Olbermann is officially a Grade A Moonbat

[kg_veteran]

From his show yesterday on MSNBC:

For, on this first full day that the Military Commissions Act is in force, we now face what our ancestors faced, at other times of exaggerated crisis and melodramatic fear-mongering:

A government more dangerous to our liberty, than is the enemy it claims to protect us from.

To watch the entire unfortunate 8 minute rant where he repeatedly calls George Bush a liar and basically says Bush has destroyed America, click here.

With a few notable exceptions, that's the mentality you're electing if you put Democrats in office.

[Drbio]

Olbermann sucks Dan Patricks nutsack.

[Male30Dan]

Originally Posted by Drbio

Olbermann sucks Dan Patricks nutsack.

Ahhh... So you do have something in common with Olbermann!

[Drbio]

Ba-Zing!

homo.

[Male30Dan]

Hi pot... My name is kettle!

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

From his show yesterday on MSNBC:



To watch the entire unfortunate 8 minute rant where he repeatedly calls George Bush a liar and basically says Bush has destroyed America, click here.

With a few notable exceptions, that's the mentality you're electing if you put Democrats in office.

I've been a life-long Republican. Well, for the last 15 years of voting eligibility, anyway. But I am sick and tired of these guys.

You can demean Olbermann all you want, but at least he gives a rationale for his way of thinking. At least he finds historical precedence. Yes, he did go over the line at least once. And yes, he did use some questionable logic at one point. But for the most part, his nine-minute "rant" had traction.

I'm here to tell you, KG, the Republicans are in trouble. Big trouble. Big trouble in little China. When people like me, who to this point have detested the Democratic party like the plague, are finding reasons to vote for them, the Republicans are in trouble.

The Republicans are simply in trouble. They are facing a situation where a victory would mean getting their asses kicked, but only so bad. They are scrambling to find enough fingers to plug the dyke.

I expected more when Bush was put in office. But I don't mind saying that I find his presidency failed, on Clinton-like proportions. Perhaps it is just the world we live in now. Perhaps no one can please us. That may be the case.

But I'd vote for Obama about a hundred times before I voted for a Jeb Bush. The Republicans are very, very down right now. It remains to be seen if they are also out.

[Mavdog]

for a second it seemed like I was watching ed murrow...

is he a "moonbat" for voicing the very real threat to our right of habeus corpus? to the right to hear the evidence that is being presented against an accused? to the right to have a competent defense?

I don't believe he is. these are real threats, we could all have our rights tossed away like a used kleenex. all it takes is our government to label us an "enemy combatant" and whoosh! those rights are gone.

as far as "bush is a liar", in the context of what he said about the bill he signed olberman has a point. I wouldn't go so far as "liar", yet deceptive or disingenious would definitely fit.

very disturbing. olberman is right on.

[capitalcity]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

olberman is right on.

Then it's a crying shame he can't pull viewers.

If Ed Murrow was up against FNC, nobody would've watched him either.

[MavsX]

Originally Posted by Drbio

Olbermann sucks Dan Patricks nutsack.

HAHHAHA

[MavsX]

Originally Posted by Male23Dan

Ahhh... So you do have something in common with Olbermann!

boO booo THIS MAN!!! boooo boooooooooooo

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

for a second it seemed like I was watching ed murrow...

is he a "moonbat" for voicing the very real threat to our right of habeus corpus?

How is the act a threat to our right of habeas corpus? The only change to the habeas corpus law involved "alien" unlawful enemy combatants. United States citizens still have a right of habeas corpus. Also, as I understand the Act, the only people who may be tried by military commissions are "aliens". Therefore, even though citizens may be defined as "unlawful enemy combatants", they still have all of their Constitutional rights when and if they are prosecuted.

to the right to hear the evidence that is being presented against an accused?

I understand your concerns here, but let me play devil's advocate. If the United States obtains information from a covert operative who is embedded with the enemy, do you want that revealed to the "unlawful enemy combatant"? Wouldn't that compromise the operative?

to the right to have a competent defense?

How do they not have the right to a competent defense?

I don't believe he is. these are real threats, we could all have our rights tossed away like a used kleenex. all it takes is our government to label us an "enemy combatant" and whoosh! those rights are gone.

See, that's what bothers me. That is just flat-out wrong. I know that's what Olbermann said (because he is trying to scare people), but it's just untrue.

as far as "bush is a liar", in the context of what he said about the bill he signed olberman has a point. I wouldn't go so far as "liar", yet deceptive or disingenious would definitely fit.

very disturbing. olberman is right on.

I'll say this. I am uncomfortable with the "limbo" legal status of alien detainees. If you're going to say they're not just criminals, because we're at war with them, then it seems to me that, logically, you ought to treat captured terrorists like you would prisoners of war. If, on the other hand, they are criminals, then you have to give them the protections of the criminal justice system. Either they're criminals, or they are prisoners of war. I don't think we should say they are neither.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I've been a life-long Republican. Well, for the last 15 years of voting eligibility, anyway. But I am sick and tired of these guys.

You and me both. But as poorly as the Republicans have handled power, I shudder to think at what the Democrats would do with it.

You can demean Olbermann all you want, but at least he gives a rationale for his way of thinking. At least he finds historical precedence. Yes, he did go over the line at least once. And yes, he did use some questionable logic at one point. But for the most part, his nine-minute "rant" had traction.

I don't think his historical precedents were analogous.

I am mocking Olbermann because he doesn't understand what he's talking about. Somebody is feeding him propaganda, and he just spews it without thinking, "Is what I'm saying really right?"

I'm here to tell you, KG, the Republicans are in trouble. Big trouble. Big trouble in little China. When people like me, who to this point have detested the Democratic party like the plague, are finding reasons to vote for them, the Republicans are in trouble.

I don't really disagree with you. They have problems, just like any party that has been in power for an extended period of time has problems. The Democrats will probably gain control of the House, and then they'll have to actually step up and do something rather than just sit back and criticize without any accountability of their own.

That's probably an improvement.

I expected more when Bush was put in office. But I don't mind saying that I find his presidency failed, on Clinton-like proportions. Perhaps it is just the world we live in now. Perhaps no one can please us. That may be the case.

I think Bush's presidency has been a mixed bag. I also expected more than Bush has delivered. That said, I find it hard to call his presidency a failure.

But I'd vote for Obama about a hundred times before I voted for a Jeb Bush. The Republicans are very, very down right now. It remains to be seen if they are also out.

Obama is sort of another topic for another day, but so far all that he has shown is style. It's his substance which will determine (or should determine) if he gets elected, and I think when that is more thoroughly revealed he will be found lacking.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

How is the act a threat to our right of habeas corpus? The only change to the habeas corpus law involved "alien" unlawful enemy combatants. United States citizens still have a right of habeas corpus. Also, as I understand the Act, the only people who may be tried by military commissions are "aliens". Therefore, even though citizens may be defined as "unlawful enemy combatants", they still have all of their Constitutional rights when and if they are prosecuted.

you've zeroed in on the crucial question- can ANYBODY be deemed an "enemy combatant" and have these rights (first and foremost habeus corpus) ignored?

I don't definitively know, wht I've read of other's opinions is yes.

I understand your concerns here, but let me play devil's advocate. If the United States obtains information from a covert operative who is embedded with the enemy, do you want that revealed to the "unlawful enemy combatant"? Wouldn't that compromise the operative?

it seems the person hearing the information is in custody...yes, we could come up with scenarios of why there could be na issue. but this is a basic legal right, correct?

How do they not have the right to a competent defense?

do you believe an attorney could provide a competent defense if he did not know the evidence against his client?

See, that's what bothers me. That is just flat-out wrong. I know that's what Olbermann said (because he is trying to scare people), but it's just untrue.

I'm not sure, are you?

I'll say this. I am uncomfortable with the "limbo" legal status of alien detainees. If you're going to say they're not just criminals, because we're at war with them, then it seems to me that, logically, you ought to treat captured terrorists like you would prisoners of war. If, on the other hand, they are criminals, then you have to give them the protections of the criminal justice system. Either they're criminals, or they are prisoners of war. I don't think we should say they are neither.

I don't have a problem with the concept of the military justice leading, but even the military justice system doesn't allow for people to not have these rights that would be denied under this new legialation.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

you've zeroed in on the crucial question- can ANYBODY be deemed an "enemy combatant" and have these rights (first and foremost habeus corpus) ignored?

I don't definitively know, wht I've read of other's opinions is yes.

I've read the Act, and it indicates that only an "alien" (defined as a "person who is not a citizen of the United States") can be tried by military commission. It also states that the restrictions on habeas corpus only apply to "an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination."

So, based on my own reading of the statute, I believe that the right of habeas corpus is only denied to non-citizens, which would make Olbermann's position incorrect.

it seems the person hearing the information is in custody...yes, we could come up with scenarios of why there could be na issue. but this is a basic legal right, correct?

Of citizens, you're right.

do you believe an attorney could provide a competent defense if he did not know the evidence against his client?

It is difficult to strike a balance between the need to protect classified information and the need to provide the defendant with a right to a fair trial. The way they tried to handle it in the Act is by authorizing "the deletion of specified items of classified information from documents to be introduced as evidence" or "the substitution of a portion or summary of the information for such classified documents" or "the substitution of a statement of relevant facts that the classified information would tend to prove." In other words, the defense counsel will know the substance of what his client is being accused of but will not necessarily know how that information was obtained.

Where that is primarily a problem for the defense attorney is that he can't attack the credibility of a witness or source he can't identify.

I'm not sure, are you?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure. I admit that I haven't thoroughly studied the Act, but unless I'm missing something this is pretty basic stuff. The Act only allows military commissions for aliens. U.S. citizens, therefore, get criminal trials. And the Act only takes away habeas corpus rights from aliens, not citizens.

I don't have a problem with the concept of the military justice leading, but even the military justice system doesn't allow for people to not have these rights that would be denied under this new legialation.

The biggest problem I have with the whole thing is that you label them as enemy combatants but then deny them the treatment traditionally given to prisoners of war. Also, how do we define when the war is over? When you're talking about a war between sovereign states, it's easy enough to figure out when it's over. When you're talking about a war against an ideology or concept (terrorism), how long are you allowed to detain these people?

[purplefrog]

Oh, c'mon folks, Olbermann is an entertainer and he is pretty good at making people laugh with his histrionics. I find his "news" refreshing because I do not have to take it seriously. BTW, I also find Pat Buchanan interesting and entertaining. I wonder how many people can say they are fans of both Olbermann and Buchanan? It's gotta be a small club.

[kg_veteran]

Have you watched that clip I linked? Does it really strike you as having comedic value?

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

The biggest problem I have with the whole thing is that you label them as enemy combatants but then deny them the treatment traditionally given to prisoners of war.

Also, how do we define when the war is over? When you're talking about a war between sovereign states, it's easy enough to figure out when it's over. When you're talking about a war against an ideology or concept (terrorism), how long are you allowed to detain these people?

You are close to labeling the core problem: these criminals/POWs dont fit in a traditional category as either "criminal" or "POW."

In some ways, they fit closely to the prototypical RICO (racketeering) type criminal: thuggery that tries to be the law unto itself. But their generic goal of "destruction of society" makes them closer to a war criminal ie POW.

However, to put them in either category accords them rights that they really dont merit.

Accordingly, to arrive at a resolution, this discussion (the national debate, not just the one here) - for those who truly love this country and are not motivated by partisan point-making or demagoguery - has to be willing to be moved to a completely new level. And it wouldnt be easy, because too many people dont seem to recognize the degree of threat here. That change would be to acknowledge a brand new category of "defendant" or "combatant" - neither criminal nor POW, but a class all their own - and plop these people into it.

International thugs. Terrorist soldiers. Whatever. The lowest of the low, with almost no rights whatsoever as a result.

Why dont they get protections as POWs? Because, in their actions outside of those governed by a nation, they have chosen to forfeit those protections. Why dont they get protections as criminals? Because, in their actions to topple society in general, they have chose to operate outside of those structures and are not entitled to the benefits that those within those societal structures receive. They have voluntarily chosen to enter the non-national, anti-societal subclass, and they get treated accordingly.

About the "defendants" so called. Yes, they end up in some sort of limbo, in that the end of the war with them is tough to define. Yes they end up with few if any "rights." But that is on their head, not on ours. They chose to be an army without a country, going from country to country and taking whatever steps possible to topple society in general. Do you ever let them out to come back and try again to fulfill their aim to kill and destroy? I dont see how you can.

We have laws that we use within society and between nations - but these thugs have chosen to operate outside of societal boundaries and across national lines. They have to be treated accordingly. It's not a stretch to say that society and the preservation of civilization itself is in the balance, in many ways. On that level, when you are dealing with those who would destroy such things, societal norms and rights just arent applicable.

One problem lies in the fact that they are international. Whose laws apply? But you cant say there is no jurisdiction in the US or elsewhere, if their actions could ultimately lead to huge 9/11 type events, and worse. To me, the fairest thing would be that the first country to catch them gets the right to do with them as they deem appropriate by their laws.

And if the consequences are too severe for the poor lil thugs, they need to abandon the business of "international thugsmanship" and learn to work within national and societal concepts. Work with society somehow to change it, or leave it alone and go create your own elsewhere, rather than work to KILL MAIM and DESTROY everyone and everything you dont agree with.

[purplefrog]

I have not watched it yet (I will), but I have seen his tirades about Bush being a liar and all that jazz. I am not saying that he doesn't take himself seriously and/or want us to take him seriously, but I just can't because it is too over the top. For me watching Countdown is almost like watching a Monty Python movie. I choose to laugh at his antics and let it go at that. I will watch the clip though, in order to see if he has gone to a new extreme.. as hard as that is to imagine.

[capitalcity]

Originally Posted by moonbat

"Given how far you are from knowing your ass from your elbow about my industry, you couldn't be stupider, wronger, or dumber ..." "Go fuck your mother." "You 'Americans' still watching that evil fucking O'Reilly?"

I won't and we are.

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

Oh, c'mon folks, Olbermann is an entertainer and he is pretty good at making people laugh with his histrionics. I find his "news" refreshing because I do not have to take it seriously. BTW, I also find Pat Buchanan interesting and entertaining. I wonder how many people can say they are fans of both Olbermann and Buchanan? It's gotta be a small club.

It may just be you. I find myself hating both and I am fairly certain that club is well populated.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Drbio

It may just be you. I find myself hating both and I am fairly certain that club is well populated.

Count me in, buchanon is a jingoistic idiot. Olbermann I haven't bothered to listen to, haven't bothered with buchanon in a while either.

[purplefrog]

kg- now that I have listened to the clip, I agree with you. This is not the entertaining Olbermann that has made me lol and appreciate his creative approach to the events of the day. He really is trying to make a contribution as a serious journalist. Too bad. He was better when he was using his tongue-in-cheek commentary and was mostly looking for a good laugh. I am curious if he is doing this kind of editorial comment on a nightly basis because I would be shocked if this approach has improved his ratings. Like I said, I just can't take him seriously and the tone of this editorial put together with his past light and humorous approach is hard to swallow.

[purplefrog]

Doc and Dude, you guys break my heart when you say you aren't Buchanan fans!! Is it his positions on the issues or just his noxious personality that you disdain??

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

Doc and Dude, you guys break my heart when you say you aren't Buchanan fans!! Is it his positions on the issues or just his noxious personality that you disdain??

I have to admit that I stopped listening to much that Pat Buchanon said quite a while ago, so debating particular positions of his would be tough.

So I googled him a little bit and the latest article by him about whether WWII was worth it. On a the surface he has a point but it's just so typical buchanon. So stopping hitler wasn't worth it because of stalin??? Okay...but that wasn't the options available at the time but he just sorta blows that off.

It's just dealing in unreality. So the alternative was NOT coming to europes aid?

Although I do not want to get into the amount of nuance that kerry would advocate (so that nothing would get done) you just can't deal with problems in the black and white world of buchanon and savage. It's just not that way budda'.

It's the same thinking that you get from liberals when they say that we "have to invade korea or iran" because we said they were the axis of evil and we invaded iraq, it's stupid and unrealistic. That's basically the way I think of most buchanon work, stupid but mostly unrealistic.

[capitalcity]

Michelle Malkin is trucculent.

[Flacolaco]

I used to love Olbermann as a Sports analyst. Now I can't even listen to his sports opinions because you never know when he's going to take a jab at the president....

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by capitalcity

Michelle Malkin is trucculent.

Wow. Olbermann got pwned.

[Drbio]

boo-yah!