Keith Olbermann gets it exactly right

You guys HAVE been repeating it, for years, and have nothing, yet, to show for it. Post it everyday, if you want. The Iraq war is a just war. And America will not trust it's national security to the loons that have taken the democratic party. It won't happen.

 

At the risk of accepting the label, "staunch right-wing nut", I have to ask: What is this "lie" you are talking about?

 

Here is all you have to do Blammo,
Completely disregard any news stories or posts on this board regarding Bush's ineptnes, then focus only on the biased right wing media and above all follow the George Bush 5 step program
Step 1. Deny and reframe the issue
Step 2. Blame media
Step 3. Blame Democratic leadership
Step 4. Blame critics
Step 5. Blame the victim

Rinse, wash and repeat…..

 

:laugh: Okay. Now, what about that "lie" you were talking about?

 

Truth or Lie?

During the 2004 campaign, Bush claimed “Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.”
Mr. Bush swore an oath to the Constitution but shows his disdain for the Constitution when he calls it a bankety, blankety piece of paper.
His whole Presidency is a lie and he is only concerned about the welfare of elitist friends.

 

Well, that certainly narrows it down.

 

That is the truth, Bush did say that during the 2004 campaign. Are you saying you have a problem with listening in on conversations involving known Al-Qaida terrorists inside or outside this country without a court order? Isn't that the same kind of garbage that led to us being attacked on 9-11-2001?

 

Yet he has been monitoring conversations of Americans without bothering to get a warrant. That seems to be a lie as well as illegal.

That's not what Rocko said at all. But that's a good example of the "deny and reframe" tactic. Congrats.

No, actually not. There is no evidence that 9-11 would have been stopped by warrantless monitoring the conversations of American citizens. It might have been stopped had the FBI followed up on reports from the field, however.

 

I doubt that President Bush has become a sigint intercept operator . . . if anyone knows otherwise, please be advised - that would be classified information and divulging that information would be a felony.

The sigint intercept involves terrorism. The judge has admitted that.

There is no evidence that warrants would or would not aid the defense of the Constitution and our way of life.

Why do you want foreign nationals to be afforded the protections of the Constitution of the USA?

Second, if American citizens are caught talking with a terrorist by sigint intercept their defense lawyer would prevent that conversation from being used against them - that is what is protected by the Amendment to the Constitution of the USA. Note that I did not say when someone might be caught.

 

You could have given a warning . . .

 

Who are these Americans? Anybody you know?

Thank you. :smilewinkgrin:

I said, "the same KIND of garbage". (Treating the war on terror as a law enforcement matter.)

 

Isn't it interesting that, although many of you can call him names or offer personal attacks, NONE of you can address any of the points he made. That really speaks volumes..........

BiR

 

I'd rather see an empty hole in the ground than a muslim red crescent marking the spot where these innocent people perished, like they have planned for the Flight 93 memorial in Pennsylvania.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=33395

 

It was a rather long and boring rant. Pick the best point from it, and we'll see, maybe I'll agree with it.

 

Actually, this is not true. I addressed a major one all the way back on page 1 where I pointed out that memorials and rebuilding private commercial buildings are not within the purview of the executive branch. Therefore, to blame Bush for the lack of a memorial and building is stupid and shows an ignorance of the constitutional responsibilities.

We can rightly blame Bush for many mishandlings post 9/11 (though we should remember that hindsight is always 20/20 and always too late). This is simply an illegitimate complaint.

There were other faulty points I addressed as well, such as blaming Bush for the loss of bipartisanship. All one needs to do is watch Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi, Biden, Schumer, Clinton, Durbin, et al to figure out that they have done absolutely zero to preserve bipartisanship. Bush has been very genteel towards democrats, by and large (though some in his party have not). In fact, Bush has probably been too genteel, too willing to let untruth and distortion go unaddressed. Bipartisanship, by definition, is a two way street. The lack of falls on both parties, not on Bush alone, if on Bush at all.

 

You wanna see ad hominem attacks ? Post something by Ann Coulter.

I addressed points of the rant, also. So, I guess obsification & denial are traits of both sides, eh ?

 

Mr. Olbermann is nothing but an entertainer and an apologist for the democratic party. Who cares what he thinks or waste time on the guy?

Yet, on the other hand, many on this thread who cut him down, will turn right around and listen to a fat, self-indulgent, pill popping slob who never raised one finger to serve this country and certainly not help fight a war, like Rush Limbaugh. Not only do some listen to him, some intently listens to what he says, and cant go a day without the clown. This is called a republican apologist.

Those who are blinded by the facade of a difference between the power hungry, rotton to the core parties of the democrats and republicans are doomed to keep voting for the same old tired ways that steal from the American people.

 

I used to like Limbaugh, about 15 years ago, before he became his biggest fan. :laugh:

"with talent on loan from God", give me a break, bionic ear guy. He's a perv, just like O'Reilly and G.G. Liddy, can't get their heads out of the gutter.