HappyDaddy: One example: The National Intelligence Estimate (which partially analyzed the effect of the war in Iraq on terrorism generally) was not "released."


ha ha ha semantics. How about a rebuttal of his central point, expressed so nicely by Lackofname:

"By all means, criticise Clinton for not doing enough. But you can't do that and then say nothing of Bush doing nothing.

Also, if there were any doubt up until now that FoxNews was a mouthpiece for this incompetent administration, I think that Clinton interview erased it.

An interesting debunking of the Rice rebuttal to Clinton's remarks.

HappyDaddy
One example: The National Intelligence Estimate (which partially analyzed the effect of the war in Iraq on terrorism generally) was not "released." Selective portions of it were leaked. Olbermann either knows the difference and was intentionally dishonest, or he doesn't know the difference and ought to take a bloviational hiatus until he does.

Websters gives four definitions of "release"; the fourth would seem to be most applicable to the context it was used in:

to give permission for publication, performance, exhibition, or sale of; also : to make available to the public

Of the two definitions of "leak", the second would seem most applicable:

to give out (information) surreptitiously <leaked the story to the press>

You disagree with Olberman's selection of words. Ok, I understand where you would.

Are you asserting that, because he declined to use the verb you would have preferred, it invalidates everything he is saying?

Like it needs to be said but to the posters who are bashing KO can you do us a favor and state you didnt watch it, cant refute any of the points and state your party affiliation it makes it easier to understand why you have nothing to say.

skleenar
The speaker before Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, Edward Everett delivered a two hour oration. Lincoln's few minutes of speech afterwards were considered a real let down.

In the words of that white-haired dude from Independence Day, that's not entirely accurate. Lincoln's speech was incredibly short, but it was also quite well received. Everett himself approached Lincoln after he finished speaking and told Lincoln that he had said more in two minutes than Everett had in two hours.

Bush sucks, wake up. KO at least will say what should be said; instead of like, asking Condi how a Canadian asks you out for a date. I'm looking at you Katie. At least someone will, you know, say what needs to be said. Hero indeed.

Skleenar: The sense of #3 kinda covers both official releasing and leaking.


The NIE wasn't "released." Portions of it were leaked. It's a distinction with a difference.

Olbermann's comments on the Republican reaction to the 8/98 strikes on Afghanistan are equally mandacious. Speaker Gingrich publicly approved of them. So did Sen. Gramm, Sen Kyl and others. See this. (pops)

The August 6, 2001 PDB (pops) wasn't "ignored." The information in it was old or lacking in any "time, place, manner" specifics. The notion that the President ignored evidence of an impending attack is a canard and Olbermann either knows that, or he should.

His rant is full of this kind of nonsense. If he wants to take issue with policies or actions of the administration, fine. As Sen. Moynihan once said: "We're each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts."

somethingvague: Everett himself approached Lincoln after he finished speaking and told Lincoln that he had said more in two minutes than Everett had in two hours.

While I admit that I fell prey to an amount of historical popularization in that retelling, there was in fact reason to comment that his speech was hardly a unquestioned success:

Contemporary sources and reaction
The New York Times article from November 20, 1863, indicates Lincoln's speech was interrupted five times by applause and was followed by "long continued applause."

Another contemporary source of the text is the Associated Press wire service broadcast, transcribed from the shorthand notes taken by reporter Joseph L. Gilbert. It also differs from the drafted text in a number of minor ways.[30][31]

Eyewitness reports vary as to their view of Lincoln's performance. In 1931, the printed recollections of 87-year-old Mrs. Sarah A. Cooke Myers, who at the age of 19 was present, suggest a dignified silence followed Lincoln's speech: "I was close to the President and heard all of the Address, but it seemed short. Then there was an impressive silence like our Menallen Friends Meeting. There was no applause when he stopped speaking."[32]

According to historian Shelby Foote, after Lincoln's presentation, the applause was delayed, scattered, and "barely polite".[33] In contrast, Pennsylvania Governor Curtin maintained, "He pronounced that speech in a voice that all the multitude heard. The crowd was hushed into silence because the President stood before them...It was so Impressive! It was the common remark of everybody. Such a speech, as they said it was!"[34]

In a letter to Lincoln written the following day, Everett praised the President for his eloquent and concise speech, saying, "I should be glad if I could flatter myself that I came as near to the central idea of the occasion, in two hours, as you did in two minutes." Lincoln was glad to know the speech was not a "total failure."

Other public reaction to the speech was divided along partisan lines. The next day the Chicago Times observed, "The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly, flat and dishwatery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States." In contrast, the New York Times was complimentary. A Massachusetts paper printed the entire speech, commenting that it was "deep in feeling, compact in thought and expression, and tasteful and elegant in every word and comma."

Some very complimentary reviews, of course, as such a fine work of oratory deserved. But some negative or neutral, also.

skleenar

true enough.

HappyDaddy: The notion that the President ignored evidence of an impending attack is a canard and Olbermann either knows that, or he should.

I see, so basically Bush needed a report that said "the following people are going to fly planes into buildings on September 11th."

But the central issue is not that Bush failed to act, but that they seem to blame Clinton for failing to act enough when they can't prove they did anything.

HappyDaddy: His rant is full of this kind of nonsense. If he wants to take issue with policies or actions of the administration, fine. As Sen. Moynihan once said: "We're each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts."

Begob! Are ye sayin' that oftimes essayists mayhap simplify situations for sake of brevity?

Je-HOS-e-phat! I'll be gull-darned!

Vet_Curm: Are you asserting that, because he declined to use the verb you would have preferred, it invalidates everything he is saying?

I'm saying that if I told you that I "read" War & Peace, when I fact I read the first three pages, I would be a liar.

Skleenar: Are ye sayin' that oftimes essayists mayhap simplify mischaracterize situations for sake of brevity misleading the audience?

Yes, I am.

I'm saying that if I told you that I "read" War & Peace, when I fact I read the first three pages, I would be a liar.


On the contrary, sir. You read the title page that said "War and Peace". Therefore, you did read the letters "War and Peace". So, to some degree, you are correct.

Technicalities are a biatch, son.

Lackofname:

No, I would be a liar. That I understand that, and that you think there is a way around it, should be telling to the careful observer.

No, I would be a liar. That I understand that, and that you think there is a way around it, should be telling to the careful observer.

That you insist that on playing semantics, yes.

Lackofname:

Oh, and don't call me "son."

HappyDaddy: I'm saying that if I told you that I "read" War & Peace, when I fact I read the first three pages, I would be a liar.

Again, semantics. A definition of 'release' includes the way Olbermann used it. In any case, what you're arguing about isn't even his central point, which you haven't come close to rebutting.

Is there a transcript out there? Work will not let me stream video.

I cannot stand to watch him but the transcripts read like my rants. Excelent!!

Lackofname:

I'll give you one more chance to prove that you aren't as dimwitted as you seem to be:

Your music store sells you a "new release" from your favorite band. You get home and discover that it is a ten second clip stolen from the studio. Do you take it back and demand a refund?

Funny. Not one person in here attacking Kieth can argue against what he said or refute it.

Life is grand when you sniff the GOP glue, isn't it? All you have to do is go, "Grrr, arrgghh, me want some, it's mine, grrrrr, mine, mine, mine." And then stomp around a bit like some sort of evolutionary castoff. Which is ironic, because many of those in this 'camp' don't believe in evolution. Hmmm....

cluNYC: imho, this part is worth repeating:

It does bear repeating because it is a wonderful example of Olbermann's dishonesty. He could not have found that information without also finding the truth that there was near unanimous approval of President Clinton's actions. Cherry-picking the two or three who made reference to the Lewinsky matter (Gramm isn't even the one who brought it up - he responded to a question about it), is typical of Olbermann.

newmoonpuppyhead: Funny. Not one person in here attacking Kieth can argue against what he said or refute it.


To use this product, you need to install free software

Be agood chap and find a transcript for me?

Much obliged, partner.

Skleenar: An interesting debunking of the Rice rebuttal to Clinton's remarks.

Quoted for truthy goodness. And a complete and utter biatch-slap to Condi's rebuttal...

HappyDaddy: He could not have found that information without also finding the truth that there was near unanimous approval of President Clinton's actions.

I'd like to see a cite on that, because as far as I recall the republican response was "wag the dog!"

HappyDaddy: I'll give you one more chance to prove that you aren't as dimwitted as you seem to be:

Your music store sells you a "new release" from your favorite band. You get home and discover that it is a ten second clip stolen from the studio. Do you take it back and demand a refund?

I cannot believe that you are making one word the basis for your argument against what he said. If anything, you're giving myself and many others a good laugh. And maybe giving yourself another tenuous thread to hold on to what was once a respectable ideology. What's your reasoning behind playing this game? To prove that thousands of wrongs make a right? You know, humility and surrender to the truth is not a bad thing. In fact, you can gain quite a bit of self-esteem and power from it.

HappyDaddy: He could not have found that information without also finding the truth that there was near unanimous approval of President Clinton's actions. Cherry-picking the two or three who made reference to the Lewinsky matter (Gramm isn't even the one who brought it up - he responded to a question about it), is typical of Olbermann.



Rep. Dick Armey, GOP majority leader: "The suspicion some people have about the president's motives in this attack [on Iraq] is itself a powerful argument for impeachment," Armey said in a statement. "After months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons."

Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-N.Y.: "It is obvious that they're (the Clinton White House) doing everything they can to postpone the vote on this impeachment in order to try to get whatever kind of leverage they can, and the American people ought to be as outraged as I am about it," Solomon said in an interview with CNN. Asked if he was accusing Clinton of playing with American lives for political expediency, Solomon said, "Whether he knows it or not, that's exactly what he's doing."

GOP Sen. Dan Coats: Coats, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement, "While there is clearly much more we need to learn about this attack [on bin Laden] and why it was ordered today, given the president's personal difficulties this week, it is legitimate to question the timing of this action."

Sen. Larry Craig, U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee: "The foregoing, the premise of the recent film 'Wag the Dog,' might once have seemed farfetched. Yet it can hardly escape comment that on the very day, August 17, that President Bill Clinton is scheduled to testify before a federal grand jury to explain his possibly criminal behavior, Commander-in-Chief Bill Clinton has ordered U.S. Marines and air crews to commence several days of ground and air exercises in, yes, Albania as a warning of possible NATO intervention in next-door Kosovo ...

"Not too many years ago, it would not have entered the mind of even the worst of cynics to speculate whether any American president, whatever his political difficulties, would even consider sending U.S. military personnel into harm's way to serve his own, personal needs. But in an era when pundits openly weigh the question of whether President Clinton will (or should) tell the truth under oath not because he has a simple obligation to do so but because of the possible impact on his political 'viability' -- is it self-evident that military decisions are not affected by similar considerations? Under the circumstances, it is fair to ask to what extent the Clinton Administration has forfeited the benefit of the doubt as to the motives behind its actions."

GOP activist Paul Weyrich: "Paul Weyrich, a leading conservative activist, said Clinton's decision to bomb on the eve of the impeachment vote 'is more of an impeachable offense than anything he is being charged with in Congress.'"

Wall Street Journal editorial: "It is dangerous for an American president to launch a military strike, however justified, at a time when many will conclude he acted only out of narrow self-interest to forestall or postpone his own impeachment."

Sen. Trent Lott, GOP majority leader: "I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time," Lott said in a statement. "Both the timing and the policy are subject to question."

Rep. Gerald Solomon: "'Never underestimate a desperate president,' said a furious House Rules Committee Chairman Gerald B.H. Solomon (R-N.Y.). 'What option is left for getting impeachment off the front page and maybe even postponed? And how else to explain the sudden appearance of a backbone that has been invisible up to now?'"

Rep. Tillie Folwer: "'It [the bombing of Iraq] is certainly rather suspicious timing,' said Rep. Tillie Fowler (R-Florida). 'I think the president is shameless in what he would do to stay in office.'"

Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum: "First, it [intervention in Kosovo] is a 'wag the dog' public relations ploy to involve us in a war in order to divert attention from his personal scandals (only a few of which were addressed in the Senate trial). He is again following the scenario of the 'life is truer than fiction' movie 'Wag the Dog.' The very day after his acquittal, Clinton moved quickly to 'move on' from the subject of impeachment by announcing threats to bomb and to send U.S. ground troops into the civil war in Kosovo between Serbian authorities and ethnic Albanians fighting for independence. He scheduled Americans to be part of a NATO force under non-American command."

Jim Hoagland, Washington Post: "President Clinton has indelibly associated a justified military response ... with his own wrongdoing ... Clinton has now injected the impeachment process against him into foreign policy, and vice versa."

Wall Street Journal editorial: "Perceptions that the American president is less interested in the global consequences than in taking any action that will enable him to hold onto power [are] a further demonstration that he has dangerously compromised himself in conducting the nation's affairs, and should be impeached."

the_gospel_of_thomas

Transcript

scroll to about 3/4th down the page.

Count Mr Olbermann among those few to stand up, Democrats ( and thinking Republicans, alike ) - speak up & distance themselves form the Texascutioner and his mindless agenda. Are Hugo Chavez & the Dixie Chicks the source from which we learn what's going on ? Come On, Fellow Americans", the truth WILL set you free ! Name me one thing in the last 6 years that Bush hasn't lied about or just been flat-assed wrong about ? I find it appalling, that even those who claim to oppose the Bush agenda here in 2006, have failed to come forward & back both Mr Bush,The Dixie Chicks and now Mr Olbermann. Let's hear your voices raised !
Thank You.

AntiBush: 'Texascutioner and his mindless agenda.'
..... "AntiBush" huh. Well there is an objective voice of reason right there .... You ought to fit in with most everyone quite nicely. Welcome to fark.

Your music store sells you a "new release" from your favorite band. You get home and discover that it is a ten second clip stolen from the studio. Do you take it back and demand a refund?

It was just released, wasn't it? That makes it a New Release.

Thanks, Abagadro. I'm taking those quotes to the bank for deposit.

This is all so hilarious. The same GOP floggers pulling the same tired ass arguments out of their butts even though they've been debunked and refuted by fact a thousand times over.

Wake up, floggers. You cannot argue fact. You are only masters of message and misinformation, not truth. And even that is now in question. Please realize that what you've been told is not true now, has never been true in the past, and will not be true in the future. Thank you.

HappyDaddy
The August 6, 2001 PDB (pops) wasn't "ignored." The information in it was old or lacking in any "time, place, manner" specifics. The notion that the President ignored evidence of an impending attack is a canard and Olbermann either knows that, or he should.

Then it should not have taken 2 years and seven months plus pressure from the 9/11 Commission to get the applicable two pages declassified and released. After the fact, there is nothing in those two pages that needs classification. The administration's resistance shows their own perception of what was evidenced in the document and subsequent events.

You say it was not "ignored". Then tell us what steps were taken by the administration between August 6, and September 11 in reaction to the PDB. Rice's planned speech for the evening of 9/11 was to have been on missile defense, not Bin Laden or al Qaida.

So did Sen. Gramm

Funny, he also manages to mention "wag the dog" in your reference.

Sen. Dan Coats
(R-Ind.), Senate Armed Services Committee

"I think we fear that we may have a president that is desperately seeking to hold onto his job ... I think the president has irreparably broken the bond of trust that is necessary for any president to be effective and to be a leader of the free world and I think that places the United States in a dangerous situation and for those reasons I believe the president ought to do what's best for the country and that is to step aside."

Sen. John Ashcroft
(R-Mo.), Senate Foreign Relations Committee

"There is a cloud over this presidency. It was created by the president's decision to lie to the American people for eight months ... the cloud of mistrust over President Clinton must not be a barrier to support for U.S. action today."

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher
(R-Calif.), House International Relations Committee

"Once the fire from the retaliatory strike dies down, the American people are going to find out that it is the Clinton Administration's wrongheaded policies that resulted in the creation of this terrorist haven in Afghanistan in the first place."

I'm saying that if I told you that I "read" War & Peace, when I fact I read the first three pages, I would be a liar.

If you feel comfortable calling Olberman a liar over this point, then don't be offended when the other side calls Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al liars.

Happy Daddy: It does bear repeating because it is a wonderful example of Olbermann's dishonesty. He could not have found that information without also finding the truth that there was near unanimous approval of President Clinton's actions. Cherry-picking the two or three who made reference to the Lewinsky matter (Gramm isn't even the one who brought it up - he responded to a question about it), is typical of Olbermann.

I was very republican (now an independent) and anti-Clinton at the time. People were certainly accusing Clinton of wagging the dog. I know, because I was one of them. This was the talking point of the moment.

Today, the right wing is accusing Clinton of being distracted by the Lewinsky controversy. But as Olbermann pointed out, who on earth was conducting the witch-hunt. Seems like you did some cherry picking yourself when you failed to actually address the point of the quote.

HappyDaddy: Yes, I am.

Oh, so you watch Fox News then.

Good. Keep paying attention.

Seriously, though--Can you name anything Bush did to address the PDB? If not, then Olbermann is right--it was ignored. Your point really is that there was nothing there do act on, so it should have been ignored. Regardless, it does not represent a lie by Mr. Olbermann.

The point that some GOP congressmen publicly supported the Afghanistan strikes really does not rebut the fact that the GOP Congress was actively in the process of political assassination of Bill Clinton throughout his Presidency--A political assassination based on fabricated allegations generated by GOP partisans.

A few comments supporting Clinton specifically on the issue of the missile strikes hardly erases the overall campaign against him accusing him of 'wagging the dog' which even republicans concede occurred.

the_gospel_of_thomas: ..... "AntiBush" huh. Well there is an objective voice of reason right there

Hey, snappy. The argument here is about truth. Either you're for it or against it...yeah, I couldn't resist.

Abagadro

My hat's off to you.

/Anyone else want to step up to the 'chair of pwnage' currently occupied by one HappyDaddy?

Abagadro

Those are all very interesting. You were aware that none of them related to the August, 1998 strike to which Olbermann referred, right? Failing to mention that is rather, well, rather Olbermannish of you.

Interesting tidbit I found while searching for quotes along the line of Abagadro's:

Americans overwhelmingly support President Bill Clinton's decision to launch missile strikes against terrorist camps in Sudan and Afghanistan, with three quarters of all Americans expressing approval. Furthermore, most Americans do not believe the military action was designed to divert attention away from the Lewinsky affair, according to a new national Los Angeles Times poll conducted August 22, 1998.

How is it the the GOP continually engages in horribly unpopular actions (Schiavo, Clinton impeachment, Wag-the-dog criticisms, SS 'reform', stem cell research ban, etc. etc...) yet they still seem to come up with electoral advantages on election day?

Curious, that.

So let me get this right. KO is attacking Bush for a 3rd party (Fox News, and ABC) saying that 9/11 was Clintons fault? That is how it reads to me. KO is being disingenuous there. Attack a man for what he does, not what you think they do. If there is a direct correlation between Fox and ABC to the prez fine. But both media outlets have their own agenda.

He is laying on it that Bush personally has put the blame on Clinton, I have yet to see any person in the admin make such a statement. They have moved some of the blame on big C but never put all the blame on him.

KO was also wrong in blaming Hoover for the great depression.

Ann Coulter is rather Olbermannish.

HappyDaddy: Those are all very interesting. You were aware that none of them related to the August, 1998 strike to which Olbermann referred, right? Failing to mention that is rather, well, rather Olbermannish of you.

Considering most of the quotes indicated which conflict they referred to, it does not look like much of an omission to me.

Please. Anyone at all trying to pretend that the GOP was not continually yelling 'wag the dog! wag the dog!' anytime Clinton used force is just fooling themselves.

If anything, Abagadro's quotes just show that this was a general strategy used regardless of the incident in question. They actually increase the perfidy, rather than decrease it.

newmoonpuppyhead: Not one person in here attacking Kieth can argue against what he said or refute it.

(STRANGE SOUNDS)
Chris Wallace? No, it's not the German stage version of dueling banjos from "Deliverance," either, it's the Stag Mating call Championships of Germany. Nine master-excuse me-nine master stag callers grabbed their horn thingies and took to the stage to compete for the prestigious title and a $120 first prize and stunned, partially solidified crowd of 500 people sat there thinking, hey, wait, this isn't the "Blue Man Group."


His attempts at humor are lame. And he's obsessed with anyone who doesn't fellate Clinton to the depths as he does because now, Fox news, O'Reilly, Chris Wallace are indellibly marked in his brain as anyone who should be mocked, regardless of what the topic at hand is.

What does Olbermann do at a charity function? Why - place picture of O'Reilly's face in front of his own, and give the nazi salute, of course.

He's a sick, pathetic man who's own television show gets crappy ratings and if it werent' for Crooks and Liars, YouTube, Fark and other sites to promote his tripe, less and less idiots would be his fanboys.

Skleenar: Oh, so you watch Fox News then.

Actually, I seldom do. I watch CNN far more more often.

You and your buds seem to be reading things in my posts that aren't there. I never said that President Clinton was never accused of "wagging the dog." I said that Olbermann's characterization of the Republican response to the 8/20/98 missle strikes on Afghanistan was dishonest. There was almost universal support for the strike. Sure, some also commented on the timing, but approval of the strikes was nearly unanimous. Olbermann was suggesting that the one time President Clinton tried to do something about bin Laden, the Republicans attacked him for it. That is false.

the_gospel_of_thomas: He's a sick, pathetic man who's own television show gets crappy ratings and if it werent' for Crooks and Liars, YouTube, Fark and other sites to promote his tripe, less and less idiots would be his fanboys.

His ratings just get better and better every time he makes one of these special comments.

Your reaction?

HappyDaddy: Olbermann was suggesting that the one time President Clinton tried to do something about bin Laden, the Republicans attacked him for it. That is false.

Maybe he was referring to the antiterrorism legislation Clinton tried to pass but was denied by the GOP congress? (The GOP congress finally passed a watered-down-to-the-point-of-uselessness compromise bill).

Skleenar: "His ratings just get better and better every time he makes one of these special comments.

Your reaction?"



How can 174,000 people be so dumb?