Olbermann: Who the heck takes this guy seriously? Typical liberal rebuttal.

[ponycar17]

This week Dick Cheney gave a speech discussing the post-9/11 United States and again asked that terror interrogation memos be released which would detail high-value information gathered from those interrogations. Below is a snippet of what Cheney said concerning the memos.

All above emphasis was added by me.

As far as the interrogations are concerned, all that remains an official secret is the information we gained as a result. Some of his defenders say the unseen memos are inconclusive, which only raises the question why they won’t let the American people decide that for themselves. I saw that information as vice president, and I reviewed some of it again at the National Archives last month. I’ve formally asked that it be declassified so the American people can see the intelligence we obtained, the things we learned, and the consequences for national security. And as you may have heard, last week that request was formally rejected. It’s worth recalling that ultimate power of declassification belongs to the President himself. President Obama has used his declassification power to reveal what happened in the interrogation of terrorists. Now let him use that same power to show Americans what did not happen, thanks to the good work of our intelligence officials.
I believe this information will confirm the value of interrogations – and I am not alone. President Obama’s own Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Blair, has put it this way: “High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.” End quote. Admiral Blair put that conclusion in writing, only to see it mysteriously deleted in a later version released by the administration – the missing 26 words that tell an inconvenient truth. But they couldn’t change the words of George Tenet, the CIA Director under Presidents Clinton and Bush, who bluntly said: “I know that this program has saved lives. I know we’ve disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us.” End of quote.

From http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblog...aei_speech.asp

Here's a transcript of what Keith Olbermann said about VP Dick Cheney's speech. Olbermann, in his second paragraph admits that he doesn't care if the memos proved with irrefutable fact the high-value information that was gained. This guy's a moron...

Finally tonight, as promised, a special comment about Mr. Cheney`s speech. Neurotic, paranoid, false to fact and false to reason, forever self-rationalizing his inner rage at his own impotence, and failure dripping from every word, and as irrational, as separated from the real world, as dishonest, as insane as any terrorist; the former vice president has today humiliated himself beyond redemption.

The delusional claims he has made this day could be proved by documentation and firsthand testimony to be the literal and absolute truth, and he still, himself, would be wrong because the America he sought to impose upon the world and upon its own citizens, the dark, hateful place of Dick Cheney`s own soul, the place he to this hour defends, and to this day prefers, is a repudiation of all that our ancestors, all that for which our brave troops of two years ago and two minutes ago, have sacrificed and fought.

I do have to congratulate you, sir. No man, living or dead, could have passed the buck more often that than you did in 35 minutes this morning. It`s not your fault that we water boarded people, you said. It isn`t torture, you said, even though it is, based on 111 years of American military prosecutions.

It was in the Constitution that you could do it, even if our laws told you you could not. It was in the language of the 2001 Military Authorization you force-fed the Congress that you could do it. Even if our international treaties told you you could not.

It produced valuable information, you said. Even though the first hand witnesses, the interrogators of these beasts, they said the information preceded the torture and ended when it began.

It was authorized, you said, by careful legal opinion, even though the legal opinions were dictated by and you your cronies. And, oh, by the way, the torture began before the legal opinions were even written.

It was authorized, you said. And you imply that even if it really wasn`t, it was done only to detainees of the highest intelligence value. It was more necessary, you said, because of the revelation of another program by the real villains of our time: the "New York Times." Even though that revelation was possible because the program was detailed on the front page of the website of a Defense Department subcontractor.

It was all the fault of your predecessor, you said, who tried to treat terror as a law enforcement problem before you came to the office and rode to the rescue, after you totally ignored terrorism for the first 20 percent of your first term and the worst attack on this nation in its history unfolded on your watch.

"9/11 caused everyone to take a serious second look at threats that had been gathering for a while," you said today, "and enemies whose plans were getting bolder and more sophisticated."

Gee, thanks for being motivated by the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans to go so far as to take a serious second look. And thank you, sir, for admitting, obviously inadvertently, that you did not take a serious first look in the seven months and 23 days between your inauguration and 9/11.

For that attack, sir, you are culpable, morally, ethically. At best, you are guilty of malfeasance and eternally lasting stupidity. At worst, sir, in the deaths of 9/11, you are negligent.

The circular logic and the self-righteous sophistry falls from a copy of Mr. Cheney`s speech like bugs from a book on a moldy shelf. He still believes in "dictators like Saddam Hussein with ties to Middle East terrorists." He still assumes everyone we capture is guilty without charge or trial, but that to prosecute law breaking by government officials is, quote, "to have an incoming administration criminalize the policy decisions of its predecessors."

And most sleazy of all, while calling the CIA`s torturers honorable, he insists the grunts at Abu Ghraib were "a sadistic prison guards who abused inmates in violation of law, military regulations and simple decency." Even though, and maybe he does not know we know though this -- even though there is documentary proof now that those guards were acting on the orders originating in the office of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld.

It is, in short, madness. Madness, sir, Mr. Cheney, your speech was almost entirely about you. There are only five or six other people even mentioned. And only two quoted at any length. And why would you have quoted, as you did, the man who said this, "I know that this program saved lives. I know we`ve disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us."

As you know, sir, you were quoting former CIA Director George Tenet. That would be the George Tenet who told Congress on February 11th, 2003, quote, "Iraq is harboring senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a close associate of al Qaeda."

Mr. Tenet, sir, then went into elaborate detail about the Iraq/al Qaeda connection. None of it was true. This is your source, as he was your boss`s source. "George, how confident are you," President Bush asked Tenet about Saddam Hussein`s weapons of mass destruction, just before the Iraq war, according to Bob Woodward`s book "Plan of Attack."

"Don`t worry," Tenet answers. "It`s a slam dunk."

That is your independent authority on how well torture worked. Next time you see him, Mr. Cheney, you might as well ask Mr. Tenet if he thinks he is Napoleon. I don`t want to know who you think you are.

"Those are the basic facts on enhanced interrogations," you concluded. "And to call this a program of torture is to libel the dedicated professionals who saved American lives, and to cast terrorists and murderers as innocent victims."

You saved no one, sir. If the classified documents you seek released really did detail plots other than those manufactured by drowning men in order to get it to stop, or if they truly did know plans beyond the laughable ones you and President Bush have already revealed, hijackers without passports, targeting a building whose name Mr. Bush could not remember, clowns who thought they could destroy airports by dropping matches in fuel pipelines 30 miles away, men who planned to attack a military base dressed as pizza delivery boys, forgetting that every man there was armed, and today, the four would-be synagogue bombers, one of whom turns out to keep bottles of urine in his apartment, and is on schizophrenia medicine.

If those documents contain anything of value, you would have leaked those already, as you leaked those revenge fantasies of the Library Tower and the JFK Bomber and the Ft. Dix Six.

"When they," terrorists, "see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have Constitutional rights, they don`t stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along," you said. "Instead, the terrorists see just what they were hoping for, our unity gone, our resolve shaken, our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity."

The weakness the terrorists see, sir, is the weakness of blind rage replacing essential cold logic. The weakness the terrorists see, sir, is the weakness of judgment suspended in favor of self-fulfilling prophecy. The weakness the terrorists see, sir, is the weakness of moral force supplanted by violence and revenge fantasies.

The weakness the terrorists see, sir, is the weakness of Dick Cheney. And yet still, ceaselessly, indefatigably, you moralize and lie to us.

"I might add," someone said today, "that people who consistently distort the truth in this way are in no position to lecture anyone about values." Very apt. The quote, of course, is from your speech. Your speech which was at essence about your fantasy that you and Mr. Bush were not negligent. Not your pig-headed certainty, but first these attacks were impossible; then they were a good excuse for a war you already planned in Iraq; and finally that they were to be imminently repeated and only you knew when the next threat would come.

You saved no one, Mr. Cheney. All you did was help kill Americans. You were negligent before 9/11. Your response to your complicity by omission on 9/11 was panic and shame and insanity, and lying this country into a war that did nothing but kill 4,299 more of us.

We will take no further instructions from you, sir. And let me again quote Oliver Cromwell to you, Mr. Cheney. "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of god, go."

That`s COUNTDOWN for this, the 2,212th day since the previous president declared mission accomplished in Iraq. I`m Keith Olbermann, good night and good luck.

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.

From http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...-any-terrorist

What in the world is wrong with people that they could listen to this guy's tirade, completely and utterly void of any cited evidence, and agree with him? Has our nation really sank so low as to be swayed by the rantings of someone with no offer of proof whatsoever? I notice this with a lot of liberal thinkers who spew forth talking points and never really offer evidence as to why they believe as they do. In fact, they get annoyed when I provide evidence to my stated case.

It's interesting when you watch Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity or even listen to Rush Limbaugh. They're always ready with sound bytes or video defending their position. Liberals just brute-force through arguments, offering nothing to prop up the rationale behind their belief set. This has to be why Liberal talk radio fails. There's no discussion where there are no facts to discuss.

Generally speaking, this childish behavior is the norm. It's sad!

Am I totally off base here? Do you find the same to be true?

[FJF0311]

Am I totally off base here? Do you find the same to be true?



You nailed it.

The hardest part of being a Conservative is, that you must reason your thoughts. You must be able to substantiate your arguments.

Libs need only read a headline, Gage their immediate feelings, then engage mouth. Then never absorb any thoughts that may prove their first reactions false.

[bcj1755]

Well, what do you expect. Our "president" uses the very same tactics.

[sabashimon]

Olbermann is the poster boy for all that is wrong today....for the direction being taken by our government, for the outrageous biases of the mainstream media, for the vicious and ubiquitous leftwing that attacks any and all who dare to disagree.
Olbermann and his ilk wouldn't last a minute if actually put in a position of having to don a uniform and defend the right of free speech that he so callously abuses, that right of his that so many have so selflessly paid the ultimate price for.
I would pay to see him forced to undergo military basic training (let alone actually being shot at for real!).....how long before that self-rightous smug look of his would turn into the blubbering, sobbing mass of puke that he is.
Speaking of which (puke), that's the almost uncontrollable urge I get just saying his name, let alone seeing that contemptible mug of his

[Trouble 45-70]

I am wondering, if Mr. Olbermann would have had the same opinion if he had been trapped in the upper stories of the towers that day. Heat and smoke so intense that after an hour of that torture, real torture inflicted by murdering mostly Arabic Muslems, the victims preferred to jump rather than wait for a hoped for rescue that could not possibly have come. Questioning of anyone who had knowledge of the attack at that time could not have occured because the dots could not have been connected due to regulations forbiding contact between the people with the different pieces of the puzzle. Questioning of the man who knew would have probably produced nothing in time to stop the attack. He may have been able to hold out long enough, even from waterboarding for the attack to occur.

[sabashimon]

Yeah....I myself have wondered how he and say, Pelosi would feel about waterboarding if a child of theirs were to be kidnapped and threatened with death, and one of the perps with knowledge of his whereabouts was caught.
Does anybody think that they wouldn't agree that no method was out of bounds in order to save their child?
Self-rightous hypocritical bastards.

[Trouble 45-70]

sabashimon, The self-rightous hypocritical bastards would try to bring pressure to have it done. Especialy Nancy. After all she is better than us. I know because of her contempt for us on almost any subject.

[Stays_Crunchy]

lol, I'm not saying I agree with everything (or anything necessarily) that Keith Olbermann says, but the REAL irony here is how you guys lambast him for everything he says but give your "fair" and "balanced" Fox News "journalists" a free pass. Talk about having your blinders on. I wouldn't take anything Glen Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, OR Keith Olbermann says at face value.

Just because their particular brand of outrageous self-rightous hypocracy happens to slant in your direction doesn't mean it's not still slanted...

[ponycar17]

Originally Posted by Stays_Crunchy

lol, I'm not saying I agree with everything (or anything necessarily) that Keith Olbermann says, but the REAL irony here is how you guys lambast him for everything he says but give your "fair" and "balanced" Fox News "journalists" a free pass. Talk about having your blinders on. I wouldn't take anything Glen Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, OR Keith Olbermann says at face value.

Just because their particular brand of outrageous self-rightous hypocracy happens to slant in your direction doesn't mean it's not still slanted...

I didn't say I'd give a free pass to Hannity or O'Reilly or Glenn Beck. What they do is back up what they say with sound bytes and/or video of what they're referring to, and then assert precisely why they believe as they do to the contrary. Olbermann did nothing of the sort in this case, and it is the norm for his kind.

Did you ever consider that Fox really was balanced, and the rest of the news agencies, such as CNN, MSNBC, etc, were really so far slanted to the left that they made Fox look like a slant to the right?... Let's take a look at the 'Fair and Balanced' claim by Fox News in its fullest sense... the 2008 election coverage...

Below, you can find analysis of coverage from the 2008 election on two media outlets conducted by the non-partisan PEW MRC Institute. Take a close look at how Fox handled McCain and Obama as compared to MSNBC, the child of parent company and media GIANT NBC....



From http://www.journalism.org/node/13436

Does that scare you as to what you're digesting as fact on the evening news?

Maybe we all need to more critically analyze the news we're viewing?...

[dge479]

Olberman is an assclown. It is amazing anyone watches at all.

[45nut]

Certainly not me. I can honestly say that the only remarks of his that I have heard were in sound bites on Levin, Hannity, Beck & Rush's shows. I have never listened to one minute of MSLSD or any of that other crap. Of course, it's easy because I don't have cable anymore, but I will soon rectify that.

He is a no talent a$$clown.

[Stays_Crunchy]

Let me ask you this, did you watch that particular edition of Countdown and form your own opinions before you read about it on a webpage who's motto is "Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias" or are you just regurgitating their article? I watch Countdown sometimes, just like I watch O'Reilly and Beck sometimes, and Olbermann does cite sources and provide soundbites.

There's a TV in the customer waiting area where I work, and it's tuned to Fox News for my entire 10+ hour shift. All day long I hear their nasty little commentaries and them conducting their biased interviews. I see the chart about the election coverage and I won't attempt dispute it at all, I'm sure it's accurate. According to the article that accompanies that chart however, Fox News' coverage of Obama was more negative than the norm. Not to the extent that MSNBC's was anti-McCain, but more than other media outlets nonetheless. Also, the regular nightly newscasts (including NBC) were more balanced overall than anything on cable, and in fact NBC led the way with positive coverage of Sarah Palin -- even moreso than Fox.

Charts and statistics aside, all I know is that for 10+ hours a day, 5+ days a week, all I hear over and over and over again is the Fox News personalities slamming everything Democrat/Liberal with the sort of pompous self-important condescending attitude that just makes you want to strangle someone. They generally provide two sides to every story: Their side and the wrong side. If that same TV was tuned to MSNBC all day, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that their gross Liberal bias would boil my blood just as hot and I'd be on here bitching about it as well. But as it is, all I have to work with is Fox News, so that's what I choose to hate on today.

And I agree with your last statement 110%... we all need to critically analyze the biased filth spewed forth from our TV's, laughingly labeled "news" once in a while.

[ponycar17]

Actually, StaysCrunchy, I didn't read about it on Newsbusters.com. I heard the transcript elsewhere and did a Google search to find the contents. It just so happened that Newsbusters had the transcript.

I don't need them to tell me how to interpret what Mr. Olbermann said. Read it. Everything contained in his rant is conjecture, unsupported by any fact. Phrases like "The delusional claims" or "No man, living or dead, could have passed the buck more often that than you did in 35 minutes this morning." are unsupported in what Olbermann cited in Cheney's speech. Olbermann is forcing an opinion and offering nothing for documentation. The 'tone' of his commentary is demeaning in nature. I learned about 'tone' back in 10th grade, before Google by the way...

So, I don't have to watch an Olbermann marathon on MSNBC to spot the intentional purely conjecture-based argument, backed by nothing. To be honest, I rarely watch Olbermann, O'Reilly or Hannity. I often hear stories on the radio and research them further when I get to a computer.

We can agree though, that the news we hear should be more thoroughly scrutinized though...

[DEADEYE1964]

Originally Posted by dge479

Olberman is an assclown. It is amazing anyone watches at all.

I agree, the same people watch him who made it to the polls on November
4th to vote for Hussein. He is a typical Liberal that can't accept the facts.

[45nut]

Originally Posted by DEADEYE1964

I agree, the same people watch him who made it to the polls on November
4th to vote for Hussein. He is a typical Liberal that can't accept the facts.

AMEN!!!!!!!!!

[ckill1]

I just wish I could carry Ponycar17 around in my back pocket, to remove anytime I need a good argument. You, Sir, know how to phrase your replies and back them up with proof in a way I can only hope to achieve. Excellent points and well presented...bravo!


Chris

[ponycar17]

Originally Posted by Stays_Crunchy

Let me ask you this, did you watch that particular edition of Countdown and form your own opinions before you read about it on a webpage who's motto is "Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias" or are you just regurgitating their article?

I need to comment on this some more...

If you'll notice, I only quoted their article in as much as it quoted verbatim the MSNBC transcript. I accidentally quoted the last line of Newsbusters' actual content below...

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.

For that, I apologize... That was my laziness for not deleting the last line.

So, if you're bashing my sources, you're actually bashing MSNBC.

I actually didn't read the Newsbusters' article in its entirety. My concern was ONLY the transcript. It showed up first in the Google search...

If I had wanted to quote their entire article, I would have posted this above the transcript...

Olbermann Calls Dick Cheney 'As Insane As Any Terrorist'
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
May 22, 2009 - 10:32 ET
MSNBC's Keith Olbermann has said a lot of disgraceful things in his tenure as "Countdown" host, but on Thursday evening, he attacked former Vice President Dick Cheney in a fashion that should make all of America's enemies both here and abroad proud.

To give you an idea of the level of hatred and invective on display, this was the opening sentence of Olbermann's "Special Comment" concerning Cheney's speech to the American Enterprise Institute Thursday:

Neurotic, paranoid, false to fact and false to reason, forever self-rationalizing his inner rage at his own impotence, and failure dripping from every word, and as irrational, as separated from the real world, as dishonest, as insane as any terrorist; the former vice president has today humiliated himself beyond redemption.
But that was just the beginning, for moments later, Olbermann said Cheney was "culpable, morally, ethically" for 9/11: "At best, you are guilty of malfeasance and eternally lasting stupidity. At worst, sir, in the deaths of 9/11, you are negligent."

What follows is a video of this abomination along with a full transcript, some lowlights, and videos of Cheney's actual speech:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓



The delusional claims he has made this day could be proved by documentation and firsthand testimony to be the literal and absolute truth, and he still, himself, would be wrong because the America he sought to impose upon the world and upon its own citizens, the dark, hateful place of Dick Cheney`s own soul, the place he to this hour defends, and to this day prefers, is a repudiation of all that our ancestors, all that for which our brave troops of two years ago and two minutes ago, have sacrificed and fought.
I do have to congratulate you, sir. No man, living or dead, could have passed the buck more often that than you did in 35 minutes this morning. It`s not your fault that we water boarded people, you said. It isn`t torture, you said, even though it is, based on 111 years of American military prosecutions.
Gee, thanks for being motivated by the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans to go so far as to take a serious second look. And thank you, sir, for admitting, obviously inadvertently, that you did not take a serious first look in the seven months and 23 days between your inauguration and 9/11. For that attack, sir, you are culpable, morally, ethically. At best, you are guilty of malfeasance and eternally lasting stupidity. At worst, sir, in the deaths of 9/11, you are negligent.
You saved no one, sir. If the classified documents you seek released really did detail plots other than those manufactured by drowning men in order to get it to stop, or if they truly did know plans beyond the laughable ones you and President Bush have already revealed, hijackers without passports, targeting a building whose name Mr. Bush could not remember, clowns who thought they could destroy airports by dropping matches in fuel pipelines 30 miles away, men who planned to attack a military base dressed as pizza delivery boys, forgetting that every man there was armed, and today, the four would-be synagogue bombers, one of whom turns out to keep bottles of urine in his apartment, and is on schizophrenia medicine.
You saved no one, Mr. Cheney. All you did was help kill Americans. You were negligent before 9/11. Your response to your complicity by omission on 9/11 was panic and shame and insanity, and lying this country into a war that did nothing but kill 4,299 more of us. We will take no further instructions from you, sir. And let me again quote Oliver Cromwell to you, Mr. Cheney. "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of god, go."
Here's what Cheney said on Thursday:

However, I had no desire to perpetuate Newsbusters' article. I had an opinion of my own...

Hey, I just thought I'd correct a misconception...

[ponycar17]

Originally Posted by ckill1

I just wish I could carry Ponycar17 around in my back pocket, to remove anytime I need a good argument. You, Sir, know how to phrase your replies and back them up with proof in a way I can only hope to achieve. Excellent points and well presented...bravo!


Chris

Thanks Chris but I'd be pretty bulky in your back pocket.

I'm humbled by your comments which I probably don't fully deserve. My wife says I analyze stuff way too much. I'm sure she's right to a large extent.

[GMFWoodchuck]

This whole thing with the water-boarding thing is a big joke just to cover something else up. Even the people on Mythbusters willingly subjected themselves to it. And lasted quite a while if I remember correctly. It's not like they shoved bamboo slivers under their fingernails like what some of our vet's have been subjected to in wars past.

[ponycar17]

There were 3 people water-boarded. One of those led to intelligence that likely thwarted a plot to fly an airliner into downtown Los Angeles. The left continued to dramatize this issue until one of their own got caught in knowing about the interrogation tactic. Have you noticed that since Nancy Pelosi has been implicated as being knowledgeable of the tactic, how it has suddenly disappeared from the mainstream media? Interesting, huh?...

[walien]

I put about as much faith in Oberman's opinions and I do in The Weekly Standard. I wouldn't worry too much about what he says. To someone who thinks for themselves, it's not different than watching the O'Rielly factor or any other partisan quasi-newscast. The people who watch either are almost always automatically voting one way regardless. Much better things to get yourself worked up about than what is on fringe news outlets like CNBC or FoxNews.

[ponycar17]

Originally Posted by walien

I put about as much faith in Oberman's opinions and I do in The Weekly Standard. I wouldn't worry too much about what he says. To someone who thinks for themselves, it's not different than watching the O'Rielly factor or any other partisan quasi-newscast. The people who watch either are almost always automatically voting one way regardless. Much better things to get yourself worked up about than what is on fringe news outlets like CNBC or FoxNews.

The Weekly Standard was also used only as a source for a transcript. In this case it was Cheney's speech transcript that they provided based on a Google search. Of course the Weekly Standard is partisan. I'm much more comfortable looking at media that is openly partisan such as the Weekly Standard or the Huffington Post than MSNBC or NBC for that matter, both of whom masquerade as legitimate news outlets but prefer to sway their audience to the left.

As far as Fox, please do analyze the above PEW chart. I think you'll find that Fox was fairly neutral to political candidates. Perception is everything. When most media outlets are so far left it's difficult to digest that Fox is actually in the middle.

It's sad that Conservatives have to rally around a middle-ground media outlet because they have nothing else to rally around further to the right.