A new one by Keith Olbermann

I saw that live on tv...good stuff. He was all fired up reading it.

0 Replies

One thing I believe.... he would send Laura before he went himself....

0 Replies

If we want to 'win' in Iraq, we have to "seek out and destroy" Iran and Syria first ... Laughing

Quote:

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Midway through his speech, almost as an aside, Bush made a pointed accusation at and issued a direct threat to – Tehran.

To defend the "territorial integrity" of Iraq and stabilize "the region in the face of extremist challenge," Bush interjected, "begins with addressing Iran and Syria."

"These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

Now, any networks providing "advanced weaponry and training" to jihadists and insurgents are outside Iraq. Otherwise, they would have been neutralized by air strikes already.

So, where are they? Answer: inside Syria and Iran. And Bush says we are going to "seek out and destroy" these networks.

Which suggests to this writer that, while the "surge" is modest, Bush has in mind a different kind of escalation – widening the war by attacking the source of instability in the region: Tehran...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53736

0 Replies

Slappy Doo Hoo wrote:

I saw that live on tv...good stuff. He was all fired up reading it.

Was there foam forming at the corners of his mouth?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Slappy Doo Hoo wrote:
I saw that live on tv...good stuff. He was all fired up reading it.

Was there foam forming at the corners of his mouth?

Pretty much.....you could tell he was legitimately pissed.

0 Replies

Olberman isn't "Legitimately" anything other than an entertainer - same coin different side as, for instance, O'Reilly.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Olberman isn't "Legitimately" anything other than an entertainer - same coin different side as, for instance, O'Reilly.

Even an entertainer can make valid points...and Olbermann made a dozen or so in this essay.

0 Replies

In essense, Olberman is right. Just a bit shrill making points sometimes.

0 Replies

I'll admit he has theatric obnoxiousness. I used to watch him as a sportscaster, early on.

On the other hand, I often agree with him.

I won't parse out this last example, but I probably agree with most of it.

I'm genuinely sorry there is not more hue and cry for more nuanced discourse - it should be much more prevalent on our tvs.

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

I'm genuinely sorry there is not more hue and cry for more nuanced discourse - it should be much more prevalent on our tvs.

No problem - only 2 things are needed: media-savvy folks capable of nuanced discourse, and an audience large enough and willing enough to pay for that discourse.

Just let us know when you get that together - it'll be a snap from there on out.

0 Replies

I agree, Timber.

Also think more circus generates more crowds, near oblivious to nuance from whatever direction.

Not to mention short time periods for discussion.

0 Replies

P.J. O'Rourke would be a good start for the conservative line. Standing in one of Sadaam's palaces in Baghdad, he decides, "If a reason for invading Iraq was needed, felony interior decorating would have sufficed."
Undaunted, P.J. holds forth on everything from getting kids to sleep to why Hillary Clinton's election was a good thing ("We Republicans were almost out of people to hate in the Senate").

0 Replies

Audience could build, probably starting in smaller but not too small markets.
Hard to envision right now.

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

I won't parse out this last example, but I probably agree with most of it.

Interestingly enough, I agree with hardly any of it.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

P.J. O'Rourke would be a good start for the conservative line. Standing in one of Sadaam's palaces in Baghdad, he decides, "If a reason for invading Iraq was needed, felony interior decorating would have sufficed."

Hehheh, thats actually kinda funny..

0 Replies

I know we disagree, Tico.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Interestingly enough, I agree with hardly any of it.

You do have an uncanny aversion to the truth.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

ossobuco wrote:
I'm genuinely sorry there is not more hue and cry for more nuanced discourse - it should be much more prevalent on our tvs.
No problem - only 2 things are needed: media-savvy folks capable of nuanced discourse, and an audience large enough and willing enough to pay for that discourse.

Just let us know when you get that together - it'll be a snap from there on out.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Olberman isn't "Legitimately" anything other than an entertainer - same coin different side as, for instance, O'Reilly.

Nah, timber, that's not really a correct correspondence.

On cable tv, Olberman comes as close as anyone else I can think of to duplicating the partisan single-mindedness of an O'Reilly or a Fox channel. In that simple sense, you are probably right. (And if one could imagine an entire network filled with Olbermans, you'd have something of a rough correspondence to Fox).

But the differences are at least as important as the similarity. For one, the differences in interview style. For another, the quality of interviewees. And third, though you might not agree, care for truth and accuracy. On this last, the recent comments from Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough re O'Reilly's claims about them (as MSNBC staff) point up how inattentive O'Reilly is to the facts.

0 Replies

A new one by Keith Olbermann

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know