Keith Olberman on Bush's Escalation in Iraq

[Pastor Larry]

You can't argue with the substance of what the man said so you attack his presentation.

Actually, I can argue with the substance, and I gave an example. His rant about the president being at fault for the WTC not being rebuilt was stupid. There's no other way to put it. It is not Bush's fault that the WTC wasn't rebuilt by five years after 9/11. That kind of thinking reminds us that stupidity still exists, as if we needed a reminder.

As I say I don't watch him enough to remember specifics. But his presentation makes me laugh. It is like a grade schooler trying to pick a fight with a high school who just walks on by like the kid doesn't exist. The grade schooler's friends think he's real tough; everyone else just rolls their eyes.

 

[tragic_pizza]

And neocon bashing cannot be done too often.

I could not agree more.

 

[carpro]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 777


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.

Thank you both, but here's the real deal.

It is hard for most people to imagine the amount of disdain I hold for the likes of Olberman. The list is fairly short, but unless it's by accident, I neither read nor watch Olbermann, O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Franken, and Matthews.

Nothing other than an extremely biased opinion or some twisted version of the truth comes from any of them.

Olbermann is one of the worst. He spends more time on his hate than any of the others do. He practically snarls or drools everytime he says "Bush".

I try to spend as little time as possible paying attention to so called newsmen who are consumed by hate and depending on our fascination with it to get their twisted version of the truth across.

 

[KenH]

The list is fairly short, but unless it's by accident, I neither read nor watch Olbermann

If you didn't watch the video that this thread is discussing why are you posting in this thread?

 

[carpro]

If you didn't watch the video that this thread is discussing why are you posting in this thread?

To share my contempt of Olberman as a source for any kind of "truth".

2 Questions:

Is that against the rules??

Do you own this thread and decide who can post and who can't?

 

[church mouse guy]

BiR, you wrote, "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......."

Let's look at the facts.

It is true that there is no public information that Iraq had anything to do with Nine Eleven. Who said that they did?

It was not just the GOP that said that there were WMDs in Iraq. Clinton and most Democrats were saying the same thing. Tenet is a Democrat and he claimed that also. Of course, it was a mistake to leave Democrats in high places when Bush was sworn in but Bush tried to placate the Democrats after Gore sued unsuccessfully over the election. Tenet should have been fired long before Nine Eleven and on Nine Twelve for sure.

We are not stuck in a quagmire. The American soldier is the greatest soldier in the history of the world. These savages that we are fighting can be destroyed easily if necessary. Roosevelt lost more men in one day several times during WW II than we have lost in all our time in Iraq.

Syria and Iran are part of the problem in Iraq and always have been. Our troops are spread thin because we do not withdraw them from Europe and because the West is in the process of committing suicide (Read Suicide of the West), BiR. We need to get serious about this situation and if necessary attack Syria and Iran. You blame Bush for sending in more troops but the levels are not any higher than they have been before. Also, Bush lost the election and part of the Democrat plan was to either put in more troops (safety in numbers--the Powell doctrine used in Gulf Storm) or cut and run. Ultimately, the Democrats seemed poised to campaign on cut and run in 2008 with a Mormon leading in the Senate and an ultra-leftist leading in the House. I tell you, BiR, you should pray for the President and the Vice-President because if they were unable to serve for whatever reason the Speaker of the House would be more communist than Fidel Castro and more looney than Hugo Chavez. Wake up and smell the latte!

 

[KenH]

2 Questions:

Is that against the rules??

Do you own this thread and decide who can post and who can't?

No.

No.

I am simply disappointed that you have not added anything substantive to this thread.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Let's look at the facts.

It is true that there is no public information that Iraq had anything to do with Nine Eleven. Who said that they did?

So, we are in agreement with this point. Okay, so would you not agree that we should be focusing on Afghanistan?

It was not just the GOP that said that there were WMDs in Iraq. Clinton and most Democrats were saying the same thing. Tenet is a Democrat and he claimed that also. Of course, it was a mistake to leave Democrats in high places when Bush was sworn in but Bush tried to placate the Democrats after Gore sued unsuccessfully over the election. Tenet should have been fired long before Nine Eleven and on Nine Twelve for sure.

Yes, but it was the current POTUS who decided that we should invade Iraq. Do you remember why we invaded? As the radio-talk-show host Lionel has noted: this is not a case of "we didn't find the amount we originally believed," this is a case of "we didn't find anything at all." Think about that: nothing. Yet we have invaded and now we are stuck there.

We are not stuck in a quagmire. The American soldier is the greatest soldier in the history of the world. These savages that we are fighting can be destroyed easily if necessary. Roosevelt lost more men in one day several times during WW II than we have lost in all our time in Iraq.

This is a quagmire whether or not you want to believe it. We are now in a position where we can't stay, and we can't leave. Notice that the "Coalition of the Willing" is leaving the country.

Syria and Iran are part of the problem in Iraq and always have been.

Nope, not true - when there was a despot in control, they were not even an issue.

Our troops are spread thin because we do not withdraw them from Europe and because the West is in the process of committing suicide (Read Suicide of the West), BiR.

If you are referring to the book by James Burnham, I read that book YEARS ago, when I was a hard-core right-wing conservative (back in college in the early '90's). As I recall, I was not that impressed, even then.

We need to get serious about this situation and if necessary attack Syria and Iran.

This will be the worst possible outcome, although I predicted that this would be the push in 2006. I may be a year premature. I guess that you want to unite the entire Muslim population against us.

You blame Bush for sending in more troops but the levels are not any higher than they have been before.

Not exactly, I blame him for getting us into this mess in Iraq. When we invaded Afghanistan, I was on board with him on that one. He lost me when we invaded Iraq.

Also, Bush lost the election and part of the Democrat plan was to either put in more troops (safety in numbers--the Powell doctrine used in Gulf Storm) or cut and run. Ultimately, the Democrats seemed poised to campaign on cut and run in 2008 with a Mormon leading in the Senate and an ultra-leftist leading in the House.

Pelosi is NOT an ultra-leftist, and as a self-identified leftist, I would know more about that than you. If you want to find an ultra-leftist, I suggest you read something by Ginsburg, Chomsky, or Zinn. Stop listening to Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly or whichever source you are getting this nonsense, and think for yourself. Come on CMG, you're better than this.

I tell you, BiR, you should pray for the President and the Vice-President

I do pray for them, every single day.

....because if they were unable to serve for whatever reason the Speaker of the House would be more communist than Fidel Castro and more looney than Hugo Chavez. Wake up and smell the latte!

This is abject fatuity. You don't truly understand the left, as evidenced by this statement. To compare the Speaker of the House to Castro or Chavez is intellectual dishonesty, nothing more. Come on CMG, you're better than this.

Despite this, I trust that you and yours are doing well - the weather here is incredible,
BiR

 

[777]

You really can't control the content of other people's posts, now can you?

Pelosi is NOT an ultra-leftist, and as a self-identified leftist, I would know more about that than you. If you want to find an ultra-leftist, I suggest you read something by Ginsburg, Chomsky, or Zinn. Stop listening to Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly or whichever source you are getting this nonsense, and think for yourself.

Or you could just stick to Keith Olbermann! Big frickin' deal she's not far left enough for you, she's still far, far left, as is Keith Olbermann. Difference is, Pelosi's more dangerous.

"I would know more about that than you."

Yep, a leftist. Thinks taking their orders is "thinking for yourself".

 

[carpro]

Yes, but it was the current POTUS who decided that we should invade Iraq. Do you remember why we invaded? As the radio-talk-show host Lionel has noted: this is not a case of "we didn't find the amount we originally believed," this is a case of "we didn't find anything at all." Think about that: nothing.

That is purely and simply not true. It has been proven, with the proof posted multiple times on this forum, that his statement is false.

 

[church mouse guy]

The problem with lefties like Pelosi is that they lie about their true plans for the USA. If they get their hands on power, they turn out like Carter or Clinton or worse.

As for the war and WMDs, it cannot evidently be repeated enough that Democrats gutted the CIA under Frank Church when they came to power after Watergate. Now they complain about the failures of Democrat holdover George Tenet, who was Bush's first mistake in that Tenet should have been fired right away on the first day of the Bush presidency, and the failures of even people such as the Clintons who said that Iraq had WMDs. Clinton probably was trying to detract from his personal failures and should not be listened to on matters of national security.

At any rate everyone in both parties thought there were WMDs. The fact that there were not is not a reason for withdrawal once we were in the middle of a war.

The Democrats have a history of not fulfilling commitments. One cannot promise the world that one will do this or that and then stop in the middle and go home. We did that in Korea under Truman and in Viet Nam under Johnson. The world already hates and mistrusts us because of what we did in Viet Nam when we withdrew and left tens of thousands to die in the following communist bloodbath. We cannot retreat again like Napoleon in Moscow.

 

[ASLANSPAL]

Silly cmg tricks are for kids....

CMG SAID"The Democrats have a history of not fulfilling commitments. One cannot promise the world that one will do this or that and then stop in the middle and go home. We did that in Korea under Truman and in Viet Nam under Johnson. The world already hates and mistrusts us because of what we did in Viet Nam when we withdrew and left tens of thousands to die in the following communist bloodbath. We cannot retreat again like Napoleon in Moscow."

A response visual to cmgs revisionists history:
:

R.I.P

R.I.P.

Chief Architect


Now, I am not putting them down they showed moral courage in getting us out of a war that had turned into a nationalists cause to remove occupiers.

Our national interests took another strategy in taking down the Old Soviet Union with the ramp up of modern Defense technology and the Soviet Union collapsing on itself...sad it did not take China with it.(now Wal-mart props it up:smilewinkgrin: rumor is they are in negotiations to buy the great wall)

but hey cmg thanks for trying ...a goofy opinion but still your right.

 

[ASLANSPAL]

All this Olbermann bashing lets be fair

http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Play/13566/1/Countdown-Unstoppable.wmv/

Olberman is being fair and is pointing out bad performance that needs accountability...that simple and that obvious.

btw: Bolton just called it a "civil war"

bush has just messed up in Somalia for those who want to bash Clinton for his Sudan effort.

http://in.today.reuters.com/news/ne...R_RTRJONC_0_India-283320-1.xml&archived=False

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article2145150.ece


Somalia air raids hit nomads, 70 dead - Oxfam

NAIROBI (Reuters) - Air attacks against fugitive Islamists in south Somalia in recent days have mistakenly targeted nomadic herdsmen gathering round fires, killing 70, British-based aid agency Oxfam said on Friday.
"Under international law, there is a duty to distinguish between military and civilian targets," Oxfam added, citing its local partner organisations in Somalia for the information.


US strikes on Somalia 'missed target'

By Kim Sengupta

Published: 12 January 2007



The US air strike in Somalia missed its main target of three senior al-Qa'ida members, American officials admitted yesterday, as concern continued to grow over the rising numbers of casualties from the conflict.
A day after widespread publicity over claims that a "surgical" attack had killed Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, allegedly involved with the bombing of the US embassy in Nairobi, it emerged that neither he, nor two other suspects, Abu Taiha al-Sudani and Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, were among the dead.


my comment: and after these reports now they are shutting down the free press of outsiders...not surprised need to cover up incomptence at all costs.


Media crackdown in Somalia draws protests



By Sahal Abdulle
MOGADISHU (Reuters) - Somali government officials met on Tuesday with executives from four major news outlets shut down for "causing unrest" in a move drawing swift criticism from press watchdogs at home and abroad.
The closure of the outlets -- accused by the government of heightening tensions by airing unconfirmed reports -- came as martial law was declared across Somalia weeks after an Ethiopian-led military offensive ousted Islamists in the south. "Shutting down private media houses is the worst way to reconcile the Somali people and to bring the country out of these long periods of chaos," said Gabriel Baglo, Africa office director of the International Federation of Journalists.

"We condemn this unacceptable violation of press freedom."

http://today.reuters.com/news/artic...ONFLICT.xml&WTmodLoc=IntNewsHome_C1_[Feed]-10

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

You really can't control the content of other people's posts, now can you?

Not sure if this was directed at me, but if it was, I never have made any attempt to control the content of other people's posts. If it was directed at me, please show us where I ever made this claim or attempted to control it.

Pelosi is NOT an ultra-leftist, and as a self-identified leftist, I would know more about that than you. If you want to find an ultra-leftist, I suggest you read something by Ginsburg, Chomsky, or Zinn. Stop listening to Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly or whichever source you are getting this nonsense, and think for yourself.

Or you could just stick to Keith Olbermann! Big frickin' deal she's not far left enough for you, she's still far, far left, as is Keith Olbermann. Difference is, Pelosi's more dangerous.

777, Pelosi is NOT "far, far left." You can make the claim, and it's NOT TRUE. You can reply to this post claiming otherwise, and it's still NOT TRUE. Pelosi is NOT "far, far left." Perhaps you have never had any experiences with "far, far left" people.

"I would know more about that than you."

Yep, a leftist. Thinks taking their orders is "thinking for yourself".

What in the world does this mean? You took a portion of one sentence that was not directed at you, and responded with this? Where did I give anyone "orders?"

Regards anyway,
BiR

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

The problem with lefties like Pelosi is that they lie about their true plans for the USA. If they get their hands on power, they turn out like Carter or Clinton or worse.

As for the war and WMDs, it cannot evidently be repeated enough that Democrats gutted the CIA under Frank Church when they came to power after Watergate. Now they complain about the failures of Democrat holdover George Tenet, who was Bush's first mistake in that Tenet should have been fired right away on the first day of the Bush presidency, and the failures of even people such as the Clintons who said that Iraq had WMDs. Clinton probably was trying to detract from his personal failures and should not be listened to on matters of national security.

At any rate everyone in both parties thought there were WMDs. The fact that there were not is not a reason for withdrawal once we were in the middle of a war.

The Democrats have a history of not fulfilling commitments. One cannot promise the world that one will do this or that and then stop in the middle and go home. We did that in Korea under Truman and in Viet Nam under Johnson. The world already hates and mistrusts us because of what we did in Viet Nam when we withdrew and left tens of thousands to die in the following communist bloodbath. We cannot retreat again like Napoleon in Moscow.

We agree to disagree.

As always, I very much enjoy your posts, and am always curious as to what you think. It's been a while since we have had an exchange.

I trust that you and yours are doing well out there in your beautiful city. I am eager to see that game in Indy this weekend.

Wishing God's Blessings to you,
BiR

 

[777]

Not sure if this was directed at me, but if it was, I never have made any attempt to control the content of other people's posts. If it was directed at me, please show us where I ever made this claim or attempted to control it.

Not specifically, but it invaribly applies to you even in this thread. Here:

As you have called him out, please provide us with examples of what you mean. Where is this "fiery rhetoric without substance?"

And you ignore it when he does so.

Now, you called him out on having no substance. Do you realize the seriousness of that charge?

All bomb-throwers are accused of that, there's nothing "serious" pointing out that fact. And, yeah, Rush Limbaugh's Keith Olbermann's mirror image.

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

Trying to rewrite his post throught your partisan eyes, to make him say what you want to hear.

This makes no sense.

Only if you look at it with your left eye only.

777, Pelosi is NOT "far, far left." You can make the claim, and it's NOT TRUE. You can reply to this post claiming otherwise, and it's still NOT TRUE. Pelosi is NOT "far, far left."

I'm referring from the center, not from Keith Obermann's or your perspective. This is her voting record:

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=H0222103

It's to the right of maybe Castro.

Perhaps you have never had any experiences with "far, far left" people.

Actually, I went to school around Nancy Pelosi's district, yeah, that one.

What in the world does this mean? You took a portion of one sentence that was not directed at you, and responded with this? Where did I give anyone "orders?"

If you want to find an ultra-leftist, I suggest you read something by Ginsburg, Chomsky, or Zinn. Stop listening to Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly or whichever source you are getting this nonsense, and think for yourself

The second sentence is imperative. Even worse, you're implying he's NOT thinking for himself, that he's parroting "nonsense".

I've read all those "ultra-leftists" you mentioned, you could have also mentioned Lenin, Trotsky, Chavez, Castro, Che, Dawkins, Russell, Stalin...........they're all on the left, too!

And, so? You still think I lied while you were defending a huge lie called "Kwanzaa". You might have been a knee-jerk conservative at one time, but now you're suggesting a Christian should read works by aging radical atheists so that he can now "think for himself".

Regards anyway,
BiR

Yes, take care.

 

[carpro]

This is her voting record:

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=H0222103

It's to the right of maybe Castro.

But not much.:thumbs:

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Not sure if this was directed at me, but if it was, I never have made any attempt to control the content of other people's posts. If it was directed at me, please show us where I ever made this claim or attempted to control it.

Not specifically, but it invaribly applies to you even in this thread. Here:

Okay, so let's look at your statement again:

You really can't control the content of other people's posts, now can you?

Where did I ever make an effort to "control the content of other people's posts?" You made the charge, and when I asked you if this statement applied to me, you have answered that it does. Since you have made a claim, and have made it clear that it does apply to me, show us where I have ever made "any attempt to control the content of other people's posts." This is a specific accusation, so you need to give specific evidence. Don't turn this into an integrity issue for yourself.
Now, please show us the proof for your accusation.

All bomb-throwers are accused of that, there's nothing "serious" pointing out that fact.

What exactly does this mean? Are you implying that being a "bomb-thrower" (your word, not mine) is an acceptable behavior on the Baptist Board? I certainly hope not.

And, yeah, Rush Limbaugh's Keith Olbermann's mirror image.

Yeah, okay, right.

Trying to rewrite his post throught your partisan eyes, to make him say what you want to hear.

This is obviously not true. I have never made an attempt to "rewrite his post." Thanks for bearing false witness.

I'm referring from the center,

Oh, so are you holding yourself out as someone from the "center?"

...not from Keith Obermann's or your perspective. This is her voting record:

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=H0222103

Here is her agenda for Congress:
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/

It's to the right of maybe Castro.

This is nonsensical. You and I are "to the right of maybe Castro."

Actually, I went to school around Nancy Pelosi's district, yeah, that one.

If this is true, and you were in school in the greater San Francisco area, then you KNOW that Nancy Pelosi is NOT an "ultra-leftist."

The second sentence is imperative. Even worse, you're implying he's NOT thinking for himself, that he's parroting "nonsense".

The quote to which I was referring was the claim that Nancy Pelosi is an ultra-leftist. As for "parroting," that is yet another of your words, not mine.

I've read all those "ultra-leftists" you mentioned, you could have also mentioned Lenin, Trotsky, Chavez, Castro, Che, Dawkins, Russell, Stalin...........they're all on the left, too!

Yes, the are - and they are good examples of the FAR left. Although I am sure that it was not your intention, thanks for reinforcing my point.

In this discussion, you have stated that you "went to school around Nancy Pelosi's district," and claimed to have read "all those 'ultra-leftists'" that I mentioned to CMG. If this is true, then you know that Nancy Pelosi is NOT an "ultra-leftist."

It really is that simple, 777: Nancy Pelosi is NOT an "ultra-leftist." You can claim it all you want, but it doesn't change the simple fact that Nancy Pelosi is NOT an "ultra-leftist." You can respond to this post and claim it again, but it doesn't change the fact that Nancy Pelosi is NOT an "ultra-leftist." Anyone who has attended a school in the Bay Area would know this to be true.

And, so? You still think I lied while you were defending a huge lie called "Kwanzaa".

This is more false witness. The discussion is out there for all to see, and it is now closed, so I cannot go in to edit my statements. Anyone who reads my comments in that discussion knows that you are bearing false witness. I never defended Kwanzaa, as I don't celebrate it. I did, however, ask several times just exactly how does celebrating the holiday harm you in any way. You never bothered to answer that question, prefering to repeat the same statments in perpetuity. Just because I don't subscribe to your apparent belief that Kwanzaa is so horrible does not mean that I am "defending" it. I am not sure why you cannot grasp that fact.

You might have been a knee-jerk conservative at one time, but now you're suggesting a Christian should read works by aging radical atheists so that he can now "think for himself".

That's right: I am telling everyone to read and think for themselves. That is one thing you did get right.

Regards,
BiR

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

The problem with lefties like Pelosi is that they lie about their true plans for the USA. If they get their hands on power, they turn out like Carter or Clinton or worse.

As for the war and WMDs, it cannot evidently be repeated enough that Democrats gutted the CIA under Frank Church when they came to power after Watergate. Now they complain about the failures of Democrat holdover George Tenet, who was Bush's first mistake in that Tenet should have been fired right away on the first day of the Bush presidency, and the failures of even people such as the Clintons who said that Iraq had WMDs. Clinton probably was trying to detract from his personal failures and should not be listened to on matters of national security.

At any rate everyone in both parties thought there were WMDs. The fact that there were not is not a reason for withdrawal once we were in the middle of a war.

The Democrats have a history of not fulfilling commitments. One cannot promise the world that one will do this or that and then stop in the middle and go home. We did that in Korea under Truman and in Viet Nam under Johnson. The world already hates and mistrusts us because of what we did in Viet Nam when we withdrew and left tens of thousands to die in the following communist bloodbath. We cannot retreat again like Napoleon in Moscow.

The Viet Nam war ended when Nixon surrendered. Where are you getting this stuff?

 

[DeeJay]

The Viet Nam war ended when Nixon surrendered. Where are you getting this stuff?

:laugh: :laugh:

Ya, thats exactly how it happened. Nixon came out with his hands up, right. :laugh: