Keith Olbermann: This Hole In The Ground

[mk 11]

I never thought this generation of mainstream newsmen would find their Edward R. Murrow. Thank you, Keith, for articulating what so many of us feel. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/#060911a

[gobears 0]

He's come a long way from "The Big Show" on ESPNVery thoughtful and articulate commentator

[DonkSlayer 1]

All the lefty blogs/websites have latched onto him...I hope he doesn't get pegged as a propogandist and that the lefty sites don't build him a statue in the meantime

[mk 11]

All the lefty blogs/websites have latched onto him...I hope he doesn't get pegged as a propogandist and that the lefty sites don't build him a statue in the meantime

Well, the right has O'Reilly, Carlson, Cavuto, etc. Are they propagandists? Why is it only acceptable when a righty editorializes in the msm?And also, I doubt that Olbermann is even particularly 'liberal'. It's merely the facts, sir, that are biased in our favor.

[alf13 0]

Well, the right has O'Reilly, Carlson, Cavuto, etc. Are they propagandists? Why is it only acceptable when a righty editorializes in the msm?And also, I doubt that Olbermann is even particularly 'liberal'. It's merely the facts, sir, that are biased in our favor.

Really? Okay.I think your biases lead you to that opinion.Olbermann is as dumb, boring and stupid as a retarded box of rocks.

[Ron_Mexico 4,238]

Really? Okay.I think your biases lead you to that opinion.Olbermann is as dumb, boring and stupid as a retarded box of rocks.

see, if you're going to engage in a political discussion, it usually isn't a great idea to start with the dumbing down immediately. Wait a couple of posts, then lay that gem on em.and by gem, I mean silly

[mk 11]

Olbermann is as dumb, boring and stupid as a retarded box of rocks.

Dumb and stupid? Impressive.

[alf13 0]

Let's see........"The only positive on 9/11 and the days and weeks that so slowly and painfully followed it was the unanimous humanity, here, and throughout the country. The government, the President in particular, was given every possible measure of support."Thank you Keith for stating a positive that should have been the norm. Of course, stating this positive means that what you stated is NOT the norm. Those who did not belong to his party—tabled that.For about 6 hours. Joe Biden was on every show on Cable TV playing arm chair President on the same day of this event.Those who doubted the mechanics of his election—ignored that.Never happened, lefty publications continued that garbage throughout. That was used at the first convenience to score political points directly from the 9/11 attacks. Namely by the likes of Al Gore, and Joe Biden once again.Those who wondered of his qualifications—forgot that.That yes...for about a year. Then they lost the stomach for what had to be done and just went back to their ®=Bad) philosophy.History teaches us that nearly unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government by its critics.HUH? Keith...are you stupid? Those are exactly who takes away support. They are the ones that gave it in the first place you dumb fuk. Ask WInston CHurchill. Oh wait. He's dead.It can only be squandered by those who use it not to heal a nation’s wounds, but to take political advantage.BS. Check the roll call on Bush's domestic agenda after 9/11, Keith. What advantage? Stating the obvious? Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being American first, and political, fiftieth. Nor did the Democrats. Nor did the media. Nor did the people.The President—and those around him—did that.OH yeah...big bad Bush. I lost with AK to A4 last night. That god damn Bush owes me $64.They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, “bi-partisanship” meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused; as appeasers; as those who, in the Vice President’s words yesterday, “validate the strategy of the terrorists.”AH, NO. The Democrats lost the midterms in a bloodbath. You are suggesting that the American public is too stupid to know how they feel. Like I said, check the roll call Keith, you idiot.They promised protection, and then showed that to them “protection” meant going to war against a despot whose hand they had once shaken, a despot who we now learn from our own Senate Intelligence Committee hated Al-Qaeda as much as we did.It seems that Bush has been right. So far. Put the scumbag terrorists on the defensive, and they just can't walk and chew gum or blow up american buildings at the same time. I would call this strategy Brilliant. I guess it went over your partisan head.The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war, on the false premise that it had ‘something to do’ with 9/11, is “lying by implication.”NOBODY said that Iraq was behind 9/11. In Bush's speech to the United Nations on the eve of resolution 1441 (right number?, I forget) He never laid out as a reason to invade as 9/11. You heard what you wanted to hear to fuel your partisanship Keith.The impolite phrase is: "impeachable offense."And the less polite term for you would be "Partisan No talent Hack".

[speedz99 145]

And the less polite term for you would be "Partisan No talent Hack".

You're funnier and more accurate when talking about porking fat chicks. You should stick to that.

[alf13 0]

Dumb and stupid? Impressive.

Yes. Dumb as in he is actually not very smart.Stupid as in his diatribes are unoriginal mind numbing crap.

You're funnier and more accurate when talking about porking fat chicks. You should stick to that.

That's your opinion. I am sorry that I don't agree with you on this. My bad.

[DonkSlayer 1]

Well, the right has O'Reilly, Carlson, Cavuto, etc. Are they propagandists? Why is it only acceptable when a righty editorializes in the msm?And also, I doubt that Olbermann is even particularly 'liberal'. It's merely the facts, sir, that are biased in our favor.

A. I do not disagree with your evaluation of those mentioned.B. I was not implying that Olbermann was a leftist. I was interested in his comments being taken as non-political. Take it easy.

[speedz99 145]

That's your opinion.

I know. That's why I said it. Jerk.

I am sorry that I don't agree with you on this.

Actually, I don't have an opinion. I just think that yours seems based completely on a general dislike of anyone not conservative, since you were obviously pressing for reasons to disagree with his points.

My bad.

Bah.

[insano 0]

the politics forum is down the street -------->

[alf13 0]

I know. That's why I said it. Jerk.Actually, I don't have an opinion. I just think that yours seems based completely on a general dislike of anyone not conservative, since you were obviously pressing for reasons to disagree with his points. Bah.

First of all..why did you call me a jerk? Because I disagree with you? Why are the stereotypes of liberals so spot on?I don't "dislike" anyone not conservative. I am hardly a conservative myself. Some would call me a moderate, others would call me a closet liberal.I didn't press for any reasons.I do dislike Hacks like Olbermann though.

[leftygolfer 7]

All the lefty blogs/websites have latched onto him...I hope he doesn't get pegged as a propogandist and that the lefty sites don't build him a statue in the meantime

Wrong lefty I know, but I like him.

[Suited_Up 2]

You are suggesting that the American public is too stupid to know how they feel.

Yes. Most of them are.That's all I really feel like commenting on.

[Mercury69 3]

Terrific article.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I tend to dislike most people whose job it is to give out their own opinions of things. It's mostly because most of them don't know how to argue properly (or rather they would rather start fights instead of actual debate). They also focus on generalizations and sweeping statements as well as rhetoric which in the end means almost nothing. I fee like a lot of people are stupid.

[alf13 0]

Yes. Most of them are.That's all I really feel like commenting on.

Well..I can agree with that.That could easily be a factual statement.How bout this...to hell with this ****.I just couldn't resist. I see O'reilly, Olbermann or my favorite 2 A-Holes (Begala and Hannity) and I go off.

I tend to dislike most people whose job it is to give out their own opinions of things. It's mostly because most of them don't know how to argue properly (or rather they would rather start fights instead of actual debate). They also focus on generalizations and sweeping statements as well as rhetoric which in the end means almost nothing. I fee like a lot of people are stupid.

I agree. That Olbermann is a douchebag.

[mk 11]

They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, "bi-partisanship" meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused; as appeasers; as those who, in the Vice President's words yesterday, "validate the strategy of the terrorists."AH, NO. The Democrats lost the midterms in a bloodbath. You are suggesting that the American public is too stupid to know how they feel. Like I said, check the roll call Keith, you idiot.The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war, on the false premise that it had 'something to do' with 9/11, is "lying by implication."NOBODY said that Iraq was behind 9/11. In Bush's speech to the United Nations on the eve of resolution 1441 (right number?, I forget) He never laid out as a reason to invade as 9/11. You heard what you wanted to hear to fuel your partisanship Keith.

And the citizens of NYC voted against the President 9:1 in 2004. They probably had forgotten the lessons of 9-11, though. Thank you, red states for remembering for them. Hmm. No one ever said there was a connection between Saddam and 9-11? I wonder why then in September of 2003 70% of Americans believed there was a connection? And I also wonder why 46% of Americans STILL BELIEVE THIS TO BE TRUE??? Perhaps it was this: "The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror," said Bush on September 25, 2002. "We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases," said Bush a few days later on October 7. "He's a threat because he is dealing with Al-Qaeda." On the eve of the Iraq war, the White House sent a letter to Congress telling lawmakers that force was authorized against those who, "aided the 9/11 attacks." Cheney, on Meet the Press: (describing Iraq) "[it's] the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11." "...there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example."

[SAM_Hard8 50]

I doubt that Olbermann is even particularly 'liberal'.

bwahhhhaaaahahhhahhhhahhahaaaaaaahhhaaaaaaabbabbbawwwaahhahaaaaaca nn ttt s tttt ooo pppp laauhggggiiingbwahhhhahhahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[alf13 0]

And the citizens of NYC voted against the President 9:1 in 2004. They probably had forgotten the lessons of 9-11, though. Thank you, red states for remembering for them. Hmm. No one ever said there was a connection between Saddam and 9-11? I wonder why then in September of 2003 70% of Americans believed there was a connection? And I also wonder why 46% of Americans STILL BELIEVE THIS TO BE TRUE??? Perhaps it was this: "The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror," said Bush on September 25, 2002. "We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases," said Bush a few days later on October 7. "He's a threat because he is dealing with Al-Qaeda." On the eve of the Iraq war, the White House sent a letter to Congress telling lawmakers that force was authorized against those who, "aided the 9/11 attacks." Cheney, on Meet the Press: (describing Iraq) "[it's] the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11." "...there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example."

The citizens of NYC would vote for Osama Bin Laden in a presidential election as long as he is running against a Republican. They also hate southerners and a "Yankee" was running against one.Your post is full of errors. Intentional ones? Maybe?You also seem to be an enemy of context.Stating polls that have scewed stupid results don't prove anything.You don't get the war on terror. I don't feel like explaining it to you.

[Ron_Mexico 4,238]

When do we attack Saudi Arabia?

[mrdannyg 274]

I never thought this generation of mainstream newsmen would find their Edward R. Murrow. Thank you, Keith, for articulating what so many of us feel. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/#060911a

in my own personal opinion, i find his use of Egbert Roscoe Morrow's sign-off extremely presumptuous. He has no claim on the words of such an exemplary journalist.

[alf13 0]

When do we attack Saudi Arabia?

That's next week. This week it's Iran.North Korea...uhh..they got nukes..yikes, so we will leave them alone.