Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It's interesting how much Olbermann's comments seem to have angered some.> I don't see any anger. I'd describe my personal feelings as pity. <He never once directly blames Bush and only Bush for the rebuilding failures in Manhattan.> He certainly doesn't mention Senators Clinton and Schumer, does he? Don't they deserve some blame for not "stepping in and taking action"? But wait, doesn't he also criticize President Bush because in some situations, he did "step in and take action"? Come one, if the President had "stepped in and taken action", Mr Olbermann would be complaining about how the President overrode local decision makers and imposed his own views. <Bush has squandered and destroyed the unity we had throughout the world after 9/11 because he's an appalling leader and an utterly incompetent president.> Please. All this "world wide unity" is a myth. Any sympathy we had only existed as long as we remained victims.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By ecdc "Please. All this "world wide unity" is a myth. Any sympathy we had only existed as long as we remained victims." Nonsense. We weren't victims in Afghanistan and we had worldwide support there. But we dropped the ball and let bin Laden escape from Tora Bora due to mismanagement there. So our solution was to go after...Iraq! Hey, it makes perfect sense! We had nothing but support for our actions in Afghanistan, and Bush and Co. thought Iraq was more important. "But wait, doesn't he also criticize President Bush because in some situations, he did "step in and take action"? Come one, if the President had "stepped in and taken action", Mr Olbermann would be complaining about how the President overrode local decision makers and imposed his own views." C'mon Douglas, you can do better. Saying Bush gets criticized for taking action and implying he can't win with Olbermann is nonsense. You can't just throw up your hands and say Bush took action when it was absolutely the WRONG action. Bush went to Afghanistan which was the right move. Then the Pentagon didn't put enough soldiers on the ground. So Bush took action by invading Iraq? And you genuinely wonder why people have an issue with that?
Originally Posted By HyperTyper To get a glimpse of Keith Olbermann's character and mode of thinking, one need only know of his regular "Worst Person" award. On a regular basis, he slams the worlds "worse, worser and worst" people. (No fact or logical thought required.) It's an exercise in self-pity and demonization that makes one wonder just what it takes to get on Olbermann's good side. Olbermann is a professional complainer ... neither a glass is half-empty or half-full person, but rather an all-the-glasses-on-the-table-are- broken-because-Bush-smashed-them kind of guy. He makes Eeyore sound like Mary Poppins in comparison.
Originally Posted By ecdc "Olbermann is a professional complainer ... neither a glass is half-empty or half-full person, but rather an all-the-glasses-on-the-table-are- broken-because-Bush-smashed-them kind of guy. He makes Eeyore sound like Mary Poppins in comparison." It is so remarkably telling that those who don't like what Olbermann has to say can only continue to engage in ad hominem attacks rather than address the substance of what he has said. As I noted before, it only reinforces Olbermann's comments about Bush's "follow him at all costs" crowd and their need to demonize or label those who don't agree with them. Olbermann himself couldn't have asked for more proof that what he had to say is correct.
Originally Posted By DAR <<All they can come up with is personal attacks and comments about his ratings - as if that has anything to do with what he said.>> No I honestly didn't know Olbermann was still around. I know when he left ESPN years ago he went to CNN/SI. Then that station folded and you never heard from him. This is the first Olbermann sighting I've seen in awhile.
Originally Posted By woody From post 1 "For me, one of the most powerful and truthful comments on 9/11 and the Bush administration. Rarely have a seen something that speaks so closely to my own feelings and emotions." Yeah, feeling and emotions are what we all feel, but that is no excuse for citing the Twilight Zone as some sort of governing philosophy. It's more sophmoric if you asked me. A laughing out loud moment.... >>>And then in perhaps his finest piece of writing, Rod Serling sums it up with words of remarkable prescience, given where we find ourselves, tonight. “The tools of conquest,†he said, “do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men.<<< I'll translate for conservatives because liberals get it. ...Bombs kill, but thoughts kill too. Let's scapegoat the Christians and conservative thought. Bush caused the hole in the ground because he is prejudiced against aliens....
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men. << >> I'll translate for conservatives because liberals get it. << That's not what I get at all. Try my translation - Some people are more easily mislead than others. By exploiting fears and prejudices within the populace, you can control that portion which is vulnerable. Or more simply stated, you can fool some of the people all of the time.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Here's another olbermann chestnut from friday night. <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_Bush_rants_at_reporters_in_0916.html" target="_blank">http://www.rawstory.com/news/2 006/Video_Bush_rants_at_reporters_in_0916.html</a> >> Keith Olbermann's Friday broadcast on MSNBC featured a long look at the President's contentious Rose Garden press conference on Friday, and then pondered whether Bush's urgency to redefine the Geneva Convention had more to do with "covering his own backside" than anything else. << (NOTE: Something I've been saying all along.) >> Georgetown University Constitutional Law Professor Jonathan Turley joined Keith Olbermann for a discussion on why the president was in such a hurry to get the legislation passed "his way." Turley noted that the 14 high level detainees recently transferred to Guantanamo Bay are due to be interviewed by the Red Cross, and that "most people believe that they will reveal that they were subject to water boarding - held under water until you think that you are going to drown - that is undeniably torture under the international standard." "I think that the Administration senses that there is a lot of trouble coming down the mountain," said Turley. << ------------------------------------------ There it is. This is the reason that bush is petulantly issuing ultimatums about his terror bill and making personal trips to capitol hill - because he's been advised by counsel that he and his cronies are vulnerable to prosecution for war crimes. Which would certainly mean impeachment and conviction. If bush doesn't manage to get congress to agree to his bill that retroactively alters the law and undermines the geneva conventions - and get it done in the next two weeks - he could be toast. President Pelosi could very possibly become reality.
Originally Posted By gadzuux And another thing I've been saying all along ... That bush has no intention of capturing or eliminating bin laden. Bush said so himself (again) recently. <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/14/barnes-osama/" target="_blank">http://thinkprogress.org/2006/ 09/14/barnes-osama/</a> >> Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes appeared on Fox this morning to discuss his recent meeting with President Bush in the Oval Office. The key takeaway for Barnes was that “bin Laden doesn’t fit with the administration’s strategy for combating terrorism.†Barnes said that Bush told him capturing bin Laden is “not a top priority use of American resources.†Bush’s priorities have always been skewed. Just months after declaring he wanted bin Laden “dead or alive,†Bush said, “I truly am not that concerned about him.†Turning his attention away from bin Laden, Bush trained his focus on Iraq — a country he now admits had “nothing†to do with 9/11. Transcript: HOST: Alright Fred, you and a few other journalists were in the Oval Office with the President, right? And he says catching Osama bin Laden is not job number one? BARNES: Well, he said, look, you can send 100,000 special forces, that’s the figure he used, to the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan and hunt him down, but he just said that’s not a top priority use of American resources. His vision of a war on terror is one that involves intelligence to find out from people, to get tips, to follow them up and break up plots to kill Americans before they occur. He says, you know, getting Osama bin Laden is a low priority compared to that. << ----------------------------------------- So I'm curious - those of you who are bush supporters, do you agree with him? And are you troubled at all by the close personal friendship between the bush family and the bin laden family?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<It is so remarkably telling that those who don't like what Olbermann has to say can only continue to engage in ad hominem attacks rather than address the substance of what he has said.>> You don't see us addressing Ed either. Sometimes a person like Olbermann is so off the deep end it's not even worth talking about. I suppose we could go point by point and blow the entire moonbat opinion up again but who wants to anymore? The fact that you want to push this guys nutty nonsense is making a lot of us laugh.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <C'mon Douglas, you can do better.> Sure I could, but it's not worth the effort. I've already pointed out how Olbermann's rant makes no sense.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So I'm curious - those of you who are bush supporters, do you agree with him?> Yes. It's far more important to protect Americans against additional terrorist attacks than it is to hunt down one man who has been contained and presents little to no danger. <And are you troubled at all by the close personal friendship between the bush family and the bin laden family?> No. I haven't seen any evidence that it has affected US interests in a negative way.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Yes. It's far more important to protect Americans against additional terrorist attacks than it is to hunt down one man who has been contained and presents little to no danger." Yes, but Saddam was contained as well. Can't have it both ways.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I don't believe that Saddam was contained." Baloney, the world knew he was contained. Containment was the policy in force up until we unilaterally barged in there.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://www.comw.org/qdr/fulltext/mearsheimerwalt.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.comw.org/qdr/fullte xt/mearsheimerwalt.pdf</a>
Originally Posted By ecdc There's also that teeny, apparently insignificant distinction to people in the far right like Douglas, that bin Laden was, you know, the guy who actually attacked us. My memory might be a little fuzzy, but I don't think Saddam ever blew any American buildings up. But hey, the mind does get duller with age. Maybe he blew up the Sears Tower and I missed it. No? He never attacked us? Well, he must've at least farted on the President. No? Well, whadda ya know...
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I disagree." Of course you do. You wouldn't be Douglas if you didn't. But Saddam WAS contained.
