Olbermann named Gibson "Worst Person in the World" for downplaying alleged Haditha massacre
Keith Olbermann named Fox News' John Gibson the winner of his nightly "Worst Person in the World" award for his comments regarding the alleged murders of civilians in Haditha, Iraq, by U.S. Marines.
On the May 31 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann named Fox News host John Gibson the winner of his nightly "Worst Person in the World" award for his comments regarding the alleged murders of civilians by U.S. Marines in the Iraqi town of Haditha. As Media Matters for America has noted, during his "My Word" segment on May 30 edition of Fox News' The Big Story, Gibson sought to downplay the significance of recent allegations that U.S. Marines carried out killings of innocent civilians in Haditha, stating that while "I'm against massacres of civilians ... [i]f Iraqis know their own history, they know massacres have been committed in Iraq by warring parties for millennia piled on millennia." Gibson then added: "This is the part of the world that was in on the massacre game early, played it often, and the last character to be up to his eyeballs in massacres was the very guy we went in to regime change [sic], Saddam [Hussein] himself." After quoting Gibson, Olbermann stated: "Well, that's all right, then. What's one more massacre, huh?"
Gibson recently received third place in Countdown's "Worst Person in the World" awards on May 12, after Gibson urged his viewers to make more babies, while noting, "Twenty-five years and the majority of the population is Hispanic."
From the May 31 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: But first, time for Coundown's latest list of nominees for "Worst Person in the World."
Number three, Ad van den Berg, one of the founders of Holland's Charity, Freedom and Diversity political party. Nice name for a party, except their only political aim is to lower the age of consent from 16 to 12. They're pedophiles. Conveniently, in a recent poll in Holland, 82 percent of respondents said the government should do something to outlaw the party, let alone pedophilia.
Number two, Vernon Robinson, far-right Republican now seeking the congressional seat from 13th District of North Carolina, and setting a lovely tone for this year's campaign by running a radio ad already in which he says of his opponent, quote, "If he had his way, America would be nothing but one big fiesta for illegal aliens and homosexuals." Gay bashing, immigrant bashing, Hispanic bashing. You left out Terri Schiavo, pal.
But our winner, John Gibson of Fox News, claiming the lead in the race for the biggest rationalization of Haditha. Quoting John, "If Iraqis know their own history, they know massacres have been committed in Iraq by warring parties from millennia piled on millennia. This is the part of the world that was in on the massacre game early," unquote. Well, that's all right, then. What's one more massacre, huh? John Gibson, today's "Worst Person in the World."
the more the adage about violence begetting violence rings true. I just wish others saw the connection. I really get a sick and sad feeling thinking of all the people that have been killed and maimed in this tragedy of Bush's ego. : (
" more the adage about violence begetting violence rings true. "
Yeah! Those darn radical muslims just keep getting more peaceful by the minute. My opinion is that peace begets peace and that's why radical islam is having such a wonderful time throughout the world trying to promote peace.
Danish cartoons beget violence.
And religion in general begets violence.
Just because of Northern Ireland, Kashmir, the Middle East, the Crusades, the inquisition and 9/11 it doesn't mean that religion begets viol....nevermind.
What religion were Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot? How many died at their bekon call?
Of course now someone will respond by saying. "How many have died from this war based on lies so the imperialist U.S. could enrich Bush and Halliburton."
You mean not counting the 3000 that died in NY,PA and DC? Or the hundreds of troops killed during previous al-queda attacks?
At least 30,000 Iraqis have died. A sound statistical analysis puts the number as high as 200,000, with the likely number of Iraqis dead at 100,000.
Fair enough. The figures you named were atheists. But then what religion was Hitler? He was kind of a quasi Christian. And what religion was King Leopold II, who killed as many as 15 million Africans for rubber?
And then, how many people died in the inquisition?
The troglodytes will assume some extremely ridiculous positions in order to defend this. They can't just admit that it happened and move on; that would open their fearless leader to criticism for his bonehead policies, and that can't be allowed. In their minds, whatever happens to those lousy towelheads is what they get for not being born in the United States.
..these Marines will be prosecuted for their crimes which seems to be what is about to happen.
Haditha occured in November of 2005. It is now June of 2006, even though the military knew what happened there the day after it happened.
I know the wheels of justice turn slowly and all that, but don't you think it's telling that apparently nothing happened to anyone over this until the stink in the media happened?
And there will be an investigation into the possible cover-up as well.
Abu Ghraib could've been covered up easily but wasn't. It was the military's own investigation that alerted the civilian press.
These Marines will be punished if this is true; what more do you want??
an acknowledgement from the Iraq-war supporters that since the situation that these fighting men and women find themselves in is so similar to Vietnam, that this kind of atrocity is neither a surprise nor likely to be an isolated incident. It was, in fact, an inevitability, given the kind of "planning" that went into this invasion.
But I will be satisfied, not happy, if some justice is done. These kinds of events hurt the military, and they are under enough hurt as it is.
These Marines will be punished if this is true; what more do you want??
That they were never put into a situation that would turn them into cold blooded murderers. But I don't hold them responsible, in fact I hope they aren't punished severly. I personally hold the architects of this war and the fools who support it responsible.
We KNOW that if anyone is punished, it'll be the grunts doing the dirty work. Those pushing the buttons won't. They never do in this administration.
stated that he knew nothing until the Times Story in March, and as usual Rummy hasn't made a statement yet. Since He is the Secretary of Defense, his response will be interesting. If not for Murtha, this incident may have been swept under the carpet, like Plamegate, NSA illegal wiretaps, QuailGate, etc.
Folks, we should not be surprised by this incident. We are involved in a war and specifically, a counterinsurgency war that, by its nature, is fought in and among the civilian population. Counter-insurgency battles tend to be decentralized with small units operating on their own, fighting against an enemy that seeks concealment within the population. The stress and challenges for small unit leaders is enormous. Squad leaders are called upon to make decisions that most Americans, comfortable on their TV couch or peering into internet computer screens, sipping lattes, can not comprehend and should not judge without all the facts. In combat, small unit leaders must make frequent risk filled; split second; friend or foe decisions. I am betting that the intent of the Marines involved in the Haditha incident was not to murder but to destroy a perceived foe. Mistakes in combat happen and bad mistakes are punished. Historically, counter-insurgencies last from ten to twelve years. Folks, we are three years into that process and over the next seven to nine years, this is going to happen again. As citizens of a country that has sent service men to fight this war, let us not make the same mistake as the Viet Nam War, where we used service men and women; our own sons, daughters, brothers, sisters and neighbors as political sacrificial pawns to gain momentum for an antiwar movement. Former Commanding Officer (1981-1982): Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment
I don't think many people, and nobody I've seen here, are villifying the individual soldiers involved or saying they would have acted differently in the same situation. Correct me if I'm wrong. Murtha and everybody else I've heard has clearly noted that these soldiers are under extreme stress in difficult circumstances. Like you, I've always just assumed that things like Haditha go on because, well, that's what happens during war. I don't know of anybody who's particularly surprised, unless they actually believed all the "flowers and chocolates" nonsense back in 2003.
The problem isn't that we're surprised by Haditha; the problem is that we aren't.
Our troops were not used as sacrificial pawns for the anti-war movement during the Vietnam War. We were used alright, but by our own government to shore up foreign policy mistakes that the government to this day has never admitted to making.
I do agree that fighting an insurgency is difficult. As you said, this kind of war is fought mostly by squads of soldiers, without much oversight by the higher ups. Being from a military background, you must agree that an officer is always accountable for the actions of those under him, even when he's not personally with the troops during the incidents. In a situation like this where a small group of people are operating on their own, anything can happen. Every time you lose a man, the first thing that comes to mind is that somebody is going to pay for this. Unfortunately, sometimes these emotions are acted on and innocent people die. The job of the military is to stress that this behavior is never to be tolerated and that anyone who acts on their emotions will pay the price. It seems that with this incident, those who should have been investigating the possibility of a war crime, were too concerned with covering up a war crime. As horrific as the charges against the people involved are, the people who should be ultimately held responsible are the officers who covered it up.
" Unfortunately, sometimes these emotions are acted on and innocent people die. ...... As horrific as the charges against the people involved are, the people who should be ultimately held responsible are the officers who covered it up. "
Of course you are assuming 1; they are innocent victims and 2; there is a cover up. When the trial happens (let's wait for the trial before we start claiming them to be guilty, huh?) we will find out if the bullets used to kill them are from the accused soldiers guns or not. That will tell us if the terrorists killed them before we even arrived and used it as a ploy to destroy more Americans. Even the little girl who survived said she was afraid to leave the house because she knew there was a bomb outside it. That would lead one to believe that those in the house knew more about the bombing than we are hearing. Perhaps another cover up?
How about waiting for the FACTS to be heard before you claim the US soldiers are murderers!
Where I called the Marines involved murderers. I've never done that. Your response to my comments did not deal with my comments. It was just another of your rants. Either participate in the dialogue, or go somewhere where ranting and one sided arguments are encouraged. Might I suggest the Limbaugh, Hannity or O'Reilly sites?
I'd be all for waiting until the investigation is complete, but in this incident, the facts of the case were hidden and lies substituted for truth by the Marine Corps officers. Everyone on the right claims to love and support our troops. We do great harm to those still involved in this war, if we don't deal with alleged atrocities in a timely manner. It's been more than 6 months since this happened and the longer this takes the more harm will be done to our troops and the cause that we are supposed to be fighting for.
Maybe you should do more than just talk about your support for this war, maybe it would help you grow up if you were to do a little time in Iraq.
When you said: " Unfortunately, sometimes these emotions are acted on and innocent people die. " you are saying that these Marines are currently murderers.
And I specifically responded to 2 of your claims. First that the victims are "innocent people" and, second, that there is a "cover up". How on-topic do you want me to be?
Also, you have NO knowledge of what parts of Iraq I've been to or what parts of Vietnam I've been to. Do not lecture to me about growing up after "doing time"!
Then you know that anything can happen during times of war. And anything that our troops are suspected of, will be turned against the troops in the field. When I said "unfortunately, sometimes innocent people die" I never equated that with murder. you're jumping to conclusions. Innocent people always die and in every incident there should be a quick and thorough investigation. If there is not a quick and thorough investigation, the people we are there to help turn on those who are supposed to be helping. When there seems to be a cover-up, the resentment of the people under occupation harms our service men. Hopefully you've never had to experience the wrath of an unhappy occupied people, I have.
I agree more in the media should wait until the facts come out. I personally think it's a bit unethical for Rep Murtha to be saying "They killed in cold blood." before the investigation is even complete or before they have a trial. And I also agree with you that soldiers in a combat situation can't be judged by civilian standards.
The reason Haditha (and now this second case they're investigating) is going to hurt Bush is because many feel he should have known that this guerilla war/insurgency was inevitable after the invasion. If Haditha pans out to be true it's going to be a devastating and probably increase pressure to withdraw the troops (even prematurely if need be) and hope the new government and Iraqi security forces can somehow manage things on their own which seems like wishful thinking.
"If Haditha pans out to be true"
There's no doubt. Several people of different political stripes who have seen the evidence and internal Marine reports have confirmed this.
It's a diversion technique to pretend we have to wait for a conviction before discussing this apparent atrocity. If the cons had kept their big traps shut until Clinton was convicted of a crime related to White Water or Lewinsky, we'd still be watiting for them to say word one.
There's no doubt. Several people of different political stripes who have seen the evidence and internal Marine reports have confirmed this.
I'm not denying it looks probable but I would rather wait til the investigation is completed and charges are brought forth officially; is that so unreasonable?
It's a diversion technique to pretend we have to wait for a conviction before discussing this apparent atrocity.
There's no diversion technique here, quit being so paranoid. No one is claiming we can't talk about the atrocity but for a U.S. politician to say "They killed in cold blood" before the investigation is completed and charges are filed is a bit unethical. Many who post on these boards are very big on due process when it comes to prisoners at Gitmo; lets see if that same feelings will apply to these Marines.
They'll get due process. Thankfully, in our country, you can't be punished on opinion alone...that is unless your suspected of terrorism. But Murtha, like you or I, has a right to come to a conclusion based on the evidence he has on hand. And there is plenty of it.
But Murtha, like you or I, has a right to come to a conclusion based on the evidence he has on hand. And there is plenty of it.
Evidence he had from an incomplete investigation. There is a difference between you and I discussing this and Murtha who is a high profile politician going in front of the cameras and saying these things for all the world to hear. Yes he does have a right to do it but it doesn't mean it was appropriate or ethical at the time.
It doesn't mean it wasn't ethical. If his constituents feel it was unethical, they can vote him out. But I don't think it's unethical to state the obvious. Everyone who has seen the evidence says this is bad news. Only the looney tune right is trying defend the action and holding out hope that what has been revealed turns out to be wrong. But, alas, their whole philosophy is built on wishful thinking.
It doesn't mean it wasn't ethical. I don't think it's unethical to state the obvious.
Someone with that much power should at least wait until an investigation is complete. Until it's completed nothing can be considered "obvious" in a situation like that because you don't have all the facts.
Everyone who has seen the evidence says this is bad news. Only the looney tune right is trying defend the action
No one is defending the Haditha massacre, people on the right simply believe Marines deserve due process (something the left seems to want desperately for the Gitmo detainees.)
and holding out hope that what has been revealed turns out to be wrong. But, alas, their whole philosophy is built on wishful thinking.
I think most people hope it's wrong but that appears not to be the case. Though as per my previousremarks I believe some are ELATED about this and will use it to push their agendas. Now I know that's outrageous to say. On these boards we CONSTANTLY hear how "Bush lied for oil" and "killed tens of thousands so Haliburtans stock would go up"; yet it's soo impossible for these same people who make these comments about Bush to believe that some politicians on the left could be just as immoral and oportunistic.
That someone in a position of authority wasn't willing to wait until an investigation was completed before they put out the official story that the people were killed in a firefight. The official position became covering up a war crime.
No one is elated over this and no one is trying to use this incident to push their position. That's just the current right wing talking point.
That someone in a position of authority wasn't willing to wait until an investigation was completed before they put out the official story that the people were killed in a firefight.
No what Murtha said was that the Marines killed these civilians in "cold blood." Now that may be true but at the time he said that the investigation was supposedly only halfway done (meaning only half the facts were in) and the pentagon stated that some exculpatory evidance could be pending. So even if Murtha is correct he was way too premature to make the remarks he did.
No one is elated over this and no one is trying to use this incident to push their position. That's just the current right wing talking point.
You apparently believe the left has no immoral people in it's ranks who would dare exploit this while meanwhile the right "lies for oil" "kills tens of thousands in Iraq so Halliburton's stock will go up." (those are the current leftwing talking points.)
I've never said that immoral behavior comes from just the right. There are immoral people on each side, in every profession, every ethnicity and every religion.
Exaclty where in the media are you hearing the "the right "lies for oil" "kills tens of thousands in Iraq so Halliburton's stock will go up."? You might hear that from posters to left leaning websites, but you don't hear it from anyone in the main stream media. You do hear every Fox News commentator calling into question the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with the Rupert Murdock/RNC position on the war. Why not drop all of the accusations about traitors, or how unpatriotic people are who've served this country? Most who are pushing this slander, have not served themselves. It's easy to question someone's service to their country when the person questioning their service has never served themselves.
They're also entitled to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The big problem is the cover-up. This must be talked about and talked about now. We are sending our people to kill and to die. The truth will come out. When someone provides lies to cover-up the truth then our entire military and we as a nation are smeared by the rest of the world. This situation has to be addressed before more of the people were supposed to be freeing turn against us.
>>As citizens of a country that has sent service men to fight this war, let us not make the same mistake as the Viet Nam War, where we used service men and women; our own sons, daughters, brothers, sisters and neighbors as political sacrificial pawns to gain momentum for an antiwar movement.
I certainly did not send the soldiers to fight in an illegal war. Nor did the world. It was a small group of the Earth's population that convinced a bare majority of one country to do so. None-the-less, the soldiers did have to obey orders.
However, your second statement is really an Orwellian twisting of history. The anti-war movement did not use the soldiers. In fact, the largest faction of the anti-war movement was returning soldiers from Viet Nam. The US government (including Kennedy) used the soldiers to promote US hegemony, the right of the US to dominate the rest of the world and not let countries determine their own fate.
As in Viet Nam, so in Iraq soldiers commit atrocities. I hardly think that the victims are very interested in excuses about what the Marines meant to do. If it turns out that the victims were shot in cold blood, then in fact the Marines just didn't make a mistake. We shouldn't forget that the Iraqis who were killed are every much as human as Americans.
The other day Gibson was balthering on about Bush and his low poll numbers and the fact that the Iraq war is unpopular. He compared Bush to Abe Linchon w/ some twisted circular logic. Abe Linchon! Do you suppose that may have been over reach? Or a reach around? These necons are the true deadenders. And I'm happy to say they are in their last throes. Yes, we have reached a milestone. Mission accomplished - November of this year that is.
I understand that all of the O'Reilly backers are excited by his ratings, and I'm not going to dispute the numbers, as sick as they make me.
But, in the final analysis, what difference does it make? Do ratings make what Olbermann says any less true or valid? Or are you righties trying once again to dodge the issue?
If he named the MSNBC haters as his worst person in the World ie Imus, Carlson and former MSNBC host Savage. But he is doing this out of clear hate and jealousy toward O'Reilly and Fox, he has no credibility and he hurts us true progressives with his hate speech.
Do you have this "Olbermann is a hater" canard in your clipboard so you can paste it on each Olbermann thread? You've never shown where anything Olbermann says has amounted hate, as we know the word to mean. You sir, are obsessed. This has to be somehow Freudian.
You know: Freedom to kill them damn [insert racial epithet here]. Freedom to win "no bid" contracts in Iraq. Freedom to walk away from those same contracted jobs without completing the job and face no repercussions. Freedom to know that Israelis will sleep better tonight. Freedom to pay $3.00/gallon for gas from our protected oil companies (oligopolies). Freedom to be corraled into "Free Speech Zones" while attempting to exercies my 1st Amendment rights to free speech (protesting illegal wars of empire and agression). Freedom to watch creepy-looking cops/military dudes filming me and taking down my license plate number while engaging in the above activity. Freedom to get fired from my job for speaking out for peace. Freedom to watch highly controlled and censored State propaganda on TV. Freedom to travel by car (well, except for those pesky roadside sobriety/illegal alien checkpoints). Freedom to travel by air (so long as you're not on a "no fly list" or have a deadly nailclipper in your pocket). Freedom to know that if we're not "terrists", we shouldn't have anything to hide from spying on our phone calls, emails, etc. Freedom to wonder which of our knuckle-dragging neighbors are part of the 29% who still think Bush is doing one-hellava-job. Freedom to vote for one of only two political parties' candidates and hope that our vote is not hacked via one of the new Diebold or ES&S voting machines. Freedom to get sent home when trying to find work rebuilding the post-Katrina Gulf Coast because "the Mexicans are here". Freedom to vote for the American Idol contestant who is the least mediocre. Freedom to be white and christian-- and may the Lord spare you if you're not. Freedom to know that our President is doing God's work. Freedom to wear my "tin-foil hat" since I don't believe a damn thing I hear or read in the mainstream media anymore.