Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Keith Olbermann
Posted by: Jon Henke on Friday, September 14, 2007

Keith Olbermann may have great delivery, but he's also a very confused, ridiculous man. Or perhaps he's just not very intelligent.

Outrage is no substitute for critical thinking.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
If you think that is silly Jon, watch Keith’s logic implode in on himself in this clip.
 
Written By: Jimmy the Dhimmi
URL: http://www.warning1938alert.ytmnd.com
but he’s also a very confused, ridiculous man.
"Thompson was asked in an interview for Bay News 9’s "Political Connections" program whether he thought Congress’ intervention to save the life of the brain-damaged woman two years ago was appropriate.

"I can’t pass judgment on it. I know that good people were doing what they thought was best," Thompson said. "That’s going back in history. I don’t remember the details of it.""
 
Written By: Oliver Willis
URL: http://www.oliverwillis.com

Keith Olbermann may have great delivery, but he’s also a very confused, ridiculous man. Or perhaps he’s just not very intelligent.
He kept the gag running one sentence too long, but I for one am disgusted with people like Guliani suggesting that we’ll be attacked if we vote for democrats. There is a spectrum of potential strategies to protect America, and I understand that pols need to try and differentiate themselves and try to show they will do better than the other guys, but when they phrase it as an assertion that if you don’t elect Republicans, more Americans will die, I find it offensive, and counterintuitive based on recent history.

Here are some of Giuliani’s prepared comments from the speech Olbermann was talking about, and you tell me, do these prepared remarks sound MORE intelligent and thoughtful that Olbermann’s off the cuff remarks?
“If any Republican is elected president - - and I think obviously I would be the best at this - - we will remain on offense and will anticipate what (the terrorists) will do and try to stop them before they do it,” Giuliani said.
And if a Democrat is elected, what, they won’t remain on offense and try to anticipate and stop terrorists? stupid
“But the question is how long will it take and how many casualties will we have?” Giuliani said. “If we are on defense (with a Democratic president,) we will have more losses and it will go on longer.”
The perpetual GWOT will be longer than perpetual if a Dem is elected? dumb
“The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.”
From the party of the Republican President who still says moronic things like, "they hate us for our freedom"?

“America will (be) safer with a Republican president.”

Okay, I don’t necessarily agree, but it is a clear statement that he thinks he and his party are the right people for the job.
“This war ends when they stop coming here to kill us!” Giuliani said. “Never ever again will this country ever be on defense waiting for (terrorists) to attack us if I have anything to say about it. And make no mistake, the Democrats want to put us back on defense!”
What’s so bad about defense? Don’t we have a Department of Defense? Isn’t National Defense a priority? semantic nonsense from giuliani
Giuliani said terrorists “hate us and not because of anything bad we have done; it has nothing to do with Israel and Palestine. They hate us for the freedoms we have and the freedoms we want to share with the world.”
Cripes, he’s saying it too. Does any sane person actually think this not a stupid thing to believe? They hate us for our freedom??? They may hate us for some of the things we do with our freedom, but for the most part, it’s not the American people they hate, it’s the state itself. Read some friggin’ history for crying out loud. Do you think for one second they would hate us if we had the identical Constitution but were all devout Muslims? Come on.

From Thompson...

"I can’t pass judgment on it. I know that good people were doing what they thought was best," Thompson said. "That’s going back in history. I don’t remember the details of it.""

Good call Fred, you were lucky enough not to have had a public opinion on this at the time, why let yourself get sucked in now.

Jon, everyone who speaks is going to say some dumb things, and Olbermann does his share, but if you put this kind of scrutiny on ANY of the Republican candidates or right wing pundits, you’d find it’s a lot easier to find goofy comments than it is with Olbermann’s comments.

Though with him becoming the top cable pundit, surpassing O’Reilly (I know, it’s early yet to say he’s on top), I do understand that there will and should be some scrutiny. I’m just saying that if is this is the worst he does, he’s not even close to the folks he passing up in the ratings. And maybe, along with the hyperbole, and excellent delivery, that’s why he’s on his way to the top.

Cap

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Oliver, last I heard, you had a blog. If you want to say something about Fred Thompson, I’d think you would want to do it there instead of wandering in here and posting an off-topic comment.

That is, if you have anything of consequence to say, rather than just trying to stir something up.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
OLBERMANN: Giuliani tried to out-Bush Bush. He tried to get votes by talking about casualties as if another attack like 9/11 were inevitable,
Giuliani takes the position that the US must assume, and be prepared for, another attack like we suffered on 9/11. Olberman seems to think that this is some kind of extemist, nutcase idea, or irresponsible fear-mongering. On the contrary, Giuliani’s position is totally in sync with that of the intelligence community and almost all experts on the subject.

For example, here is an interview with the Director of National Intelligence, Michael McConnell, in July:
"What I can tell you is that there are some number of operatives that are ready and they are looking for avenues to carry out terrorist acts in Europe and in the United States," he says.

So what exactly do those operatives want to do?

McConnell, the former Director of the National Security Agency, shifts a bit in his chair and thinks for a moment.

"Their intentions are mass casualties larger than 9/11 inside the United States," he says.

Even though al Qaida was forced to rebuild itself almost from scratch, its choice of targets hasn’t changed much.

"A very large building. The Sears Tower, or some large building in Seattle or L.A. or Dallas," he says.
Then, Olberman goes on to leap like a trapeze artist under the big tent (where he really should be working in the freak show, instead):
...suggesting that voting for anyone but him would lead to more people getting killed. That’s about an inch from saying, "If you don’t vote for me, you’ll die,"
The blogger in Jon’s did a good job of pointing out the fallacies here. Like every Presidential candidate, including those of the Left, Giuliani promises that he would do a better job of keeping America safe. To translate this the way Olberman did, as a threat, is comical over-reaching. When someone on the Left paraphrases someone’s words, and then helpfully provides a summarized "translation," the reader should be warned to put on his hard hat, because he is in a strawman construction zone.
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
Though with him becoming the top cable pundit
I know you qualify the statement later but where on earth do you get Olbermann becoming the "top cable pundit"? Is this wishful thinking? Because his ratings don’t even come close - Drudge reports them on a regular basis.

This is the second time in recent days that Olbermann has been criticized and each time you have gone off the deep end defending the man. Is he handicapped in such a way that criticsm of the man is out of bounds? Are you related to him? Or are you just the resident Olbermann apologist?

I’m just curious because a lot of people are heavily criticized on this blog - Murtha, Kerry, Carter, Clinton (both of them), Pelosi, Reid, and even Bush on occasion - and mostly for good reason IMO. When they come under attack, not a peep from you in their defense. But Olbermann? Cap, you and I are on different sides of a lot of discussions here but this one really puzzles me.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
but I for one am disgusted with people like Guliani suggesting that we’ll be attacked if we vote for democrats.
Except that the Democrats are fighting very hard to re-adopt the strategies and policies that lead to 9/11, you’re right.
when they phrase it as an assertion that if you don’t elect Republicans, more Americans will die, I find it offensive, and counterintuitive based on recent history.
Exactly what the he!l recent history are we talking about? The policy decisions made most proximate to and enabling of the capability of AlQaeda to bring about 9/11 were the policies of a Democratic administration, and those policies are what the Democrats are working very hard towards re-instating now.

The shoe doesn’t just fit them, they made the shoe.
And if a Democrat is elected, what, they won’t remain on offense and try to anticipate and stop terrorists?
No, they won’t. To judge by some of the Democratic Presidential candidates behavior, and of their House members, they’ll play footsie with Assad and try to talk the Mullahs to death long distance.
The perpetual GWOT will be longer than perpetual if a Dem is elected? dumb
No one said the war will be perpetual but you. After all, if the Republicans are in charge and keep their heads, we’ll win the thing in one generation. The Democrats just might lose it, and they certainly will make no effective objection to the Islamification of Europe, if it should go that way and they keep their current attitudes.
From the party of the Republican President who still says moronic things like, "they hate us for our freedom"?
But they do. Our freedoms permit us to be both wildly successful and not Islamic. They do hate us for that, Pogue.
but it is a clear statement that he thinks he and his party are the right people for the job.
Go figger that!
What’s so bad about defense?

&

semantic nonsense from giuliani


There’s nonsense here, alright. You are on the defense, you’re fighting them here. Why do you think that’s good Mahone?
Cripes, he’s saying it too.
It’s true. They would only be comfortable with our being nominally sovereign if we were in dhimmitude and dust at their feet. That is their internal model of how the world should be. Just by existing freely and powerfully, we are pissing on their gate. Which part of free and powerful do you want to change for their benefit, Pogue?
it’s not the American people they hate, it’s the state itself
That explains why they expanded by the sword until they were stopped by military force, and have been looking to resume their expansion since then. It’s as if for Pogue the history of Islam starts in 1947, not the 700’s.
Do you think for one second they would hate us if we had the identical Constitution but were all devout Muslims?
And the idiot lets the cat out of the bag—they won’t hate us of we had the same Constitution but were Moslem (in which the Constitution is a dead letter, because shariah would be the whole of the law).

Pogue, I want the Constitution to be the law of the land, I don’t want to be Moslem. If this bothers them to the extent they want to kill us, I’d rather kill them until they change their minds, or they run out of them. They get to pick which.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: tomdperkins.blogspot.com
Careful, Billy Hollis! Criticizing Oliver for off-topic trolling is only two inches away from murdering him.
 
Written By: Wulf
URL: http://www.atlasblogged.com
Just emphasize that:
Pogue wrote:
Do you think for one second they would hate us if we had the identical Constitution but were all devout Muslims?
And the idiot lets the cat out of the bag—they won’t hate us of we had the same Constitution but were Moslem (in which the Constitution is a dead letter, because shariah would be the whole of the law).

Pogue, I want the Constitution to be the law of the land, I don’t want to be Moslem. If this bothers them to the extent they want to kill us, I’d rather kill them until they change their minds, or they run out of them. They get to pick which.
Pogue says they hate us because we have the Constitution and are not Moslem (being Moslem is synonymous with having the Koran for your Constitution in the Islamist’s worldview)—but they don’t hate us for our freedom.

There may be two or three genuinely secular Moslem states. In all of them, the military frequently overthrows the government, that’s no improvement.

I’m really just astounded Pogue wrote what he did, surely he misphrased something.

Say it ain’t so, Pogue.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: tomdperkins.blogspot.com
Captain,
you tell me, do these prepared remarks sound MORE intelligent and thoughtful that Olbermann’s off the cuff remarks?
Most of them do, yes.
And if a Democrat is elected, what, they won’t remain on offense and try to anticipate and stop terrorists? stupid
It depends what he means by offense. If he means that Democrats won’t be as aggressive in engaging our enemies abroad, then in my opinion there is nothing stupid at all about that statement. In fact it appears self-evident from the statements of all the Democratic presidential candidates.
The perpetual GWOT will be longer than perpetual if a Dem is elected? dumb
Ok, I’ll give you that one.
From the party of the Republican President who still says moronic things like, "they hate us for our freedom"?
There is nothing moronic about it. It is overly simplistic, but it is also true. All you have to do is read their own words to see that many of the things they hate involve our free society.
Cripes, he’s saying it too. Does any sane person actually think this not a stupid thing to believe? They hate us for our freedom??? They may hate us for some of the things we do with our freedom, but for the most part, it’s not the American people they hate, it’s the state itself.
Yes, many of us do believe that. And yes, they hate the American people and any people that do not kow-tow to their belief system. That’s why it is perfectly acceptable, in their eyes, to slaughter innocent civilians who have no particular connection to the state. To them we are infidels. From their perspective if we don’t submit we deserve nothing more than death. Ask them, they are all too willing to make that perfectly clear. Pretending that our actions are somehow responsible for their fanatical religious hatred of Western society, and American society in particular, is in my view a huge mistake.
Jon, everyone who speaks is going to say some dumb things, and Olbermann does his share, but if you put this kind of scrutiny on ANY of the Republican candidates or right wing pundits, you’d find it’s a lot easier to find goofy comments than it is with Olbermann’s comments.
I’d say the goofy comments are at least 10-1 for Olbermann, unless you compare him to real nutjobs on the right like Michael Savage — then it’s more even. But obviously that’s a matter of political perspective.




 
Written By: DavidC
URL: http://
I’m really just astounded Pogue wrote what he did,
Me too.
Say it ain’t so, Pogue.
It ain’t, Tom. I haven’t written anything on this thread until now. An honest mistake, I’m sure.

Cheers.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
And if a Democrat is elected, what, they won’t remain on offense and try to anticipate and stop terrorists? stupid
I don’t know if that is really such a stupid concern. During the 2004 election Kerry finally came out with his big speech outlining how he would respond to the threat of terrorism if he were elected. All the liberals in my online discussion group were excited, pointing to the speech as proof that Democrats took the terrorism threat just as seriously as Republicans.

When I read the transcript, there was nothing at all in it about remaining on offense, or attempting to anticipate terrorist attacks and prevent them. There was a short list of specifics that included things like hiring more (unionized government employees) to screen the ports, and spending more money on (unionized government) first responders. It read more like the WPA than a serious anti-terrorism plan, and was an obvious pander to the government employee unions that largely (along with Norman Hsu and the trial layers) fund the Democratic party.
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
Ah crap, all that invective should have been deployed against Captain Sarcastic.

My apologies.

Wow does that bring the tempo down.

Serves me right for looking at eight threads at once.

Still.

I am wondering very much if Keptin said more than he meant by the:
Do you think for one second they would hate us if we had the identical Constitution but were all devout Muslims?
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: tomdperkins.blogspot.com
Do you think for one second they would hate us if we had the identical Constitution but were all devout Muslims?
I’d love to hear what you think I may have meant, but what I meant is this.

Islamic terrorists don’t hate us because we are free, they hate us for what we do as a state, and to a lesser extent, they hate us for what we do with our freedom.

My point being, that if we had the identical freedom we have today and happened to all be devout Muslim’s, they wouldn’t hate us at all.

Nowhere am I suggesting that we do anything about our religion to stop them from hating us. Honestly, I don’t care if they hate us, I just care when they try to hurt us, in which case I favor stopping them and/or killing them.
To them we are infidels.
Bingo!!!

Our Constitution and our freedom does not make us infidels, the fact that we are not Moslem makes us infidels. We could be a totalitarian dictatorship and they would still hate us, because we’d still be infidels.

They hated the Soviet Union. I wonder if Andropov told the Ruskies that they hated the USSR for their freedoms?

Dumb.

But I’m glad I could advance the discussion.
Are you related to him?


He’s my domestic partner. (LOL)
Or are you just the resident Olbermann apologist?
I guess I could pass on these snipes, but then what would y’all talk about?

Cap

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
I guess I could pass on these snipes, but then what would y’all talk about?
Fair enough.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
congrats jon, you’ve got your very own troll in the name of oliver willis.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
My point being, that if we had the identical freedom we have today and happened to all be devout Muslim’s, they wouldn’t hate us at all.
Total nonsense in my opinion, unless by "devout Muslims" you mean fanatical Islamists living under Sharia law, in which case we wouldn’t have the freedom we have today. Our freedoms are incompatible with being devout Muslims in their eyes — which is one of the primary reasons they despise us. Believe it or not, but they do appear to take their version of Islam very seriously.

If we were weak, powerless infidels, they would still hate us for what we are. They might not feel the need attack us, but it doesn’t mean they wouldn’t despise us. The fact that we are the strongest country in the world, and the one that stands in the way of most of their objectives magnifies their hate and makes us a target. So be it.
Our Constitution and our freedom does not make us infidels, the fact that we are not Moslem makes us infidels. We could be a totalitarian dictatorship and they would still hate us, because we’d still be infidels.
True. But you are missing the point. Our freedoms are part of what make us infidels in their eyes. Again, read some of the Islamic fanatics own words.
They hated the Soviet Union. I wonder if Andropov told the Ruskies that they hated the USSR for their freedoms?

Dumb.
What’s dumb is your analogy. They only get one reason to hate? Maybe the fact that the Soviet Union was an officially atheistic state (and oppressed its Muslim minorities) might have been factors in their hate. Saying they hated the U.S.S.R. for its freedom would be indeed be stupid. But not so when talking about their view of the U.S. It’s simplistic to say that they hate us for our freedom, and it isn’t the only reason they hate us, but it is also basically true.



 
Written By: DavidC
URL: http://
I think Captain Sarcastic’s point is that the question of freedom is irrelevant here - the core of the problem is a civilizational gap between Western civilization and radical Islamic civilization (you know, Samuel Huntington stuff.) Groups like al-Qaeda seem to perceive international power and prestige on a zero-sum-game basis; as long as Western civilization is powerful then it must be taking from, or oppressing, Islamic civilizations in some fashion.

Just as a thought experiment, do you think OBL would suddenly abandon his jihad against the USA if someone ran a coup and turned the USA into an oppressive totalitarian police state? I posit he would not - we’re still part of Western civilization; whether or not we’re free is immaterial. "Hating us for our freedom" might be convenient shorthand for "they hate our civilization," but I think it’s a bit misleading. Freedom happens to be a core value in our civilization, but even if we abandoned that I don’t think they’d love us any more than they do now.
 
Written By: James O
URL: http://
Not even remotely off-topic, but I’ll never overestimate you fellas.
 
Written By: Oliver Willis
URL: http://www.oliverwillis.com
Islamic terrorists don’t hate us because we are free, they hate us for what we do as a state, and to a lesser extent, they hate us for what we do with our freedom.
My point being, that if we had the identical freedom we have today and happened to all be devout Muslim’s, they wouldn’t hate us at all.
They hated the Soviet Union. I wonder if Andropov told the Ruskies that they hated the USSR for their freedoms?
Cap’n, is Saudi Arabia a devout Muslim country? Does Al Qaeda believe that that Saudi Arabia allows too many freedoms (i.e. is not Islamic enough.?) A country can be totalitarian and still allow too many freedoms for a Taliban-like caliphate. I think your inclusion of the USSR lacks real understanding of what Al Qaeda views as freedom.



 
Written By: tom scott
URL: http://
I doubt its the "freedoms" Saudi Arabia has that offends OBL - rather, its the close ties of the Saudi regime to Western civilization. al-Qaeda doesn’t hate the Saudi people, just the monarchy, who have become removed from their Islamic civilizational roots and now live lives of debauchery and excess that (to AQ) symbolizes the corrupting influence of Western culture.

You know, it’s like DKos and other netroots sites that use surprisingly harsh criticism of Democratic politicians. Toe the party line completely or face their wrath. Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, not a theocracy; and I imagine that is central to OBL’s loathing.
 
Written By: James O
URL: http://
I for one am disgusted with people like Guliani suggesting that we’ll be attacked if we vote for democrats. There is a spectrum of potential strategies to protect America, and I understand that pols need to try and differentiate themselves and try to show they will do better than the other guys, but when they phrase it as an assertion that if you don’t elect Republicans, more Americans will die, I find it offensive, and counterintuitive based on recent history.
I don’t think you really are disgusted by that. The Democrats certainly are not, else they wouldn’t be arguing for their candidates and policies because those of the Republicans have, as they say, "made America less safe" (or variations thereof). That’s precisely the same message.

And, really, there’s nothing either remarkable or wrong with arguing that your opponent’s policies will be bad. That’s why there are two parties in the first place - they disagree, vehemently, about what would be good or bad.
Jon, everyone who speaks is going to say some dumb things, and Olbermann does his share, but if you put this kind of scrutiny on ANY of the Republican candidates or right wing pundits, you’d find it’s a lot easier to find goofy comments than it is with Olbermann’s comments.
Oh, it’s more than just that. In the interview, he also said Fox News was worse than al Qaeda. And there was this.

You won’t find me disagreeing much about many politicians being fairly unintelligent, though. Unfortunately, our electoral system doesn’t necessarily reward intelligence. Many people are where they are because they gave the popular answers, not because they actually understood the answers.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
Hey, this is the same Keith Olbermann who recently said that Fox News is worse than Al Qaeda and worse than the Ku Klux Klan.

Does anybody take this moron seriously?
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Does anybody take this moron seriously?
clearly, somebody is.
Mostly, those on the same side of the political aisle.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
(Sorry, Billy.... But I gotta ask....the entertainment value alone....)

Oliver,
Not even remotely off-topic, but I’ll never overestimate you fellas.


(Blink)
As far as I can see there’s nothing beyond that plank you’re stepping on, other than empty ocean, but, OK, I’ll shove .... get goin’...

Would you mind explaining to us how in the world your comment was even remotely on topic? On the surface these two situations would seem to be rather disparate ones. Yet somehow you have it worked out that the two topics are related. How, short of dain brammage, does one connect these dots?









 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
James O:
I doubt its the "freedoms" Saudi Arabia has that offends OBL - rather, its the close ties of the Saudi regime to Western civilization. al-Qaeda doesn’t hate the Saudi people, just the monarchy, who have become removed from their Islamic civilizational roots and now live lives of debauchery and excess that (to AQ) symbolizes the corrupting influence of Western culture.
James, al Qaeda is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization formed in 1928, and opposed to the secularization of Arab governments. While these governments were not noted for their freedoms they were entirely to free for the fundamentalists that wished to impose Shar’ia over all Arabic nations and eventually establish a world-wide caliphate. this short article in the New Yorker is a brief bio on bin Laden and outlines a very basic picture of the beginnings of radicalization. You’ll will find next to nothing about the debauchery of the monarchy-rather it’s lack of emphasis on Islamization.
 
Written By: tom scott
URL: http://
What are the real
titanium ingots and [url=http://www.titaniuexport.kiev.ua]titanium tube[/url] http://www.titaniuexport.kiev.ua
 
Written By: many reviews
URL: http://www.titaniuexport.kiev.ua
Why should we trust the Democrats to actively take on or hold off the insurgency when the past 5 years they have echoed their talking points and have done all both could do to criticize and sabotage the Presidents efforts to fight off terrorism?
 
Written By: Dan
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider