Keith Olberman the NEW Edward R. Murrow

[guido911]

HOSS wrote:  "The NeoCons are hard pressed to even be in the same room with the Decider-in-Chief. He's abusing his powers, and now he's essentially pushed a bill that will suspend the writ of Habeus Corpus."

By all means, let's afford all the due process rights to these terrorist bastards/pu$#ies that we afford American citizens. After all, our two soldiers that were captured in Iraq received due process and were granted federal court habeus reveiw. They were beaten, tortured, cut to pieces, one beheaded, and publicly displayed to the world. Oh, let's not forget about the terrorists appreciation for a free press (ask Daniel Pearl's widow). We can go on and on about the due process rights that were given to those on the U.S.S. Cole, the nearly 3,000 innocent persons in the twin towers, the hundreds killed in bombings in Spain, Great Britain, and Southeast Asia, or the innocent persons killed in the bombings of our embassies in west Africa, or even our soldiers killed in Beirut 23 years ago.  

By the way smart guy, here are some of the "neocons" in the U.S. Senate that voted for the bill you and Olbermann are whining about:    

Tom Carper (Del.)
Tim Johnson (S.D.)
Mary Landrieu (La.)
Frank Lautenberg (N.J.)
Bob Menendez (N.J)
Bill Nelson (Fla.)
Ben Nelson (Neb.)
Pryor (Ark.)
Jay Rockefeller (W. Va.)
Ken Salazar (Co.)
Debbie Stabenow (Mich.)
Joe Lieberman (Conn.)

Incidentally, last time I checked, we have not had a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. I guess Bush and the "neocons" do not get credit for that.

[rwarn17588]

The anthrax mailings weren't a terrorist attack?

Some folks sure have bad memories ...

[Rico]

Originally posted by iplaw.

quote:
Are you preparing yourself for the imminent Democratic Harry Carry Fest in November after the GOP retains both the house and senate? Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin...

Excellent Point....!

quote:Originally posted by aoxamaxoa

Watch Olberman on Monday. Maybe he can answer why Mark Foley was not arrested and led away in handcuffs yesterday for soliciting sex from an underaged person.

Let me know if any other news reports ask this question.

Profound Counterpoint....!

[}:)]

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

HOSS wrote:  "The NeoCons are hard pressed to even be in the same room with the Decider-in-Chief. He's abusing his powers, and now he's essentially pushed a bill that will suspend the writ of Habeus Corpus."

By all means, let's afford all the due process rights to these terrorist bastards/pu$#ies that we afford American citizens. After all, our two soldiers that were captured in Iraq received due process and were granted federal court habeus reveiw. They were beaten, tortured, cut to pieces, one beheaded, and publicly displayed to the world. Oh, let's not forget about the terrorists appreciation for a free press (ask Daniel Pearl's widow). We can go on and on about the due process rights that were given to those on the U.S.S. Cole, the nearly 3,000 innocent persons in the twin towers, the hundreds killed in bombings in Spain, Great Britain, and Southeast Asia, or the innocent persons killed in the bombings of our embassies in west Africa, or even our soldiers killed in Beirut 23 years ago.  

By the way smart guy, here are some of the "neocons" in the U.S. Senate that voted for the bill you and Olbermann are whining about:    

Tom Carper (Del.)
Tim Johnson (S.D.)
Mary Landrieu (La.)
Frank Lautenberg (N.J.)
Bob Menendez (N.J)
Bill Nelson (Fla.)
Ben Nelson (Neb.)
Pryor (Ark.)
Jay Rockefeller (W. Va.)
Ken Salazar (Co.)
Debbie Stabenow (Mich.)
Joe Lieberman (Conn.)

Incidentally, last time I checked, we have not had a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. I guess Bush and the "neocons" do not get credit for that.

How many did we have BEFORE?

What was the foreign terroist death toll for Americans in the United States in the 50 years before 9/11? What is it? Six?

So yeah, way to go in the last 50 months, but, also nice job taking away rights for no good reason, spying on Americans illegally, spending $200 billion and 2,000 soldiers lives to not get Bin Laden and find no WMDs.

Think on that and think about your phone records in some NSA datafile and watch as little old ladies get pulled out of line at the airport and get searched for bombs.

Think about those dead soldiers and how much money Halliburton has made off the American taxpayer as part of the war. Think about Americans using torture, and the President Of The United States defending it's use.

Think about to the no-negotiate rule in the $400 billion Medicare drug plan. Think about how an "improved" FEMA performed in New Orleans and Missippi as part of Homeland security.



Way to go Bushie, way to go.

[aoxamaxoa]

Think about what it means to have a misguided teenager not really suited for college but you as a parent know the army, marines, or navy would be a positive influence. Then think about the possibility he'd end up in Iraq for years to come. Not a good choice anymore.

Do you ever see that story on Fox or CNN or the networks?

Not even KO does those human interest stories.

[guido911]

RW: Is that the best you can go, the "anthrax attacks." Heck, let's throw in the D.C sniper, the OU student blowing himself up, and the Muslim who drove his car into people out west. You are right, we have had other terrorist attacks since 9/11.

Swake: First, way to completely ignore my point. By the way, thanks for merely repeating democratic underground talking points. Halliburton, blah blah blah... Here's a thought, why don't you tell me how to fight the war on terror. What should we do? Should we treat terrorists like common criminals (which Hoss and AO apparently want) and arrest them, give them jury trials? Should we only act after we are attacked and after our citizens are killed? Give me a solution rather than just whining about how awful Bush is. Oh, that's right, the democratic underground talking points are to whine and complain and not offer solutions.




 

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

RW: Is that the best you can go, the "anthrax attacks." Heck, let's throw in the D.C sniper, the OU student blowing himself up, and the Muslim who drove his car into people out west. You are right, we have had other terrorist attacks since 9/11.

Swake: First, way to completely ignore my point. By the way, thanks for merely repeating democratic underground talking points. Halliburton, blah blah blah... Here's a thought, why don't you tell me how to fight the war on terror. What should we do? Should we treat terrorists like common criminals (which Hoss and AO apparently want) and arrest them, give them jury trials? Should we only act after we are attacked and after our citizens are killed? Give me a solution rather than just whining about how awful Bush is. Oh, that's right, the democratic underground talking points are to whine and complain and not offer solutions.




 

Yes, you treat them according to the rules of Geneva convention, not because they deserve it, but because it's the right and moral thing to do, a just and good society and nation does not use torture.

The other thing you do is you don't invade damn Iraq, you put 300,000 troops into Afghanistan and get the bastard that did it. period. Iraq had nothing do do with 9/11. The you rule Afghanistan yourself, with enough troops to ensure security. You treat the locals humanely and fairly and impress them with your pains to do so. You make them forget the Talliban by making the life of the average Afghani so much better they could not imagine going back to the old ways. You impress the world with your commitment to your own ideals making the terrorist groups claims about you absurd.

And then you make the Palestianians and Isrealis do the same for each other.

Lastly, by making the heads of these groups personally responsable you scare the hell out of them. By taking over Afghanistan with an iron fist you scare the hell out of nations that would support terrorists.

Lastly you don't give Pakistan or Saudi Arabia passes for Al Queda, becuase Al Queda is a Saudi Wahabini sect creation and the Talliban were a Pakistani secret service creation.

You do what needs to be done and take the moral high ground in doing so. Terrorists have no state to attack and take over, they have no morals. The fight with a terrorist group is really one for hearts and minds of the larger pubic from where the terrorist came. You must be shown to be stronger and more moral then they are. When you prove you are, then the terrorists lose.

[swake]

Oh, and yes, you try, convict and jail the people that attacked us, just like Clinton did with the first World Trade Center bombing.

In an open court of law in front of the world.

We MUST prove we are better. We are better.

[papaspot]

quote:Originally posted by guido911


By all means, let's afford all the due process rights to these terrorist bastards/pu$#ies that we afford American citizens.

Your grandstanding fails to take one minor point into consideration. Without due process, how do you know for sure that they're "terrorist bastards/pu$#ies"? There's some pretty powerful evidence that some of the people being held at Guantanamo have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. Even the military has admitted as much. They were standing in the wrong place at the wrong time. Of course, if you operate strictly on emotion and not on any kind of intelligence or common sense, you probably don't mind sacrificing a few dozen innocent brown skinned people.

quote:
After all, our two soldiers that were captured in Iraq received due process and were granted federal court habeus reveiw. They were beaten, tortured, cut to pieces, one beheaded, and publicly displayed to the world. Oh, let's not forget about the terrorists appreciation for a free press (ask Daniel Pearl's widow). We can go on and on about the due process rights that were given to those on the U.S.S. Cole, the nearly 3,000 innocent persons in the twin towers, the hundreds killed in bombings in Spain, Great Britain, and Southeast Asia, or the innocent persons killed in the bombings of our embassies in west Africa, or even our soldiers killed in Beirut 23 years ago.

Good point. We should start acting like terrorists. That's sure to get us the respect of the world that Bush has squandered since 9/11.

[rwarn17588]

<guido wrote:

RW: Is that the best you can go, the "anthrax attacks." Heck, let's throw in the D.C sniper, the OU student blowing himself up, and the Muslim who drove his car into people out west. You are right, we have had other terrorist attacks since 9/11.

<end clip>

You considered the anthrax attacks a minor inconvenience?

Anthrax, if untreated within the first crucial hours of infection, is 100 percent fatal. Making weapons-grade anthrax (which it was) is a lot more complex than just driving a car into a crowd of people, shooting bystanders, or committing suicide by explosion (which the OU thing was; don't confuse it with murder). The anthrax mailings targeted politicians in Washington and national newscasters. The really unfortunate part of it is the anthrax killed people who barely came in contact with it.

So, yes, I consider it a terrorist attack. I'm disappointed that you're so glib about the subject, and -- as you've proved in subsequent responses -- so disdainful of the transparency and remarkable fairness of our court system.

[guido911]

RW: You and I have argued numerous times and by now you should have figured out that: 1) I am very familiar with our system of justice; 2) I do not give a rat's rear about the rights of murdering, raping, cowardly terrorists; 3) support for our troops is my top priority; and 4) we will never agree on foreign policy. Fair enough?

By the way, I know that anthrax is deadly. We know that in the wrong hands it can be used as a deadly weapon--which was one reason why we went into Iraq. To get weapons of mass destruction and prevent the proliferation of these weapons. We knew that Saddam had at one point chemical weapons and we knew that he had used them on his own people and during the Iran-Iraq war. This was part of the reason for President CLINTON'S policy of regime change.  

Papa: Exactly how many innocent people are at Gitmo? As far as your "brown-skinned people" comment, I believe the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan has liberated approx. fifty million "brown skinned people" from oppresion and tyranny. I believe that fifty million "brown skinned people" will be voting and participating in government. I believe that untold hundreds of thousands (or perhaps millions) of "brown skinned people" will not be routinely gathered up, executed, and buried in mass graves. I believe that thousands of "brown skinned" women will not be brutalized in Saddam and his boys' rape rooms.  


Swake: Excellent job of Monday morning quarterbacking the war on terror. Would you be complaining about Iraq if stockpiles of weapons were found? In any case, we are in Iraq now. We do not have 300,000 troops in Afghanistan now. Should we withdraw all of our troops from Iraq or put more in. Should we invade Pakistan or Saudi?
For now, let's coddle these terrorists at Gitmo. Let's give them lawyers and access to our civil and criminal courts (at taxpayer expense of course or should we make profiteering Halliburton pay for it). By all means, let's give the terrorists a stage to perform on--kinda like we did with Moussawi.    

I know this is not a foreign policy thread, but what I have read is the exact mentality shared by Olbermann. This guy hates Pres. Bush to the point where the death of our soldiers is not a somber time but an opportunity to attack.

[rwarn17588]

<guido wrote:

Papa: Exactly how many innocent people are at Gitmo? As far as your "brown-skinned people" comment, I believe the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan has liberated approx. fifty million "brown skinned people" from oppresion and tyranny. I believe that fifty million "brown skinned people" will be voting and participating in government. I believe that untold hundreds of thousands (or perhaps millions) of "brown skinned people" will not be routinely gathered up, executed, and buried in mass graves.

<end clip>

Haven't you been following the news? Iraqis are killing each other by the thousands because of sectarian violence. The populace is overwhelmingly against the U.S. being there any longer. The NIE report flatly states that Iraq is causing more terrorism, not preventing it. The country is demonstrably in worse condition than when we went in.

From what exactly have we saved them from?

[rwarn17588]

And one more question: If a Democrat was president instead and this Iraq operation and the conditions of that country are the same as they are now, would you be as supportive?

[papaspot]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Papa: Exactly how many innocent people are at Gitmo?

That's exactly my point, thank you. How would I know? How would YOU know? How would ANYONE know without due process?

quote:
As far as your "brown-skinned people" comment, I believe the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan has liberated approx. fifty million "brown skinned people" from oppresion and tyranny.

Did it? Torture and killings are more rampant now than before we "liberated" them.

quote:
I believe that fifty million "brown skinned people" will be voting and participating in government. I believe that untold hundreds of thousands (or perhaps millions) of "brown skinned people" will not be routinely gathered up, executed, and buried in mass graves. I believe that thousands of "brown skinned" women will not be brutalized in Saddam and his boys' rape rooms.

You don't keep very close tabs on the news, do you? Not only do these things continue but conditions are much worse than before we "liberated" them. As far as your claims about WMDs, you need to turn on the news or break out a newspaper once in awhile. In spite of Bush's claims of having proof and even knowing the location, there WERE NO WMDs. Yeah, he had 'em a DECADE EARLIER before the first Gulf War. You seem to be about the last person in the world that doesn't know this.

quote:
This guy hates Pres. Bush to the point where the death of our soldiers is not a somber time but an opportunity to attack.

It's downright HYPOCRITICAL for EITHER SIDE to complain about the other side exploiting the deaths of the military. That includes YOU.

[swake]

Monday morning quarterbacking, so you admit it was wrong to invade? This has been my position since before Bush invaded Iraq.

So you want to know what do we do now? We have few options that are poor, and none that are good. We are in a very tight spot. We look weak due to our inability to provide security in Iraq. We look stupid in the Middle East too as the government there is a beholden to our enemy Iran as they are to us. If we leave, Iran runs Iraq and that scares the hell out of the rest of the Middle East.

We have two options in Iraq, neither good ones.

Option one: We choose a side in the civil war. And probably not the side you would expect, we get rid of the "democratically" elected government and back the Sunnis (and thus the Bathists) against the Shi'ite, whom we have as of now placed in power. We add a lot more troops in doing so and put the clamps down on the whole nation. We start fighting against Iran's attempt at hegemony in the Middle East by backing the other side, which is the real threat to us now. Iraq in Sunni hands is a good counter balance to Iran, that's why we backed and armed Saddam for so long, that's reason 1 that Bush senior didn't invade Iraq.

Option two (this is what I would like done): We hold a referendum on our staying. If the Iraqi's vote for us to leave (which they most like will) we send the troops in Iraq to Afghanistan and we leave the current government in power and the whole mess becomes Iran's problem, then the huge Sunni insurgency (which we should then back) is fighting Iran and Iran's proxies.

We are then able to solve the issue in Afghanistan properly then and we become the good guys (somewhat) by doing what the people in Iraq asked by leaving. We become stronger (somewhat) by making our enemy (Iran) weak. Iran would then have the problem of fighting the insurgency. They should beware what you wish for. If by chance they vote us to stay we dissolve the government there now, add more troops and we partition the country into three nations along ethnic and religious lines. Like what was done with India and Pakistan.

Bin Laden may well be dead according to current reports, but we crush the resurgent Taliban (that really did back and support the attacks on us) and get what is left of Al Queda. We get the people that attacked us.

We threaten the Saudi with not protecting their stupid asses any longer, we don't have to invade there, we are their protection and Iran scares them badly. We force them to change their support, governmentally and personally of the teaching of radical Islam. We make them grant rights to women and open their repressive society.

We threaten Pakistan in the same way, they let us quietly come in as needed to get Al Queda, they also need to get rid of the radical teachers of Islam in Pakistan. Our threat here is we are going to do it anyway, and screw them if they don't like it, and if they don't play our game, we become very good friends with India and stop working to suppress the war for Kashmir that has been building for so long. We threaten to properly brand Pakistan a terrorist state for supporting the Taliban and for supporting terrorist in Indian Kashmir.