Olbermanns rant about the Fox interview

[tbl]

Apparently this guy can't see that he's doing the same thing he's claiming Fox is doing; he's just on the other side of the fence. DUMB

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70wOzCkWN5g

[Tear Down This Wall]

And, he's still being watched by four to fives times fewer people that those who watch FOX. I guess consistently finishing last in the 7 pm cable news ratings are wearing on Olbermann. Dope.

[Czar Soonerov]

And, he's still being watched by four to fives times fewer people that those who watch FOX. I guess consistently finishing last in the 7 pm cable news ratings are wearing on Olbermann. Dope.

So the network with the highest ratings is the the one that tells the truth? :rolleyes:

[picasso]

I don't get the big beef about the interview. It was a calculated move by Bubba. he's been dying to vent his side of the story for a while now.

it wasn't like Wallace was being difficult w/him.

[Vaevictis]

So the network with the highest ratings is the the one that tells the truth? :rolleyes:

Nay, just tells you which particular brand of stupidity is most popular ;)

[picasso]

So the network with the highest ratings is the the one that tells the truth? :rolleyes:
not at all. but it might mean you try to rattle the cage a bit more.

[Sooner in Tampa]

Olbermann has really become quite the liberal ranting and raving lunatic.

His pot shots at Chris Wallace during the start of his rant make the rest of it invalid. He showed his hand...he has NO objectivity concerning this subject.

[Scott D]

you people act as if any national news channel or host is worthy or deserving of any consideration as being valid.

[BigRedJed]

After watching both in their entirety, I can say conclusively that I am disgusted by the overall state of America's political system. Read the comments after that YouTube video. They are interchangeable with the comments that were up after the Clinton video. Both sides can watch the same videos and see totally different things. We are so regrettably polarized. My only fear is that it is irreparable.

[Scott D]

oh it's repairable....

[jack nicholson as joker]What this country needs....is an enema[/jack nicholson as joker]

[crawfish]

Yeesh.

Both Clinton & Bush have a fault in this mess. Both should fess up to it. However, in the end there's probably very little that we could have done about it without invoking people's ire at having their rights restricted WITHOUT a 9/11, and no politician would have risked that.

I wish taking sides made you less of a reporter in the eyes of this country, instead of more of one. :(

[tbl]

The polarization is indeed the problem. Both sides argue just for the sake that it's against the other side.

I did find Olbermanns comments at the tail end pretty stupid. "We do not know what you've done to prevent another 9/11".

Uhhhh.... We haven't had another 9/11 since 9/11. I'm not saying Bush is directly responsible for that, but come on!

Also, let's say "another 9/11" occurs on September of 2009 and there is a democrat in office. Do you think they can honestly say that they won't do the same thing the pubs are doing now? "It's all Bushes fault!!".

The hypocrisy on both sides is pretty sickening...

[tbl]

Yeesh.

Both Clinton & Bush have a fault in this mess. Both should fess up to it. However, in the end there's probably very little that we could have done about it without invoking people's ire at having their rights restricted WITHOUT a 9/11, and no politician would have risked that.

I wish taking sides made you less of a reporter in the eyes of this country, instead of more of one. :(
I vote this as "Post of the last 20 minutes".

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Who is surprised Olberman hates FoxNews Channel?...and why?

[picasso]

Yeesh.

Both Clinton & Bush have a fault in this mess. Both should fess up to it. However, in the end there's probably very little that we could have done about it without invoking people's ire at having their rights restricted WITHOUT a 9/11, and no politician would have risked that.

I wish taking sides made you less of a reporter in the eyes of this country, instead of more of one. :(
and I think both are probably haunted by their failures.

again, Clinton just used the interview as a platform. he was probably glad Wallace brought the whole thing up.

[Ike]

After watching both in their entirety, I can say conclusively that I am disgusted by the overall state of America's political system. Read the comments after that YouTube video. They are interchangeable with the comments that were up after the Clinton video. Both sides can watch the same videos and see totally different things. We are so regrettably polarized. My only fear is that it is irreparable.


I completely agree. Unfortunately, I think the problem is irreperable. At least until we the American public stop buying into the **** that the partisans are selling. As much as I'd like to blame the partisans for selling us the "those jackholes on the other side of the aisle are EVIL!" horsechit, it's hard to blame them when the American public buys into it hook, line, and sinker.


We've gone from being a country that distrusts all politicians to a country that only distrusts politicians we personally disagree with/don't like, and are too willing to forgive politicians on "our" side because we have bought into the myth that the other side is far far worse....I find the whole situation rather sickening.

[BeetDigger]

While Olbermann can call out Bush all he wants. Where I have the problem is in him lapping up all of Clinton's goo as if he were Barbra Steisand. I thought the at the only people who bought anything Clinton was selling were the floozies who he had affairs with. Let's ask Vince Foster if Clinton is an honest person.

[usmc-sooner]

Olbermann is like a lot of other talk show hosts, his show does poorly in the ratings so he picks a side and goes off the deep end. That way he get's the left support and the right's anger hoping both will tune in and watch his show.

He choose the wrong side on this one. I mean if you want to get your opinion from a Sports Center washout then that's on you.

[usmc-sooner]

oh and wtf good is it going to do when finally get the blame assigned? Ok the blame is 60-40 on Clinton. Now what? People are morons looking for someone to blame. The point is let's stop it from happening again and IMO President Bush has done a good job there.

[jdsooner]

Olberman simply tells the truth. I remember Clinton being condemned by Republicans for using cruise missles to attack Bin Laden. George Bush has yet to find Bin Laden, let alone attack him.

You want the truth?? You can't handle the truth.

The truth is that we are losing the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
The truth is that Bush has not kept his promise to get Bin Laden.
He did, however, get Saddam, who had nothing to do with 9/11.

[BeetDigger]

6.5 years of nothing. A few hours of wildly hurling some missiles into the desert. 1.5 more years of nothing.

You're right, people should give him more credit.

[usmc-sooner]

Olberman simply tells the truth. I remember Clinton being condemned by Republicans for using cruise missles to attack Bin Laden. George Bush has yet to find Bin Laden, let alone attack him.

You want the truth?? You can't handle the truth.

The truth is that we are losing the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
The truth is that Bush has not kept his promise to get Bin Laden.
He did, however, get Saddam, who had nothing to do with 9/11.

You know I served in the Marine Corps under President Clinton and President Bush during both Afghanistan and Iraq and you are the kind of people I these talk show guys love. You don't know what the hell you're talking about and you've chosen your side to blindly defend.

[Scott D]

The polarization is indeed the problem. Both sides argue just for the sake that it's against the other side.

I did find Olbermanns comments at the tail end pretty stupid. "We do not know what you've done to prevent another 9/11".

Uhhhh.... We haven't had another 9/11 since 9/11. I'm not saying Bush is directly responsible for that, but come on!

Also, let's say "another 9/11" occurs on September of 2009 and there is a democrat in office. Do you think they can honestly say that they won't do the same thing the pubs are doing now? "It's all Bushes fault!!".

The hypocrisy on both sides is pretty sickening...

for the record I will be blaming the next 9/11 (which will probably happen on 11/9) on william favor and puppies.

[C&CDean]

Olberman simply tells the truth. I remember Clinton being condemned by Republicans for using cruise missles to attack Bin Laden. George Bush has yet to find Bin Laden, let alone attack him.

You want the truth?? You can't handle the truth.

The truth is that we are losing the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
The truth is that Bush has not kept his promise to get Bin Laden.
He did, however, get Saddam, who had nothing to do with 9/11.

Please see Exhibit A above ladies and gentlemen.

People like this are the exact reason why our country's politics are so ****ed up.

jd and tuba should get into a greased pit and **** each other to death.

[Jackal]

I consider myself an independent, mostly due to the polarization the parties try to do. The democrats are the lesser of the 2 evils at this time, when it comes to lying and covering up the truth, the republicans win in that.

The republicans DID criticize Clinton's attempts at fighting terrorism at the end of his term, accusations of wagging the dog.......now these same republicans say he didn't do enough. That's like having your cake and eating it too dont ya think?

[crawfish]

I consider myself an independent, mostly due to the polarization the parties try to do. The democrats are the lesser of the 2 evils at this time, when it comes to lying and covering up the truth, the republicans win in that.


So...in effect, you'd rather be ruled by the dumb criminals rather than the smart ones? ;)

[Scott D]

I'd rather see them all strung up.

[greeksooner]

I guess no one can have a different opinion. in fox we dont trust

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Please see Exhibit A above ladies and gentlemen.

People like this are the exact reason why our country's politics are so ****ed up.

jd and tuba should get into a greased pit and **** each other to death.

Actually, I don't blame them. They just buy into the the debased dialogue that the screaming lunatics on CNN/Fox/MSNBC put on tv every day.

The minute people start to realize that both parties just want to take your money and tell you how much their doing for you while their actually building paper levees is the minute this country will start to be better off.

[Ike]

Actually, I don't blame them. They just buy into the the debased dialogue that the screaming lunatics on CNN/Fox/MSNBC put on tv every day.

The minute people start to realize that both parties just want to take your money and tell you how much their doing for you while their actually building paper levees is the minute this country will start to be better off.


nail, meet hammer.



The unfortunate thing however is that the majority of people are only capable of either believing something they are told or disbelieving something they are told...and as such, we only get media that only tries to tell us what we want to hear to begin with...because thats how they keep their viewers.

[jdsooner]

Please see Exhibit A above ladies and gentlemen.

People like this are the exact reason why our country's politics are so ****ed up.

jd and tuba should get into a greased pit and **** each other to death.

Nice language for an administrator to use. Read this week's Newsweek about how things are going in Afghanistan. We are losing control of that country.

[BeetDigger]

Dean loves it when poster's lecture him about language. Oh yeah, this should be fun.

[usmc-sooner]

Nice language for an administrator to use. Read this week's Newsweek about how things are going in Afghanistan. We are losing control of that country.

you can read my post and know I agree with Dean, and I don't need to read about in Newsweek.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

For the final time...I am going to say this....Bill and George neither had anything to do with 9/11...if either got the information the day before...they would have stopped it. There is nothing wrong questioning Bill's morals or George's intelligence....however, to imply these two men didn't really care or try would be an assault on their integrity that is WAY unfounded. Look at Bill at the end of his term and look at George....they both looked physically horrible and ALOT older. They have a very stressful job. One of the reasons I love John McCain so much is that he doesn't see an issue like "well I am a Republican...so I better" Leiberman is the same way. And look at those two, both parties are attempting to lodge these two under the bus so they can run them over. When we start putting people in that vote on the issues and not on the party line...this country will be better

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Oh and btw Newsweek is about as real news as the Daily Show with Jon Stewart

[usmc-sooner]

For the final time...I am going to say this....Bill and George neither had anything to do with 9/11...if either got the information the day before...they would have stopped it. There is nothing wrong questioning Bill's morals or George's intelligence....however, to imply these two men didn't really care or try would be an assault on their integrity that is WAY unfounded. Look at Bill at the end of his term and look at George....they both looked physically horrible and ALOT older. They have a very stressful job. One of the reasons I love John McCain so much is that he doesn't see an issue like "well I am a Republican...so I better" Leiberman is the same way. And look at those two, both parties are attempting to lodge these two under the bus so they can run them over. When we start putting people in that vote on the issues and not on the party line...this country will be better

so what you're saying is that you're a neo-con Repub:D I can't really disagree with anything you said.

Well one thing people like to question W's intelligence which is unfounded. His IQ is higher than Kerry's and is way above average. Now questioning his ability to speak in public is a different matter.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The democrats have simply put the reacquisition of power above national security. This is evidenced by the intentional leak of part of the intelligence document that evaluates our current situation in regards to the jihad. While the overall report concludes that if we were to pull out of Iraq, the jihadists would be wildly emboldened, the MSM and elected democrats act as though the opposite were true. THAT is what is disgusting.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

If you wanna see a real show that promotes America...click on this link!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbHPuzsCWBw

[SoonerProphet]

Why can't we have a candidate that believes citizens have the prime responsibility for their well-being, their moral values, their relation to other countries, and wants government to get the f*ck out of the way.

[StoopTroup]

I think Clinton gave us a better bang for our buck than GW.

[usmc-sooner]

I think Clinton gave us a better bang for our buck than GW.

Clinton would bang anything for a buck. Except his own wife. :D

[OklahomaTuba]

Olberman simply tells the truth. I remember Clinton being condemned by Republicans for using cruise missles to attack Bin Laden. George Bush has yet to find Bin Laden, let alone attack him.

You want the truth?? You can't handle the truth.

The truth is that we are losing the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
The truth is that Bush has not kept his promise to get Bin Laden.
He did, however, get Saddam, who had nothing to do with 9/11.

Wow. Hard to imagine there are people who really "think" this way.

BTW, like 2 people condemned Clinton for going after Bin Laden, and most of that was the media.

Nevermind the fact that if he had gone after them after they nearly sunk our warship, instead of doing NOTHING, then I doubt he would be considered such a do-nothing terror fighter.

[picasso]

Olberman simply tells the truth. I remember Clinton being condemned by Republicans for using cruise missles to attack Bin Laden. George Bush has yet to find Bin Laden, let alone attack him.

You want the truth?? You can't handle the truth.

The truth is that we are losing the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
The truth is that Bush has not kept his promise to get Bin Laden.
He did, however, get Saddam, who had nothing to do with 9/11.
that was funny.

you don't think the Bush administration has attacked Bin Laden? get out much?

[picasso]

Why can't we have a candidate that believes citizens have the prime responsibility for their well-being, their moral values, their relation to other countries, and wants government to get the f*ck out of the way.
here here!

[OklahomaTuba]

This was in the Wall Street Journal and I thought it was pretty interesting..


What Clinton Didn't Do . . .
. . . .and when he didn't do it.

BY RICHARD MINITER
Wednesday, September 27, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

Bill Clinton's outburst on Fox News was something of a public service, launching a debate about the antiterror policies of his administration. This is important because every George W. Bush policy that arouses the ire of Democrats--the Patriot Act, extraordinary rendition, detention without trial, pre-emptive war--is a departure from his predecessor. Where policies overlap--air attacks on infrastructure, secret presidential orders to kill terrorists, intelligence sharing with allies, freezing bank accounts, using police to arrest terror suspects--there is little friction. The question, then, is whether America should return to Mr. Clinton's policies or soldier on with Mr. Bush's.

It is vital that this debate be honest, but so far this has not been the case. Both Mr. Clinton's outrage at Chris Wallace's questioning and the ABC docudrama "The Path to 9/11" are attempts to polarize the nation's memory. While this divisiveness may be good for Mr. Clinton's reputation, it is ultimately unhealthy for the country. What we need, instead, is a cold-eyed look at what works against terrorists and what does not. The policies of the Clinton and Bush administrations ought to be put to the same iron test.





With that in mind, let us examine Mr. Clinton's war on terror. Some 38 days after he was sworn in, al Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center. He did not visit the twin towers that year, even though four days after the attack he was just across the Hudson River in New Jersey, talking about job training. He made no attempt to rally the public against terrorism. His only public speech on the bombing was a few paragraphs inserted into a radio address mostly devoted an economic stimulus package. Those stray paragraphs were limited to reassuring the public and thanking the rescuers, the kinds of things governors say after hurricanes. He did not even vow to bring the bombers to justice. Instead, he turned the first terrorist attack on American soil over to the FBI.
In his Fox interview, Mr. Clinton said "no one knew that al Qaeda existed" in October 1993, during the tragic events in Somalia. But his national security adviser, Tony Lake, told me that he first learned of bin Laden "sometime in 1993," when he was thought of as a terror financier. U.S. Army Capt. James Francis Yacone, a black hawk squadron commander in Somalia, later testified that radio intercepts of enemy mortar crews firing at Americans were in Arabic, not Somali, suggesting the work of bin Laden's agents (who spoke Arabic), not warlord Farah Aideed's men (who did not). CIA and DIA reports also placed al Qaeda operatives in Somalia at the time.

By the end of Mr. Clinton's first year, al Qaeda had apparently attacked twice. The attacks would continue for every one of the Clinton years.

• In 1994, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (who would later plan the 9/11 attacks) launched "Operation Bojinka" to down 11 U.S. planes simultaneously over the Pacific. A sharp-eyed Filipina police officer foiled the plot. The sole American response: increased law-enforcement cooperation with the Philippines.

• In 1995, al Qaeda detonated a 220-pound car bomb outside the Office of Program Manager in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killing five Americans and wounding 60 more. The FBI was sent in.

• In 1996, al Qaeda bombed the barracks of American pilots patrolling the "no-fly zones" over Iraq, killing 19. Again, the FBI responded.

• In 1997, al Qaeda consolidated its position in Afghanistan and bin Laden repeatedly declared war on the U.S. In February, bin Laden told an Arab TV network: "If someone can kill an American soldier, it is better than wasting time on other matters." No response from the Clinton administration.

• In 1998, al Qaeda simultaneously bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224, including 12 U.S. diplomats. Mr. Clinton ordered cruise-missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan in response. Here Mr. Clinton's critics are wrong: The president was right to retaliate when America was attacked, irrespective of the Monica Lewinsky case.

Still, "Operation Infinite Reach" was weakened by Clintonian compromise. The State Department feared that Pakistan might spot the American missiles in its air space and misinterpret it as an Indian attack. So Mr. Clinton told Gen. Joe Ralston, vice chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, to notify Pakistan's army minutes before the Tomahawks passed over Pakistan. Given Pakistan's links to jihadis at the time, it is not surprising that bin Laden was tipped off, fleeing some 45 minutes before the missiles arrived.

• In 1999, the Clinton administration disrupted al Qaeda's Millennium plots, a series of bombings stretching from Amman to Los Angeles. This shining success was mostly the work of Richard Clarke, a NSC senior director who forced agencies to work together. But the Millennium approach was shortlived. Over Mr. Clarke's objections, policy reverted to the status quo.

• In January 2000, al Qaeda tried and failed to attack the U.S.S. The Sullivans off Yemen. (Their boat sank before they could reach their target.) But in October 2000, an al Qaeda bomb ripped a hole in the hull of the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors and wounding another 39.

When Mr. Clarke presented a plan to launch a massive cruise missile strike on al Qaeda and Taliban facilities in Afghanistan, the Clinton cabinet voted against it. After the meeting, a State Department counterterrorism official, Michael Sheehan, sought out Mr. Clarke. Both told me that they were stunned. Mr. Sheehan asked Mr. Clarke: "What's it going to take to get them to hit al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon?"





There is much more to Mr. Clinton's record--how Predator drones, which spotted bin Laden three times in 1999 and 2000, were grounded by bureaucratic infighting; how a petty dispute with an Arizona senator stopped the CIA from hiring more Arabic translators. While it is easy to look back in hindsight and blame Bill Clinton, the full scale and nature of the terrorist threat was not widely appreciated until 9/11. Still: Bill Clinton did not fully grasp that he was at war. Nor did he intuit that war requires overcoming bureaucratic objections and a democracy's natural reluctance to use force. That is a hard lesson. But it is better to learn it from studying the Clinton years than reliving them.http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009001

[Dio]

Olberman hating Fox = losur hating us.

It's penis envy

[Sooner in Tampa]

Olberman is still garbage

[oudanny]

This might be an over simplification but political reporting and discussions sound a lot like the football boards, ie. if my side loses, we got screwed. Or if someone says something good about my guy then that person is a genius and an expert. Or if my side cheated, well everyone does it and besides it wasn't really cheating. The sad part is that the consequences are much more significant.

[KantoSooner]

Meh. Olbermann, in my opinion is a clown....but so is Hannity, and Anderson Cooper and most of the rest. They are ratings machines selling ad space. It's what they do.
But, before getting overly upset over this state of affairs, remember that Hamilton and Adams and Jefferson stalwarts gored each other in the press in the early 1800's. And that the sainted Walter Cronkite outright lied to the public, casting the Tet Offensive as a massive US loss when it was in fact a shattering defeat of the North Vietnamese, and did so solely to forward his personal agenda.
It's been going on for quite some time, and we seem to muddle through. Keep fresh batteries in your BS detectors.

[StoopTroup]

I vote this as "Post of the last 20 minutes".

I'm shooting for 1,254,776 posts....

[picasso]

Meh. Olbermann, in my opinion is a clown....but so is Hannity, and Anderson Cooper and most of the rest. They are ratings machines selling ad space. It's what they do.
But, before getting overly upset over this state of affairs, remember that Hamilton and Adams and Jefferson stalwarts gored each other in the press in the early 1800's. And that the sainted Walter Cronkite outright lied to the public, casting the Tet Offensive as a massive US loss when it was in fact a shattering defeat of the North Vietnamese, and did so solely to forward his personal agenda.
It's been going on for quite some time, and we seem to muddle through. Keep fresh batteries in your BS detectors.

Yes but Olbermann presented himself as a news person, not just an opinion type.
I agree Hannity is a goob but his show is a talk/op bit.

[crawfish]

Beck: You and I are very much alike. News is our religion, yet we have both fallen from the pure faith. Our methods have not differed as much as you pretend. I am but a shadowy reflection of you. It would take only a nudge to make you like me. To push you out of the light.

Olbermann: Now you're getting nasty.

[KantoSooner]

Yes but Olbermann presented himself as a news person, not just an opinion type.
I agree Hannity is a goob but his show is a talk/op bit.

Point well taken. And I suppose it's fairly revealing that I didn't see any difference. Are there ANY news people anymore? I am not sure I could identify anyone who simply reported without spin/commentary.

I find I miss Huntley and Brinkley. But then I was a child when they were on, so I might have missed their bias as well.

In any event, we can at least agree that Olbermann is a lying piece of ****.

[TUSooner]

The polarization is indeed the problem. Both sides argue just for the sake that it's against the other side....

The hypocrisy on both sides is pretty sickening...


This.^^^
And, oh yeah, Olbermann used to be clever before he started thinking he was smart.

[soonercruiser]

So the network with the highest ratings is the the one that tells the truth? :rolleyes:

The network with the highest ratings is likey watched more, since (over time) it is a place to go to hear BOTH SIDES of the story - Fair & Balanced!
That leaves the left wing media OUT!

[soonercruiser]

Olberman simply tells the truth. I remember Clinton being condemned by Republicans for using cruise missles to attack Bin Laden. George Bush has yet to find Bin Laden, let alone attack him.

You want the truth?? You can't handle the truth.

The truth is that we are losing the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
The truth is that Bush has not kept his promise to get Bin Laden.
He did, however, get Saddam, who had nothing to do with 9/11.

The truth is that Clinton let Osama get away! (had 12 opportunities)
Clinton - "I did not have sex with THAT woman"!
The King of LIARS!

The truth is that GITMO is still open!
The truth is that Obama has not pulled our troops out of Iraq or Afghanistan; and got us involved in Libya - for regime change!
The truth is that Obama has not cut the deficit in half!
The truth is that Obamacare will costs us $Trillions!
King II of LIARS!
Need any more!
Ask Vince Foster!

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

So now Clinton killed Vince Foster...why don't you get in line with the nutjobs in the Birthers and Truthers Lines too. Are you also afraid of lizard people?