Home > Uncategorized > Three Cheers for Keith Olbermann

Three Cheers for Keith Olbermann

Tom and I are taking a couple days off, but I promise that next week we’ll return and spend some time on Donald Rumsfeld’s bizarro speech on appeasement in Salt Lake City. Meanwhile, here are some highlights of commentary delivered by Keith Olbermann from MSNBC, one of the few voices of sanity on cable network news today.

“The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and
shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack. Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a prophet.

We end the countdown where we began, our #1 story.
with a special comment on Mr. Rumsfeld’s remarkable speech to the American Legion
yesterday. It demands the deep analysis – and the sober contemplation – of every

For it did not merely serve to impugn the morality or
intelligence – indeed, the loyalty – of the majority of Americans who
oppose the transient occupants of the highest offices in the land;
Worse, still, it credits those same transient occupants – our
employees – with a total omniscience; a total omniscience which neither
common sense, nor this administration’s track record at home or abroad,
suggests they deserve.

Dissent and disagreement with government is the life’s blood of
human freedom; And not merely because it is the first roadblock against the
kind of tyranny the men Mr. Rumsfeld likes to think of as “his” troops still
fight, this very evening, in Iraq. It is also essential. Because just every once in awhile… it
is right – and the power to which it speaks, is wrong.

That about which Mr. Rumsfeld is confused is simply this:
This is a Democracy. Still. Sometimes just barely. And as such,
all voices count – not just his. Had he or his president perhaps
proven any of their prior claims of omniscience – about Osama Bin
Laden’s plans five years ago – about Saddam Hussein’s weapons four years ago
– about Hurricane Katrina’s impact one year ago – we all might be able to
swallow hard, and accept their omniscience as a bearable, even useful
recipe, of fact, plus ego.

But, to date, this government has proved little besides its own
arrogance, and its own hubris.
Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or
intellectually, about his own standing in this matter. From Iraq to
Katrina, to flu vaccine shortages, to the entire “Fog of Fear” which continues to envelope this
nation – he, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and their cronies, have – inadvertently
or intentionally – profited and benefited, both personally, and politically.

And yet he can stand up in public, and question the morality and
the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the
Emporer’s New Clothes.
In what country was Mr. Rumsfeld raised?
As a child, of whose heroism did he read?
On what side of the battle for freedom did he dream one day
to fight?
With what country has he confused… the United States of

The confusion we – as its citizens – must now address, is
stark and forbidding. But variations of it have faced our forefathers, when
men like Nixon and McCarthy and Curtis LeMay have darkened our skies and
obscured our flag. Note – with hope in your heart – that those earlier
Americans always found their way to the light and we can too.
The confusion is about whether this Secretary of Defense, and
this Administration, are in fact now accomplishing what they claim the
terrorists seek: The destruction of our freedoms, the very ones for
which the same veterans Mr. Rumsfeld addressed yesterday in Salt Lake City,
so valiantly fought.

And about Mr. Rumsfeld’s other main assertion, that this country
faces a “new type of fascism.”
As he was correct to remind us how a government that knew
everything could get everything wrong, so too was he right when he
said that – though probably not in the way he thought he meant it.
This country faces a new type of fascism – indeed.

  1. Anonymous
    September 1, 2006 at 3:39 am

    Well, it’s obvious. Olberman is a terrorist sympathizer. He should be arrested and jailed under the Alien and Sedition Act.

  2. The New Tone of San Luis Obispo
    September 1, 2006 at 4:28 am

    Dave, Dude, What is this crap!?! Makes no sense to me. You think this is good stuff? Here are a couple of questions for you..

    HOw did or does Bush profit politically or personally from the war on terrorism?

    Does Mr. Olaberry think that the “neocons” are the real threat, not the islamic terrorists?

    What religion were ALL of the terrorists? What book did they all read that told them to kill the infidels? Who gave them the orders to kill? Was it the pope, the baptists, or the mormons?

    Does he recognize that once the muslim terrorists finish their attacks in Iraq, they will then have the time and energy to come to our country to continue the holy war they are waging. No Bob, they are not sad about not having health care. You can give them all canadian health care and they would still cut your head off along with Donna Legg of Code Pinko.

    What problem does Olaberry have that Rummy has more say so than other americans do. Isn’t he the SECDEF?

    How was he wrong….WMD’s are sarin and mustard gas shells. I have given you libs all the quotes by your heros from 1998 on and you refuse to comment on them. Were Cliton and his cronies lying back when they all said what they said or not?!

    More Dumb ass liberal quotes

  3. democracy defender
    September 1, 2006 at 5:13 am

    Dave…you have it right. We still have the freedom to say what we believe in the country. When you disagree with authoritarians, however,all they can think of is to attack you personally. They are going to be surprised in November.

  4. Bob from San Luis
    September 1, 2006 at 7:04 am

    Wow; it is truly revealing how jingoistic those who support the extreme right view point can be. “He should be arrested…”; it is called dissent- look up almost any speech by almost any of our nation’s founders and you will read how being allowed to dissent was at the forefront of their beliefs.
    New Tone: Why do those on the right, such as yourself, have to use childish misspellings and mispronunciations of people who think differently than you? I happened to tune into Rush a few days ago for a few minutes and he kept referring to the Democratic candidate for the Senate in Connecticut as Ned Lament as if he thought he was being clever. You have to try and demean Keith Olbermann by calling him Mr. Olaberry; it is not cute, it is not funny, it is sad and telling that you feel you have to revert to such a juvenile tactic.
    How did or does Bush profit politically or personally from the war on terrorism? He profits politically by consolidating more power for the executive branch, he gets to use the title “Commander in Chief” which is what the President is called when our nation is in a wartime stance, and he profits by denigrating anyone who questions his motives or means as being “a terrorist sympathizer”. If you cannot see that that is what he is doing, you are blinded by you allegiance to George W. Bush, not to what is best for our country.
    The “neocons” are a greater threat to our democracy than the “islamic terrorists”; I will acknowledge that terrorists would love to wreak havoc and destruction on the US, throw our economy out of whack and cause us to live in fear, but, the terrorists cannot directly threaten our democracy, that can only be done from within our government. The neocons have counseled the President on matters of national security, on issues of personal freedom and at every step of the way they have moved to weaken our democracy by taking away more of our liberties in a manner that they describe as “taking steps to protect the US”. You are right that the terrorists are not sad about not having health care; the same can be said for those in the Republican party, they would just as soon that affordable health care not be available to a majority of Americans. If health care is affordable to most, where is the profit in that ?
    As for Donald Rumsfeld “having more to say than other Americans”, do you really believe that Mr. Rumsfeld has done a good job? Allowed bin Laden to escape from Afghanistan? Destabilized Iraq by not having enough troops to keep the peace after the Saddam regime was toppled? Not equipped our troops with enough body armor, protected vehicles or properly cushioned helmets? Rumsfeld may have the title of Secretary of Defense, but he doesn’t seem to have the respect for his position by many of the officers who have been demoted or who have chosen to retire recently. Even Rich could probably acknowledge that there are times when an officer is demoted and they know that they should have been, so they still respect those above them.
    As for the mustard gas and sarin; those that were found were identified as being from the early ’90s and were so degraded that they posed no potential harm if they had been tried to be used as a WMD. 500 munitions found in a country roughly the size of California, 12 to 18 years old, and you want us to think these were the WMDs? As for Clinton thinking that Saddam still had WMDs; at least Clinton was able to allow the UN inspection teams to do their job, and, had they been allowed to continue doing their job, there would have been no justification for launching an illegal invasion of Iraq. Please remember that President Bush ordered the UN inspection teams out of Iraq prior to invading.
    Last point: Islam. The terrorists were indoctrinated into a wahhabist approach of studying Islam that preached that the unbelievers should be attacked by any and all means available. That in no way makes the “Islamofacists“; that makes them terrorists who are trying to establish a religious THEOCRACY. You know, kind of a “my God is bigger, badder and better than your God” approach. Sound familiar? Remember General Boykin? Click the link if you don’t remember. The reason why the right is trying to use the fascist “card” is, once again, projection. Fascism: “A system of extreme right wing government that blends a totalitarian approach with an authoritarian belief benefitting big corporations by means of controlling the media and using a strong jingoistic nationalism”; does that sound any where remotely like what terrorists want? An almost completely interchangeable word with fascism is “Corporatisim”, because those who benefit most from fascism are corporations. What businesses are recording record profits right now, benefitting from the unrest in the middle east? Yes, the oil companies (what did George W. Bush do before he got into politics?), and also the defense industry (Cheney is still being paid by Halliburton). The only thing that separates us from an actual fascist state of being at this very moment is our ability to question our government, to have the right to speak out and question those who are in power. If we suffer some horrendous attack and President Bush imposes martial law, outlaws freedom of the press or freedom of speech, we will at that moment become a Fascist nation.

  5. Rich from Paso
    September 1, 2006 at 7:16 am

    I don’t know which is more bizarre. It’s either the incoherent rambling of Keith Olberman or that Dave is cheering it. Let’s break this down like a double-barreled shotgun: No one in the Bush administration has ever said that meer debate and criticism of this president or his actions is unamerican and no one in this administration has ever denied anyone their Constitutionally protected right to say what they wanted about this president, his decisions or his policies. Far from it. The proof of that is in every newscast , like where Brian Williams accuses the president of being a ‘parician” (and Kerry and Kennedy aren’t?), every NYT article that exposes our tactics on fighting terrorists for no other reason than the administration doesn’t want the terrorists to know how their being tracked down, and every newspaper and magazine article talking about Bush’s inadequacies. Everyone in the media has questioned at some point in time the validity of the very fact that he is president (ala 2000 election) and Dave has gone so far to question his intellect and suggested he has a literacy problem (which was totally blown out the water by the list that President Bush says he’s read this summer in last week’s issue of US News; where’s your reading list from this summer, Dave?). All of which proves that this administration has done nothing to stiffle debate or criticism. What the president and this administration bristles against is political opportunism that tears down the adminsitration for the sake of political gain. I have asked my Iraqi friend (you know, the one Dave refuses to tell how great his life would be under Saddam Hussein) if he has seen the statements of Kerry and Murtha and Reid and pelosi. He said, yes, on Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya, and always with a slant that says “see, even their own politicians believe that the actions of Bush and the American military are spreading American Imperialism to the middle east”. When senile, old Murtha is telling the people of the Arab countries that marines murder in cold blood (yeah, he said ‘kill’ but what do you always do in cold blood? You murder.) Al Gore tells Arab audiences in Dubai of all places, that we, America, systematically target Arab-Americans for diiscrimination. Read New Tone’s post for why. We haven’t had any Sino-facsist terrorists from China attack our country or Bhuddo-fascists from India attack our country. The perpitrators have all, in every attack: 9/11, Bali, Spain, London, been from Muslim nations, either by birth or decent, and done by Muslim men. That is not coincidence, that is fact. So why not target those that have actually committed the crimes in the past? Back to Mr. Olberman (not a ‘newsman’, his show, watched by Dave and a few others, is kind of “sportscenter” for the news)… What is his chief complaint? That the administration is unable to accurately predict the future. The enemy has choices to make and they have made them. Not for Bush’s best interest but for their own. Most of the ‘bad predictions’ have fallen in the catagory of “shit happens” because the enemy has decided to be uncooperative adn continue to fight us. And for that, Olberman sneers and Dave cheers him on. At the end of all of this, all I have to say is “So what? and who the hell is Keith Olberman anyway?”

  6. Rich from Paso
    September 1, 2006 at 7:27 am

    For Bob’s education, here is what Mirriam-Webster has to say about the definition of “fascism”

    Main Entry: fas·cism

    1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

    Sounds like the caliphate that the islamofascists want to create to me. Bob, I don’t knwo where you got that definition of “fascism” but it sounds like you’ve been hanging around the Air America or Daily Kos websites too much.

    Where I think the “lib vs con” gets broken down is that libs don’t think Bush loves this country as much as libs believe they do, which I think makes libs full of shit. Bush loves this country and it’s Constitution as much, if not more than, Clinton does or any other lib does. to say otherwise proves my point that libs get to say anything and everything about Bush, but if he says anything in response, he’s stiffling debate or threatening our very way of life. Total crap.

  7. JerryDinAZ
    September 1, 2006 at 1:53 pm


  8. The New Tone of San Luis Obispo
    September 1, 2006 at 3:04 pm

    Hello All, I know you are all eagerly awaiting my comments!

    I find it entertaining personally when Rush calls Harry Reid “Dingy Harry” because he has the same old and worn our dim views of our country. Lamont is Lament because he loves to Lament the war against terrorism. I am not as good as Rush, but this guy Olberman is a fruit…thus to me he can be Olaberry.

    Bush has gone against popular opinion and pursued the war on terror. He has not profited. Cheney has not profited. He or Cheney don’t control their investments right now. Does Lament who speaks out against Wal Mart gain when he has control over his investments and has a significant amount of Wal Mart stock? Talk about liar.

    Bob, what is up with your definition. Here is the correct one for you, in addition to Rich’s:

    3 results for: Fascism
    View results from: Dictionary | Thesaurus | Encyclopedia | the Web

    Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) – Cite This Source new!
    fas‧cism  /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[fash-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation

    –noun 1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
    2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
    3. (initial capital letter) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.


    [Origin: 1915–20; < It fascismo, equiv. to fasc(io) bundle, political group (see fasces) + -ismo -ism]
    Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
    Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
    American Heritage Dictionary – Cite This Source new! fas·cism (fshzm) Pronunciation Key
    often Fascism
    A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
    A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
    Oppressive, dictatorial control.

    [Italian fascismo, from fascio, group, from Late Latin fascium, from Latin fascis, bundle.]
    fas·cistic (f-shstk) adj.
    Word History: It is fitting that the name of an authoritarian political movement like Fascism, founded in 1919 by Benito Mussolini, should come from the name of a symbol of authority. The Italian name of the movement, fascismo, is derived from fascio, “bundle, (political) group,” but also refers to the movement’s emblem, the fasces, a bundle of rods bound around a projecting axe-head that was carried before an ancient Roman magistrate by an attendant as a symbol of authority and power. The name of Mussolini’s group of revolutionaries was soon used for similar nationalistic movements in other countries that sought to gain power through violence and ruthlessness, such as National Socialism.

    (Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
    Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
    Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
    WordNet – Cite This Source new!

    n : a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)

    WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

    To say that corporations gain in a fascist state shows your lack of understanding. Conservatives are eager for you to take responsibility for your business, take away as much government regulation as possible, and allow you choices. We don’t want mandatory health insurance. We want to be able to choose which doctor to visit, and for there to be competition in the marketplace. We don’t want to pay 250 to see the doctor. The problem is that lots of people only pay $10 or $25 dollars to see the doctor, and the insurance company or the gov’t pays their contrated rate, and competition is eliminated. You can still use cash, but you have to find a doctor that is willing to give you a discount.

    Lastly, Tommy Franks executed a superior invasion and takeover of Iraq. War plans change the minute they start. There are differences of opinions no matter what any situation is. Police have different opinions how to best to arrest a dangerous subject. Looking back on any situation, you can say you could have done this better or that better. That is life. It was done the way it was, and the real problems started when the Iranians and Syrians arrived to support Al Queda in Iraq. Oh wait they were or were not there. Al Zaquari was left alone to grow, or was it he came after we let him in? I’ll have to call Michelle D.

    Where are the apologies for the one’s accusing Rove? I can admit when I am wrong. Can you? Can any liberals be personally responsible here? Bill, Michelle, Donna Legg? Dave? ……(crickets)

  9. Rich from Paso
    September 1, 2006 at 5:20 pm

    And how about that Canadian movie “Death of a President”? I suppose on the Left, that’s okay to show the assassination of Bush as part of an “intellectual debate”? Where are you libs, Rob, Dave, Bob, SM Bill, on the notion that it is okay to discuss assassination of a sitting president? Never happened during the Clinton administration.

  10. Bob from San Luis
    September 2, 2006 at 8:43 am

    Rich: Come on man, do you really think for even a second that anyone on either side of the political spectrum would endorse a fictional movie that features an assassination of the President? “Beyond the pale” is one way to describe my feelings about the issue. As for “no one even talked about that when Clinton was President”; I can’t find a link yet, but I do seem to remember a Congressman or Governor somewhere that warned that it “wouldn’t be a good idea for President Clinton to come to their state” or some such nonsense. There was just as much vitriol and hate spewed out by the right directed towards Clinton when he was in office as anything put out now by the left towards Bush.
    As for the definitions of fascism, please read this if you want to try and understand what fascism really is. Here is link discussing theocracy, read it and see if you can discern a difference. Rich, I don’t believe for a second that a “caliphate of Islamofascists” would have any desire to operate anything other than a theocracy. Even the term “Islamofascists” is an oxymoron; “Islamozealots” would be a better descriptor of the terrorists who use a perversion of Islam as their causis belli.
    New Tone: You kind of threw a tantrum on an earlier post by Dave because no one would respond to your remarks. Your rebuttal to my charges of “acting juvenile” gives me an answer to if I want to respond or debate you; as long as you are going to use infantile methods and responses, I am going to ignore your comments from now on. If you want to contribute in a grown up manner, I for one will respect what you have to say. Until then, good day, good bye, please grow up.

  11. Rich from Paso
    September 2, 2006 at 6:39 pm

    Bob, no one ever put forth a book on a method to assassinate Clinton, and no one made a movie discussing what Clinton’s assassination would do to the US and the world. Yeah, I remember the instance and can’t find a link either. But to say “Not a good idea to come to my state/city/wahtever” is a lot different than the book I mentioned. That said, I am glad that you are disavowing the movie. I am waiting for Dean and the others in the Democratic hierarchy to repudiate the movie, just like every Republican was asked to repudiate Ann Coulter’s comments.

    Here are my 14 reasons why “Islamofacist” will accuratly describe the Al Qaeda caliphate if they win in Iraq”:

    1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism
    If you substitute “nationalism” with Islam, the Islamists want obedience (which is what Muslim means) to Islam more than anything else. Even Steve Centani and his Olaf the Photo Guy were forced to “convert” to Islam as a means of staying alive.

    2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.
    Beheadings, genocide, rape of school girls, stoning women to death, killing men for not having a beard and killing people for kite flying are all hallmarks of Sharia law. Yeah, Islamists don’t give to hoots about anyone’s, Muslim or Non-Muslim’s, human rights.

    3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.
    I suppose you never heard of America as referred to as the “Great Satan”? Everything the Islamofascists want is to destroy the United States because it represents everything that is evil to Islamofascists. They don’t try to destroy Lithuania.

    4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.
    The Islamic world still holds military parades and demonstrations. Iran has just bought missile firing submarines and the latest in Russian and Chinese export weapons. Musharref(sic) in Pakistan took over the government in a military coup. Can’t tell me that the Middle East isn’t obsessed with military might.

    5. Rampant sexism.
    One word says it all: Burhka. Women have no rights in Muslim nations. Can’t vote, can’t get an education, and can’t own property. Well, they are property. When I was in an Army school, I made friends with a Saudi Arabian soldier. He invited me to have lunch at his house with him and his family. When my daughter and I arrived at his house, my daughter went off to a back room to hang out and eat with his wife while the husband and I ate in the front room. Uday and Qusay kidnapped and raped 11 and 12 year old girls for weeks at a time. When they were done, they released the girls where the parents promptly “honor” killed the girls for disgracing their family. Honor Killings even happen in the United States. Muslim nations practice rampant sexism

    6. A controlled mass media.
    Al-Jazeera and Al Aribya do not practice “fair and balanced” journalism. State-controlled media is the norm in Islmaic nations.

    7. Obsession with national security.
    Our allies, the Pakistanis, recently executed 3 for being “American Spies” for the CIA. Saddam Hussein had four and five levels of secret police. Every Muslim nation has a secret police force to oppress their people.

    8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.
    Come on, Bob! I can’t believe you are making me answer this one! The mullahs in Iran control everything, including Mahmoud Iwannajihad in Iran.

    9. Power of corporations protected.
    The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia owns every red cent we send them for oil. Dubai Ports International was denied the contract to manage the 6 east coast ports because, [Shock!] it was owned by Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem of Dubai. When the definition of “corporations” is broadened to include state-owned corporations, the definistion holds.

    10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.
    Ever hear of a labor strike in Damascus or Tehran? Me neither.

    10 for 10, batting 1.000

    11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
    The Taliban destroyed priceless and ancient works of art just because they weren’t “Muslim”. Those Buddha in Afghanistan can never be replaced, but that didn’t stop the Taliban from destroying them anyway. That is just the largest and most egregious example. It was also the Iraqis, not any Americans, that looted their own art works from the Mesopotamian period for sale on international markets. America has been trying to recover those works for the last 3 years.

    12. Obsession with crime and punishment.
    Stoning for adultery, cutting off of hands for thievery, beheadings for drug use and smuggling. Hard time in a Muslim world is the time between sentencing and your execution.

    13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.
    Saddam’s sons, brothers, sisters, brothers-in-law all had posts in his government. Basher Assad was a dentist with the distinction of having Hafez Assad as his father. Corruption is the norm in the Muslim world. One of the main reasons why it took so long to get the Iraqi police retrained was because our trainers had to go back to the fundamentals with classes like: Why Graft is Bad 101, Who You Really Work For: lectures on not working for Militias.

    14. Fraudulent elections.
    Saddam was the only name on the Ballot. Mahmoud Iwannajihad was elected despite rampant election fraud in Iran. Even more “enlightened nations” like Egypt have repeated instances of election fraud as Mubarak gets elected over and over again. Actually, he is the only president Egypt has had since Sadat.

    There you go, I am 14 for 14 on ways Muslim nations typify Fascism. So, if Al Qaeda succeeds in Iraq, I guarantee you that every single one of the 14 points will be employed in the new theocratic Islamofascist caliphate.

  12. The New Tone of San Luis Obispo
    September 5, 2006 at 4:46 am

    Here is what Bob said:

    New Tone: You kind of threw a tantrum on an earlier post by Dave because no one would respond to your remarks. Your rebuttal to my charges of “acting juvenile” gives me an answer to if I want to respond or debate you; as long as you are going to use infantile methods and responses, I am going to ignore your comments from now on. If you want to contribute in a grown up manner, I for one will respect what you have to say. Until then, good day, good bye, please grow up.

    Bob, I fail to understand what you are accusing me of, especially in my last post. Because I have a difference of opinion about Bush, and think that changing names constitutes humor, that is acting juvenile. Do you think all of the Bush bashing by others on the left is infintile, or humor or a way for them to show their disrespect towards his opinion? I take it as the latter, and I am prepared for people to call me Newt One. Was that you, I can’t remember. I thought it was funny. So our sense of humor is different.

    I still have not heard anyone who has accused Rove of leaking Valerie Wilson’s name come out with an correction, here or an Dave’s show. Why not? Here is your info Washington Time and America’s favorite talk radio broadcaster say it the best.

  13. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 1:37 am

    Wow, you guys have way too much time on your hands LOL. I hardly have time to read it all. Mostly, the Bush bashing is getting boring.

  14. Rich from Paso
    September 7, 2006 at 3:47 am

    What can I say it was a long weekend and I had some free time.

    The silence from the lefties has been deafening. What, Bob? An islamofascist got your tongue? Got nothing to say? Well….????

  15. rob in los osos
    September 7, 2006 at 4:54 am

    I was gone all weekend, getting my faith in human beings renewed. I was at a 4 day music festival in the mountains. It’s funny – last week all the talk on this blog seemed so important. Now it just seems like so much empty hot air and blather. We should all channel our energy into something important – getting together to help friends, playing music, helping old people get by from day to day. I mean lets face it – I’ll never change, Bobs never going to change, Rich is never going to change, New Tone is never going to change or have better grammar (just kidding Newt, and BTW its ‘ollaliberry’), so what is the point?
    Do any of you ever think possibly you are wrong? I mean that to both sides – can you ever listen to the other side? I mean really listen, and not just listen enough to formulate a counter-argument? I ask myself that all the time, and usually the answer comes back ‘no’ – but I’m really going to try. I do know that it wears me down, makes me think one-sided when I do what I usually do – listen to talk radio, usually flipping between Rush and Al Franken, then holding my nose thru Hannity (does anyone with a brain actually like Hannity?) I can’t even listen to Randi Rhoads, too whiny. She reminds me of the teacher on Charlie Brown – ‘wah wah wah-wah…’
    Anyway, I probably won’t be posting much anymore – I’ve decided to get out and enjoy the world around me – while it lasts.

  16. Bob from San Luis
    September 7, 2006 at 5:23 am

    Rich: I had a long weekend as well, haven’t had the time to come here for awhile. In your latest comment you listed 14 ways that Islam is equal to fascism, but your logic falls apart on number one on your list. You suggested that one just substitute the word “Islam” for the word “Nationalism” and all of the traits of fascism fall right into place for an “Islamic Theocracy”. Uh, Rich, sorry but it is not that simple, no matter how much you wish it to be. Here is a link by someone who apparently is a regular at LGF. Maybe he was ahead of his time and didn’t know what the current talking point would be of the misused term “Islamofascist”; his article is on “Islamic Theocracy”. My assertion here is that one cannot define terms just so they conform to what one wants to be true. Unless you work in the White House.
    Fascism like any term that defines a political system, has established definitions and it seems to me that you are purposely ignoring in your attempt to perpetrate the Islamofascism meme. Here is another link that defines fascism, and no where in the link is anything mentioned about a fascist religion, only fascist leaders of countries. Some times fascist leaders will proclaim that they are religious and their opponants are “Godless”, but that is not the same as the terrorists who pervert Islam to justify their methods and means. I will agree that the terrorist leaders do utilize the methods you outlined in your definition, but that does not make them fascists.
    As for Karl Rove, concerning the outing of Valerie Plame, Mr. Rove is not out of the legal woods yet.

  17. Rich from Paso
    September 7, 2006 at 3:12 pm

    Bob, I think that you don’t want to see the connection therefore you link to things suppoting your point of view. Fact ist htat The Islamic Republic of Iran is constantly holding rallies and military parades and waving the Islamic Republic of Iran’s flag wherever they go. Hezbollah, described as an “Army” in both the islamic world and in the media, has their own flags (friend of mine has one) their own military parades and it is “The Party of GOD” and they represent thousands of Muslims in the Lebanese parliment. I have yet to see anything from you that clear states that the muslim people can’t be nationalistic about their Islamic republic. The link did talk about Islam becoming more secular faster than Christianity (that probably has more to do with international commerce with secular people than enlightenment), blah blah blah. But it did not strictly say that theocracy and nationalism are mutually exclusive concepts. Again, all other points hold. About the established definitions for a second… New Tone and I give you established definitions from reference materials like, you know, a dictionary, and you reply with links to articles trying to re-define the word in question. I replied to all 14 of that Britt guy’s characteristics of fascism, but that isn’t good enough for you. Don’t know what ever will. Hopefully, my explanation above will change your mind, but I doubt it.

    As for Rove not being out of the legal woods yet… if you are referring to that supposed lawsuit from the Plames, all Rove has to do is call Armitage to stand as a witness and ask him “did you tell Novak Plame was with the CIA first?” he says yes, the case is thrown out. Hard to establish a conspiracy if the players don’t play along with you. I’d say Rove is out of the legal (criminal) woods, but is not out of the legal shrubbery (Plame’s groundless civil suit) yet.

    Welcome back. Hope you had a nice weekend.

  18. JerryDinAZ
    September 7, 2006 at 4:56 pm


  19. rob in los osos
    September 8, 2006 at 2:57 am


    I’m only going to respond to you one more time, and then I will let you slowly spiral down the toilet that you have made of your life.
    Tree hugging has nothing to do with it. I saw many trees and never felt inclined to hug any of them. They are beautiful, tho…
    I just fully realized this weekend that i need to be in a different space than y’all are.
    I remember that about ten years ago I had an epiphany (look it up JERRY) when I realized that you truly do make your own reality. For a time being I stopped completely listening to corporate media, stopped watching
    television, and basically just focused on music and family. This also coincided with my two kids being born (son-12, daughter-11) Anyway, I shut down all the huge, shit-I-can’t-control, stuff that comes into our lives vis-a-vis the media and BOOM, I was happy. Not just blissfully unaware but really happy. I’ve slowly lost that over the last few years and become a bitter person like the rest of you here. But I’m really going to try to not be that person. Look, I feel the way I feel, no ones going to change me. Same with all of you. So rather than try I’m just saying BYE.
    Oh and JERRY – money and popularity does not make you good or worthy of respect – it just means you appeal to the lowest common denominator. Look at pop music – the lowest crap is always the biggest selling. Thats because record companies follow the same operating procedures as the politicians and the corporate media. ‘Give them shit long enough and they’ll lap it up like gravy.’ I’d explain it in more depth but it would just be lost on you. But I do want to say this. I realized (again) that people are by and large good – they just need a chance to be that. And for myself, I’m sure not going to get that here.


  20. Bob from San Luis
    September 8, 2006 at 4:15 am

    Rob in Los Osos: I for one will miss you commenting here. I am sorry that you are moving on, kinda reminds me of the answer to the question: Why do I bang my head against the wall? Because it feels so good when I stop. You’ve chosen to stop, I understand the sentiment that posting progressive ideals here is like banging your head against a wall, for all the difference it makes for those who are so deeply entrenched in their viewpoint that they have no possibility of allowing a different perspective to penetrate their shield of ignorance or indifference. I hope you truly do feel better, good luck to you.

  21. Rich from Paso
    September 8, 2006 at 5:53 am

    I came in late but caught some of the Sheer interview on Dave’s show today. The Lewinsky that Santa Maria Bill was trying to give Mr Sheer over the air with his gushing, school girl fawning aside (the only thing missing was the batting of eyelashes and SM Bill going “my hero”), Mr Sheer presented a world view totally, 180 degrees out of phase with reality (not my reality but the “real” reality). He failed to give one instance of where “the Administration” (a term he used over and over again) savaged anyone outside of the Plame-Wilson household, and even then he didn’t cite specifically where they were in fact savaged. The Clinton’s personally destroyed the reputations of anyone that got in their way, evn little toadies like Billy Dale, the manager of the White House travel office. When Mr Dale was exonerated for the wrongdoing alledged by Hillary Clinton (to put one of the Clinton’s cronies in the job), he is famous for saying “where do I go to get my good name back”. He dismissed Richard Armitage’s admission that he was the primary leaker to the Plame debacle because Armitage was “in the Administration” and “an Iraq invasion supporter”. Only the first part is true, the second is in serious doubt. Sheer said that “the Administration” said that we need to get out of Iraq. As I have said before (and I was unable to get through today to ask him), just how many Iraqis in Iraq has Mr. Sheer actually ever talked to? How many times has he set foot in Iraq outside the Green Zone (benefit of the doubt)If he is anything like Dave, I’m guessing that number hovers right around ZERO. “We have to get out of Iraq”, he says. And then what? Start negotiations with al Qaeda like the Israelis are supposed to have negotiated with Hezbollah? Negotiations with terrorists is a fool’s errand no different than trying to talk the snarling pit bull out of riping you a new asshole or the shark from riping your leg off when you are in the water (the last for all you surfers out there). Mr. Sheer and I exist in two totally different worlds. My world, unfortunately, has evil people doing evil things to good people. Right now those evil people are Islamic terrorists bent on the overthrow of the Western (i.e. United States)way of life. I have seen the work of these evil men up close and with my own eyes. Mr Sheer’s world has evil people in it to, but to him, they are all in the either the White House or the Republican Party. I would have loved to ask him about the supposed Iran invasion plan that he claims Bush has on tap here in the next couple of months which he wrote about a couple of months ago. What the hell is this guy smoking? He lives in the fantasy land next door to Bob’s where there are GOP operatives under your bed and Bush is scheming, while drooling like an imbicile (the Left can’tmake up their mind if he is the evil genuise or blithering idiot; depends on the time of day I guess). Bottom line is that Bob Sheer’s interview with Dave, while well done (kudos Dave) would serve as a campaign ad for either the Dems or Reps because he gave the Dems the love-fest/echochamber you all need so bad and a damn good reason to vote Republican this fall to keep the kooks like him out of public office.

  22. Bob from San Luis
    September 8, 2006 at 8:40 am

    “…. and then what? Start negotiations with al Qaeda…”
    Gee, Rich, wouldn’t it be bad if a supposed ally of ours did negotiate with al Qaeda? Pakistan has reached “an agreement” to stop hostile actions in Waziristan against the Pakistani Taliban. I was not able to listen to Mr. Scheer today, but I have read some of his articles. Here is a link to one of his articles, and here is the link to the website that Mr. Scheer is the editor. Here is a link to a review of Mr. Scheer’s latest book, “Playing President”. Please read the last link Rich, apparently Mr. Scheer is most harsh on Jimmy Carter, so I would assume that you can make some sort of connection with that.

  23. everett in los osos
    September 9, 2006 at 4:07 am

    When neither Bush nor Cheney is in the White House after the next innaugruation day, I expect a full apology from every pinhead who misused the work “Fascist” or “Nazi” since 2001.
    That includes Mr. Olberman. I’m not holding my breath.
    Although I’ve heard Rush twist the English language out of shape he’s got nothing on the run-of-the-mill leftist.

  24. Rich from Paso
    September 9, 2006 at 5:11 am

    Bob, I can’t help it that we have an f&^cking idiot in an ally in Pakistan. Either that, or they are trying to gain a level of internal security at the expense of Afghanistan’s security. Just because Pakistan is throwing Afghanistan into the jaws of the shark to save their own skin should not be an example of something for the United States to do. Let me reiterate: negotiating with terrorists is no different than asking the shark not to bite your leg off. If you and your ilk can’t get that through your concrete dense skulls, then you have ZERO business either responsible for defending this country nor should you be telling those of us with the nuts to defend the country who should be in charge of that task.

    Read this article by LTC (Ret) Dave Grossman, Ph.D (a man I know), entitled “On Sheep, Sheepdogs and Wolves” I am a Sheepdog, Bob, what are you?

  25. Bob from San Luis
    September 10, 2006 at 2:36 am

    Rich: I read the link you offered; I am not a sheep, a sheepdog or a wolf. As good as a writer as the author is concerning the topic, life for humans is not so simple as to boil humanity down into only 3 types of individuals. I for one have trained in a martial art, Aikido for a few years, but I have let my training lapse. I gained a great deal of confidence in learning the art, but I was also training myself in another way as well. The Forum put on by Landmark Education Corp. is quite an eye opener at learning about being a human being and in turn, dealing with human beings. I always felt there was a synchronization to the melding of both studies as I felt that I was prepared physically, mentally and spiritually for dealing with most anything life could or would throw at me. Your author claimed that those who are “trained and licensed to carry” but failed to do so at every possible moment were purposely choosing to be what he calls a “sheep”; weapons, be they firearms, knives or swords, are not the only means for protecting one’s self or changing a life threatening situation. I occasionally watch a couple of those t.v. “Cops” type shows, and I see many times where an officer could have responded in a much more efficient manner if he had been trained in a defensive art like Aikido; but don’t get me wrong, being a policeman is nothing I will ever demean, I just think too many times the reliance on a weapon diminishes the options one can utilize in violent situations. My Aikido instructor warned us that we can “chose to be a victim, or we can chose not to be a victim”; I choose to not be a victim, and if I am ever confronted with an armed assailant, I am not sure of what I will chose to do, but cowering like a leaf is the one thing I know I will not do.
    Sheep, Sheepdog or Wolf? Like I said, it is not that simple. Take care Rich.

  26. Rich from Paso
    September 10, 2006 at 4:42 pm

    I think this illustrates the “Us vs Them” divide that Rob was speaking about. It is not Republican vs Democrat or even liberal vs Conservative, it is gray vs black/white.

    The “gray” folks see complexity in everything. Gray folks are the mutli-culturalists, the moral equivalency and the first ones to ask “did” we do anything to cause this” when talking about the War on Terrorism. Gray try to incorporate everyones points of view and don’t subscribe in any way to absolutes. No if-then proposistions, everything is nuanced and complicated. Diplomacy is prefered because then all sides get to have a say. Warfare is the crude answer to the nuanced disagreements between people or countries. Grays exist mostly in the Democrat Party, but there are several Republicans that are Gray for either philospohical or political expediency. Guys like Chuck Hagel, Lindsey Graham, and Arlen Specter appear to be philosphical Grays but other guys like Lincoln Chaffee appear to be Gray just because they are in a Democrat state and he wants to get re-elected.

    The “Black-White” are the opposite. B-Ws do see simple answers to what appears to be simple problems. Most reasoning is in terms of conditionals: “If a terrorist attacks your country, then you have the right to hunt them down and either kill or capture them”. B-Ws see the world in absolutes, “either you are with us or the terrorists”, good vs evil, us vs them. While Grays are more concerned with “Why?”, B-Ws are only concerned about solutions to problems. While most of the Black/whites exists in the Republican Party, there are a few Democrats that want to be seen as B-Ws for either philosphical reasons of political expediency. Joe Lieberman, for example, is a Gray on every single issue except the War in Iraq. Joe Lieberman is died in the wool Liberal Democrat on 99.99% of the issues, from abortion to social spending to civil liberties, except for Iraq. Other Democrats who try to appear B-W for expediency are guys like John Kerry (come on, guys, the man who said “I was against the war before I voted for it” said that for expediency”) and Hillary Clinton are the two notables.

    What is humorous to me is the role reversal that is occuring as the War in Iraq is going on. The longer the war goes on the more Gray the B-W side is trying to become. The main reason why we haven’t bombed the shit out of the Iranians and sat out the Israel-Hezbollah conflict was to be seen as more nuanced and thoughtful in their actions. While on the other hand, the Grays arenow extremely black and white when it comes to the war. If you for the war in Iraq then you are a Bush clone was the charge made by Ned Lamont in Connecticut. Jack Murtha only sees black and white with the Iraq situation. Even Bob is now a black-white guy: if you don’t believe that there needs to be a change, then you are insane. (Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result – which you have said).

    I am not making a value judgement one way or the other; history, not me, will determine the “right” side of this divide. It is not political, it is a philosphical divide. I think that the Black-White vs Gray is more illustrative to the differences between the sides than lib vs con or Rep vs Dem. I offer this up as a topic for discussion. Enjoy.

  27. JERRY
    September 11, 2006 at 2:45 am


  28. Rich from Paso
    September 11, 2006 at 4:17 am


  29. Bob from San Luis
    September 11, 2006 at 5:26 am

    Looks like somebody is spoofing JerryD from AZ; infantile, sad.

    Rich: As for black & white vs. gray; do you really want this discussion? Let’s start with a little analogy; in photography, black and white photographs only show the whole picture when there is a total black, a total white and many many shades of gray. In graphic design, pure black and pure white is very dramatic, but the design only shows “parts” of an image and you fill in the negative space, interpreting the image because you don’t get all of the information, you don’t get the whole picture.
    If you want to suggest that thinking and acting in absolutes (b&w) is superior to thinking and acting with shades of gray, I think you are mistaken. Nuance, interpretation, analysis are all tools to be used to determine the best options available. The Bush Administration has avoided critical thinking, thoughtful analysis and couldn’t describe the meaning of nuance if every single Republican up for reelection depended on it. Every administration since the inception of the CIA has used that agency with all of the resources with great care, even to the point of having an agent responsible for briefing the President, after the information has been vetted, reviewed and all of the factors considered. When the VP established his own office inside the CIA, he purposely used his authority to circumvent established procedures in order to gain access to the raw field data so he could cultivate information to fit what he wanted to have reported. The goal is/was to be able to present information in “black & white”, avoiding any “gray” area. Do those who think is shades of gray have any absolutes? You bet. Like black & white photography, the “picture” is only complete when there is a pure black and a pure white. For most of us in the Democratic Party, that absolute is violating the Constitution of the United States. Black and White, absolute, yes or no; there is no question, violating the Constitution by the President is wrong, period, no shades of gray. Is that black and white enough for you Rich?

  30. Rich from Paso
    September 11, 2006 at 6:19 am

    Not very nuanced, Bob. You illustrated exactly what I meant. Thanks for the graphic arts lesson, however irrelavent. I guess I should have considered your background. I said that I wasn’t taking a position on either side, but I guess you were too wraped up in preparing your dissertation on shading. I’m guessing that you are considerign yourself a “gray”, to continue the analogy. But as you claim to be for reasoned thought and nuance and critical thinking, but your presentation here represents a total lack of reasoned analysis beyond what you have already determined to be “fact”, to wit: the Bush Adminstration has broken the law. You, yourself, are dealing in the same rigid, unrelenting dogmatic absolutism that you claim all that Bush and every Republican up for reelection lack.

    You are becoming a characture, Bob. It’s sad.

  31. Bob from San Luis
    September 11, 2006 at 8:31 am

    Rich: Call me a “characture” if you wish, that doesn’t change the ‘fact’ of what the President has admitted that he has done; here is a link that details what I’m talking about. The President has ignored the requirement that in order for his administration to spy on US citizens, he is required by law (the 4th amendment) to obtain a warrant. The FISA law was changed to allow a wiretap to be put into place and a warrant could be obtained up to 72 hours later. That still was not enough for President Bush, he did not want any oversight, whether it be by the courts or the Congress. Does the President think he is above the law, that he can ignore the law or, does he think the law does not apply to him? He has a reason for doing this; no record of who or why he is listening or intercepting the private communications of US citizens. Why? Is he hiding something? On this issue the there is no gray. Either President Bush has broken the law, or he has not. This is not about lying about getting a blow job; Americans have died because of the actions of this administration. Black & white. Or do you wish to defend the illegal actions by the President?

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: