3

12/13/2007 1:56:10 AM

^^^ I half agree with you.

IMO, Olbermann kind of makes himself look a little lame by making his harshest rant to date on one of the lamest topics he could think of.

People already hate Bush. Even Hooksaw has been disowning him as of late. Considering this, and considering that Bush's stance on Iran is getting no where, Olbermann should have come up with a far better issue to rant about. Instead of focusing so much on Iran, he should have focused more on lying in general. And he really should have left the direct insults out. That's one thing O'Reilly is good at, is making his insult more indirect. I don't follow Rush enough to say.

The way he worded this most recent rant is that people sympathetic will ignore it publicly while only secretly agreeing with it (because it's too belligerent to stand by publicly), while it will only serve to harden the Bush supporters against the "lie-beral media" or whatever.

[Edited on December 13, 2007 at 4:28 AM. Reason : ]

12/13/2007 4:27:53 AM

^

Quote :

"Even Hooksaw has been disowning him as of late."

I would just like to clarify that this is not the case--I have had many disagreements with Bush's policies all along. I was presented with only two real choices in '00 and in '04--I chose Bush.

It was an imperfect choice, to say the least. But I would choose Bush again over Gore or Kerry any day of the week. FYI.

12/13/2007 4:39:39 AM

Quote :

"to say the least"

12/13/2007 4:42:52 AM

Quote :

" IMO, Olbermann kind of makes himself look a little lame by making his harshest rant to date on one of the lamest topics he could think of. ..... Instead of focusing so much on Iran, he should have focused more on lying in general."

1) Olbermann has had dozens of rants in the past focusing on almost every topic imaginable w/r/t Bush's bullshit and lying

2) I think the Iran issue is a very important issue. bush has been all but threatening to invade Iran for over a year now, and if Olbermann's logic is correct, it would indicate that Bush has known for some time now (at least a few months before the NIE came out) that Iran was not a nuclear threat, yet he chose to continue with the same course of rhetoric instead of acknowledging what the intelligence community told him.

12/13/2007 7:32:56 AM

half of those bolded parts are not ad hominems.

12/13/2007 9:10:08 AM

This may be a lost cause because admittedly Olbermann's tendancy is to be a bit foamy at the mouth and his ostentatious presentation gets a little tiresome.

However, his points about the change in language before August and since are interesting and [New]. When I read last week that Bush said he had not been briefed on the NIE before it was released, I literally rolled my eyes. Are you trying to tell me that the most powerful man in the country doesn't get intel reports weeks or months before the public does? Seriously? Meanwhile Bush was waving his dick at Iran threatening them until right before the report was released. Irresponsible AT BEST.

So, in order for this thread to get on track, let's discuss Olbermann's main point which was that.

Trolls, feel free to contribute to the main topic or please exit the thread.

12/13/2007 9:14:32 AM

Quote :

"So you don't think they're threats towards Iran since August, despite the intelligence they had, was in any way uncalled for? "

See I dont think so. To me the NIE report is proof that Bush's plan has worked. After we invaded Iraq both N. Korea and (as it turns out) Iran backed off. Now no one knew that for a few years but we DO know that now. And its proof that the policy worked. And I believe that Bush and any other president should continue to talk tough. Just cause Iran is not making nukes doesnt mean they are the good guys now. They are still arming terrorist and talk all the time about blowing up our only ally in the middle east. I think Iran should be scared that we would do something. It keeps them on thier toes. Clearly talking big and getting in thier face has worked and will continue to work.

As far as when Bush knew about Iran POSSIBLY stopping thier program...looks like hewas told in August that it was a possibility. So it makes sense for him to change his rhetoric after that. Does that mean he should back off completely and say "Oh well looks like Iran is the good guy now"? Heck no! The policy is working....keep it up.

Olbermann has bascially twisted every fact related to thsi situation to turn it into another one of his hate filled anti-bush rants. It makes him look like an ass. and he makes me sick...

12/13/2007 9:14:36 AM

But don't you think there is a possibility that the rhetoric will only be more fuel for the propoganda that is undoubtedly being distributed to the Iranian people.

Even beyond that, if the rhetoric and hard line worked-- don't you think now would be a good time to shut up about it? For lack of a better analogy, a parent doesn't keep screaming at their kids once the kids do the right thing.

12/13/2007 9:22:39 AM

^yeah actually I agree with that completely...I like that parent/kid analogy...

Now is the time to talk to Iran and say "ok...lets talk about somethings". Ya know...approach them and appear to be diplomatic. and show some interest in whats important to them. You gotta do that now because if you dont...what is Iran's incentive to behave??

That doesnt mean back off completely. Iran has to know that they have to play by the rules. But now is definitly the time to talk to them...

12/13/2007 9:26:19 AM