Olbermann awarded Hume a Worst Person "bronze" for claiming Al Qaeda was in Iraq "before we got there"

 - intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein...has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members - Hillary Clinton

Ye gods...Hillary and Brit agree! 

OLBERMANN: The bronze to Brit Hume of Fox Noise, host of its newscast of record. He has asked the rhetorical question now about Iraq, "Who are we fighting there now? Al Qaeda in Iraq. They were there before we got there, and they're there now."

Actually Shep Smith is the host of the FOX Newscast of record, called the "Fox Report". But why should little facts get in the way of another Olbermann smear. When will NBC pull the plug on this type of hate? Olbermann if you are going to say something make sure it is true , just like how you smeared FOX about the "Kid Nation" show last week, only to have to acknowledge that it was a lie.

Olbermann "And let‘s get a correction out of the way immediately here.  In the newsmakers segment tonight, we included an item about Fox trying to top CBS‘ show “Kid Nation” with something called “Kid War.”  The source of that story turns out to be a satirical website.  Somebody here didn‘t notice that.  The ultimate responsibility for that falls to me.  My apologies to Fox and to you for the lousy vetting.  "

Al Qaeda was not there, my brother

It's a war of George Bush's druthers 

Those WMDs

Mobile labs if you please

Cooked up to make sad childless mothers 

Isn't this whole thread moot?

Holy derailment, batman.

Here's the bottom line. Al Qaeda may be in Iraq. They're also in other countries. Even if we manage to kill all the Al Qaeda in Iraq, it won't solve our problem. There will still be terrorists in other countries, and Iraq will still be a crippled American Colony bought at great expense.

So if the reference to 'newscast of record' is incorrect Brit Hume's statement about Al Qaeda in Iraq™ is correct somehow? Maybe he meant El Qaeda in Iraq™  which, since it's not the normal spelling, might make it correct.

Wesley begins the discussion quoting Hillary, and it should be noted that Hillary like many others BELIEVED the Intel that Bush was so carefully spoon feeding them, and time has shown us the allegations about Saddam meeting with AQ were exaggerated at best and outright lies at worst.  

Of course I do thank Wesley for pointing Hillary's 2002 speech out because it does give us the opportunity to examine what else Hillary had to say in that same speech.

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

So while Hillary may have believed at the time that Saddam was linked to AQ, she did not believe attacking Iraq was the smart course to take.

See what a difference having all the information about something makes, instead of picking and choosing bits and pieces to promote an position.

See Hillary thought AQ was in Iraq, while true at that moment in time, it has since been proven false and it does not mean Hillary agreed going to Iraq was the correct thing to do as appears to be Wesleys assertion.

Does is bother any of you that Keith Olbermann is a hypocrite?   I know that Keith is Media Matters' hero, but shouldn't he be held to some standard?  

Here are some of the many examples of Keith Olbermann's hypocrisy:

Keith has named people "Worst Person in the World" for comparing people to the KKK.  Keith has compared people to the KKK himself.

Keith has named people "Worst Person in the World" for comparing people to Nazi's.  Keith has compared people to Nazi's himself.

Keith has named people "Worst Person in the World" for comparing people to Al Qaeda.  Keith has compared people to Al Qaeda himself.

Keith has named people "Worst Person in the World" for comparing people to Osama Bin Laden.  Keith has compared people to Osama Bin Laden himself. 

Keith went after Don Imus for his sexist comment.  Keith made the same sexist comment in describing the wife of a Senator.

From today's hearings:

Senator John Warner: "Does the [Iraq war] make America safer?"

General Petraeus: "I don't know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted in my own mind."

Well, there ya go.

Wesley are you saying YOU believe that prior to our invasion AQ was in Iraq?

I'm sorry, but it has repeatedly been shown that that wasn't true, perhaps you've heard of The Senate report, or perhaps the 9-11 commission? They seemed to hold an entirely different position about AQ being linked to Iraq when they stated there was no "collaborative relationship" between AQ and Saddam.

Of course if you choose to continue to keep drinking the kool-aide, then nothing anyone writes here is going to make a difference, believing AQ was in Iraq is now a matter of "Faith" and faith among "true believers" trumps evidence every time.

Of course if you want to use weasel language and narrowly define "AQ in Iraq", then of course just like we have AQ in The United States, you can argue that they were there, but that doesn't mean they were working with Saddam,  which I believe any rational person would believe was Hume's assertion, just like they aren't working in this country with Bush,

I can't believe that ANYONE could swallow the crap that Hume is spewing this time - seriously, that is such an obvious lie! The whole problem with Iraq is the number of people who had no idea about middle-eastern politics before 9/11 who now consider themselves experts. Aq HAD NO SIGNIFICANT PRESENCE IN IRAQ BEFORE THE WAR - GET IT? The Iraq invasion was exactly what they wanted - they hated Saddam as he was a secular leader who would have no part in the Taliban like state that AQ wants the mideast to become. The U.S invasion made Iraq a magnet for AQ and the images that come out of the country are perfect recruiting tools for terrorists. For one minute, let us forget about partisanship and look at the basic facts - AQ was not in Iraq before the invasion, now it has a strong presence (among MANY other players in the civil war there). There were no WMDs in Iraq- that was bullsh*t from day one - ask Scott Ritter! Another fact: Bin Laden is STILL out there taunting the U.S and her allies! Afghanistan is one of the toughest places on Earth in which to fight a war (ask the Soviets) and the effort there has been seriously weakened by the diversion of Iraq. Let me say it one more time - Bin Laden is STILL OUT THERE - is nobody outraged by that? Does loyalty to the Republican party mean that you can just ignore the taunts of this mass-murderer? For Christ's sake, wake up - FOX news is full of lies designed to help the Republicans....they are liars and whores! Brit Hume is a disgrace to journalism, a whore for the White House and a cheerleader for American deaths - its that simple. I'm so sick of morons thinking that a moronic President that struts around like a cowboy saying moronic things like "dead or alive" and "smoke em out" and other crap is the man to keep America safe - its a fantasy!!! You wanna know what beat Hitler - British code-breakers and American industry - otherwise known as "know-how." The American people need to ask themselves whether they really want to continue with a bunch of liars and cowboys or if they want to invest in brains and experience. If you wanna keep foolin yourself and swallowing the crap from Fox, go ahead, but the blood will be on your hands when Bin Laden strikes again - Six years and they still don't have him - total failure - spin it whatever way you like Republicans - you have failed and made America a bigger target - hang your stupid heads in shame!

Could he have meant that the people who were not Al Qaeda in Iraq before our invasion are now Al Qaeda in Iraq?

If that's what he meant, that they were there before we invaded, then it makes him look really stupid. We invaded, and spawned a whole new generation of terrorists, and that's supposed to validate the invasion?

Good old Brit "Heritage Foundation" Hume, a long-time liar in print and press. A warmongering corporofascist imperialist US-must-rule-the-world scumbag from way back. Murdoch picked him right away to head FOX's Department of Lies and Imperialist BS when he opened the channel. Hume has as much credibility as Charles Manson on crack.

This really is much ado about nothing.  Is there anything that any of the talking heads at FOX say that isn't prime BS?  Among Olbermann's weakest arguments are the references to what the "journalists" at FOX are claiming.  While much of journalism today is in disarray, the FOX network has long ago proven to be no more than a propaganda branch of the Bush Administration.  The network has long ago lost its credibility.  The fact that its talking heads are receiving any awards is, of course, a joke.

I am absolutely amazed at how anyone can bother wasting time responding to the rightwing whackjobs who come here and post idiocy about AQ being in Iraq BEFORE the war, or that Hillary had the exact same intel that the Neo Clowns in the White House did.

 Hillary is an idiot for refusing to admit she just didn't bother reading or doing more research and just went with the mob because of 9/11. I have no respect for anyone like that irrespective of which side of the aisle they are on.

BUT to waste typing time responding to brain dead people like Weasly and Sue and UnAmerican is just beyond reason.

 Why bother?

They are BELIEVERS. It's like to talking to some religious fanatic, Christian of Muslim who is so deep into their beliefs that God herself could come down from the Heavens and point out the error of their thinking and they would refuse to believe it STILL. They'd probably go catatonic at that point.

Why Suey did was divert the conversation to a very very very minor perception of what constitutes show of record.

WHO CARES?

The idiot said what he said and the Believers swallow it without bothering to even think about it.

So why bother responding to the trollz? There is NOTHING you can say that will make them see the error of their brain dead thinking.

Besides ANYONE who quote Fox Noise as being truthful about anything is short enough brain cells to make four.

I am sure Brit was talking about the fact that one of the 911 jackers met with iraqi officials.  

KO is a windbag, hater and an agent for the left.  MSNBC is a mouthpiece for moveon.org   The most bias network on tv.  It's entertaining, but you have to take it for what it is. 

Next........