Awww...were someone's ratings declining?

Sid_6.7: Awww...were someone's ratings declining?

Why would that boost his ratings? Wouldn't that, y'know... diminish his ratings? It'd be like Limbaugh suddenly congratulating or thanking President Obama. He'd alienate his core audience, and everyone else already thinks he's an asshole.

Methinks you didn't think through your knee-jerkery very well. ;)

Is this the tingly guy? If so I guess he is not tingly anymore.

Do people watch his show? He has his own show right?

feckingmorons: Is this the tingly guy? If so I guess he is not tingly anymore.

Do people watch his show? He has his own show right?

Chris Matthews is the tingly guy and yes he has his own show.

FWIW I agree with Olberman on this one.

Tell me again how this guy is exactly like Bill O'Reilly?

I think it is lesson time... gather 'round little GOPers and GOPettes.

You see, when adults choose a candidate, they sometimes disagree with that person on some issues. Rather than ignore the differences and blindly follow them wherever they take us, we deal with them in a straightforward manner by voicing our opposition. This doesn't mean we regret our choice in the election. Far from it. Rather, and this might be hard to believe, adults can respect and admire someone while simultaneously disapproving of actions taken by that person.

It's all very confusing to you now, I'm sure, but some day you will understand.

cameroncrazy1984: Tell me again how this guy is exactly like Bill O'Reilly?

He's not a journalist. He's a commentator. An editorialist. A talking opinion.

So is Bill O'Reilly.

Both of them lean a certain direction politically and for the sake of "yes, but look what else I said" they occasionally take relatively safe pot shots at people they otherwise support, which, compared to the relentless campaigns of outrage and repetition against those they hate, become meaningless gestures and are forgotten.

Both of them play to their base; O'Reilly- the strong, vernacular mediator of sideways compromises, and Olbermann- the verbose, urbane essayist of scolding.

Both of them are no more qualified in their opinions than you or I. They are not particularly smarter than any of us in their analysis. Both of their ratings are boosted by those who listen to them but disagree with them to wait for them to say something outrageous, and both of their ratings benefit from the factions of politics rather than simply speaking truth.

Both of them seem to consider themselves our betters.

Paraphrasing the President's statement as quoted by Olbermann: "Those who acted in good faith with the understanding their actions were legal and sanctioned will not be prosecuted."

That is bullshiat. When I was in the military we were told explicitly that we were not to follow any order that we knew, or should know, was unlawful. We were taught from basic forward that torture was illegal, unlawful and immoral, that torture begat torture. It was crystal clear that torture in any form was illegal and any order directing a prisoner be tortured was illegal and did not require our obedience. In short, the Nuremberg defense would not fly.

Obama is being weak and naive, and Olbermann has justly called him out on it. I am ashamed that a professor of Constitutional law is playing such sad and pathetic games for any reason. I have always been quietly cynical that in the end we would find Obama just another politician, and now I fear that cynicism justified.

Oh, and before I am flamed for being a Fark Independent ^TM, I am a proud Libtard who wears his Pinko Pin to the all the Communist Cell Meetings in my neighborhood.

Now will the farktards please STFU about Kool-Aid?

Keith Olbermann and hero do NOT belong in the same sentence, EVER.

ragekage: Why would that boost his ratings? Wouldn't that, y'know... diminish his ratings? It'd be like Limbaugh suddenly congratulating or thanking President Obama. He'd alienate his core audience, and everyone else already thinks he's an asshole.

Methinks you didn't think through your knee-jerkery very well. ;)

No, it's the style, you see. The fake outrage that Olbermann exudes that should be so blatantly obvious.

Don't get me wrong, I voted for Obama and I still like him. I don't agree with everything he has done, but I think that overall he's doing a decent job. In particular, I feel that he is doing a lot of important things for the long-term that people do not appreciate, like refunding scientific research and getting regulatory agencies back from the near death condition Bush left them in.

It's just that the imperious high-handed way that Olbermann acts ALL THE farkING TIME annoys me because really it's just meant to try and capitalize on people being angry, and to make them more angry, and to boost his ratings. He acted the same way when Bush was in office, and as much as I despised Bush as a president, Olbermann sounded like a cock then too. There is a big difference between disagreeing with someone, critiquing them, and stating what you feel they could be doing differently, and being a drama whore about it. Being REALLY ANGRY like he tries to be for years on end makes you look like more of a jackass than anything. I think that his target niche might be "people who are almost intellectuals, but still require opinions to be fed to them on TV".

And no, I don't watch TV normally, but I catch his show maybe twice a year at most when other people are watching it.

hubiestubert: Now will the farktards please STFU about Kool-Aid?

hell no.

Sid_6.7: I think that his target niche might be "people who are almost intellectuals, but still require opinions to be fed to them on TV".

Well said.

OMG both sides are the SAaaaaaaaaaaaame

*sips Kool-Aid*

Ennuipoet: Paraphrasing the President's statement as quoted by Olbermann: "Those who acted in good faith with the understanding their actions were legal and sanctioned will not be prosecuted."

That is bullshiat. When I was in the military we were told explicitly that we were not to follow any order that we knew, or should know, was unlawful. We were taught from basic forward that torture was illegal, unlawful and immoral, that torture begat torture. It was crystal clear that torture in any form was illegal and any order directing a prisoner be tortured was illegal and did not require our obedience. In short, the Nuremberg defense would not fly.

Obama is being weak and naive, and Olbermann has justly called him out on it. I am ashamed that a professor of Constitutional law is playing such sad and pathetic games for any reason. I have always been quietly cynical that in the end we would find Obama just another politician, and now I fear that cynicism justified.

Oh, and before I am flamed for being a Fark Independent TM, I am a proud Libtard who wears his Pinko Pin to the all the Communist Cell Meetings in my neighborhood.

Yep, I understand what he's doing but can't approve of it.

Ennuipoet: That is bullshiat. When I was in the military we were told explicitly that we were not to follow any order that we knew, or should know, was unlawful. We were taught from basic forward that torture was illegal, unlawful and immoral, that torture begat torture. It was crystal clear that torture in any form was illegal and any order directing a prisoner be tortured was illegal and did not require our obedience. In short, the Nuremberg defense would not fly.

Obama is being weak and naive, and Olbermann has justly called him out on it. I am ashamed that a professor of Constitutional law is playing such sad and pathetic games for any reason. I have always been quietly cynical that in the end we would find Obama just another politician, and now I fear that cynicism justified.

Oh, and before I am flamed for being a Fark Independent TM, I am a proud Libtard who wears his Pinko Pin to the all the Communist Cell Meetings in my neighborhood.

Yes, they taught you not to torture people and not to commit illegal acts even if ordered to. However, in this case, the guys at the very top stated that these actions were not torture, and were not illegal. What the hell were these guys supposed to do in the field? They were being told "the people here at the very top who are trusted to determine what is legal on unbelievably important issues constantly say that this is fine". Should they have hired a huge team of lawyers to create a secret, classified dissenting legal opinion and forwarded it back to the Commander in Chief?

Do you think that Obama should screw over the people at the bottom while people like Bush, who signed the memos, get away with everything?

And if he did decide that the people at the bottom should be prosecuted, what would that mean for his relationship with the armed forces, the CIA, etc., for the rest of his time in office? It would ruin it because they would question every tiny thing he asked them to do. Not to mention the political capital in general it would waste, the massive media circus, the threat to additional classified information, possibly including the identities of CIA agents, etc.

He is doing what makes sense.

Obama is just covering his own ass. It's actually a good strategy, because he should focus on moving forward, and he's not the judge and jury on the past. That's Congresses job. And in a way, he's telling Congress to go ahead and make sure it doesn't happen again, but don't turn into a Bush lynch mob, because that will just give the Right more fodder.

And he's totally right.

I understand Olbermann's schtick is taking the most sanctimonious high of high roads, but in this case (as in many others), he is wrong. Clinging too hard to something can alienate you, and right now, the Republicans are the "SHUT. DOWN. EVERYTHING." conspiracy nuts, and the Dems are occupying a comfortable spot in the middle, especially thanks to the f*cked up, lousy job Republicans did when they controlled everything.

Obama > Olbermann

Mordant: Yep, I understand what he's doing but can't approve of it.

I kinda wonder, in a pipe dreamy sort of way, if he's just securing the cooperation of the grunts in order to build a case against the guys who actually ordered them to do it. Maybe even move up the chain and nail some creep like Rumsfeld to the wall.

But thats a pipe dream. I don't expect that to happen.

You can't undo Nagasaki.

We are a nation of laws. Nobody should be above the law, especially those in positions of power over others, be they citizens, suspects, prisoners, or captured terrorists.

Obama is giving those who "just followed orders" a pass. If there is a question of whether the law was broken, they should have the opportunity to defend themselves in court.

Olberman, while sanctimonious as ever, is right about this one.

Action Replay Nick: Obama is just covering his own ass. It's actually a good strategy, because he should focus on moving forward, and he's not the judge and jury on the past. That's Congresses job.

Wouldn't the whole judge and jury thing be the 3rd branch? You know the Courts?

Action Replay Nick: You can't undo Nagasaki.
Jeezus K Rheist you are profound tonight.

Sid_6.7: ragekage: Why would that boost his ratings? Wouldn't that, y'know... diminish his ratings? It'd be like Limbaugh suddenly congratulating or thanking President Obama. He'd alienate his core audience, and everyone else already thinks he's an asshole.

Methinks you didn't think through your knee-jerkery very well. ;)

No, it's the style, you see. The fake outrage that Olbermann exudes that should be so blatantly obvious.

Don't get me wrong, I voted for Obama and I still like him. I don't agree with everything he has done, but I think that overall he's doing a decent job. In particular, I feel that he is doing a lot of important things for the long-term that people do not appreciate, like refunding scientific research and getting regulatory agencies back from the near death condition Bush left them in.

It's just that the imperious high-handed way that Olbermann acts ALL THE farkING TIME annoys me because really it's just meant to try and capitalize on people being angry, and to make them more angry, and to boost his ratings. He acted the same way when Bush was in office, and as much as I despised Bush as a president, Olbermann sounded like a cock then too. There is a big difference between disagreeing with someone, critiquing them, and stating what you feel they could be doing differently, and being a drama whore about it. Being REALLY ANGRY like he tries to be for years on end makes you look like more of a jackass than anything. I think that his target niche might be "people who are almost intellectuals, but still require opinions to be fed to them on TV".

And no, I don't watch TV normally, but I catch his show maybe twice a year at most when other people are watching it.

THIS. I've been a fairly faithful watcher for the last year, but still can't stomach his special comments. My first thought tonight was to wonder what we did to the confederate soldiers after the civil war? I don't think we jailed all of them or hung them for treason...hmmm what was that.... oh yeah, they went home. You cannot maintain a military or an intelligence community, no matter how damaging these recent events were, by jailing those who followed orders. Sorry, it sucks but you can't do it. You can jail those who issued the orders, and hopefully, that is to come.

/I don't think it is, but I can hope

Good for KO.

He may be a partisan blowhard (he is), but he is a partisan blowhard with principles. He is infinitely superior to the FOX dickheads who excused and excused until the other party was in office, then started to whine like so many little biatches.

Hey, Bill, tell me about Malmedy again!!

Action Replay Nick: Obama is just covering his own ass.

...

And he's totally right.


I disagree. I think Obama is wasting a moment in time when he has the political clout and the moral authority to undertake the most difficult aspects of cleaning up bush's ass-pee. If there is one moment that Obama could initiate prosecutions for Yoo, Bybee, Addington and the CIA officials responsible for this it is now. And I don't believe it would hamstring him, as the torture phenomenon did not originate from the professionals in the CIA and those people would not likely revert to it without political pressure.

By the way, were you in prison or something? If this has already been addressed, forget it.

Sure Keith. The best way to deal with an opposing army is to jump out solo, naked, painted-up, psyched, brandishing a sword, and screaming about how you're going to kill them all. I'm sure they'll just drop their weapons and bow forward for your blade.

idiot.

Outtaphase: Sure Keith. The best way to deal with an opposing army is to jump out solo, naked, painted-up, psyched, brandishing a sword, and screaming about how you're going to kill them all. I'm sure they'll just drop their weapons and bow forward for your blade.

idiot.

What the hell does that even mean?

If he pursued this, it would take over his whole presidency. The trials would go on, and the talking heads would cover it, for years. Maybe he'd just like to concentrate on something else.

If I were the president, I'd like to be remembered for something more than that. He is, after all, a politician.

I'm disappointed in the way the Bush administration handled the issue of torture. No man should be tortured. No man.

I'm also disappointed in Obama for not prosecuting them, or holding them accountable for what they did.

It's true. Obama is just another politician, brought forth through lies and coercion to lead a country in a way that preaches "No accountability is super! Try it!"

This is not a flame, this is just a general opinion and my opinions are worth exactly what you paid for them.

But I thought Olbermann was totally unprincipled! You mean he actually supported Obama for real reasons and is sticking to those reasons? That's not supposed to happen.

flavor of the month: Action Replay Nick: Obama is just covering his own ass.

...

And he's totally right.


I disagree. I think Obama is wasting a moment in time when he has the political clout and the moral authority to undertake the most difficult aspects of cleaning up bush's ass-pee. If there is one moment that Obama could initiate prosecutions for Yoo, Bybee, Addington and the CIA officials responsible for this it is now. And I don't believe it would hamstring him, as the torture phenomenon did not originate from the professionals in the CIA and those people would not likely revert to it without political pressure.

By the way, were you in prison or something? If this has already been addressed, forget it.

I understand this position and it doesn't make me angry. It's the highest of high roads, which can't really be railed against.

However, I think the best move would be to focus on fixing the country, including making it IRON CLAD that things like this can never happen again. Going back in time is dangerous waters and any and all bureaucratic proceedings will be filled with "I don't remembers" and the like and accomplish nothing, really, even if people are convicted. It will just ensure a never ending stream of back-and-forth witch hunts.

The focus should be shaping the future, and I dare say, with and iron fist. Not punishing the past. This is the time to do it, while there's a large majority of people who support the President and, by extension, his agenda. Lets never torture again, and do what we can to make right with those we have wronged unjustly. I know the lives of potentially innocent people were lost, but so were the lives of our own troops, also unjustly. Personally, I think it's better to move forward, rather than focus on retribution.

And, yes, I was in prison. Prison being a new job with 3 hours of commute each day. I recently moved closer to work, and now actually have some free time. Thanks for asking, I remember you too. :)

Occam's Chainsaw: What the hell does that even mean?

Let's just say a better approach might be to let the actual evidence work for itself. It is time consuming, but it's better than letting a historical distraction consume all of your time. It's not his only job.

Anyone else think Keith Olbermann is gonna end up in a CIA detention facility soon?

Action Replay Nick: However, I think the best move would be to focus on fixing the country, including making it IRON CLAD that things like this can never happen again. Going back in time is dangerous waters and any and all bureaucratic proceedings will be filled with "I don't remembers" and the like and accomplish nothing, really, even if people are convicted. It will just ensure a never ending stream of back-and-forth witch hunts.

I get what you're saying, but i think part of making it iron clad against it happening again, is punishing those who've done it in the past.t o let it be known that in the future, this will not be tolerated.

just my .02 though.

I concur with Olberman here. And I understand what Obama is doing.

Am I happy about it? No. I want to see the SOBs in jail, to include Cheney and Bush.

But, I realize that pursuing the misdeeds of the previous administration and its lackeys would distract from moving the country forward. For evidence of such, look at the silly tea bagging protests the Republicans are whipping up. Apparently, many of our fellow Americans aren't interested in improving the country as a whole, only the special interests of their party and sponsors.

One must pick and chose one's fights. Alas, sometimes you get the bear; sometimes the bear get you.

Sid_6.7: Awww...were someone's ratings declining?

Done in one.

Keith is right on one thing.. Now the next guy who wants to pull that shiat will have nothing standing in his way.

Nothing at all.

PacManDreaming: Anyone else think Keith Olbermann is gonna end up in a CIA detention facility soon?

Not really, no.

I just wish Obama would be honest about what he is doing - he doesn't want to fight the fight so he is putting politics above law. Come out with it. It's pathetic.

Outtaphase: Occam's Chainsaw: What the hell does that even mean?

Let's just say a better approach might be to let the actual evidence work for itself. It is time consuming, but it's better than letting a historical distraction consume all of your time. It's not his only job.

I think I'm following you here. Obama has something of a tightrope to walk. He devotes too little time and resources to it, and he's implicitly giving a pass to those who gave the orders to torture. He devotes too much to it, and it becomes (in perception, which is essentially reality) a partisan witch hunt and an abandonment of his other duties. Add to this the fact that the guy has a hundred bajillion other things on his plate.

I said last summer that anyone voluntarily coming in after Bush had to be a little bit crazy to want the heaping plate of dogshiat left in his wake.

DamnYankees: I just wish Obama would be honest about what he is doing - he doesn't want to fight the fight so he is putting politics above law. Come out with it. It's pathetic.

Because admitting you don't want to have a political fight is clearly the best political tactic to make when you are a very popular president.

PacManDreaming: Anyone else think Keith Olbermann is gonna end up in a CIA detention facility soon?

That would almost be worth doing just to see Bill O'Reilly's head explode in glee.

Here's the biggest problem with Obama's stance - he will only be President for 8 years, max. There will be a President who comes later who won't be so anti-torture, and Obama is laying the groundwork for that future to be really disgusting. It's like Olbermann said so well about Cheney and Rumsfeld working for Nixon and Ford. These lessons take decadesa to come to fruition, but the poison gets planted early.

sloppy shoes: Because admitting you don't want to have a political fight is clearly the best political tactic to make when you are a very popular president.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. Obama is immensly popular, and torture is immensely not popular. What's the problem?

DeltaXi65: Sid_6.7: Awww...were someone's ratings declining?

Done in one.

So smug.

Care to show the evidence that ratings are falling?

Hell, maybe they are - I don't know - but I'd like to see the evidence that this is ratings-driven.

Please share your evidence. I look forward to your facts.

DamnYankees: Here's the biggest problem with Obama's stance - he will only be President for 8 years, max. There will be a President who comes later who won't be so anti-torture, and Obama is laying the groundwork for that future to be really disgusting. It's like Olbermann said so well about Cheney and Rumsfeld working for Nixon and Ford. These lessons take decadesa to come to fruition, but the poison gets planted early.

And if Obama fights this political battle today- he won't be able to fight others tomorrow. Such as health care and education.

sloppy shoes: And if Obama fights this political battle today- he won't be able to fight others tomorrow. Such as health care and education.

1) Prove it. He doesn't have to arrest Bush tomorrow. He just shouldn't be saying "we won't prosecute people".
2) Not a good excuse. This is not a "battle". This is not policy. This is the law. This isn't something Obama is supposed to be able to shelve. Assign a special prosecutor and let them do their freaking jobs.

Well, if they're not going to prosecute those who were just following orders, I'm sure the people who gave the orders will be held responsible... right?