On Thursday's Countdown, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann used his latest "Special Comment" to denounce President Bush as a "pathological presidential liar or an idiot-in-chief" for continuing to talk about the potential danger of a nuclear Iran after receiving word in August of the possibility the newest national intelligence report would find that Iran no longer has an active nuclear weapons program, but had suspended such a program in 2003. Olbermann: "We have either a President who is too dishonest to restrain himself from invoking World War III about Iran at least six weeks after he had to have known that the analogy would be fantastic, irresponsible hyperbole, or we have a President too transcendently stupid not to have asked, at what now appears to have been a series of opportunities to do so, whether the fairy tales he either created or was fed, were still even remotely plausible. The pathological presidential liar, or an idiot-in-chief." (Transcript follows)
Olbermann also bizarrely compared Bush to failed presidents of the 19th century who "abandoned Reconstruction, and sent this country marching backwards into the pit of American Apartheid."
The Countdown host tagged Vice President Cheney as a "warmonger" and Bush as "an unhinged, irrational Chicken Little of a President, shooting his mouth off, backed up only by his own hysteria and his own delusions of omniscience." Referring to a conspiracy theory, which Olbermann described as "widely believed," that President Reagan was "little more than a front man for some never-viewed, behind-the-scenes, string-puller," the MSNBC host suggested that Cheney is President Bush's "evil ventriloquist." Olbermann: "Today, as evidenced by this latest remarkable, historical malfeasance, it is inescapable that Dick Cheney is either this President's evil ventriloquist, or he thinks he is."
Olbermann soon blamed Cheney for making the Bush administration like those of the 19th century that brought about "American Apartheid." Olbermann: "Mr. Cheney has helped, sir, to make your administration into the kind our ancestors saw in the 1860s and 1870s and 1880s, the ones that abandoned Reconstruction, and sent this country marching backwards into the pit of American Apartheid."
After accusing President Bush of being "Machiavellian," rather than merely a "marionette or moron," contending that the President was tipped off about the upcoming national intelligence report on Iran and deliberately used different wording in discussing the potential for a nuclear Iran to fit the fresh intelligence, Olbermann continued his name-calling as he labeled the President a "bald-faced liar" who is "terrorizing" the American people "to legally cover your own backside."
Olbermann: "And we are to believe, Mr. Bush, that nobody told you any of this until last week? Your insistence that you were not briefed on the NIE until last week might be legally true, something like 'what the definition of is is,' but with the subject matter being not interns but the threat of nuclear war. Legally, this might save you from some kind of war crimes trial, but ethically, it is a lie. It is indefensible. You have been yelling threats into a phone for nearly four months, after the guy on the other end had already hung up. You, Mr. Bush, are a bald-faced liar."
Olbermann soon continued: "You not only knew all of this about Iran in early August, but you also knew it was all accurate. And instead of sharing this good calming news with the people you have obviously forgotten you represent, you merely fine-tuned your terrorizing of those people to legally cover your own backside. While you filled the factual gap with sadistic visions of, as you phrased it on August 28th, a quote, 'nuclear holocaust,' as you phrased it on October 17th, quote, 'World War III.'"
The MSNBC host concluded by charging that Bush has "no business being President." Olbermann: "My comments, Mr. Bush, are often dismissed as simple repetitions of the phrase 'George Bush has no business being President.' Well, guess what? Tonight, hanged by your own words and convicted by your own deliberate lies, you, sir, have no business being President. Good night and good luck."
Below is a complete transcript of Olbermann's "Special Comment" from the Thursday December 6 Countdown show on MSNBC:
KEITH OLBERMANN: Finally, as promised, a "Special Comment" about the President's cataclysmic deceptions about Iran. There are few choices more terrifying than the one Mr. Bush has left us with tonight. We have either a President who is too dishonest to restrain himself from invoking World War III about Iran at least six weeks after he had to have known that the analogy would be fantastic, irresponsible hyperbole, or we have a President too transcendently stupid not to have asked, at what now appears to have been a series of opportunities to do so, whether the fairy tales he either created or was fed, were still even remotely plausible. The pathological presidential liar, or an idiot-in-chief. It is the nightmare scenario of political science fiction: A critical juncture in our history and, contained in either answer, a President manifestly unfit to serve, and behind him in the vice presidency, an unapologetic warmonger who has long been seeing a world visible only to himself.
After Ms. Perino's announcement that the White House last night, that the timeline is inescapable and clear now. In August the President was told by his hand-picked Major Domo of intelligence Mike McConnell, a flinty, high-strung-looking, worrying-warrior who will always see more clouds than silver linings, that what "everybody thought" about Iran might, in essence, be crap. Yet on October 17th the President said of Iran and its president Ahmadinejad: "I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge to make a nuclear weapon." And as he said that, Mr. Bush knew that at bare minimum there was a strong chance that his rhetoric was nothing more than words with which to scare the Iranians.
Or was it, sir, to scare the Americans? Does Iran not really fit in the equation here? Have you just scribbled it into the fill-in-the-blank on the same template you used to scare us about Iraq? In August, any commander-in-chief still able-minded or uncorrupted or both, sir, would have invoked the quality the job most requires: mental flexibility. A bright man, or an honest man, would have realized no later than the McConnell briefing that the only true danger about Iran was the damage that could be done by an unhinged, irrational Chicken Little of a President, shooting his mouth off, backed up only by his own hysteria and his own delusions of omniscience. Not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mr. Bush. The Chicken Little of presidents is the one, sir, that you see in the mirror.
And the mind reels at the thought of a Vice President fully briefed on the revised Intel as long as two weeks ago, briefed on the fact that Iran abandoned its pursuit of this imminent threat four years ago, a Vice President who never bothered to mention it to his boss.
It is nearly forgotten today, but throughout much of Ronald Reagan's presidency it was widely believed that he was little more than a front-man for some never-viewed, behind-the-scenes, string-puller. Today, as evidenced by this latest remarkable, historical malfeasance, it is inescapable that Dick Cheney is either this President's evil ventriloquist, or he thinks he is. What servant of any of the 42 previous presidents could possibly withhold information of this urgency and this gravity, and wind up back at his desk the next morning, instead of winding up before a congressional investigation, or a criminal one?
Mr. Bush, if you can still hear us, if you did not previously agree to this scenario in which Dick Cheney is the actual detective and you're the Remington Steele, you must disenthrall yourself: Mr. Cheney has usurped your constitutional powers, cut you out of the information loop, and led you down the path to an unprecedented presidency in which the facts have become optional, the intel is valued less than the hunch, and the assistant runs the store. The problem is, sir, your assistant is robbing you, and your country, blind. Not merely in monetary terms, Mr. Bush, but more importantly, robbing you of the traditions and righteousness for which we have stood, at great risk, for centuries: Honesty, law, moral force.
Mr. Cheney has helped, sir, to make your administration into the kind our ancestors saw in the 1860s and 1870s and 1880s, the ones that abandoned Reconstruction, and sent this country marching backwards into the pit of American Apartheid. Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland -- presidents who will be remembered only in a blur of failure, Mr. Bush, presidents who will be remembered as functions only of those who opposed them, the opponents whom history proved right. Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland, Bush.
Would that we could let this President off the hook by seeing him only as marionette or moron. But a study of the mutation of his language about Iran proves that though he may not be very good at it, he is, himself, still a manipulative, Machiavellian, snake oil salesman. The Bushian etymology was tracked by Dan Froomkin at the Washington Post's Web site, and it is staggering.
March 31st: "Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon..."
June 5th: Iran's "pursuit of nuclear weapons..."
June 19th: "...consequences to the Iranian government if they continue to pursue a nuclear weapon..."
July 12th: "...the same regime in Iran that is pursuing nuclear weapons..."
August 6th: "This is a government that has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon..."
Notice a pattern? Trying to develop, build or pursue a nuclear weapon. Then, sometime between August 6th and August 9th, those terms are suddenly swapped out, so subtly that only in retrospect can we see that somebody has warned the President, not only that he has gone out too far on the limb of terror, but that there may not even be a tree there. McConnell, or somebody, must have briefed him then.
August 9th: "They have expressed their desire to be able to enrich uranium, which we believe is a step toward having a nuclear weapons program..."
August 28th: "Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons..."
October 4th: "...you should not have the know-how on how to make a (nuclear) weapon..."
October 17th: "...until they suspend and/or make it clear that they, that their statements aren't real, yeah, I believe they want to have the capacity, the knowledge, in order to make a nuclear weapon."
Before August 9th, it is: Trying to develop, build or pursue a nuclear weapon. After August 9th, it's: Desire, pursuit, want, knowledge, technology, know-how to enrich uranium. And we are to believe, Mr. Bush, that the National Intelligence Estimate this week talks of the Iranians suspending their nuclear weapons program in 2003. And you talked of the Iranians suspending their nuclear weapons program on October 17th. And that term "suspending" is just a coincidence?
And we are to believe, Mr. Bush, that nobody told you any of this until last week? Your insistence that you were not briefed on the NIE until last week might be legally true, something like "what the definition of is is," but with the subject matter being not interns but the threat of nuclear war. Legally, this might save you from some kind of war crimes trial, but ethically, it is a lie. It is indefensible. You have been yelling threats into a phone for nearly four months, after the guy on the other end had already hung up. You, Mr. Bush, are a bald-faced liar.
And moreover, you must have realized that John Bolton and Norman Podhoretz and the Wall Street Journal editorial board are now also bald-faced liars. We are to believe that the intel community, or maybe the State Department, cooked the raw intelligence about Iran, falsely diminished the Iranian nuclear threat, to make you look bad?
And you proceeded to let them make you look bad? You not only knew all of this about Iran in early August, but you also knew it was all accurate. And instead of sharing this good calming news with the people you have obviously forgotten you represent, you merely fine-tuned your terrorizing of those people to legally cover your own backside. While you filled the factual gap with sadistic visions of, as you phrased it on August 28th, a quote, "nuclear holocaust," as you phrased it on October 17th, quote, "World War III."
My comments, Mr. Bush, are often dismissed as simple repetitions of the phrase "George Bush has no business being President." Well, guess what? Tonight, hanged by your own words and convicted by your own deliberate lies, you, sir, have no business being President. Good night and good luck.
—Brad Wilmouth is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.




It is nearly forgotten today, but throughout much of Ronald Reagan's presidency it was widely believed that he was little more than a front-man for some never-viewed, behind-the-scenes, string-puller. Today, as evidenced by this latest remarkable, historical malfeasance, it is inescapable that Dick Cheney is either this President's evil ventriloquist, or he thinks he is. What servant of any of the 42 previous presidents could possibly withhold information of this urgency and this gravity, and wind up back at his desk the next morning, instead of winding up before a congressional investigation, or a criminal one?














Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Freudian Sink Hole
December 7, 2007 - 03:10 ET by stratmanOlberrabid is a pathetic plagiarizer.
Bill Clinton is the Pathological Liar.
Jimmy Carter was the Idiot-In-Chief.
And you, sir, are the bald-faced liar.
Time for a new gig Keef.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
Wow. That's a lot of hatred
December 7, 2007 - 03:04 ET by rbosqueWow. That's a lot of hatred toward someone he doesn't even personally know. This guy has some serious issues.
This passes for journalism?
December 7, 2007 - 07:13 ET by PicnicThis passes for journalism? If anyone saw this guy on a streetcorner ranting like this, he would be escorted to the nearest Psychiatric ER for an evaluation.
Boycott?
December 7, 2007 - 08:49 ET by capavCAIR is trying it against Michael Savage. Let's go after MSNBC and Keith Olbermann.
Stop Global Warming
December 7, 2007 - 03:10 ET by well99Glue obermanns lips together.For those of the more passive nature...take away his teleprompter.
He's an angry elf
December 7, 2007 - 03:42 ET by KC MulvilleAt least he's realized that his act is getting repetitive.
Olbermann's whole shtick is snarky insults. He's a coward who never invites a contrary point of view onto his show, mostly because he can't take the risk of having his own ignorance exposed. He's a media bombthrower who makes his living by ripping other people. Rickles does it for laughs, but this one does it so that the loony left will let him play their reindeer games.
Olbermann can't grasp the possibility that Iran is still a threat, and he doesn't care. Denouncing Iran won't get Olbermann noticed, so he doesn't care about that. He's glad to rant at his masters' command, like Howard Beale. Soon as his ratings go down, he'll throw a bomb that explodes in his face.
Just a sad, sad
December 7, 2007 - 04:26 ET by Gary P JacksonJust a sad, sad individual.
What are these jackasses gonna do in '09? President Bush will be sitting in his pick up in Crawford laughing it up. Will all of 'em end up in a psych ward? How will they channel all of their hate? How will they keep from spontaneously combusting?
Inquiring minds want to know!
KO is a heroic individual who states the obvious
December 7, 2007 - 09:58 ET by professor truthwith intelligence and passion. Bush and Cheney are pathological liars and only KO has the courage to call it as he sees it. Another great commentary from the Edward R Murrow of our time, and someone who absolutely deserves major kudos from all who want to stop this maladministration from their relentless march toward fascism.
only KO??
December 7, 2007 - 10:02 ET by candanceYou have to be joking TP&C. You can't seriously sit there and say KO is the only person on television calling Bush a liar.
Of course he can't "sit there and say" that, candance
December 7, 2007 - 10:08 ET by RJIt would prevent him from communicating in his usual way. ;^)
Right, candance. Calling
December 7, 2007 - 10:11 ET by motherbeltRight, candance. Calling Bush a liar is the LEAST original thing going nowadays on the left. It's actually the "password for the brotherhood"! LOL
}}---> Absolutely Professor
December 7, 2007 - 10:04 ET by Cool ArrowHe's a man any Political Incorrectness devotee would gladly follow to Auschwitz.
Don't let me hold you back.
Poor professor dipsh*t
December 7, 2007 - 10:10 ET by MightyMouthWhat will you bitch about after the current 'fascist maladminstration' relinquishes power to the next duly elected administration?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
MM, who provides this country freedom??? You???
December 7, 2007 - 19:41 ET by professor truthsoldiers in Iraq??? All those dead Iraqis who were just waiting to fly, drive, and swim to the US just so they can slit my throat. And to think, I was saved just in the nick of time. Wheeeew!
Bad Breath Prof
December 7, 2007 - 10:24 ET by Airforce_5_OTo cion a phrase from Dirty Harry
"Your mouth wash ain't cutting it"
Who would .....have guessed.......you and KO agreed. ....I never saw .....that one.......coming.
According to Helen Thomas and Professor Truth I am the Most Dangerous and Psychotic Individual on the Net. Airforce_5_O
AF, fantasizing about breath these days??
December 7, 2007 - 19:50 ET by professor truthHey, AF, looks like military families hold views closer to me vs YOU! And here's my evidence to show it:http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/07/5694/
What are going to do now that more military families agree with my views about Iraq vs your views, AF?? Remember, AF, men don't cry!!
Yeah, it akes a lot of
December 10, 2007 - 19:32 ET by MitchumsteinYeah, it akes a lot of "courage" to call Bush an idiot and liar. Will he ever work again?
Isn't it ironic how some
December 7, 2007 - 05:06 ET by ckc1227Isn't it ironic how some folks, like olbermann, have to lie to while trying to prove that someone else is a liar? With the reach this guy has, he should be yanking down rebounds in the NBA, or running a fertilizer company with all the BS that comes out of his mouth.
My comments, Mr. Bush,
December 7, 2007 - 05:23 ET by Jack BauerWell you got that right, at least, moron...
And finally we have a sentence where the words "Olbermann" and "Intelligence" appear together.
Had to happen sometime, even by the infinite number of monkeys typing theory.
BATH-TUB-BOY...
December 7, 2007 - 05:34 ET by danybhoyHere we go again, talking about another one of his "Special Comments". I'm loving this, & you should too. Everytime he goes off in one of his over-the-top rants, he loses more credibility,as well as NBC, at least with the average person. Then they see him doing his weekend football gig, & people start to tune him out. Not that many people are tuning in to him. I'm sure more then a few folks see him on Sunday night, & more then a few folks say "wow, I hav'nt seen him since he was on SportsCenter back when I watched it while I was in college".
Here's the funny/sad part, depending how you see want to look at it. BathTubBoy is paid to do a low rent imitation of Uncle Walter, Edward R.Murrow, & wants to be the next Woodward & Bernstein by taking down a President. The other thing he does is attack anybody who is conservative & successful.
He goes after O'Reilly, Bill does his thing, but has been working on Jessica's Law & trashing judges who don't want to punish dangerous criminals. He goes after John Gibson, Gibby has been trying to make black on black murder an issue that can be adressed. He goes after Beck, he's trying to expose Johnny Sutton & work toward justice for Ramos & Campean, with them sitting in prison for just doing their job. Beck has been working to further expose radical islam as well.All of these guys do this at their own peronal risk as well. This is to name only a few people he slimes.
What is clear to see is that BatTubBoy has very little to offer when it comes to what is presented on his show. I would guess he gets at least some of his material from sites like MediaMatters, Kos, DU, Move-On, & the like. He should be laughed at, that is the sort of reaction he should get. That pisses people like him off, look at what happened to Rosie. They eventually crash & burn, he will too. What will be sweet is that one of the quotes on the back cover of Glenn Beck's "An Inconvenient Book" is from BathTubBoy. It reads as follows,"There's somthing about him that suggests that, one night, he'll say something that will cost him his career..."
Oh how ironic will that be when this @$$clown has THAT quote applied to him? It's coming people, it's a matter of when, NOT if.
"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise" Mark Levin
Bath-Tub-Boy
December 7, 2007 - 20:42 ET by jmad627Hey danybhoy,
I agree with almost all that you posted. However I have one question, what is the origin for the nickname, which I like, Bath-Tub-Boy?
HERE'S THE STORY...
December 7, 2007 - 22:12 ET by danybhoyjmad627,
Thanks for the nod. As for the nakename BathTubBoy, I heard it from FoxNewsChannel's John Gibson on his radio show.
Gibby says that when they were working together at MSNBC, back during the Clinton impeachment era, Olbermann was having fits about having to report abort Bill & Monica & what happened in the Oval Office. Gibby had to fill in for Olby more then a few times because he would'nt get out the tub due to his anxiety about covering the story. This is also noted somewhere at Olbermann Watch, 1 of their graphics is a guy in his tub.
I'm guessing Oblermann has noticed the BathTubBoy remarks, since at least once when he named Gibby to his "Worst Person In The World" segment, he called Gibson BathTubHead...whatever that means. So I'll assume he's not happy with the moniker, which means it is my duty to refer to him as BathTubBoy whenever possible, & spread the word.
"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise" Mark Levin
Left In A Tizzy Again
December 7, 2007 - 06:04 ET by NoMoreClintonsOnly a raving moonbat would think Iran poses no danger to us. OlberLoon probably thinks . . .what? They're our friends? We should make nice with Ima-A-Dinner-Jacket? Once again, the far left with their shrill name calling shows their level of maturity. Hey, try reading John Bolton's reply in the WaPo - if you can comprehend intellectualism that is.
"war crimes
December 7, 2007 - 06:17 ET by motherbelt"war crimes trial"?????
I'm sorry, Mr. Olbermann, but I must have missed the "war crimes" thing.
Exactly what, besides "nothing" or letting the impression lie there, did the President DO to Iran after August that has you ready to fit him for a Neuremburg-grey jumpsuit? What atrocity did he perpetrate upon Iran at ANY time?
While I'm a little upset, (that he could have eased our minds sooner) and actually relieved to know that Iran isn't actually on the verge of being a nuclear power at the moment, I will put my trust in the President and his cabinet to know when is the right time to make that information public. I really don't see any major harm in keeping this information quiet for a while, except to the ego of Olbermann and his ilk, who think the administration has an obligation to immediately spill every bit of information for them to chew over...
But that's just me....
I read the WaPo column by John Bolton. One paragraph that I found very interesting was this one near the end (emphasis added):
many involved in drafting and approving the NIE were not intelligence professionals but refugees from the State Department, brought into the new central bureaucracy of the director of national intelligence. These officials had relatively benign views of Iran's nuclear intentions five and six years ago; now they are writing those views as if they were received wisdom from on high. In fact, these are precisely the policy biases they had before, recycled as "intelligence judgments."
Go read the whole thing
I'm sure Kieth had a
December 7, 2007 - 06:25 ET by nicksmith112I'm sure Kieth had a balanced discussion debating a person from the right? LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!
Paneling with Krazy Kieth...Fluffington Post/air america discussing media matters material obsessing on Bill O and Fox news.
I'm a refugee from the Democratic Party.
KO's entire show is
December 7, 2007 - 07:55 ET by motherbeltKO's entire show is "interviews" with sycophants who agree with him and prop up his viewpoint...(much as middle-schooler says "Everybody I know hates you!") culminating in his personal rant....er....Special Comment.
From what I've seen, he has no interest in debate; just nodding agreement from his guests.
Keith went on a rant against the President?
December 7, 2007 - 07:20 ET by superconYawnnn...
I thought this place was called Newsbusters and not Old News Busters.
Olbermann needs a straight jacket and a leash.MSNBC obviously doesn't care about ratings.The show Countdown is like the media version of the Palestinian territories.Alot of anger and bomb throwing but not much else.
Victory in Iraq.
MSNBC
December 7, 2007 - 07:55 ET by DanDanBig cutbacks coming a MSNBC before Christmas -----
We can only hope that A Hole Olbermann I one of them -----
lee
<td hei
Happy Pearl Harbor day
December 7, 2007 - 08:29 ET by Cool ArrowI read that cutback story yesterday and supposed they will be relying heavily on a Drudge type format.
Serious low budget with multiple NPR feeds I hope.
NOT YET...
December 7, 2007 - 22:17 ET by danybhoyDan Abrams or his bosses are gonna have to sack him as of right now. Untill there is a change in the power structure at NBCnews, there will be no changes. It will have to come from above Abrams, when somebody actually sees the damage to NBC, & to General Electric, then they might look into it. Untill then, enjoy the little rich boy from Westchester wet his pants every night untill then.
"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise" Mark Levin
Keef usually does this on
December 7, 2007 - 08:14 ET by charlietexasKeef usually does this on wedneday night when they do the Nelson ratings. Keefs ratings must be low........again. Loser
IMHO
December 7, 2007 - 08:14 ET by OldSailor88I think he looks in the mirror as he writes his diatribes. They seem to be very accurate in describing himself!
I think he probably answers himself too.
"I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me."
Soooo Keith...
December 7, 2007 - 08:22 ET by c5thenIf the NIE is correct this time in stating that Iran has "probably" suspended their Nulcear Weapons program, then it was right back in 2002 when it stated that Iraq "Probably" had Chemical, Biological and other WMDs and was actively trying to procure atomic and nuclear weapons, right? I mean if the NIE is infallible, then it's always infallible.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
infallible proof
December 7, 2007 - 09:30 ET by candanceIt's the same as all their AGW reports - they only believe the stuff that helps them and everything else is a vast right wing conspiracy.
Dont taz me bro
December 7, 2007 - 09:28 ET by general companySomeone should taz him every time he tells a lie. You think he would be able to finish a sentence?
Why doesnt someone go find him, shove a mike in his face and ask him to back up this nonesense he spews every day? What a jerk
"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest". Mark Twain
Road Hog!
December 7, 2007 - 09:32 ET by Kirk TurnerMr. Magoo strikes again.
This kind of nonsense by
December 7, 2007 - 10:30 ET by Free ThinkerThis kind of nonsense by Keith used to irritate me, but I have noticed with his last few "special rants" they are all the same. Does his small audience not have the intellectual capacity to grow tired of him saying the same weak lies over and over again while he calls a man with superior class, intellect, and knowledge names? Keith represents all the reasons why the President of the United States of America, whoever that may be, should be respected. I wish I could buy Brad a beer for having to suffer through this as part of his job.
When all that remains is the stink ...
December 7, 2007 - 10:52 ET by drillanwrAt some point even kids ignore the clASS CLOWN that farts out loud in class everyday ... Just gets old and unfunny.
Olbermann's audience, what
December 7, 2007 - 11:09 ET by sublight68Olbermann's audience, what little of it there is, is attracted to his predictable BDS rants like mindless months bumping their empty little heads into a porch light.
He froths and wails and calls conservatives in general, and the president in particular, liars, racists, facists (the usual list) and they drool and nod. But what happens in January '09?
Once there's a new administration, regardless of the party, his act is over. He's a one-trick pony and without Bush he has nothing. He has no credibility whatsoever for straight-news, and his BDS audience won't hang around if there's no Bush-bashing to lap up. His days are numbered.
What if Fred T gets in?
December 7, 2007 - 11:59 ET by wizardjrthink about it,
if another Republican/Conservative gets the Oval Office then Oberloon will have another administration to rant about - to the three people still tuning in.
I smell another Err America coming up. MSNBC can only keep bleeding from the pocket book just so long. Liberal rant and cant don't pay the bills.
Keith Olbermann & Helen Thomas
December 7, 2007 - 11:16 ET by donsalimanI don't know if any of you noticed,but before this article on Olbermann is the article on Helen Thomas.
Well I did and I can now explain the look on his face, he just saw the picture of Helen Thomas.
Resemblance
December 7, 2007 - 11:20 ET by dboActually, I thought there was a striking resemblance between these two idiots. Has anybody ever seen them together at any one time?
I wonder if the two
December 7, 2007 - 11:17 ET by ConservativeRexI wonder if the two people watching him are evenly split? Olbermann is one of the sorriest excuses for an American that has come down the pike in several years.
This probably makes him happy as it puts him on par with his European friends. I'm tired of his BS. I actually think he has severe mental problems.
Nothing to say
December 7, 2007 - 11:49 ET by chuckoYou know when Keith has nailed it when Newsbusters has NO refutations of anything he said in this "Special Comment." Not even a rebuttal for his "bizarre" comparison of President Bush to the supposed "American Apartheid" era of 19th century presidents?
You often document where Keith is wrong or goes WAY over the top (and he often does), but President Bush can not be defended on this Iran NIE controversy - the what he knew and when he knew it part - and Olbermann nailed it this time. Admit it Olberhaters.
It was painful watching Dan Perino (on CSPAN) trying her best not to admit the President lied when he said he first learned of the NIE last Wednesday - and we're not even sure THAT's true given the alleged Prime Minister Olmert briefing last Monday - when Admiral McConnell told him Iran "may have suspended" its nuclear program in August. He knew this - even though it took a while to verify - and was still having his administration push the UN Security council for a third round of sanctions on Iran? Unbelievable.
Don't get me wrong, we still need to deal with Iran on uranium enrichment, support for terrorism and thugs sending weapons in Iraq that kill our soldiers - though that too is slowing down - but you don't UP the rhetoric on Iranian nucs or push for more sanctions when this type of intel comes in, you tone it down and cetaintly don't talk of "World War III."
As the NYT said yesterday, it (the NIE) is one of the biggest reversals in the history of US nuclear intelligence. And for months the Bush administration acted like nothing changed.
http://www.nytimes.c...
There are still lots of unanswered questions surrounding Iranian nuclear ambitions - like why exactly they halted them in 2003 in the first place - and what our approach should be towards Iran going forward, but thank God we have SOME honest people like Admiral McConnell (and Michael Hayden) - whom Bush appointed, to his credit - who will play it straight with the American people and handle this issue and other intel programs with credibility, something Bush just doesn't have anymore.
So you can be mad at Olbermann all you want for other Special Comments and other issues - I know I have been at times - but any outrage you have should not be with him this time, it should be with the Bush administration.
TROLL ALERT !!
December 7, 2007 - 12:21 ET by MrShy"So you can be mad at Olbermann all you want for other Special Comments and other issues - I know I have been at times..."
What times were you mad at Olbermann for one of his SC's or other issues? Just curious.
"...but any outrage you have should not be with him this time, it should be with the Bush
administration."
Chucko, Keith is utterly outrageous for a wall-to-wall hour, 5 nights a week, on primetime, exclusively tarring and feathering Bush and anything connected to "BushCheneyCo". He's completely unaccountable as he fires fast and loose on accusations of "liar", "war criminal", and the list is endless, of anything Bush touches. Again, 5 nights a week, every week.
And you ask that we hoist yet more outrage on the man who is vilified and ruthlessly attacked by 95% of the media at an unprecedented level compared to any U.S. president in history?
Wow.
"Are ZZ TOP part of the Taliban?? Think on it, son."
-- Professor TP&C (Talking Points & Cheetos)
In response
December 7, 2007 - 13:03 ET by chuckoWell, off the top of my head, I just can't stand it whenever he asserts that General Petraeus is a front for the Bush administration. He can't find a good word to say about the guy who is in the middle of saving our effort in Iraq. I was so glad that Thomas Ricks "corrected" him last week (or was it the week before?) when Keith said that the "Petraeus Report" was "vetted," if not written by the White House when he should've known that was a lie fed by a cowardice anonymous source to the LA Times in the wekks leading up to his September testimony. [Ricks said Petreaus was still working on his written testimony and wasn't finished with it until the day of it, leaving no time even if the WH wanted to look at it].
That's just for starters...but I'm not going to waste my time here pointing out criticisms of the guy. I like his show, but that doesn't mean I like or apologize for everything he says or does. Same with other political/news shows I watch (like Morning Joe, for example). I'm a bipartisan-type of viewer. Deal with it and move on.
Chucko
December 7, 2007 - 13:14 ET by MrShyThanks for the example. It was more than what other liberals (and sorry, I just can't quite classify you as fully centrist/bipartisan) would do -- you actually, directly, answered a question :p
Yes, the smearing of Petraeus was one of the worst (of so many) things done by both him and so much of the lead-up from many talking-heads, and from Hillary at the hearing especially (which was totally disgraceful and quickly muted by the MSM...)
"Are ZZ TOP part of the Taliban?? Think on it, son."
-- Professor TP&C (Talking Points & Cheetos)
Chucko, I think you have
December 7, 2007 - 12:28 ET by Free ThinkerChucko, I think you have read this all wrong. Keith didn't get that many comments because he said nothing different than what he always says. He is not taken seriously.
As for the report, if anything it backs up the administration's policies over the last several years. If Iran did indeed stop its nuclear weapons program (they are still enriching uranium at an awesome level) in 2003 then you have to consider what else happened in 2003. Oh yeah, the USA acted on another member of the axis of evil - Iraq. Libya stopped its program as well. In short "cowboy diplomacy", as the left likes to call it, worked. If this is true it is GOOD news for the country.
This isn't even a story anymore because there is nothing there. The fact that the fringe left like Olbermann are still trying to fabricate some kind of a controversy while the rest of the media have moved on should tell you something.
Thanks FT!
December 7, 2007 - 12:40 ET by MrShyI rambled on above, but should have left it at that, in your words, as to why we are not commenting:
He is not taken seriously.
Exactly. Not - at - all.
He is fanatical in his irrational, blind hatred toward the president, so it's all noise at this point -- and has been for some time.
"Are ZZ TOP part of the Taliban?? Think on it, son."
-- Professor TP&C (Talking Points & Cheetos)
Supremely irrational. By
December 7, 2007 - 12:45 ET by Free ThinkerSupremely irrational. By the way, I am re-evaluating all of my ZZ Top albums this weekend, I think I'll play them backwards and see if there is any secret messages from Obama bin Laden.
Chucko: What is diffrent
December 7, 2007 - 12:41 ET by bassndudeChucko: What is diffrent from this report than the others that make it more reliable? IF as liberals say, the intelligence was faulty then, why is it any more reliable now? Why do you belive this one and not the previous reports? Is it because it fits into the political drama unfolding now? Its what you want to belive? Written by the same folks as the ones from June, July and Aug, ect, ect., ect.. And now you decide to belive it? Why?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Read this for your answer to your first question
December 7, 2007 - 13:39 ET by chuckoBassndude: What makes it different? How about reading this NYT article "Details in Military Notes Led To Shift On Iran, US Says."
http://www.nytimes.c...
And may I ask you this: If the 2005 NIE on Iran was widely believed to be accurate then, why shouldn't the 2007 NIE on Iran not be believed to be accurate now?
Chucko
December 7, 2007 - 13:43 ET by MrShyYou will disagree, but I am ademant about this -- and I live in this town as well (NYC) -- The NY Times is a left-leaning rag. And it's articles in the Op Ed are all written by known liberals.
They work hard to bend things to their desired view of everything.
"Are ZZ TOP part of the Taliban?? Think on it, son."
-- Professor TP&C (Talking Points & Cheetos)
Not Really
December 7, 2007 - 14:07 ET by chuckoYou don't have to live in NYC to realize the NYT, especially its op-ed pages have a left-leaning tilt. But that doesn't mean you should dismiss the validity of every report - including the one I linked earlier - because it's got "NY Times" at the top of it. I don't read the paper (online) that often, but the Iran story I referenced looks legit. So does another story that Newsbusters praised earlier in the day on Cuba. Check 'em both out, if you have the time.
"And may I ask you this: If
December 7, 2007 - 15:56 ET by Khyris"And may I ask you this: If the 2005 NIE on Iran was widely believed to be accurate then, why shouldn't the 2007 NIE on Iran not be believed to be accurate now? "
Because believing the 2007 NIE is accurate REQUIRES that you DISBELIEVE the 2005 NIE. You're given a coin-flip choice of one IS wrong, or the other IS wrong. OR, possibly BOTH are wrong.... but in no way can both of them be right, which means you can't use the "right"ness of the first as a precedent for the "right"ness of the second.
Do you understand?
December 7, 2007 - 20:52 ET by chuckoDo you understand that you go with the most current information? You, I, President Bush, Joe Lieberman or anyone else for that matter had no reason to question the 2005 NIE on Iran AT THE TIME. Now, the 2007 NIE invalidates that one and any other recent NIE. My point was that at the time these NIE reports come out, they are hardly questioned until well into the future and until more updated ones come out. Surely you understand that.
Chucko, in the June 2007
December 7, 2007 - 16:01 ET by bassndudeChucko, in the June 2007 NIE, it said just the opposit of what this one sayes. Come on now, simple question. How can you belive only this one and not the one from June?
The 2005 NIE? We are way past that now. The dems have been screaming about falult intelligence for years, and now its all ok? Give me a break.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Right.... so let's get this
December 7, 2007 - 12:49 ET by KhyrisRight.... so let's get this straight... the same NIEs which were wrong about Iraq, are suddenly the gold standard right now? What about the NIE in 2005 which said with "high confidence" that the Iranian nuclear weapons program is still active? You're saying that NIE was not only wrong, but so wrong that it was off by 2 years, and THIS one is flawless? The problem with the NIE is that it is NOT the consensus of 16 agencies analysis... it is the consensus of 3 state department officials INTERPRETATION of analysis. The majority of the 16 DISAGREE with the conclusions of this NIE.
But let's say for the sake of argument that you're right and by a miracle, this NIE is a picture perfect world view. A nuclear weapons program which the Iranians have consistently denied ever existed still existed in 2003. It was not dismantled, it was "halted". This NIE also states that the Iranians do indeed have the blueprints to continue their program right where they left off. The IAEA still claimed that Iran was illegally concealing the nature and extent of it's "legitimate" "energy-only" nuclear activities. The NIE also states that the "cause" of this weapons program abandonment was "international pressure." Except there WAS NO INTERNATIONAL PRESSURE IN 2003.... unless you want to count the psychological pressure of shock-and-awe in Iraq. No surprise, rattling the saber IS an effective means of diplomacy. Vaunted "Diplomacy" is completely useless without any threat of consequences. Unless you think we can appeal to Iran's sense of morality and worldly obligation? Good luck with that. And while you're at it, why don't you blindly trust that a country with enormous oil reserves (plentiful energy) so desperately needs nuclear power plants that it's worthwhile to pursue them in a manner which flies in the face of international law and brings about serious repercussions? Consider the motivation, what on earth could possible be so important about illegally and clandestinely enriching large amounts uranium, when the country already has a plethora of cheap energy? They're desperate for their share of radioactive waste? Think about it.
"shooting his mouth off, backed up only by his own hysteria and his own delusions of omniscience." "The Chicken Little ... is the one, sir, that you see in the mirror."
This is what is known to psychologists as "transferrance." A man in a studio feels he is so confident in his knowledge of the contents of classified intelligence to know which reports are true and which are false, and also knows exactly when other people knew of these things and when they knew that the things that they knew about were true or false. And all the True and False and When just HAPPENS to exactly agree with his worldview and impune those people for whom he harbors emotional hatred. I wish MY life worked out that conveniently.
}}---> The real Intel report?
December 7, 2007 - 12:55 ET by Cool ArrowAs if to say "How stupid can you guys be?"
Israel is gonna school us on the real Iran Nuclear threat.
This ought to unleash another wave of antisemitism from the Left
EXACTLY...
December 7, 2007 - 16:05 ET by danybhoyWhen Israel feels the need to take care of the threat, they will do so. The need will increase if a Dem get elected to The White House, since they know how they don't take the Iranian threat seriously. Part of this may require Israel to have Olmart removed as PM. Netenyaho would be the likely replacement, then I would bet on an attack on Iran's nuke program.
"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise" Mark Levin
Khyris, you've been caught
December 7, 2007 - 22:54 ET by chucko"The problem with the NIE is that it is NOT the consensus of 16 agencies analysis... it is the consensus of 3 state department officials INTERPRETATION of analysis. The majority of the 16 DISAGREE with the
conclusions of this NIE."
Wrong! You got that from a flawed Washington Times article, didn't you? Or some other pro-Iranian War pusher as a source.
Here's Fred Kaplan from Slate: "Fred Kaplan: [T]hird, the NIE is not "a team of three in the State Department." It's the product of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies. From all accounts, this was a very elaborate process involving thousands of new pieces of information, including intercepts, human intelligence, and so forth. It also seems to have been scrubbed meticulously, subjected to "red team"
exercises -- the works."
http://www.washingto...
Now let's hear from VP Cheney himself, from yesterday's chat with the Politico:
"Q Sir, did you believe the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Did I believe it?
Q Yes, do you believe the new one that's out -- or is there a reason to question those conclusions?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't have any reason to question the -- what the community has produced, with respect to the NIE on Iran. Now, there are things they don't know. There are always -- there's always the possibility that the circumstances will change. But I think they've done the best job they can with the intelligence that's available to give us their best judgment on those issues.
http://www.whitehous...
Now, like he also says later in the chat, the NIE doesn't deal with the uranium enrichment program that Iran resumed in January of 2006, but not even HE questions its key judgments, so why should any of you (that would be sorta of a rhetorical question).
Its seems pretty obvious
December 7, 2007 - 13:23 ET by jsimoneIts seems pretty obvious that Keefy has some kind of sexual attraction to Bill Oreilly. Kinda like a little school kid who has a crush and needs attention.
Pot?
December 7, 2007 - 15:03 ET by Wildcatter1980Pot?
Kettle!
I caught Olbie trying to put the lovely, charming AND smart Dana Perino down for "misspeaking" with regard to Iran and the latest NIE. He clearly demonstrated that he does not have a clue about a.) intelligence gather, b.) countries having hidden their efforts to build nuclear and/or other weapons of mass destruction--North Korea comes to mind--in the past, and c.) what the real world is.
Ol' Keith, boy, here is a clue for you. You are going to be surprised when you go into the voting booth in Nov. 2008 and do NOT find George W. Bush on the ballot. Then, again, as an obvious BDS patient, it probably won't matter to you, anyway.
Just my $0.02
Because Because Because
December 7, 2007 - 20:46 ET by chuckoBassndude, nevermind whiny Democrats for a second and that about this. None of us are intelligence experts in this field, so when the NIEs come out, you go with what the leading officials in the field say. I for one am not in the business of partisan analysis.
You or I have no inside expertise to question the validity of this latest NIE, the June '07 NIE, the 2005 NIE or any other one when they are new. So like our government and elected officials, I believe what the latest Iran assessments tell us. Call me naive, but that's all you or I can really do, unless you know for sure and can quote chapter and verse why such intel reports are unreliable.
Intelligence is never 100% as you know, and new raw reports come into Washington and Langley every day. THAT'S why assessments change. But you go with facts as you know them and now we know that Iran halted nuclear bomb technology between the Fall of 2003 and mid-2007. A future NIE is not likely to change that fact, at least in relation to this time period.
And as far as NIEs of the past are concerned, the only one that I know of that caused some commotion (after the fact, after the Iraq war started) was the 2002 Iraq NIE. But everybody, not just the left, everyone was universal in their criticism of that flawed, hurried 90+paged report. This latest one on Iran, by contrast, is historic and not likely to be questioned by any serious intel analyst.
REALLY?
December 8, 2007 - 07:16 ET by danybhoyOh chucko,
No serious intel analyst will question this "historic" NIE report? Well, some very serious Israeli intel analysts are gonna have a little chat with American officials in the next few days or so to share & compair intel gathered on Iran. I get the feeling they might have a slightly different opinion about Iran's nuke program then the one the NIE just released. Just don't try telling me the Israeli intel program sucks, Israel would'nt exist today if it did. So much for your historic report, I wish it were on the money, but the NIE has been putting out sub par work for a while. So we'll just have to wait & see what comes.
Like I said earlier, you don't need to worry about Bush attacking Iran, it's Israel you should keep an eye on, esspecially if the Olmert gov't loses power, with the likely successor being Netenyaho. Then it's time to place your bets.
"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise" Mark Levin