoff was a member of the College Republicans, he's a self-described Republican activist, and he hobnobbed with them his entire adult life (including 480-some contacts with the White House).
The so-called Abramoff money that went to Democrats came from his Indian-tribe clients, which got ripped off by him (thus leading to the indictments).
But to really grease palms, he did it with Republicans. Ask Bob Ney.
<Conan wrote:
Calling for Hastert's head on a plate is nothing more than Democrats trying to hi-jack more seats by trying to imply that the actions of one sick Congressman is a reflection of an entire party. It's bogus electioneering.
<end clip>
To be fair, there's a lot more than Democrats wanting Hastert to step down.
You have Boehner, who wants to be speaker and sees an opportunity if Hastert steps down. That's why he's been stabbing Hastert in the back through his press statements.
You have a bunch of Republicans, who see Hastert as a millstone around their necks in their campaigns back home. If Hastert steps down, it'll take a lot of the heat off.
Then you have Republicans who think Hastert screwed up royally with this thing and want him gone from the speaker's chair.
I think the outrage at Hastert is coming from A LOT of quarters.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I was struck by the snarkiness, smugness, and shrillness of the liberals on the program, how they were allowed to get a complete point out without interruption, but yet when Buchanan would be half way through a point, he would be interrupted by Scarborough and the other two libs.
He wasn't trying to defend Foley, nor defend anyone else if, in fact, there was a cover-up but they wouldn't even let him complete a sentence.
I find it fascinating how liberal journalists and pundits point out the folly's of the members of the GOP with such glee.
If you think that kind of behavior is limited to liberals either you've never watched a right wing talk show or you're wearing tinted glasses that filter that SAME behavior out when it's practiced by the other side.
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I was struck by the snarkiness, smugness, and shrillness of the liberals on the program, how they were allowed to get a complete point out without interruption, but yet when Buchanan would be half way through a point, he would be interrupted by Scarborough and the other two libs.
He wasn't trying to defend Foley, nor defend anyone else if, in fact, there was a cover-up but they wouldn't even let him complete a sentence.
I find it fascinating how liberal journalists and pundits point out the folly's of the members of the GOP with such glee.
If you think that kind of behavior is limited to liberals either you've never watched a right wing talk show or you're wearing tinted glasses that filter that SAME behavior out when it's practiced by the other side.
Come on now Papa, be fair and balanced:
"My point is, the liberal pundits last night approached this scandal with big toothy grins and made fun of of a serious situation. I've said it before when I've heard the gloating of right-wing commentators when a scandal has blown up involving a Democrat. Partisan gloating is childish, and refuses to acknowledge that our Congress in general is a playground for the rich, priveledged, stupid, and perverted and we as voters allow it to continue."
I will check my glasses for the color of the tint though.[;)]
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
That's because Abramoff *is* a Republican scandal, Conan. The ones in legal trouble are Republicans. None of Abramoff's personal money went to Democrats. Abramoff was a member of the College Republicans, he's a self-described Republican activist, and he hobnobbed with them his entire adult life (including 480-some contacts with the White House).
The so-called Abramoff money that went to Democrats came from his Indian-tribe clients, which got ripped off by him (thus leading to the indictments).
But to really grease palms, he did it with Republicans. Ask Bob Ney.
It's well documented that Abramoff employed Democratic lobbyists as well who were channeling Abramoff's and his client's money to Democrat legislators. I've posted the articles on the "Foley" thread- twice now.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I was struck by the snarkiness, smugness, and shrillness of the liberals on the program, how they were allowed to get a complete point out without interruption, but yet when Buchanan would be half way through a point, he would be interrupted by Scarborough and the other two libs.
He wasn't trying to defend Foley, nor defend anyone else if, in fact, there was a cover-up but they wouldn't even let him complete a sentence.
I find it fascinating how liberal journalists and pundits point out the folly's of the members of the GOP with such glee.
If you think that kind of behavior is limited to liberals either you've never watched a right wing talk show or you're wearing tinted glasses that filter that SAME behavior out when it's practiced by the other side.
Come on now Papa, be fair and balanced:
"My point is, the liberal pundits last night approached this scandal with big toothy grins and made fun of of a serious situation. I've said it before when I've heard the gloating of right-wing commentators when a scandal has blown up involving a Democrat. Partisan gloating is childish, and refuses to acknowledge that our Congress in general is a playground for the rich, priveledged, stupid, and perverted and we as voters allow it to continue."
I will check my glasses for the color of the tint though.[;)]
Okay. Ya got me.
"My point is, the liberal pundits last night approached this scandal with big toothy grins and made fun of of a serious situation. I've said it before when I've heard the gloating of right-wing commentators when a scandal has blown up involving a Democrat. Partisan gloating is childish, and refuses to acknowledge that our Congress in general is a playground for the rich, priveledged, stupid, and perverted and we as voters allow it to continue."
Now the 'liberal media' is identifying Foley as a Democrat. Fox (twice), the AP, and CNN all reported that Foley is a democratic senator. Freudian slip? Partisan subconscious mind meld?? Hellooo -- that's journalism 101 -- you learn to get their party affiliation right after you get their name correctly spelled.
The devil is always in the details...
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
The devil is always in the details...
What?? I thought YOU wuz the devil!! [:P]
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
The devil is always in the details...
What?? I thought YOU wuz the devil!! [:P]
Oh MODERATOR!?!?! [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
The devil is always in the details...
What?? I thought YOU wuz the devil!! [:P]
Oh MODERATOR!?!?! [;)]
Oh, I meant it in a GOOD way. [}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
The devil is always in the details...
What?? I thought YOU wuz the devil!! [:P]
Oh MODERATOR!?!?! [;)]
whaaa whaaa......run to mommy...
You've got to be kidding me...do you really think he was being serious?
Do you think Olberman will again point out that the Condi Rice coverup of being forwarned by the CIA prior to 9/11 is taking a back seat to the page scandal?
Old news. We already knew about the PBD. No one knew that what happened on 9/11 was coming. We knew terrorists wanted to strike the US mainland...duh...but to extrapolate that into foreknowledge of 9/11...
That's why no one cares about the story other Slobbermann.
I bet he won't bother to interview Michael Sheuer (//%22http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20061004-090355-4740r.htm%22) who was the head of Alec Station (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Station%22) who said that Bubba is a liar...as if we didn't know already.
Look who's at the bottom of the pile AGAIN:
CABLE NEWS RACE
Tues., Oct. 3, 2006
Viewers
FOXNEWS O'REILLY 1,979,000
FNC GRETA 1,475,000
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,436,000
FNC SHEP SMITH 1,135,000
CNN KING 1,107,000
FNC HUME 1,070,000
CNN DOBBS 821,000
CNN COOPER 742,000
CNN BLITZER 716,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 617,000
CNNHN GRACE 556,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 550,000
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Look who's at the bottom of the pile AGAIN:
CABLE NEWS RACE
Tues., Oct. 3, 2006
Viewers
FOXNEWS O'REILLY 1,979,000
FNC GRETA 1,475,000
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,436,000
FNC SHEP SMITH 1,135,000
CNN KING 1,107,000
FNC HUME 1,070,000
CNN DOBBS 821,000
CNN COOPER 742,000
CNN BLITZER 716,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 617,000
CNNHN GRACE 556,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 550,000
30,000,000 viewers...
Historical evidence points towards a downward trend for FOX. Please don't use abstract statistics to obstruct the real story which is Keith Olberman's news is enlightening.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Well, if Bush had such bad advisers, Conan, why doesn't he fire them?
Hubris. It's impossible for Bush to ever admit that he made a mistake about anything and firing them would be a tacit admission that he appointed a pack of idiots.
Of course, having idiots for advisers doesn't let him off the hook for taking their advice.
quote:
abstract statistics
I think anything past 1+1 might be abstract for some here...
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
abstract statistics
I think anything past 1+1 might be abstract for some here...
Jus becuz I wuz edjucadud in Okluhomu don't mean I cain't cipher. [}:)]
KO's opinion last night. This is another gem. This is the make up Presidency. He makes things up and expects us to buy into lies. http://youtube.com/watch?v=H9_QoE2P8sk
There are 2 parts...love the General Tommy Franks quotes! We are seeing the millitarization of our country!
I'd cut and paste it but someone around here gets testy when that happends....
I love my country too Keith.
Stay tuned tonight is Friday and we might see some glimmer of Rove's so called October surprise!
WATCH THE LINK!!!!
READ ALONG! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15147009/
The axe is back! [}:)]
"There's only one way to get this information. Send Foley, Hastert, Boehner, and the rest of them to Guantanamo and torture the information out of them."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-dantoni/only-way-to-the-trutht_b_30979.html
Jon Stewart....priceless.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PltYvCU2yo4&eurl=
Bill Maher was great last night. Richard Clarke, Robin Williams, and John Kerry.
All you repugs should watch it to raise your blood preasure. Dems will find it hilarious. It airs on HBO several times this week. Don't miss it.
"Since that first commentary, Olbermann's nightly audience has increased 69 percent, according to Nielsen Media Research. This past Monday 834,000 people tuned in, virtually double his season average and more than CNN competitors Paula Zahn and Nancy Grace. Cable kingpin and Olbermann nemesis Bill O'Reilly (two million viewers that night) stands in his way."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061008/ap_en_tv/tv_keith_olbermann_5
HEH HEH .... that is strong.
"The purpose of this is to get people to think and supply the marketplace of ideas with something at every fruit stand, something of every variety," he said. "As an industry, only half the fruit stand has been open the last four years."
KO rocks.
I bet KO covers this shameful Bush policy....
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/10/08/bush_brings_faith_to_foreign_aid/
"For decades, US policy has sought to avoid intermingling government programs and religious proselytizing. The aim is both to abide by the Constitution's prohibition against a state religion and to ensure that aid recipients don't forgo assistance because they don't share the religion of the provider."
WATCH COUNTDOWN...7 and 11... channel 50 on COX
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
I bet KO covers this shameful Bush policy....
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/10/08/bush_brings_faith_to_foreign_aid/
"For decades, US policy has sought to avoid intermingling government programs and religious proselytizing. The aim is both to abide by the Constitution's prohibition against a state religion and to ensure that aid recipients don't forgo assistance because they don't share the religion of the provider."
WATCH COUNTDOWN...7 and 11... channel 50 on COX
I have several problems with that whole Faith Base Initiative thing. Aside from questions about its constitutionality, it creates problems in dealing with OTHER religion based governments. In a way, it kind of turns our invasion and occupation of Afghanistan from a security matter into a New Crusade (at least in the eyes of many, I suspect).
"Faith-based initiatives" originally sounded like a good concept. The idea, as I understood it, was to try to shift charity back to the private sector like it used to be prior to the Great Depression and take some of that function away from government.
I'm disappointed though it appears it's just become another venue for the government to quietly filter tax dollars into and a way to appease the far-right Christian element of the GOP. It definitely blurs the separation line between church and state.
Okay, trying to keep an open mind, I finally got to catch J.O.'s schtick last night.
He went after ABC about two of their producers driving around with John Mark Karr in a limo and taking him to a school he used to work at because they were going to interview him for GMA. Then he lampooned Diane Sawyer for teasing the public for two weeks that Clay Aiken was going to "come out" in an exclusive interview with Ms. Sawyer.
Is anyone starting to see a pattern here? ABC took an accused pedophile, who ostensibly is only walking around free right now because prosecutors lost their evidence, to a school where he was relieved of his duties for suspect behavior.
They try to go into the details of a celebrity's private life and insinuate he's gay when he obviously doesn't think it's anyone's business.
So how much credibility does the Foley story have now? It appears to be nothing more than a sexual harrassment issue at this point.
I just find it interesting that J.O. is willing to cast dispersions on ABC's journalistic judgement and neglects to mention anything about Brian Ross sitting on the Foley story for at least a month or longer until, by odd coincidence, the timing became more politically expedient to blast the story out.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
They try to go into the details of a celebrity's private life and insinuate he's gay when he obviously doesn't think it's anyone's business.
Huh?
"Through his lawyer, Foley admitted for the first time last week to being gay."
Sun Seatle (//%22http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-pfoley10oct10,0,3737054.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines%22)
I think he was referring to the interview with the very gay Clay Aiken that was on ABC.
Clay Aiken IS gay???? Say it ain't so! [:O]
Papa- IP was correct in interpreting what I was saying.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Clay Aiken IS gay???? Say it ain't so! [:O]
ROFL!!! [}:)]
quote:
Papa- IP was correct in interpreting what I was saying.
Okay, 'scuse me. I misunderstood.
Clay Aiken being gay is the worst-kept secret in show biz. Hell, more people probably thought Liberace was straight.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Clay Aiken being gay is the worst-kept secret in show biz. Hell, more people probably thought Liberace was straight.
LIBERACE was gay too??
Who's next? Michael Jackson? Ellen DeGeneres?
The horror of it all! [}:)]
MON. OCT., 9, 2006
VIEWERS
FOXNEWS O'REILLY 2,216,000
FNC SHEP SMITH 1,437,000
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,355,000
FNC GRETA 1,057,000
CNN KING 1,026,000
CNN DOBBS 813,000
CNN COOPER 767,000
CNN BLITZER 721,000
CNN ZAHN 697,000
MNSBC OLBERMANN 629,000
Poor J.O. is still at the bottom of the pile. Looks like viewership is up on all the shows. Nothing like an impending election or "scandal" to feed the ratings.
"Stupid is as stupid does"
F. Gump
That should be the tag line for B.O.'s show.
Exclusive: Book says Bush just using Christians
'Tempting Faith' author David Kuo worked for Bush from 2001 to 2003.
Olberman had a story last night on a new book by a Bush White House advisor who portrays the Busheviks as using the fundies for votes and then calling them nuts behind their backs.
While this may just be the first time I have ever agreed with Rove on anything, it is no surprise to see more hypocisy.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15228489/
"I'm tempted to say they're [the Bush Administration and Republican Congress are] spending money now like drunken sailors, but that's not true, because drunken sailors spend their own money. These people are spending our children's and our grandchildren's money. That's immoral and wrong and corrupt. "
-- Richard Viguerie, Father of the Conservative Direct Mail Fundraising Machine
and check out the Death of habeas corpus!!!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/
"It gets in the way of Bush doing his job. But is that really his job?"
Just a question...when did B.O. morph into Michael Moore? I remember when he used to do sports...when he had ratings...
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Just a question...when did B.O. morph into Michael Moore? I remember when he used to do sports...when he had ratings...
So, you support the rearranging of our bill of rights by the occupiers?
I swear I can smell burning cannabis in this room [:o)]
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Poor J.O. is still at the bottom of the pile. Looks like viewership is up on all the shows. Nothing like an impending election or "scandal" to feed the ratings.
What does J. O. stand for...? I kinda get the Lawyer saying B. O. ...
I mean.. he is an Attorney after all but what exactly does J. O. Stand for...?
Are you REALLY that dense Rico?
Are you really that humorless, iplaw?
These two links should irritate you republijerks and fundies.
Enjoy!
http://www.trueblueliberal.com/2006/10/11/olbermann-exclusive-dissecting-new-book-tempting-faith/
"The hypocrisy of the Bush Crowd, including
so-called evangelicals (notice the word con-
tains "angel" of which there are none in that
jaded bunch) is too astounding to be believed but even more unbelievable is how
Americans have fallen for their lies and
mischief. "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uo-9bFJcRM
And here is proof liberals do not spend their time listening to radio like those nuts on the right do....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/13/AR2006101300534.html
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
These two links should irritate you republijerks and fundies.
Enjoy!
http://www.trueblueliberal.com/2006/10/11/olbermann-exclusive-dissecting-new-book-tempting-faith/
"The hypocrisy of the Bush Crowd, including
so-called evangelicals (notice the word con-
tains "angel" of which there are none in that
jaded bunch) is too astounding to be believed but even more unbelievable is how
Americans have fallen for their lies and
mischief. "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uo-9bFJcRM
Aox, are you that naive to believe that Democraps don't pander to certain sectors of society themselves to gain power? Do you think they really care two whits about the well-being of blacks or gays, other than whether or not they make it to the polls on election day?
Why do you think nothing is being done about the immigration problem? It's because neither party wants to lose the votes of the Hispanic community to do what is right for all Americans, both parties are jockeying for their votes. Whichever party is percieved as being behind the issue will lose an ever-increasing and important voter base.
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
And here is proof liberals do not spend their time listening to radio like those nuts on the right do....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/13/AR2006101300534.html
No, it's proof that most Americans with any common sense don't spend a whole lot of time listening to the clap-trap spewing from the mouths of scholars like Franken and J.O.
" Do you think they really care two whits about the well-being of blacks or gays, other than whether or not they make it to the polls on election day?"
Finger pointing....the republican way.
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
" Do you think they really care two whits about the well-being of blacks or gays, other than whether or not they make it to the polls on election day?"
Finger pointing....the republican way.
Nice selective editing so you can take it out of context, just like your hero, J.O.
The comment when taken in its whole is finger-pointing...at both parties, Aoxymoron.
"FOX News Hides Unfavorable Poll Results About Bush And Iraq"
http://www.newshounds.us/2006/10/15/fox_news_hides_unfavorable_poll_results_about_bush_and_iraq.php
VERY unfavorable....
This should conclude the KO thread:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10172006/gossip/pagesix/potency_pill_pops_up_pagesix_.htm
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
This should conclude the KO thread:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10172006/gossip/pagesix/potency_pill_pops_up_pagesix_.htm
Guido, don't go bragging about reading the post. It shows your frame of reference and ruins our ability to believe your unintelligence is genuine.
aox: This coming from a worshipper of KO and DailyKos...Wow!
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
aox: This coming from a worshipper of KO and DailyKos...Wow!
More trustworthy than The New Jerk Post.....
I have been notified by IPLAWless to post here that Countdown tonight will feature a special KO commentary on President Bush's ran sacking of our constitution at 7 and 11 on #50 Cox.
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
I have been notified by IPLAWless to post here that Countdown tonight will feature a special KO commentary on President Bush's ran sacking of our constitution at 7 and 11 on #50 Cox.
I wish he was a columnist so I could wipe my a$$ with him.
Showing your true colors....
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6382811.html&referral=SUPP
Looks like KO will soon to be givng a special comment on CNBC--NBC's graveyard...Bwahahahah
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6382811.html&referral=SUPP
Looks like KO will soon to be givng a special comment on CNBC--NBC's graveyard...Bwahahahah
Wow, that's like being demoted from a double A baseball team to single A. [}:)]
Yep. He's pushing the envelope. He'll be fired, jailed, and tried for treason. It's coming.....
AOX: What are you saying, the government is going after KO because of his opinions? Time for the obligatory:
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
According to our new dictate from the cungress and presiduncy, Keith is headed to prison. Just watch....the regime can't have this type of dissention.
'National yawn as our rights evaporate'
New law redefines habeas corpus; law professor explains on 'Countdown'
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15318240/
"A huge sea change for our democracy"
Americans are stupid and lazy....how else do you end up with a moron as President?
Now, go put on your beanie Gweeeedoedoe....
I hope you do not base any opinions you have on what Jonathon Turley says.
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
According to our new dictate from the cungress and presiduncy, Keith is headed to prison. Just watch....the regime can't have this type of dissention.
'National yawn as our rights evaporate'
New law redefines habeas corpus; law professor explains on 'Countdown'
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15318240/
"A huge sea change for our democracy"
Americans are stupid and lazy....how else do you end up with a moron as President?
Now, go put on your beanie Gweeeedoedoe....
I know you just say crap like this to get a rise out of people because no sane person could actually be this dumb.
There are many other more intelligent and outspoken critics of Bush than BO.
Go put your tinfoil hat on and go sit in the corner.
quote:
Americans are stupid and lazy
Yes. You're living, breathing proof.
Aox, I'm sometimes on your side politically. But it's hard to chime in with support because:
1) your immaturity
2) your name-calling (related to No. 1)
3) your threads that aren't an honest attempt at discussion, but baiting.
I'm sure you graduated from fifth grade. Please act like it.
Rwarn shoots...he scores!!!
Republijerks! There conofaman that's 10 but they are all on Political threads unlike your posting in other threads here.
I really love hounding you dogs.
You are correct. Lots of bait out there. Catfish bait for you noodlers.
The stuff smells like your political beliefs....
Do you like my photo of J.O. recruiting little children?
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
Republijerks! There conofaman that's 10 but they are all on Political threads unlike your posting in other threads here.
I really love hounding you dogs.
You are correct. Lots of bait out there. Catfish bait for you noodlers.
The stuff smells like your political beliefs....
Who do you buy your stuff from I need his number cause his stuff must be the sh!t...
Back on topic!
This is what will get KO ko'ed by NBC and locked up by the regime.
'Beginning of the end of America'
Olbermann addresses the Military Commissions Act in a special comment
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15321167/
Fear strikes out....
But you gotta love this..."And did it even occur to you once, sir — somewhere in amidst those eight separate, gruesome, intentional, terroristic invocations of the horrors of 9/11 -- that with only a little further shift in this world we now know—just a touch more repudiation of all of that for which our patriots died --- did it ever occur to you once that in just 27 months and two days from now when you leave office, some irresponsible future president and a "competent tribunal" of lackeys would be entitled, by the actions of your own hand, to declare the status of "unlawful enemy combatant" for -- and convene a Military Commission to try -- not John Walker Lindh, but George Walker Bush?"
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
Back on topic!
This is what will get KO ko'ed by NBC and locked up by the regime.
'Beginning of the end of America'
Olbermann addresses the Military Commissions Act in a special comment
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15321167/
Fear strikes out....
But you gotta love this..."And did it even occur to you once, sir — somewhere in amidst those eight separate, gruesome, intentional, terroristic invocations of the horrors of 9/11 -- that with only a little further shift in this world we now know—just a touch more repudiation of all of that for which our patriots died --- did it ever occur to you once that in just 27 months and two days from now when you leave office, some irresponsible future president and a "competent tribunal" of lackeys would be entitled, by the actions of your own hand, to declare the status of "unlawful enemy combatant" for -- and convene a Military Commission to try -- not John Walker Lindh, but George Walker Bush?"
(http://i11.tinypic.com/2j1vpkg.jpg)(http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft/images/keith_olbermann_a_howard_beale_movie_network_2005_03_24.jpg)
"For a more informed (and blistering, chilling, stirring) consideration of all this, see Keith Olbermann on MSNBC. He's been absolutely magnificent. "
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barry-yourgrau/is-george-bush-an-unlawf_b_32139.html
"Such is the state of journalism, that some of the most powerful insight and alarms on the dangers to our democracy comes from an ex-sports broadcaster wise guy."
A Harvard wise guy....
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/Bubba.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
(http://i11.tinypic.com/2j1vpkg.jpg)(http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft/images/keith_olbermann_a_howard_beale_movie_network_2005_03_24.jpg)
Geez....... ip.. I'm glad you are finally coming to your senses...
Republicans can't be all bad..[}:)]
Hey posties! Did you see Nancy on 60 minutes? She was fabulous! It will be good having a savy intellectual back running congress. The Bushies are such lame ducks.
That's assuming the Democrats will win in November, and assuming the Democrats would actually elect her as House Speaker.
That's a lot of assumptions that many not even come to pass.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
That's assuming the Democrats will win in November, and assuming the Democrats would actually elect her as House Speaker.
That's a lot of assumptions that many not even come to pass.
True. If the Democrats DON'T blow it, they'll be plowing new ground for them.
Dreadful what these chicken hawk draft dodging power mad piss ants have done with our country in just 6 years.
"Special Comment: Advertising terrorism
The key to terrorism is not the act — but the fear of the act"
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15392701/
"There is a cheap "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" quality to the whole thing, and it also serves to immediately call to mind the occasions when President Bush dismissed Osama bin Laden as somebody he didn't think about—except, obviously, when elections were near.
Frankly, a lot of people seeing that commercial for the first time, have laughed out loud.
But—not everyone.
And therein lies the true threat to this country.
The dictionary definition of the word "terrorize" is simple and not open to misinterpretation:
"To fill or overpower with terror; terrify. To coerce by intimidation or fear."
Note please, that the words "violence" and "death" are missing from that definition.
The key to terror, the key to terrorism, is not the act—but the fear of the act.
That is why bin Laden and his deputies and his imitators are forever putting together videotaped statements and releasing virtual infomercials with dire threats and heart-stopping warnings.
But why is the Republican Party imitating them? "
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
Dreadful what these chicken hawk draft dodging power mad piss ants have done with our country in just 6 years.
"Special Comment: Advertising terrorism
The key to terrorism is not the act — but the fear of the act"
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15392701/
"There is a cheap "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" quality to the whole thing, and it also serves to immediately call to mind the occasions when President Bush dismissed Osama bin Laden as somebody he didn't think about—except, obviously, when elections were near.
Frankly, a lot of people seeing that commercial for the first time, have laughed out loud.
But—not everyone.
And therein lies the true threat to this country.
The dictionary definition of the word "terrorize" is simple and not open to misinterpretation:
"To fill or overpower with terror; terrify. To coerce by intimidation or fear."
Note please, that the words "violence" and "death" are missing from that definition.
The key to terror, the key to terrorism, is not the act—but the fear of the act.
That is why bin Laden and his deputies and his imitators are forever putting together videotaped statements and releasing virtual infomercials with dire threats and heart-stopping warnings.
But why is the Republican Party imitating them? "
I think the definition of terrorism might have changed after 3000 PEOPLE WERE KILLED IN 9/11!!!
Sad to say, I sat through his commentary last night. J.O. is a seditionist and a psycho. I thought his head was going to pop off.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
Dreadful what these chicken hawk draft dodging power mad piss ants have done with our country in just 6 years.
"Special Comment: Advertising terrorism
The key to terrorism is not the act — but the fear of the act"
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15392701/
"There is a cheap "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" quality to the whole thing, and it also serves to immediately call to mind the occasions when President Bush dismissed Osama bin Laden as somebody he didn't think about—except, obviously, when elections were near.
Frankly, a lot of people seeing that commercial for the first time, have laughed out loud.
But—not everyone.
And therein lies the true threat to this country.
The dictionary definition of the word "terrorize" is simple and not open to misinterpretation:
"To fill or overpower with terror; terrify. To coerce by intimidation or fear."
Note please, that the words "violence" and "death" are missing from that definition.
The key to terror, the key to terrorism, is not the act—but the fear of the act.
That is why bin Laden and his deputies and his imitators are forever putting together videotaped statements and releasing virtual infomercials with dire threats and heart-stopping warnings.
But why is the Republican Party imitating them? "
I think the definition of terrorism might have changed after 3000 PEOPLE WERE KILLED IN 9/11!!!
Nope. "Support your claims"..Gweedoedoe
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Sad to say, I sat through his commentary last night. J.O. is a seditionist and a psycho. I thought his head was going to pop off.
Well, there's one CONvert! Glad to see you're watching.
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-12/903959/n_olbermann_newsquiz_050121.275w.jpg)+(http://www.psychology.eku.edu/Autism/money/images.1/deoderant.jpg)=(http://www.coutant.org/murrow.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
Dreadful what these chicken hawk draft dodging power mad piss ants have done with our country in just 6 years.
"Special Comment: Advertising terrorism
The key to terrorism is not the act — but the fear of the act"
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15392701/
"There is a cheap "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" quality to the whole thing, and it also serves to immediately call to mind the occasions when President Bush dismissed Osama bin Laden as somebody he didn't think about—except, obviously, when elections were near.
Frankly, a lot of people seeing that commercial for the first time, have laughed out loud.
But—not everyone.
And therein lies the true threat to this country.
The dictionary definition of the word "terrorize" is simple and not open to misinterpretation:
"To fill or overpower with terror; terrify. To coerce by intimidation or fear."
Note please, that the words "violence" and "death" are missing from that definition.
The key to terror, the key to terrorism, is not the act—but the fear of the act.
That is why bin Laden and his deputies and his imitators are forever putting together videotaped statements and releasing virtual infomercials with dire threats and heart-stopping warnings.
But why is the Republican Party imitating them? "
I think the definition of terrorism might have changed after 3000 PEOPLE WERE KILLED IN 9/11!!!
Nope. "Support your claims"..IPlawless
What part of the "quote" function escapes you? Can you not read? Does my name appear anywhere on those posts?
It stands corrected. It was gweeedoedoe not Iplawless.....
I am sorry.
I get you posties confused sometimes....you all look alike.
http://www.internetweekly.org/2006/10/cartoon_gop_monster_parade.html
http://www.crooksandliars.com/
Dave Letterman got after BO big time, and I love Dave but he's no keith Olbermann....a great 15 minutes of TV, Old Bill shoulda been the only guest....
Bush owes troops an apology, not Kerry
Olbermann: Bush 'appearing to be stupid' about Kerry's joke
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15519404/
"He has spread any and every fear among us in a desperate effort to avoid that which he most fears — some check, some balance against what has become not an imperial, but a unilateral presidency."
RIGHT OK KO!!!!!!
Sorry, I didn't stay tuned in long enough last night to hear J.O.'s clap-trap commentary on a Bush apology.
I did see that Edmond, Oklahoma's mayor was listed as "worst" last night for sending out 22,000 fliers, I believe, to combat teen alcohol and drug abuse. The hotline number listed on it was for a phone sex company. [}:)]
His commentary last night was the most damming criticism I've ever heard of Bush. Wow. I was stunned. It was something for the history books.
KEITH BREAKS THIS STORY LAST NIGHT!!!!
Soft Coup: Editorials in Military Papers to Call for Rumsfeld Ouster
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2006/11/03/soft-coup/
"Breaking: On MSNBC, Keith Olbermann is reporting that on Monday, the day before the midterm elections, editorials will run in the most influential military newspapers calling on President Bush to fire Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld."
what goons we have running our country....
Olbermann taps a well of discontent as the anti-O'Reilly
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/12/MNGV9MB4681.DTL
"Here's what happened,'' Olbermann said in a phone interview this week. "Five years ago (on Sept. 11), 50 percent of the country went quiet. There was this self-imposed censorship. Suddenly it became unimaginable to criticize the administration. And no one else was brave or stupid enough to say, 'I don't remember signing that document.' ''
"Olbermann likes to call the news as he sees it--especially when almost everyone else in the media seems to be ignoring a critical play."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20061202/cm_thenation/20061218eviatar
"But it's not just a niche following: Since late August Olbermann's ratings have shot up 55 percent. In November he was named a GQ Man of the Year. When MSNBC teamed him with Chris Matthews to cover the midterms, the network's ratings were up 111 percent from the 2002 election in the coveted 25-to-54 demographic. And certain fifteen-minute segments on Olbermann's show have edged out his nemesis, Bill O'Reilly. (Olbermann deems O'Reilly the "Worst Person in the World" on his popular nightly contest for the newsmaker who's committed the most despicable act of the day.) "
"I like to say that we are to some degree like the 'Daily Show,' but for half an hour we're not allowed to screw with the news at all. The bar is a little higher over here. Well, the jokes don't have to be as good, but at least 50 percent of the show has to have actually happened"
http://www.radaronline.com/features/2006/12/olbermann.php
"The whole premise of the country is not standing up and saluting a flag. It's standing up and saluting ideas. Most importantly, it's standing up and saying, 'I don't agree at all with what you're saying, but you have the right to say it.' To which O'Reilly's response is, 'Shut up!'"
Did you know MSNBC has a 'Countdown' message board (//%22http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/board.aspx?BoardID=482%22)
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
Did you know MSNBC has a 'Countdown' message board (//%22http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/board.aspx?BoardID=482%22)
What name do you use when you post something to it.....?
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
What name do you use when you post something to it.....?
I have not registered yet. Probably would use some lame-butt tag that directs people to some crummy website . . .
KOed commentary again last night was right on.
Keith Olbermann on Fire: "If in your presence an individual tried to sacrifice an American serviceman or woman, would you intervene? Would you at least protest? What if he had already sacrificed 3,003 of them? What if he had already sacrificed 3,003 of them — and was then to announce his intention to sacrifice hundreds, maybe thousands, more?" Bush is Supposed to Announce American Enterprise
Institute War Escalation Plan Shortly Based on -- Get This -- the PR Theme of "Sacrifice."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16442767/
Olbermann: Special comment about 'sacrifice'
BBC reports Bush will reveal troop surge plan in sacrifice-themed speech
Whenever I see a car that still has a Bush sticker on it I think the owner must support sociopaths....The Axman
More from America's premiere media team....
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/10/olbermann-a-look-backward-at-the-commanders-credibility/
"And after all of that, today it is his credibility versus that of generals, diplomats, allies, Republicans, Democrats, the Iraq Study Group, past presidents, voters last November, and the majority of the American people."
Any of you repugs paying attention anymore?
http://newsbusters.org/blog/2
And completely germane to the discussion, but since when do we consider Fox News a 100% legitimate news channel? Sure, there's a few live news programs here and there to qualify for a designation as a news channel. But for the most part, from what I get from it, I just get alot of ideological propogandanda from a series of partisan hacks and demagogues. So Fox's interview with Mr. Clinton went about the way one could imaginine it to go.