# Olbermann to Bush: "A special comment about lying"



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Everyone who participates in this politics forum should take the time to listen to this in it's entirety...

Not saying i agree or disagree with this... Just thought it is an interesting vid. I will say this however... This is the kind of thing freedom of speech is meant for.

My point being is that it doesn't matter which way you politically lean. President Bush is getting out of control. He is now wearing thin on almost all of his fellow Republican supporters. His recent comments make it appear he is further detached from the majority of public opinion than ever before, and he is coming across as someone who is striking out at everyone in a desperate attempt at justifying his agenda.

There are points in this video that I (and I'm certain you) will not agree with. However I urge you to listen to the bigger overarching message being presented....

My personal support has been slipping for Bush over this summer. Listening to Keith Olbermann's speech finally put into a concise comment what I'm feeling about him right now....

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/42664

Regards,

Ryan

---------------------------------------------------------

Here is the full transcript of Olbermann's speech:



> ".....While the leadership in Congress has self-destructed over the revelations of an unmatched, and unrelieved, march through a cesspool &#8230;
> 
> While the leadership inside the White House has self-destructed over the revelations of a book with a glowing red cover &#8230;
> 
> ...


------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

You right I don't agree with it.

I personally believe the democrats( and some republicans) in congress have done everything they can to derail Bushes efforts to protect this country purely out of political spite with no regard for the country. They and the media and that they are both guilty of treason.

IF our congress had shown a united front thoughout this war our enemies would be discouraged not encouraged as they are from our lack of unity.

A lack of unity that is purely based on partisanship.

One of Bushes great strengths is he doesn't give a damn about the uninformed opinions of our a pathetic geopolitically ignorant public, whose opinions which are derived from partisan media coverge which is extremely distorted.

In a representative republic such as ours politicians are supposed to do what they believe is the right thing based on knowledge that neither the "public" or the leftist media in this country has ( except that the political opposition within our goernment leaks it to the media, without regard for national security).

Presidents, good ones anyway, make hard decisions without regard to what "public Opinion" is, Bush is one of the few presidents we have had in this country that has the strength of character to do that. Reagan was the last one. Bushes father and Clinton help their finger in the political wind or did nothing.

Most of the public, I bet close to 90 % of the people you know Ryan couldn't name their congressmen or senators and couldn't tell you jack about their position on important issues, "public opinion" isn't worth a bucket of cold piss.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bush and perhaps every other politician ticks me off on one thing. Border security. As far as the democrats they are so weak when it comes to national security that it would lead one to believe they would take no action until attacked. I wonder if they would fight or beg if we were attacked again? These politicians are all making me sick. 
I wouldn't say these democrats are guilty of treason. Most have been pampered so much all their lives they don't realize that there are people in this world that you can't reason with or negotiate with. Tell me how you would negotiate with some maniac that thinks he is going to get 70 virgins for killing an Israeli. 
The republicans are to much for business, and the democrats are to much for welfare, to weak on defense, and it bothers me just to think of their shortcomings. 
We need a third party, but how can they succeed? I would like to see a party that takes defense seriously, takes environmental issues seriously, cares about their fellow man, but doesn't make welfare so far reaching that they are using it to buy votes, a party that doesn't dump on any part of our constitution, ------- well, I can dream can't I?


----------



## sevendogs (Sep 19, 2003)

Bush himself is to blame in failures of his presidency. We elected an intelelctual and moral (tortures) dwarf as our president. Things are going worse in Iraq and in Afghanistan, there are more killed and tortured people then there was under Saddam rule, our budget is in a hole, Asian nations are going in a new arm race, including nukes and international terrorism is alive and dangerous...


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

The exact same rhetoric from the left claimed that Reagan was wrong about the Soviet Union,

that they would nuke us as aresult of Reagans doctrine-they didn't

that the Berlin Wall wouldn't fall- it did

that diplomacy was the answer- it wasn't

same with Chamberlin in England- he was wrong

the isalmic jihadist is the current and in many respects most dangerous version of evil the wolrd has ever faced with a stated intent of total world domination and death to all that oppose it.

Yet the Democrats want to negotiate and use sanctions ( don't work and never have look at Cuba and North Korea for example)

And our idiotic public opinion should somehow matter?

I don't agree with Bush about the mexican border or the lack of vetos on domestic spending in an attempt to get along with the congress, but he is the only one in our government that seems to recognize what we are up against with the Islamic Jihadists.

ANd because we are a country of television idiots that expect a neat quick resolution like some flick on TV he is losing the support of the people that only understand what the leftist media wants them to understand.

Unfortunately the republicans in congress are wimps and the democrats are worse.

The Republicans will probably ( and deservedly lose in these elections)
if they do and the dems cut and run ( which every indication is that they will because the dems in congress are controlled by the far left in this country) the islamic jihadists will see it as a victory, but not the end.

In the Jihadist mind it is incremental war that we are too weak to fight long term.

I forecast a a nuke or dirty bomb going off in this country as a result of the dems inability to stand up to the unholy alliance of dictators like Kim jung dipstick in North Korea, ABu whats his name in Iran, and the lunatic running Venezuela.

If that takes place our economy will be destroyed for many years people will flee our cities and this world will sink into a very bloody world war, much worse than the course of hunting down jihadists in the middle east.

Lots of Americans are going to end up dead or living under a Taliban type existance, unless of course somelike Bush stands up to them.

Thats the choice, the only choice acceptable to the Jihadist die or be subjagated to their rule and they have stated this goal many times.

*ANd our Congressional weenies want to fight them under a set of rules that are not applicable to this century *that were designed to fight the armies of nation states not ashadowy bunch of cutthroats that have only one rule to win at any cost to use any tactic to even use their own children as bombs.

Its a very different enemy and Bush has it right we cannot continue to use 20th century tatics and rules. Tactics and rules that haven't worked for the last 35 years against this enemy.

And the same A-holes in congress that claim to have such a respect for the constitution willingly tweak it, claim it to be a "living document" ect for their own goals.

Now because they don't have the guts to stand up for freedom ( and even worse its really about regaining internal political power and control of the congressional purse strings) somehow its sacrosanct uke:

Yes the Dems in congress should be held for treason, history will not treat them well on this issue and they will deserve it.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

> We need a third party, but how can they succeed? I would like to see a party that takes defense seriously, takes environmental issues seriously, cares about their fellow man, but doesn't make welfare so far reaching that they are using it to buy votes, a party that doesn't dump on any part of our constitution, ------- well, I can dream can't I?


Well said Plainsmen.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

AMEN, Bobm :beer:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

So has everyone who has replied actually watched the video in its entirety before replying? If not, then I'd suggest that you are simply playing partisan politics and taking the party stance without considering the message...

:eyeroll:

Ryan


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Why would anyone need to watch a video if that is the full transcript in your post?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ryan

I watched the whole thing. "in the bowels of Christ", what the heck is that supposed to mean.? He was so emotional and stated things as fact that we don't know yet. I felt he was purposely misleading. Very hyperbolic. The tone of his voice, and his choice of words were simply meant to inflame the liberal faithful, and confuse the fence sitters. I like to hear facts, and he was so emotional he really turned me off. I don't much trust either side, rather I believe the old adage how do you tell if a politician is lying --- his lips are moving. It becomes more true with each passing year.

I think it was Clinton that made the statement that (after some of the lesser terrorist bombings) he felt it was a law enforcement situation. He didn't rule out military, but he did state that the FBI should handle it because it was a law enforcement situation.

I am terribly disappointed in the republicans, and only a liberal democrat could drive me to vote for a republican. Once again we will vote not for someone we like, but for who we dislike the least.

I don't think democrats will intentionally wait for another attack, but I think that is what will happen. They are so inept at national defense, and will try again and again for some type of diplomacy even after several failures. I think they would try diplomacy with a stone. Very admirable, but foolish. They are not realistic about some of these maniacs. The democrats of the past would have taken care of these terrorists, but not the liberal democrats of today. Our nation is a sitting duck with them in power. I think many of these liberals have never faced adversity in their lives, hence their state of naivety.

As far as Bush violating the constitution that is a point very much contested. The democrats it appears will make some political hay of this view point. They have attempted to stop it, and I think that is a mistake. I question whether it is in defense of the constitution since they have no qualms about violating the second amendment. I think it is simply for political advantage.

This is much like watching the news this week-end and hearing commentators say that America is waiting for the economy to turn around. Why, do they want it to get bad? Has no one noticed that the DOW is at a record high? This speech of Olbermann was just more of the same rhetoric we have heard for years, Bush lied, Bush lied, Bush lied. Expect them to get even more hysterical as the elections approach. Both sides for that matter.

I am terribly disappointed in the republicans, and only a liberal democrat could drive me to vote for a republican. Once again we will vote not for someone we like, but for who we dislike the least.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ryan your a nice kid and one that makes good choices based on what I've read about your posts,on career choices and moving out of ND.

Partisans wrote that piece, partisans make up the congress, and thats what Bush is struggling with.

To say I'm a republican partisan after all the critical stuff I write about them just means you don't follow this forum very closely.

The only person involved our government that is serious about fighting the Jihadists is Bush and every other thing he does I don't agree with ( and there are many) are way down the list in importance.

None of it will matter when kim jung ill who has only drugs, counterfeit american money, missle technology and NOW nuclear weapons sells them to the Iranians.
When the Iranians have them they will attack Israel setting off aworld nuclear war which will disrupt the supply of oil and destroy the wrold economy for many years, to say nothing of the millions that will die.
The Iranians will probably also give those nukes to Al quaida or the like for importation into the US for the obvious intention of destroying the "great Satan" the country you live in. They will do this because of the people in your article, the Jihadists don't respect anything but strength the democrats show nothing but weakness.

And so far with the exception of Liberman ( and they are trying to kick him out of the democrat party) the democrats don't care about this threat and the republicans in congress aren't much better.

The republicans in congress are their own worst enemy they fear public opinion, the Democrats in Congress see the republicans as the enemy because they are a obstacle to them getting the power of the huge national purse strings back.

Bush sees who the enemy really is....and if supporting the president for fighting people that want to kill me, kill my children, and destroy this country and who have stated this goal publicly makes me a partisan in your opinion, I can live with that.

If more of us do we all might get to live period.

This is without a doubt the biggest threat this country has ever faced


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

A recent ad on the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
website opened with the words, "Security Under Bush and GOP?" It
claimed "North Korea has quadrupled its nuclear arsenal," and included
footage of a tank and North Korea President Kim Jong Il.

The ad ended, "Feel safer? Vote for change."

*Democrats have been hoping we'll all completely forget history*. Yes, North Korea is an incredibly
dangerous nuclear member of the axis of evil, and for that we can thank
Bill Clinton:

In the spring of 1992 brutal North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung
allowed International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] inspectors, led
by none other than Hans Blix, into his country. Kim claimed they
had "a tiny quantity [of plutonium] &#8230; far from the amount you
need for a weapon," reported Blix, according to The Washington Post.
*But covert tests showed that the North Koreans had actually
reprocessed massive amounts of plutonium - enough for several
bombs, *reports Jasper Becker in the definitive Rogue Regime (Oxford
University Press). When the IAEA asked for access to nuclear waste
sites to investigate further, the North Koreans balked.

In 1993, North Korea declared it would withdraw from the Non-
Proliferation Treaty [NPT] unless certain demands were met: "U.S.
diplomatic recognition, the end of economic sanctions, one million
tons in grain, half a million tons of fuel oil per year &#8230; and the delivery
of two light-water reactors worth over $4.5 billion. The Koreans
were quite specific about the sort of reactors they wanted and only
these would do." notes Becker. Absurd.
By 1994, tensions between North Korea, South Korea, the IAEA, the
UN, and the U.S. were mounting; actual military conflict loomed.
But then, a savior appeared. Yes, the Clinton Administration sent in
none other than Jimmy Carter, who Kim Il Sung once referred to
as "a man of justice," to take a swing at peace - but only as a private
citizen. (Clinton was worried about looking "weak" with the
ex-presidential help.)
From June 16 to 19, 1994, Carter rubbed elbows with Kim for a few
days and then "dropped American demands that UN inspections
resume and that North Korea surrender its spent fuel rods &#8230;
[Carter] even said that the U.S. was dropping its support for sanctions
at the UN, which wasn't true," writes Stephen Hayward in The
Real Jimmy Carter (Regnery). Without the Clinton Administration's
knowledge, Carter then popped up on CNN declaring he sweettalked
Kim into going back to the negotiating table in Geneva.
It was at the Geneva talks that the Clinton Administration bent over
and grabbed the ankles, despite the death of Kim Il Sung on July 8,
1994 (at which time his wacko son Kim Jong Il inherited "supreme
power"). The "Agreed Framework" was signed by the United States
and North Korea on Oct. 21, 1994 in Geneva. The Framework
promised, as Becker put it, "to reward Pyongyang's breaches of international
nuclear safeguards by giving it more nuclear power stations."
Yes, the Clinton Administration gave in to the demands
of a deceiving, nefarious, nuclear-hungry, gulag-building, peoplestarving,
Communist regime.
Not only were the nuclear reactors pledged; Clinton also agreed to
supply the North with 500,000 metric tons of fuel oil annually, as
well as tons of grain - all in return for a promise to "freeze" all
nuclear-weaponry ambitions. Clinton even provided the North
Koreans, writes Becker, "with a written assurance that the United
States was not contemplating launching an attack [or] seeking the
destruction of North Korea." Kim was home free.
How could North Korea experience one of history's deadliest famines
during the 90s while receiving tons of grain/aid from America? The
U.S., as Newsweek reports, "did not know where most of the food was
going after military trucks hauled it away." Turns out, most of the
food went to the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea [DPRK] army,
and Clinton happily looked the other way, eager to shore up his reputation
for "diplomacy" and "engagement" with adversaries.
The Clinton Administration's 1995 National Intelligence Estimate
flatly stated that "no country, other than the major declared nuclear
powers, will develop or otherwise acquire a ballistic missile in the next
15 years that could threaten the contiguous 48 states and Canada."
By Feb. 1997, Madeleine Albright had officially shrugged off any
concerns about North Korean deception, bragging: "The Framework
Agreement is one of the best things the [Clinton] Administration has
done because it stopped a nuclear weapons program in North Korea."

On Aug. 31, 1998, North Korea launched a three-stage Taepo
Dong-1 rocket, with a range of 1,500-2,000 kilometers, over Japan,
landing off the Alaska coast.

*During a 1999 Senate Committee on Foreign Relations hearing,
Albright made a blink-and-you'll-miss-it admission that things
weren't rosy in Agreed-Framework-land: "We are also engaged in
direct talks with North Korea on ways to resolve concerns regarding
suspicious underground construction activities and long-range missile
programs."*

In 2000, mounting evidence at the underground Kumchang-ri
site forced the Clinton Administration to actually confront the
possibility that their Agreed Framework was, well, a load of poppycock.
They asked Kim Jong Il to allow inspections. *Kim refused*. So
Clinton sent him 600,000 tons of grain. :eyeroll:

In June 2000, the Japanese and Chinese were able to confirm reports
of another underground uranium processing plant in Choma, about
17 miles away from Kumchang-ri.

*The final Clintonian gesture *was to send Albright herself over
to Pyongyang in Oct. 2000 on a first-ever official U.S. visit (granting
Kim Jong Il his long-sought-after legitimacy). Nothing was
actually accomplished, but Kim and Maddy clinked wine glasses
and exchanged starry eyes. As Albright told PBS's Jim Leher:
"Basically, you know, we've had such weird stories about him, but it
turns out that we had very good discussions&#8230;. And he seems pragmatic
&#8230; not hostile."

Guess what the North Koreans admitted to in 2002? "[P]ursuing a
secret nuclear weapons program using enriched uranium in violation of
its 1994 pledge to freeze its nuclear program," reported The Los Angeles
Times. "A senior official later acknowledged that the Communist
nation was pursuing the nuclear weapons program 'and more.'"

*But don't expect the Clinton crowd to take responsibility for nuking up
one of the world's most evil regimes. * :eyeroll:

Here's a Sept. 12, 2004 exchange
between Albright and Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet the Press":
Russert: But didn't North Korea develop a nuclear bomb on Bill
Clinton's watch?
Albright: No, what they were doing, as it turns out, they were cheating
&#8230; The worst part that has happened under the Agreed Framework,
there was [sic] these fuel rods, and the nuclear program was frozen.
Those fuel rods have now been reprocessed, as far as we know, and
North Korea has a [nuclear] capability."
*Cheating? The North Koreans? Who'da thunk?* ■
Clinton's North Korea Legacy
"North Korea cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear bomb."
- Bill Clinton, Nov. 7, 1993

SO don't be a partisan like me vote Democratic vote for a party that has give North Korea nukes and given China the means to deliver nukes to main land US. Obviously they are the best choice when national security is the issue.. You can count on them to stand up to the Iranians just like they did when carter was in office.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Bobm said:


> Ryan your a nice kid and one that makes good choices based on what I've read about your posts,on career choices and moving out of ND.


Bob/Plainsman I wasn't referring to you both...

I was resonding with my previous post that it seemed others were just jumping on the bashing bandwagon without having watched the video.

I realized I posted the transcript here too...as the last portion got chopped off the video.

Like I mentioned in my original post on this thread, I don't subscribe to every single point being made... in fact I disagree with certain things he was stating as facts.

However I am frustrated with Bush and how he handles his message, and how his political style is causing this rift among all Americans. People choose to belong to one political party or another for reasons that are very strong and personal.

No two people will completely agree on all things political. The problem Bush has is that he continually appears to be bull headed and not heed advice or listen to public opinion. He blindly believes his agenda is the only way to go about things. Even when people like former Generals with experience offer advice that counter his beliefs he goes in his own direction.

Now I realize that the majority of Americans are sheep being led to decisions based on media slant. No disagreement there. However we have an international community of neighbors who have been ardent staunch supporters of America being the world's bouncer who are now calling for restraint from this president. We should take pause and wonder why our former allies are now all of a sudden more cautious.

In regards to domestic policy, I'm not happy that Bush has run roughshod over the constitution on a wide variety of topics. I'm all for the wire tapping, however has gone on to mold the presidency into a all powerful position without the necessary checks and balances. We now have presidential "signing statements" that the president created so that he can limit how much he has to follow a particular law drafted by another part of those checks and balances. I could go on and on... but my gosh... I'm not making this stuff up. Bush is basically making the president branch into something of a pseudo throne.

He is now going on the attack against members of congress, former generals, etc, and comparing them to terrorists? C'mon!

I listened to that speech he gave. I was dumbstruck at his audacity.

BTW... I don't consider myself Republican nor Democrat. I completely with Plainsman on his political stance of a 3rd party somewhere in between. I prefer to vote on issues and not party lines. I prefer logic and common sense, and learning from sources outside of mainstream America.

Bob I've always respected your posts. They get me thinking. They show me things I haven't considered. I agree with a ton of your logic. I didn't start this thread looking to discredit anyone on Nodak, or to argue over points. Ohh.. I also wanted to assure you I wasn't calling you Republican partisan.... Thanks for giving me some stuff to chew on.....

I guess I was just venting some frustrations on politics in general, and with the recent turn of world events that is stacking up, things are coming to a head in the world really soon.

Regards,

Ryan


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ryan signing statements are old news, long before Bush or Clinton you need to read up more.

Bush isn't bullheaded he is correct about the Congress and a lot of the so called military experts, 535 of the congess members should be imprisoned for the way they have conducted themselves.

Public opinion isn't something he should consider if hes a leader.
As I've stated many times the public doesn't know what they are talking about.

Our "allies" with very few exceptions are cowards giving up their countries to socialism and Islam. The muslims are winning though slow steady infiltration and the Europeons stand by and lets their culture die on the vine.

and this stuff will frustrate you more the more you understand it so get used to that :beer:

Tell me one Muslim country you would like to live in.

Don't fall prey to the propaganda out there study the issue further, your really not understading whats going on, its complex..


----------



## sevendogs (Sep 19, 2003)

Bush started this war for his own glory. He used deception to drag our country into this war, but he and his administration were lacking expertise in politics and in military strategy. Now, we all are going to pay the price. I am proud that I did not vote for Bush.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Hows Bullwinkle doing? :lol:


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

Ryan is right, and I'm inclined to think the arrogance and condesention that Bush and Bobm display is going to force a voter backlash next month.

That's right, I included you Bob.

"Ryan, your a nice kid." "you need to read up more," public doesn't know what their talking about," "this stuff will frusterate you more than you understand,"

That kind of condesention is what helps drive the ignorant, illiterate, media whipped public, (me,) to support the other guys.

Beating us over the head with I know whats best rhetoric doesn't work when your talking to free voting Americans. Ignorant (in your view,) or not, we're going to make decisions and vote the way we think is right. I've been brow beaten by "W's"regiem for too long, next month I'm voting Libertarian.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

FYI I am a registered libertarian, and the public doesn't know what the heck is going on, if they did there would probably be a revolution in this country.



> "W's"regiem for too long, next month I'm voting Libertarian.


and your point is you are going to throw away your vote ??? I know you don't want the Dems to win, as bad as the repubs are the Dems in Congress are worse

but your post makes my point about ignorance nicely

W will still be in office nothing your vote does will change that and he will not ever have to run again so look at the bigger picture, its kin to the republicans *****ing about Clinton.

Look forward not backward.

Ryan is a smart kid and I like and respect him, that doesn't mean he cannot study the topic in greater detail, if he does I think his viewpoint will change.

Mine does,

I've just been studying this stuff religiously since I graduated college 30 years ago and so I have a big head start on Ryan.

Hes probably smarter than I am I just have a big head start on him. He will catch up, you probably will also, Ryan will just do it sooner

PS Ryan I never meant it to be condesending. I tend to be blunt :beer:


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

Wow! 
We sure are lucky to have folks out there willing to tell us whats what!

Say Bob, I was hoping you'd be willing to fill out my ballot. Can you vote by proxy for me or something like that? I mean you being the pinnacle of wisdom, education and experience and all,.........well heck, you just seem to know better than I do,..............Maybe you'd be willing to just run everything!

Best of luck brother.


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

I should have also noted that by your last two posts you've made it apparent that you have every intention of being condesending.

Now me saying that is blunt.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Well Arctic, are you any better informed, is your judgement any better than it was 10 years ago??

Mine is and it will be even better 10 years from now, thats the normal progression of judement and reason for most people, and the primary reason that virtually every society on earth lets the elder folks make the important decisions.

Maybe age and experience doesn't benefit you, some folks are too close minded to keep learning.

And too sensitive to recognize it.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Bobm is right Artic..........
Give the people of this great Nation a little credit for not being totally naieve! This crap the Dem's are pulling out of their butts is going to backfire on them again. The Dem's are in NO WAY any better then the GOP, they deney and fight when their caught F'ing up! Does that make them better???
Besides that,.... democrates have ZERO chance of fooling Alaskans what their about, we like our GUNS and Hunting way too much to lose our rights we have now to a "democrat". :beer:


----------



## snoduf (Jul 27, 2006)

Kieth Olberman is a fool. He was fired from ESPN,because he refused to follow the rules. was always giving a political slant at the end of Sports Center.

Just before the 9/11 anniversary this year he went on a tirade against GWB,because GW hadn't placed a memorial at ground zero. Yet it took 41 years to dedicate the USS Arizona memorial at Pearl Harbor.
19 years to dedicate the Iwo Jima Memorial in DC
59 years to dedicate the WW2 Memorial in DC all to this nations Greatest Generation.

To Mr. Olberman I would say things take time,yet over 400,000 Americans gave all the time they had in WW2,down to their dying breath,so a FOOL like Olberman has the freedom to speew his venom.


----------

