Olbermann lays a smack down of utterly epic proportions on the GOP and McCain.
[quote]DeterminedNate wrote:
Olbermann lays a smack down of utterly epic proportions on the GOP and McCain.
[/quote]
I though he was fired.
O’Reilly and Limbaugh should take notes from this guy. They look positively even tempered and restrained compared to Olbermann. That’s one wacky fella.
Wow, I wonder how many Huffington Post bloggers it took to write that? Olbermann must be one of the most unpleasant people in the world to be around.
You know, it’s unfortunate because he occasionally makes a good point, but he BURIES that point in so much hatred and vitriol and righteous indignation that it is impossible to take him seriously at all. I have yet to be able to sit through an entire broadcast of his show, and I have tried.
[quote]MrRezister wrote:
Wow, I wonder how many Huffington Post bloggers it took to write that? Olbermann must be one of the most unpleasant people in the world to be around.
You know, it’s unfortunate because he occasionally makes a good point, but he BURIES that point in so much hatred and vitriol and righteous indignation that it is impossible to take him seriously at all. I have yet to be able to sit through an entire broadcast of his show, and I have tried.[/quote]
Righteous indignation? More like SELF-righteous indignation.
The guy has left persona non grata from every job he’s left. There is a reason for that.
He’s gotten worse and worse over the years. He started off a lot less… unprofessional.
[quote]DeterminedNate wrote:
Olbermann lays a smack down of utterly epic proportions on the GOP and McCain.
[/quote]
A smack down? you have to be kidding. That was the whiniest rant from a supposedly grown man I have heard in quite a while. Some of the points he made I think I might see where he is coming from but, he whined like a bitch to such a degree that was painful to listen to.
His remarks about partisanship were totally one sided. He accuses the Republicans of partisanship in the war on terror but gives the Democrats a pass for their own brand of it. It is no wonder why msnbc has cut him loose. He has lost all pretense of neutrality.
He whined that the Bush administration was almost twenty percent of the way through it’s first term when 9/11 happened so Bush had time to do something about Bin Laden.
It’s not totally invalid but Clinton had several years to do something about Bin Laden. 9/11 was the first AlQaeda attack that happened with Bush as president. I would say there is plenty of blame to go around.
At least Bush changed strategy and took the bold step of proactively going after them. It is a lot better than the Democrat strategy of only reactively responding after Americans and others had been brutally killed and then only with the minimum amount of force to make it look like you tried something without actually making the committment neccessary to actually make a difference.
[quote]At least Bush changed strategy and took the bold step of proactively going after them.
It is a lot better than the Democrat strategy of only reactively responding after Americans and others had been brutally killed and then only with the minimum amount of force to make it look like you tried something without actually making the committment neccessary to actually make a difference.[/quote]
What tripe. It was the republican strategy that was only “reactive.” Bush did nothing prior to 9/11, despite the advice of Clinton and the plans he left behind.
As Clinton tried to do, despite right wing opposition. And so did Bush, for political purposes – until he exclaimed, in defeat: "I don’t know where he is…
I truly am not that concerned about him." Bush never gave a shit beyond the cheap political points he could gain.
Your characterization of Bush’s actions as “bold” is humorous as well. I mean, the balls it takes to sit in the Whitehouse and send other people’s kids to fight.
Nate-- Please rethink your source of information. At least try to find an intelligent liberal commentary, or just give up. Olberman is about as far out there as you can get, even including Rush. I can’t take him seriously.
I assure you, if you look a bit harder, you can find some semblance of intelligent liberal critique of McCain and the GOP
[quote]Gael wrote:
What tripe. It was the republican strategy that was only “reactive.” Bush did nothing prior to 9/11, despite the advice of Clinton and the plans he left behind.
It’s not totally invalid but Clinton had several years to do something about Bin Laden.
As Clinton tried to do, despite right wing opposition. And so did Bush, for political purposes – until he exclaimed, in defeat: "I don’t know where he is…
[/quote]
Bullshit. We had him, so to speak, and clinton couldn’t pull the trigger.
[quote]
I truly am not that concerned about him." Bush never gave a shit beyond the cheap political points he could gain.
Your characterization of Bush’s actions as “bold” is humorous as well. I mean, the balls it takes to sit in the Whitehouse and send other people’s kids to fight.[/quote]
Like any other president? I am not a Bush fan but to think that he sent troops into harms way for anything but what he considered to be a nobal cause, is ridiculous. He is a man like any other and losing thousands of americans on his watch has to be troubling for him.
It does take balls to send other people’s kids to fight. Unless you think it would be an easy decision for you to send other people’s kids to fight. I know it would be tough for me.
So, we’re offended that Repubs politicized 9-11, but now we’ll use 9-11 to bash Bush and the Repubs. Someone explain that one to me?
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Gael wrote:
What tripe. It was the republican strategy that was only “reactive.” Bush did nothing prior to 9/11, despite the advice of Clinton and the plans he left behind.
It’s not totally invalid but Clinton had several years to do something about Bin Laden.
As Clinton tried to do, despite right wing opposition. And so did Bush, for political purposes – until he exclaimed, in defeat: "I don’t know where he is…
Bullshit. We had him, so to speak, and clinton couldn’t pull the trigger.
I truly am not that concerned about him." Bush never gave a shit beyond the cheap political points he could gain.
Your characterization of Bush’s actions as “bold” is humorous as well. I mean, the balls it takes to sit in the Whitehouse and send other people’s kids to fight.
Like any other president? I am not a Bush fan but to think that he sent troops into harms way for anything but what he considered to be a nobal cause, is ridiculous. He is a man like any other and losing thousands of americans on his watch has to be troubling for him.
It does take balls to send other people’s kids to fight. Unless you think it would be an easy decision for you to send other people’s kids to fight. I know it would be tough for me.[/quote]
So are you saying human nature excludes the possibility of people in power waging wars that are anything other than noble?
Or perhaps you are just saying that from your experience with seeing their TV personality, Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Rove all seem to be decent all around good guys.
[quote]Gael wrote:
So are you saying human nature excludes the possibility of people in power waging wars that are anything other than noble?
Or perhaps you are just saying that from your experience with seeing their TV personality, Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Rove all seem to be decent all around good guys.
[/quote]
You are assuming that it was not noble with no proof of that. That is a pretty wild acusation to make with no evidence or even an explaination as to why you beleive this.
I have not seen anything to suggest we were going in there for shits and giggles. I think the whole mission was botched beyond comprehension, but that says nothing of the intent.
[quote]Gael wrote:
At least Bush changed strategy and took the bold step of proactively going after them.
It is a lot better than the Democrat strategy of only reactively responding after Americans and others had been brutally killed and then only with the minimum amount of force to make it look like you tried something without actually making the committment neccessary to actually make a difference.
What tripe. It was the republican strategy that was only “reactive.” Bush did nothing prior to 9/11, despite the advice of Clinton and the plans he left behind. [/quote]
Going into Iraq instead of waiting for Sadaam to do something deadly to us was being proactive. If Clinton had plans for dealing with Bin Laden why did he not implement them himself instead of passing the problem on to the next president?
The last attack before Bush took office was on the USS Cole in October of 2000.
The Cole attack was an attack upon our military, just like when the Japanese atacked at Pearl Harbor. The way a real leader responds to an attack upon our military is to unleash that military to go find them and kill them.
Instead Clinton left it to Bush to have to go and invade Afghanistan as soon as he took power, which is a difficult thing for a new president to have to do or wait until something happened on his watch like 9/11.
The only plan that Clinton passed on was one of inaction and wait and see what happens next. [quote]
It’s not totally invalid but Clinton had several years to do something about Bin Laden.
As Clinton tried to do, despite right wing opposition. And so did Bush, for political purposes – until he exclaimed, in defeat: "I don’t know where he is…
I truly am not that concerned about him." Bush never gave a shit beyond the cheap political points he could gain.
Your characterization of Bush’s actions as “bold” is humorous as well. I mean, the balls it takes to sit in the Whitehouse and send other people’s kids to fight. [/quote]
A major reason why Bin Laden has not been caught is because he is no longer actively involved with running AlQaeda. It is the middle management people who are actively running things that we need to concentrate on.
Besides what can we do with Bin Laden if we do find him other than kill him? Killing Bin Laden will make him a martyr and make all the middle management people under him free agents struggling to prove they are the next Bin Laden.
It will create a whole new set of problems because muslims will want to avenge the death of the martyr and his leutenants will want to prove they are ready for the top position. Which means a lot of terrorist attacks.
Last but not least, for the leader of a democracy to send troops into battle without an overwhelming mandate to go to war takes guts.
Bill Clinton never sent any troops to kill Bin Laden because he did not have the stones to stand up to criticism of his actions from his fellow democrats. Instead he looked for and found excuses to avoid making the tough call.
ie Bill Clinton had Bin Laden in his sights and was afraid to pull the trigger in case there was a Saudi prince was with him and got killed. Clinton like all the Democrats did not have any balls.