Keith Olberman on Bush's Escalation in Iraq

[KenH]

Nice anti-American bashing there.

No. It is necon bashing. And neocon bashing cannot be done too often.

 

[carpro]

Then you should be able to point out the facts in the commentary that you think are incorrect.

Yet you don't.

I think it is because you can't.

I've already wasted more time on that fool than I should have.

He is just another talking head with an opinion. There are many such out there. I pay attention to almost none of them. He reminds me a lot of Ann Coulter with a smaller audience.

 

[777]

He's the darling of the angry anti-war left, but he's still not Bill O'Reilly.

No. It is necon bashing. And neocon bashing cannot be done too often.

No. Again:

And to Iran and Syria — and, yes, also to the insurgents in Iraq — we must look like a country run by the equivalent of the drunken pest who gets battered to the floor of the saloon by one punch, then staggers to his feet, and shouts at the other guy’s friends, “Ok, which one of you is next?”

"We" is referring to the entire country, unless you think the entire country including Keith Olbermann, is composed entirely of "neocons", whatever they may be.

"Iraqi insurgents"? Oh, terrorists, I don't care what they think, but Keith does. He should go ahead and give all Americans the title of "the worst person in the world", like Time did last year.

 

[Petra-O IX]

Then you should be able to point out the facts in the commentary that you think are incorrect.

Yet you don't.

I think it is because you can't.

I've already wasted more time on that fool than I should have.

He is just another talking head with an opinion. There are many such out there. I pay attention to almost none of them. He reminds me a lot of Ann Coulter with a smaller audience.

:laugh:
And Thus in this monumental moment, KenH had proven his point.

 

[KenH]

No, again:

like a country run by the equivalent of the drunken pest

Olbermann was describing President Bush and his allying himself with the neocons which created the current mess in Iraq.

 

[777]

Olbermann never allied himself with Bush, Ken. I really don't think either of them would want that to happen. He meant all Americans.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, Keith Olbermann was better on SportsCenter, but he has found a new niche in life at last, and he seems to have been refocusing his obsesssive tendencies on the Bush Administration, off of Bill O'Reilly.

The way I see it, there's a trinity of irritating populists with different audiences:

O'Reilly- right-wing populist
Dobbs - mushy-middle populist
Olbermann - left-wing populist

So pick and choose your populist wisely. They're all a hoot to me.

:laugh:
And Thus in this monumental moment, KenH had proven his point.

So, if Olbermann's not rebutted enough by carpro, it proves Olbermann's right on anything he says? Is that the game?

Face it, carpro is "the worst person in the world" now.

 

[Petra-O IX]

So, if Olbermann's not rebutted enough by carpro, it proves Olbermann's right on anything he says? Is that the game?

Face it, carpro is "the worst person in the world" now.

Actually I do have respect for carpro and always have and I know he is capable of presenting arguments instead of ducking them but it does appear that he ducked this one.
Whether Keith Olbermann is right or wrong in his assessment of Bush can be debated without end. However Keith Olbermann does seem to represent the sentiment of what most Americans are feeling about Bush right now.

 

[777]

Actually I do have respect for carpro and always have and I know he is capable of presenting arguments instead of ducking them but it does appear that he ducked this one.

Whether Keith Olbermann is right or wrong in his assessment of Bush can be debated without end. However Keith Olbermann does seem to present the sentiment of what most Americans are feeling about Bush right now.

Okay, I see. It sounded as thought you thought if someone didn't dispute what Olbermann said, it meant Olbermann was correct, but now I think you were just asking for one instance of how he perceived Keith Olbermann to be "all style and no substance".

I think for people like Keith Olbermann and the other two, you actually need both. Keith Olbermann has tapped into a significant section of America that "Airhead America" couldn't. It's possible to listen/read any of them and still disgree with everything they say.

"Substance" for credibility, and just to have an issue. "Style" for technique and ratings.

 

[church mouse guy]

Okay, Ken, here is where your guy is wrong, as I posted above:



This guy is merely insulting the President and the American people. He says that Bush is running the war by Clfiff Notes, the old Democrat thing about how stupid Bush is. He continues that Bush is not thinking--meaning evidently that Bush is not acting as the liberals would like.

He says that Bush threatens Iran and Syria--well good!

He says that Bush fails to consult Congress (meaning the Democrats) and has ignored the Baker-Hamilton commission. Well, Ken, it is called being Commander in Chief.

He says that the military is stretched thin. Is that news or something? Do you see any liberal Democrats doing anything other than saying that those who join the military are dolts who can't make a living any other way?

He even mentions WMDs but he does not call for action to be taken against George Tenet, who should have been fired the first day of the Bush administration for taking the Clinton line that there were WMDs.

Then he blames Bush for the execution of Saddam, saying that it might have offended the KKK of the 19th century. How could that be? Did your buddy feel the same way about what the Italians did to Mussolini? What happened to cultural diversity and it's their culture?


The Democrats want to cut and run. That is what they did under Truman in Korea and under Johnson in Viet Nam. That is what they want to do under the Mormon Reid and the lefty Pelosoi.

 

[KenH]

Olbermann never allied himself with Bush, Ken.

I never said he did so.

 

[KenH]

This guy is merely insulting the President and the American people.

Olbermann is not insulting the American people. Most Americans agree with him on the Iraq issue.

And you did not point out one fact that Olbermann mentioned that is incorrect.

 

[KenH]

Dobbs - mushy-middle populist

I like Lou Dobbs. He is pretty much on the mark all the time.

 

[church mouse guy]

He insults the President and the American people by saying that Bush is running this war with Cliff Notes and without thinking. It is the old Democrat line that Bush is stupid. The Democrats also said that Reagan is stupid, so it is there pattern of attack because liberal Democrats think that they are the natural rulers of the universive. Read Suicide of the West if you haven't.

Of course, I showed many places where your man is wrong, Ken. You merely chose to ignore them and claim victory and call that a debate. Why don't you re-read what I said. Actually, your man is comical, as most everyone here has said.

 

[KenH]

What will be comical, if it wasn't going to be so sad for the Iraqis and our military personnel who have sacrificed so much(which is why I hope it succeeds but I just don't see how it can), will be to watch you and your cohorts running for political cover when President Bush's latest idea for Iraq fails.

 

[church mouse guy]

I am not going to run for political cover, Ken. The Democrats have ruled the USA since 1932 and they will win the election if Bush cannot obtain victory in Iraq or if Bush cannot explain why he cannot obtain victory. We know what Democrat rule is. They believe that government is god and that you can tax and spend your way to wealth and at least control of the population, which is their real aim. Afterall, in these last days, the Democrats will get worse and worse.

 

[777]

I hope Iraq is still winnable, the left got the "troop surge" they wanted, so there.

Olbermann was describing President Bush and his allying himself with the neocons which created the current mess in Iraq.

So Bush was allying himself with "the neocons" is what you meant, not that Keith Olbermann was. It's not hard to find an over-the-top remark from Olbermann:

"[W]e now face what our ancestors faced at other times of exaggerated crisis and melodramatic fear-mongering: A government more dangerous to our liberty than is the enemy it claims to protect us from. ...We have accepted that the only way to stop the terrorists is to let the government become just a little bit like the terrorists."

Really, now. This is what he DOES.

I like Lou Dobbs. He is pretty much on the mark all the time.

Then you're a moderate. Probably Dobbs is the sanest of the three by far.

 

[KenH]

Then you're a moderate.

No, but I agree with Lou Dobbs on illegal immigration and fair trade.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

I've already wasted more time on that fool than I should have.

He is just another talking head with an opinion. There are many such out there. I pay attention to almost none of them. He reminds me a lot of Ann Coulter with a smaller audience.

Ken, you should be ashamed of yourself. You actually ask Carpro to provide facts to back up what he says? How dare you.:laugh:

BTW, don't hold your breath waiting for him to answer.:laugh:

 

[saturneptune]

Olberman is the current poster child for Bush haters united of America. His current splurge of so called popularity is directly connected to the ferocity of his anti Bush diatribes.

He's a howling moonbat enjoying a brief span of popularity amongst the other moonbats of the loony left. His popularity will last as long as he can continue to be be crazy enough to keep that audience happy.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. He has yet to attain that lofty status.

I agree with Carpro on this one. Why is it that we in America give one ounce of time listening to people like this, and that includes Rush, Shawn, Dobbs, Hollywood stars, or any other individual that has no say so in the decision making process. Their opinions matter no more than yours or mine, be it liberal or conservative. Turn the idiots off and think for yourself.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

This guy is merely insulting the President and the American people. He says that Bush is running the war by Clfiff Notes, the old Democrat thing about how stupid Bush is.

So, are you implying that any political debate that does not fully support the POTUS is simply Bush bashing and anti-American?

He continues that Bush is not thinking--meaning evidently that Bush is not acting as the liberals would like.

You are forgetting that the majority of Americans in practically every poll indicate that they do not support the war and disapprove of the way he has handled the war thus far. As a matter of fact, this was demonstrated by the fact that the GOP lost in the midterm elections in a big way, while not one single Democrat in office lost his/her job.

He says that Bush threatens Iran and Syria--well good!

Now there's a great idea: let's threaten Iran and Syria while we are already stuck in a huge quagmire in Iraq. I guess that one way to unite the Sunni and Shia Muslims is to convince them that this is a crusade against Islam by threats against two other Islamic countries in the area.

He says that Bush fails to consult Congress (meaning the Democrats) and has ignored the Baker-Hamilton commission. Well, Ken, it is called being Commander in Chief.

So the Decider has decided that mistakes have been made, and the solution is another 20,000-plus troops. By the way, consulting Congress means precisely that: consulting Congress. It does not mean "the Democrats."

He says that the military is stretched thin. Is that news or something?

And yet, he threatens Iran and Syria.

Do you see any liberal Democrats doing anything other than saying that those who join the military are dolts who can't make a living any other way?

Who said this?

He even mentions WMDs but he does not call for action to be taken against George Tenet, who should have been fired the first day of the Bush administration for taking the Clinton line that there were WMDs.

This makes no sense.

Then he blames Bush for the execution of Saddam, saying that it might have offended the KKK of the 19th century. How could that be?

For two reasons:
1. This happened during Eid, which of course is against the law according to Iraq's Constitution.
2. Now the insane madman is considered by some to be a martyr. That certainly didn't help anything.

Did your buddy feel the same way about what the Italians did to Mussolini?

Did we hand over Mussolini to be hanged? I certainly don't remember it that way.

What happened to cultural diversity and it's their culture?

Not sure how this relates to your argument....

The Democrats want to cut and run.

Ah, yes: when all else fails, simply use the phrase "cut and run." I certainly hear Limbaugh and Hannity parrot this all the time.

That is what they did under Truman in Korea and under Johnson in Viet Nam.

Um, you might want to think about this statement.

That is what they want to do under the Mormon Reid and the lefty Pelosoi.

Well, let's see: Iraq had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the attacks of 9/11, and there were no weapons of mass destruction as was claimed by this Administration. Yet Iraq posed a threat sufficient to justify an invasion. We are stuck there in a huge quagmire. Despite the claim of the Vice President, we are not seeing the last throes of the insurgency. We are apparently threatening Iran and Syria, despite our troops being spread too thin. Despite all this, the solution offered is to send more troops to an already bad situation.

Yep, that sounds like a good plan to me.......

I am not going to run for political cover, Ken. The Democrats have ruled the USA since 1932 and they will win the election if Bush cannot obtain victory in Iraq or if Bush cannot explain why he cannot obtain victory. We know what Democrat rule is. They believe that government is god and that you can tax and spend your way to wealth and at least control of the population, which is their real aim. Afterall, in these last days, the Democrats will get worse and worse.

This is precisely what Rush Limbaugh says. You are forgetting about the landslide of 1994, and the fact that the GOP controlled all three branches of government for the last few years. The current administration is the one who has worked to give us the Patriot Act, have disregarded the FISA laws, and monitors our phone calls, emails, bank records, and even has the authority to check our reading habits. That is real control of the population, isn't it?

Regards,
BiR