Olbermann awarded Barnes "best rationalization" for criticism of Obama for bucking conventional wisdom on Iraq
On the October 9 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, during his nightly "Goofballs and Good Guys" segment, host Keith Olbermann honored Fox News host and Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes with the "best rationalization" award for his claim -- documented by Media Matters for America -- that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is not "strong on national security" because he opposed, in 2002, the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq "when the entire world believed Saddam Hussein ... had weapons of mass destruction." Olbermann stated: "[B]est rationalization -- Fred Barnes of 'Fixed News' claiming Senator Obama's position on Iraq is not as strong as Obama thinks it is. That his ... 2002 speech came, quote, 'in a time when the entire world believed Saddam Hussein in Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. ... I don't think that shows that he is very strong on national security, which he needs to be,' unquote." Olbermann concluded: "So, he is not strong on national security because he was right and you, Fred Barnes, were totally damned wrong."
From the October 9 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: These stories ahead but, first, time for our "Goofballs and Good Guys."
Here are Countdown's top three "Best Persons in the World": Number 3 -- best rationalization -- Fred Barnes of "Fixed News," claiming Senator Obama's position on Iraq is not as strong as Obama thinks it is. That his 2000 speech came -- his 2002 speech came, quote, "in a time when the entire world believed Saddam Hussein in Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And yet, Barack Obama was against the war at that point. I don't think that shows that he is very strong on national security, which he needs to be," unquote.
So, he's not strong on national security because he was right and you, Fred Barnes, were totally damned wrong.
I believe that Fred Barnes is the next door neighbor of Bizarro Superman
He could be Hank Hill's neighbor. Fred Barnes is just as two-dimensional as the characters on "King of the Hill".
:-)
Another great thread on Olbermann. Have to have that great plug .
If you dislike the fact that these threads are here so much, why do you post multiple times to all of them?
I do not dislike them, that is exactly why I comment on them. get a grip.
Sue, it's you that has lost a grip on reality, a long time ago.
Leave it to Sue to focus on the messenger NOT the message.
Obama was wrong cause he knew it was a mistake to go war with Iraq? To repeat 'Obama is not strong on national security because he was right about the US going to war'? Does the Fox not pump in oxygen into the studio? IS that the reason that these guys at Fox continue to make such stupid statements?
We know the messenger was wrong, Barnes is a moron, we get it , we got it the other day in the original thread. Why repeat this ? Your logic is simple, if you "dare" question a member of the party you are labeled as someone who defends Barnes and Republicans. pretty weak.
Your logic is simple, if you "dare" question a member of the party you are labeled as someone who defends Barnes and Republicans. pretty weak.
Sueeld, MY message is to focus on the message not who delivers it. YOU seem to want to focus on the messenger as if it is somehow just as important as the message. I did not accuse you with siding with Republicans nor Barnes simply pointed out you continued obsession with any and all things Keith.
Another 5 minutes of your life you won't get back. Have to have those priorities.
"Have to have that great plug"
And some have to look at what they don't want to see and then complain they're seeing it.
Should we repeat the comments again from this outstanding thread the other day?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200710070003?f=h_latest
Seriously, Sue, did Keith not ask you to the prom???
Im alittle too old for Keith.
I can't wait to see what was said by Colbert! Maybe we can get a snippet from South Park?
and Leno and Letterman also.
"I can't wait to see what was said by Colbert!"
Surely you can wait at least as long as we have for you to say something interesting.
AA -
It's not OUR fault you can't appreciate good satire. It must be your Republican wiring. Don't take it out on us here, though.
Cheers!
Aw, Sueeld, the post follows the rationale for MMFA nicely: hate-wing nonsense is exposed. A substantial bonus is, that someone - Olbermann - actually expresses the reaction that MMFA would wish would be expressed, utterly mocking the FoxLies (FixedNews) spokesperson and the organization for which he stands. I happen to appreciate Olbermann more for his serious work, the Special Comments; but can certainly understand why MMFA would spotlight these attempts at humor, to highlight the absurdity of the entire Repugnant/Corporate reaction to reality that leans liberal.
Actually the post shows hte partnership that has developed between Olbermann and MMFA. Nothing wrong with that but lets be honest. One pats the back of the other.
Hey . . . If I Had A Hammer . . .
If I didn't have a hammer, I'd probably borrow someone else's hammer and Olbermann is one of very few sources in the Corporate Media able to supply the very type of hammer that MMFA needs, to pound this hate-wing nail over, pull it out, and put it into the appropriate trash receptacle.
Just like Rush, Savage, Beck et al does to the Freepers.
And who's not being honest?
Sort of like Murdoch employee Bill O'Reilly getting a full page ad for the paperback version of his book in the Murdoch owned NY Post?
MMFA has no affiliation with Obermann other than a philosophical one.
"no affiliation"? Really? And your evidence of that would be.......?
I would think that there are more important issues and misinformation to cover out there in the media that Olbermann and MMFA spoon-feeding each other stories back and forth.
Altogether now: It's their website...they can post whatever they want.
With that same logic , it is Barnes show and he can say whatever he wants without criticism. Since you do not believe in being critical of anyone if they own something or it is their "website". Nice logic.
That was quite a leap. Nothing in doggone's post would lead a thinking person to that conclusion.
Really?
Altogether now: It's their website...they can post whatever they want.
Yeah, really. You alone introduced the concept that criticism was deemed out of bounds.
Well when one says they can do whatever they want, how are people supposed to take it. How about this: Imus said those horrible things about the Rutgers girls however , he can say whatever he wants because it is his show. Is that valid?
Yeah that' valid. You're not saying thou shalt not criticize Imus. You are saying Imus can say what he wants.
That's all doggone said. He said MMFA can print what it wants, he didn't say that MMFA was unassailable, that was your less than reasonable conclusion.
"Imus said those horrible things about the Rutgers girls however , he can say whatever he wants because it is his show"
I think Imus' former employers and distributors would beg to differ. They have the final say as to what is tolerated on their networks and stations, and they made their decision loud and clear.
Imus said his racist rant on the public airwaves. Big Difference.
It wasnt actually his show or he would still be doing it. it used him and his name but was not his.
Barnes can have his own opinions. He can't have his own facts. Unfortunatly for you Sue, facts have a liberal bias.
"With that same logic , it is Barnes show and he can say whatever he wants without criticism"
Nope, he can say what he likes...and we can criticise if we choose. But "with" is not criticism...it's just whining.
I've got to provide evidence of non affiliation?
No it's up to you to provide the evidence of affiliation.
You know, like the NY Post and Fox News Channel.
I would say since they parrot each other quite often, then they apparenlty have a non-affiliation affliation......and they swap material almost daily.
But it's all good.......MMFA has a tool on a major cable news network. Nicely done.
I said they have a philosophical affiliation.
"and they swap material almost daily."
There's a big difference between quoting someone and working hand in hand with someone.
Please, you proof again?
Tommy so what you're saying is that because MMFA and Olbermann point out how foolish Barnes words are, that they're affliated?
And even if they are (and I don't believe so), then so what, we all knows how rampant it goes on with another network. I haven't seen anyone else in MSM talk about this foolish comment from Barnes, so I thank Olbermann and MMFA for that.
I said they have a philosophical affiliation.
"and they swap material almost daily."
There's a big difference between quoting someone and working hand in hand with someone.
Please, your proof again?
Is it cool with you that PNAC has a tool in the White House or that the Heritage Foundation has a tool on the radio and that same radio tool has tools on cable news?
I mean, if it ain't cool with you then that's cool. We cool man?
I don't much care who tools around with whom, as long as they're honest about it and don't act all sanctimonious in some hollow denial.
That's legitimate I suppose. I just don't recall MMFA either confirming or denying an association with Olberman.
Maybe you have proof? A denial or confirmation perhaps?
Round, My response to was to Johnny who emphatically claimed there was no affiliation between MMFA and Olbermann.......bottom line is neither of us know for sure. If they do have an affiliation, good for them. If not, they certainly cover and recover many of the same obscure items in the media.
There is no proven affiliation between Olbermann and MMFA.
That's a fact.
To claim otherwise is simply wrong.
To claim nobody knows if there is or not is wrong.
To claim there is not is wrong, because no one knows.
Thank you for finally admitting you don't know that Olbermann and MMFA are working together.
Maybe this will stop your posting otherwise.
I never said I had proof , only that it was a possibility but thanks for trying to silence different views. Sounds like the Olbermann show.
I'm just trying to keep your head from exploding because it's holding contradictory ideas.
Why then all the fuss? If nobody knows the truth of it, why not focus on the topic at hand? Meaning Olberman highlighted Barnes' absolutely false sense of reality?
And just for the record Johnny himself was responding to a rather emphatic (and topic derailling post) that there was indeed some dark collusion between this site and Olberman. So to cast he alone as sanctimonious is a stretch, he was simply giving a response to an out of the blue subterfuge.
"I don't much care who tools around with whom, as long as they're honest about it and don't act all sanctimonious in some hollow denial."
Please show where MMFA has ever discussed any affiliation with Olbermann and NBC much less sanctimoniously denied it.
The floor is yours.
Or is this going to be one of those "everybody knows" things like "everybody knows the mainstream media has a liberal bias"?
Well, it's not as if Fox has any affiliations whatsoever with, say, The Weekly Standard. Or National Review. Or Michelle Malkin. Or Fred Barnes. And vice-versa. Oh, no, no. They're above that sort of partnering.
Sue have you noticed the partnership between the White House and Fox? Did you know that the partnership between the WH and Fox caused the US to lose access to a site that had a connections in releasing OBL tapes? That same partnership (Fox & WH) cause this site to shut down because the WH was more interested in raising the terrorist theme right before the general testified than keeping quite about a link that could provide actual intelligence. THAT is a link worthy of obsessing.
Within 20 minutes, a range of intelligence agencies had begun downloading it from the company's Web site. By midafternoon that day, the video and a transcript of its audio track had been leaked from within the Bush administration to cable television news and broadcast worldwide.
The founder of the company, the SITE Intelligence Group, says this premature disclosure tipped al-Qaeda to a security breach and destroyed a years-long surveillance operation that the company has used to intercept and pass along secret messages, videos and advance warnings of suicide bombings from the terrorist group's communications
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/08/AR2007100801817_pf.html
Get over your obsession with Keith and MMFA and focus on a real partnership that is much more important!
Sue have you noticed the partnership between the White House and Fox?
Of course the White House and FOX are in partnership, please explain where I have ever defended FOX yet alone this corrupt White Hous?
Of course the White House and FOX are in partnership, please explain where I have ever defended FOX yet alone this corrupt White Hous?Sueeld
Sue you have not defended it. I simply find that partnership (Fox & WH) to be much more real and the consequence much more important to all of us than the 'partnership' you seem to see between Keith and MMFA.
People on the "right" get confused over what the real war is. Obviously it was more important to use this to win the real war. Same thing with the Plame info, more important to use in the real war by publishing than to use in the middle east by keeping the front company secret. the real war is against the liberals. the other wars are just useful in that great struggle.
when has rationality become.... unrational. Someone is weak on something because they were right.... I kinda think OBama should be president due to that form of insightfulness....
But I don't think common sense would count as insightful (even if Saddam had weapons.. like hell he would use them on the US, considering we can take him down in a week...)
I see it now. It's all very logical. The whole world believed (yeah. right!) Sadaam had WMDs ,but Obama didn't so he's weak on foreign policy.
Or could it be Obama has a brain and is not a mindless sheep like Barnes and his ilk?
Exactly. The abject stupidity of Barnes' argument is astounding. Even more astounding is the ease with which he will spoonfeed it to the knuckledraggers who comprise Fox's core audience.
What he's saying, in essence, is that the best leaders are those who are easily duped and are susceptible to mass hysteria.
Didn't we hang some guys at Nuremburg for that?
"What he's saying, in essence, is that the best leaders are those who are easily duped and are susceptible to mass hysteria"
For proof: check out the current occupant of the White House
Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is not "strong on national security" because he opposed, in 2002, the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq "when the entire world believed Saddam Hussein ... had weapons of mass destruction."
Fred should quit re-writing history. The UN had weapons inspectors in Iraq at the time and they were not finding any WMDs. Saddam Hussein kept telling us he didn't have WMDs. So, to say that "the entire world believed Saddam Hussein ... had weapons of mass destruction" is to be in denial of what was really happening in 2002.
One more time:
The ENTIRE world may have believed Saddam had WMD.
So what?
It was ONLY the neocons who believed WMD posed a threat to the USA and launched the first preemptive, totally elective, war in the history of this great nation.
Obama was right. Iraq posed no threat to our national security.
This is a typical far right smear job.
I did not know Bill Clinton was a neocon, now he did not start a war but he attacked a soverign nation that he said had WMD.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
You're right.
Bill Clinton didn't start a war with Iraq.
The neocons did.
Thank you.
That was my whole point. So in your world Neocons start wars and others just attack innocent countries ? But do not call it a war. I wonder if the Iraqi children who suffered and starved in the 90s used Neocons and war terminology?
My world?
Please, which war did Bill Clinton start?
None, where did I say he started a war?
Clinton bombed Iraq for eight straight years. All acts of agressive war without any legal basis, too. Then there's the one million Iraqis who died prematurely from lack of medical supplies, thanks to the US veto of purchase requests under the Oil-for-Food (and medicines) thingie. Denial of medical supplies to a civilian population is a war crime, ala Nuremburg and the Geneva Conventions. But then it was "worth it", according to his Sect of State. Funny how this persecution of the Iraqi people has been such a bi-partisan affair for close to two decades now....with no end in sight.
Actually, President Clinton attacked a "soverign [sic] nation" because Saddam Hussein wasn't allowing weapons inspectors into the county, but you already knew that.
Who was the US to tell Iraq what they could and could not do and allow in their country?
It was done via the UN ... if you've forgotten that too, you should really read up on your history books. And ones not handed out by the RNC.
A former Republican started the immoral war with Iraq, so I doubt I read RNC Memos but thank you. The UN did not support killing kids in Iraq.
"Who was the US to tell Iraq what they could and could not do and allow in their country?"
This place is getting more and more like a Civics 101 class every day.
So you are ok with American domination in the world?
I'm all for minimizing threats to our national security.
Iraq did not threaten our national security and even if they did there were many ways short of all out war to control that threat.
That's where the school of thought that says "everybody thought Iraq had WMD" therefore everybody thought an all out war was necessary is wrong.
President Clinton showed no such signs of wanting to "Dominate the World". The current administration, being led by the nose by PNACers, is a different story.
Of course, as President Clinton was trying to take care of a rogue Saddam Hussein, all Congressional Republicans could do was stroke the First Zipper and chant "Wag the dog! Wag the dog!"
rogue Saddam Hussein
Why was he rogue? He was the leader of a soverign nation whether we liked him or not.
Why was he rogue?
Because it was believed he had WMDs and he wasn't allowing UN inspectors into the country to verify it.
Sue, you really need to catch up. I'm tried of having to teach you all this.
Just because you call him rogue does not mean it is and was true. He was a leader of a nation, you need to learn the meaning.
Sue, the UN required Saddam Hussein to submit to weapons inspectors. He wouldn't do it. That made him rogue.
I'm tired of spoon feeding history lessons to you.
Your version of history is alot different than the real version, but thank you.
No, my version of reality is not. Maybe you should re-read the link you gave earlier.
Saddam Hussein was not co-operating back in 1998. First he wouldn't allow them into the country, then when given a final warning, he allowed them into the country, but wouldn't allow them access to all sites.
This is in stark contrast to 2002/2003, where he did give them immediate access to all requested sites.
You keep bringing up 2003 like it is different than 1998. Why is it different? What right did the US or other nations have in interfering with Iraq in both time periods? Or is it only becuase Clinton was around in 98 that you feel it was ok for America to be the agressive> I feel its wrong regardless.
You're entitled to your opinion, as I am mine. But for you to ascribe reasons for my opinions, and you're wrong about them, is just bs.
President Clinton, in 1998, had valid reasons for attack Iraq. And all he did was attack it. You may not agree with them, but they were valid.
Bush, in 2003, did not have valid reasons for invading and occupying Iraq. He pulled the weapons inspectors out of Iraq and they were doing their job. Since then, Bush has re-written history and said numerous times that Saddam Hussein was not allowing weapons inspectors into the country and that's why we had to go in.
No, inspectors had been allowed in. Clinton bombed to force them OUT. One day after inspections resumed in '98, Clinton and Blair ordered the teams out and started a bombing spree. The inspectors did not return until 2002. Clinton didn't want inspectors in Iraq because they would certify Iraq wmd-free and the sanctions would have been lifted. But he was busy setting the ground-work for "regime change" with his Iraqi Liberation Act. Bush and Cheney just expanding on Clinton's policies. The DC machine tends to run in straight lines, no matter who they claim is at the wheel.
You must be getting your news (and history) from Faux Noise. That would explain you getting everything wrong. Saddam Hussein would not allow weapons inspectors in, that's why President Clinton proceeded with the attacks.
In 2002/2003, because Bush played a tough guy image, Saddam Hussein allowed the weapons inspectors back in. That was one of the few good things Bush ever did. When Bush wanted to attack Iraq, he pulled the weapons inspectors out of the country and began bombing.
Faux Noise
You have to steal Olbermanns line? Bombing Iraq was wrong in 98 and the war is wrong. Can you take your partisan glasses off for once?
You have to steal Olbermanns line?
Sue, sit on it and spin. It's been call Fox/Faux Gnus/Noise and many other combinations for years. Long before Olbermann got his show on MSNBC.
Can you take your partisan glasses off for once?
Maybe you need to take yours off. I actually complimented Bush in the preceeding post. But you're so quick to attack, attack, attack, you're probably not even really reading these posts, are you?
Why are you complimenting Bush the "War Criminal"?
If you do not mind stealing Olbermanns material , they keep right on it , after all he steals MMFAs material .
If you do not mind stealing Olbermanns material , they keep right on it , after all he steals MMFAs material Sueeld
It should be time out for you Sueeld. Seriously, I'm not sure if you like the attention for your continued obsession with Keith or if your simply obsessed with Keith. Either way, up your medication cause one pill is certainly not working.
The thread is about Keith, hence the discussion. Class is back in session Pearlene.
The thread isn't about "Keith" as you call him but about Barnes being awarded the Worst Person Award because of what he said about Obama.
You tried to turn it into an MMFA plugging "Keith*, as you call him, thread once again.
Interesting considering Olbermann is the one who is listed on the headline of the thread.
That's how you see it through your "Keith", as you call him, obsession.
Then you go on to claim MMFA is plugging his show again.
A more rational reading is MMFA is highlighting what Barnes said about Obama and what it got him.
That was discussed the other day when this first started.
And you believe MMFA is posting about it again, "plugging" "Keith", as you call him, because of the "partnership" they've developed and you believe this because it can't be disproved not because there is even a shred of evidence it is true.
Bill O'Reilly couldn't have said it better.
Putting words in my mouth again, nice.
The "they're misquoting me" defense didn't work for O'Reilly and its not working so well for you either:
- SUEELD / Wednesday October 10, 2007 12:49:06 PM EST: Another great thread on Olbermann. Have to have that great plug .
- SUEELD / Wednesday October 10, 2007 11:57:45 AM EST: Actually the post shows hte partnership that has developed between Olbermann and MMFA. Nothing wrong with that but lets be honest. One pats the back of the other.
- SUEELD / Wednesday October 10, 2007 02:07:41 PM EST: To claim there is not is wrong, because no one knows.
Where did I say we should not discuss the Barnes comment?
Try to keep track of what I'm posting.You didn't say that.
You're questioning why they're running it when it was run a couple of days ago.
You're asserting they're "plugging" Olbermann because of the "partnership" they've developed even though there's no proof of this at all.
In fact, you posted because there's no proof doesn't mean the "partnership" doesn't exist.
This is good X-Files stuff.
Because Jimmy Hoffa was never found does not mean he is dead or he is alive . We do not know. But keep your wishful thinking .
Once again, thank you for agreeing we don't know if MMFA has a partnership with Olbermann.
Maybe you should try the "taken out of context" defense.
It didn't work very well for Limbaugh but it just might work out for you.
What was taken out of context? No where did I ever say MMFA should not discuss the comments that Barnes made about Obama.
That's not what I posted.
Please try to follow along.
You claimed I put words in your mouth, I showed you I didn't so maybe you should try the I'm "taking you out of context" defense since the "I'm being misqouted" isn't working so well for you.
I think you are lost because I have no idea what you are talking about.
Sue, are you saying that since this was covered in a thread previously, that it shouldn't be brought up again when someone from the MSM actually points out what bs guys like Barnes and his ilk are spewing?
Not at all.
I'm not sure I understand why you have a problem with this thread then, if that's the case.
I do not have a problem with the thread.
Ok I'm glad you cleared that up for me. From one of your previous comments though, you asked, "Why repeat this?", and to me it seemed to indicate that you thought this thread was useless because it had been talked about before.
Not at all , the substance is important, my issue is the promotion of Olbermann, a side story to the horrible and stupid comments by Barnes.
So are you saying that if anyone other than Olbermann had noted the comments made by Barne, it would have been ok to you? If that's the case, then I doubt this thread would exist because I haven't seen anyone else even talk about it. I don't think MMFA is promoting Olbermann, but rather pointing to someone who show's what idiotic statements guys like Barnes makes. You yourself said the substance of the message is important, so why have a problem with who deliivers it?
The comments have been noted, who really cares what Olbermann thinks. We have had intelligent discussion on these comments and what Olbermann thinks and says should be irrelevant to what Barnes said. Again its a cross promotional issue, its wrong. MMFA is supposed to be independent , not promoting a person who works for a network that allowed Tucker Carlson to say a remark supporting "gay bashing".
"Actually the post shows hte partnership that has developed between Olbermann and MMFA. Nothing wrong with that but lets be honest. One pats the back of the other."
So now its wrong? You need some stronger meds.
I can see why you feel that way, but I don't agree with you. I do agree that Tucker should be held responsible for his comments, that's another story.
The reasons I don't agree with is is because:
1) This whole site is about what people say. So in this case, Olbermann's opinion does matter because he seems to be just about the only one in MSM who's comments on bs statements like Barnes made.
2) I'm not sure how often you're able to come here Sue, but unfortunately for me I can't come as often as I'd like and make a comment before the thread is old. So in this case, it's a benefit for me and those like myself but boring for those who come more often.
Anyway, that's my two cents. The way I see it, it's more of a "thumbs up" to Olbermann rather than a promotion. Either way, the one thing I'm glad the one thing we can agree on is that what Barnes said was wrong. That's the most important thing.
"Not at all , the substance is important, my issue is the promotion of Olbermann, a side story to the horrible and stupid comments by Barnes."
So you do have a problem with the thread.
No the thread is important . Again you see things that do not exist.
Medication, seriously medication.
Class, seriously class.
Sue, where did I call Bush a "war criminal?" When you're losing an argument, do you always put words in other people's posts that they haven't posted?
I called him a war criminal, that is what he is. Geez.
No, I get my news from the BBC World Service, the most respected news org on the planet. Desert Fox was launched AFTER inspectors had resumed operations, after they had been thrown out when it was discovered there were CIA operatives amongst the teams and Madeleine Albright had stated publicly that "regime change" was US policy. When allowed back in, they had one day of inspections, then Clinton and Blair ordered them out and began blowing the place up. You got your "facts" all wrong.
Saddam Hussein was not co-operating with inspectors. He wasn't allowing them into sites. He was putting roadblocks in their way.
In 2002/2003, he was actually really co-operating. In 1998, he was not.
Of the over one hundred sites inspected that day, only at ONE, Ba'ath Party HQ, were inspectors denied access. Clinton and Blair immediately ordered the inspectors out and began to KILL Iraqis. You seem fine with a Democrat killing people for no good reason, while jumping all over Repubs doing the same.
You really don't see the magnitude of difference between Clinton's response and Bush's?
A dead Iraqi child is a dead Iraqi child. If you think it's better for a Democrat to kill them than for a Repub, you got problems.
Actually that isnt really accurate. There was a sensative site protocol. It said they could go into any site even sensative sites with four persons. If they found anything everyone would be allowed in. That protocol was negotated in the Security Counsel. Butler wanted to go into a sensative site with everybody thus VIOLATING the established agreed upon protocol. I actually saw the video of this confrontation. The guards said not take in four people. Butler refused demanding the entire team be admitted the guard said no take six. Butler stormed away and removed the inspectors from Iraq
Still seems a very small point to launch a bombing spree on a city for, don't it?
By the way, thanks for validating my point that it wasn't Iraq's fault that the inspectors left. I always did suspect Butler of having ulterior motives.
And more to the point, the whole world did not believe. Some of us in the US did not believe because we bothered to read below the fold and to seek out alternate sources of info.
I bet a neocon in my office a steak dinner months before we went in (when it was obvious that we would) that they wouldn't find squat. He never did make good.
He mostly replies (like Barnes) that "people like you are going to get us killed". Remember it's all about the fear.
If there wasn't any fear, the Republican Party would have to invent it.
Yeah, Obama is against the war, this is why he voted to fund it for years and has said he will keep US troops in Iraqi if President. But the Dem propaganda machine keeps refering back to 2002 and ignores his voting record. The only time he didn't vote for it was when he knew that last bill was a done deal and both he and Hillary voted against it to look anti-war for the upcoming elections. And I would wager good money that if he had been in office in 2002, he would have voted FOR the war.
He's also so anti-war that he didn't bother to show up for the vote that just passed on declaring part of Iran's military "terrorists", which gives Bush and Cheney a blank check to start bombing. Too busy campaigning to bother. He's also made a few anti-Iran, pro-Israel speeches lately. Same old war-mongering foreign policies we have now, that we had last time, that we had the times before. Obama is just more of the same.
More important is the imbalance on this website between posters with canine derivative names versis feline derivative names. Whats up with that?
At no point during 2002 did Barack Obama say, "Saddam does not have WMD." MMFA is being dishonest in implying that he did. If you could go back in a time machine and ask Obama, I am certain that he would say Saddam did indeed have WMD. Even those representatives and senators who voted against authorizing force against Iraq stated that Saddam had WMD.
In addition, I don't believe Olbermann ever stated that Saddam did not have WMD. If someone can provide a pre-invasion statement from Olbermann in which he said that Saddam had no WMD, please share it.
No they are not being dishonest. Cough up MMFA saying he DID deny there were WMDs in Iraq. The burden of proof is on those making the claim. I certainly was saying there were no WMDs in Iraq after Powells debacle at the UN. If he was just skeptical he had no reason to go all the way to Iraq has NO WMDs to oppose the war. Whatever his reason it is pretty clear HE was right. Propagandists like Barnes were WRONG, so its just foolish for Barnes to be saying well he was right, I was wrong so you cant trust HIM on National Security.
I think you are getting to the glimmer of reason in Barnes comment. It seemed to everyone, says Barnes, that SH had WMD and even though this was as far as we all could tell a credible threat Obama did not take it seriously. I think it is a weak weak weak argument from Barnes but most on this thread are failing to understand or acknowledge it. Obama may have not been convinced enough to go to war or he may have thought there were better ways to handle it. I dont know what he thought. Does anyone have some real information about why Obama dissented?
Olberman is a attack dog making his bones with the far left without them he would be barking out the weather some where but found his place throwing chunks of blood red meat through his imaginary window.
F.B.
Who is Keith Olbermann
He is the newsguys as those of us NOT morons already knew