The best news for Keith Olbermann since signing his new deal…
Olbermann Watch shuts down!
UPDATE: What will these guys do with themselves?
UPDATE : They claim victory of course. Not that it was deserved…
March 1, 2007
60 Comments »
TrackBack: http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2007/03/01/the-best-news-for-keith-olbermann-since-signing-his-new-deal/trackback/
RSS feed for comments on this post.
I guess Robert Cox will now assign Johnny “I’ll Sell My Soul For A” Dollar to another useless character assasination that few sane people will pay attention to. Perhaps Mr. Dollar can now go after Scarborough for his liberal bias. Then we can all ‘countdown’ the days until Scarborough gets a raise and a multi-year deal. LOL! The site was a joke. I don’t know if it’s shutting down, but I did used to go there from time to time to read the ridiculous ‘recaps’ of Mr. Dollar to laugh. You could virtually take the previous day’s recap, change a few of the names he called KO (they ranged from Fat Ass to the ‘Deplorable Olbermann’) and it would be the same day after day. Messing with the posters there would cheer anyone up if one was having a bad day.
Jeez, I miss that site already. Maybe it’s just down for a re-tooling.
Comment by Shaun — March 1, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
There are plenty of people out there who will continue to call Olbermann out for his constant lies and low ratings.
Yes, Shaun, Scarborough has shown his newly developed liberal bias…but that goes with working for MSNBC.
Comment by Matt — March 1, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
WTF? Did they actually get lives?
Comment by Arthur — March 1, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
> a few of the names he called KO (they ranged from Fat Ass to the ‘Deplorable Olbermann’)
Fat Ass: derived from Olbermann’s name calling of Roger Ailes.
Deplorable: Actually “infamous, deplorable”, derived from Olbermann’s name calling of Matt Drudge.
Those, and many other epithets we used for Olby, were simply names that Olby himself called other people. It was always most amusing to see Olbypologists ridicule the “name calling”. Of course they totally didn’t get it. They were actually ridiculing Olbermann himself.
Comment by johnny dollar — March 1, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
Given Olbermann’s erratic work history, his huge ego, and his penchant for saying outrageous things, I seriously doubt he’ll make it through the four years that NBC-Universal has signed him to. It’s only a matter of time before his mouth spits out something that will get his ample butt fired. And journalism will be better off for it because Olbermann is NOT a journalist but a biased hack.
Comment by Alison — March 1, 2007 @ 2:02 pm
Change the record Alison - we all know your feelings on Olbermann. Perhaps you could extend your righteous criticism to the multitude of other personalities who spout lies and bile (and ‘ample butt’ very nice) until then, it’s getting extremely boring and as personally insulting as you allege he is.
Comment by Mr A — March 1, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
Maybe RC and J$ are right in one regard. Before OW started, KO was a dismal 4th or 5th each night (and I don’t have the exact numbers, but I am going on memory of how bad his ratings wetre when he started), spouting unhinged rantings to an audience that could probably fit in a phone booth.
In an ironic twist, the coupling of fawning coverage KO received from the MSM in an attempt to give him a boost and the exposure OW gave to the slippery journalistic standards practiced on Countdown, caused more people to pay more attention to KO than he deserves.
I also believe that a coordinated effort by the Blue Blogs to boost Olbermann and attack J$, RC and any other person who would criticize or expose KO for the loser he is, has helped KO get to 3rd Place, his new contract and a bigger mailbox for his staff to communicate with him.
Comment by eddiebear — March 1, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
Who will keep up with the lies olbermann tells on air?Its a shame.Olbermann watch has do so much good like exposing brain at tvnewser has a liberal and lover of olbermann.
What am i gonna do??Somebody hold me please!!
Comment by phil — March 1, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
#5 WTH is a looser? You can’t even get it right calling someone a loser LMAO
Comment by Lurker — March 1, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
Shaun, you said some very vile things about J$ a few weeks ago, and after many requests, you have still not shown us how he has done anything but report on Keith’s actual actions.
And Jason, there’s nothing funnier than seeing someone write about what losers people are when they cannot even spell the word themselves. It’s true, Jason, it’s “loser” (one “o”), not “looser”. Now who is the loser?
And to everyone else, Keith is entitled to feel or say whatever he wants. But I think our main problem with him is his failure to present any view other than his own. I imagine people actually watch his program thinking that he presents all aspects of a story, when, in fact, he will never invite on a guest that will not echo his exact viewpoint on a topic.
But the other disturbing aspect of Keith is his criticism of his peers in the media. We know he hates O’Reilly, but how can his attacks on Anderson Cooper be explained? Cooper is no ideologue, and seems respected by people from various political backgrounds. And he seems almost fearless, based on the stories he’s brought us from very dangerous venues throughout the world. But he gets nothing but disrespect from Keith, who refuses to stray from the confines of his studio. Go figure.
Comment by Missy — March 1, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
Keith’s has a very groundbreaking show. It is the first news show ever in the history of television to NEVER have an opposing viewpoint. Every guest echos Keith’s views on every show. Maybe all shows could learn something from Keith’s innovative approach to the news.
Comment by Jim — March 1, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
How funny…LMAO..Praise the lord the KO hate blog has been done away with. NOW, hopefully, J$ will close his “everybody hates us, fnc does everything right” blog.
Comment by Me — March 1, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
Johnny Dollar, you are wrong. Trust me, we GOT it! What YOU didn’t understand is that there are MANY very patriotic Americans out there who have just gotten sick, tired, and very ANGRY about constantly having our patriotism being called into question by our own President, and his apologists…and NOBODY was calling them on it. On top of that, there is one ENTIRE network seemingly devoted to backing and apologizing for almost everything this administration does, or has done. Keith Olbermann stepped up and decided to fill that void the day he called down Rumsfeld for doing just that…one time too many, and many of us are eternally greatfull for his having done that, DESPITE some very obvious flaws we know he has as a true journalist.
Comment by Mike — March 1, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
Oh dear - they’re taking credit for Olbermann’s ratings gains: “Given this, we have come to the conclusion that we have done more harm than good over the past 2+ years in keeping Olbermann in the public eye at a time when few were watching his show and even less cared about his assault on the journalistic standards we hold dear.”
See, if they hadn’t kept him ‘in the public eye’ like they did, he’d long ago have returned to the vile dust from whence he sprung, unwept, unhonored, and unsung.
Comment by Arthur — March 1, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
Okay. My turn. I said it two years ago; Robert A. Cox
says it today: “…we have done more harm than good over the past 2+ years in keeping Olbermann in the public eye at a time when few were watching his show…”
Publicity is publicity. Exposure is exposure. Attention is attention. It’s how the MSM MADE Bill O’Reilly.
O’Reilly had nothing but bad press, but it got people to check his show out. Olbermann some bad press, followed by tons of good press, followed by more bad press, followed by tons of good write-ups in the mainstream press.
Unfortunately it’s a lesson few will take away from this, because most are no longer listening.
Comment by erljr — March 1, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
Good riddance,
The sad thing is I was actually interested in reading a serious rebuttal to Olbermanns commentaries. Instead there was nothing but sarcasm and slapstick in JD’s posts. Unless you were already a Olbermann hater how could anyone take the summaries seriously or even want to make the effort to read them.
Plus, his website had a horrible layout with the default text size below norms, shoved to the left side of the page, not to mention the ugly purple banner across the top. And he forced everyone to click on the “More” link after about 3 sentences in order that he could improve his sites’ statistics which is ludicrous when you make only one post each day.
Comment by elmonica — March 1, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
I was amazed the day I posted my opinion that cable news, on the whole, leans to the right. Predictably, the Olbermann haters swarmed all over me for posting that opinion…but Robert Cox, of all people, stepped up and actually agreed with me. I still give Mr. Cox credit for doing that. However, what continued to amaze me was how he continued to operate a website dedicated to taking down one of the few voices on the left, even as he fully understood that cable news in general, was biased to the right.
Comment by Mike — March 1, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
Keith is also the only journalist/commentator to never issue a retraction/apology for any misquote, mistake, or lie that he made either inadvertently or purposely on the air.
Comment by Jim — March 1, 2007 @ 3:39 pm
See. Still nobody listening…
Comment by erljr — March 1, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
There is no denying Olbermann’s left-wing bias. There is also no denying (although his fans try)that Olbermann is lazy, he won’t leave the studio to cover a story unless it involves baseball. Yet he somehow thinks he’s better than any other (real) journalist working today. His fans seem to think Keith is their answer to Fox News. I say that both Olbermann and Fox are part of the problem with what passes for “journalism” today. I don’t think it’s quite occured to his fanatical fans yet that what they’ve won is a biased hack who would do or say anything just so long as it got him more ratings. Let’s see how long it takes him to self-destruct, he has with every other job he’s ever had. It’s not if, it’s just when. And then we’ll see who gets the last-laugh.
Comment by Alison — March 1, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
It’s a sad day as it was always a pleasure to read Johnny Dollar’s excellent recaps of The Hour Of Spin. BUT…the good news is that it was obvious that the more popular OLBERMANWATCH got the more popular Man Tan Man got although it’s NOT good news for Herr Olby.
I for one had never even watched the show (well, not many did!) until I read Johnny’s “SPECIAL COMMENTS” on this show and then I just had to watch it because I couldn’t believe anyone could be so one sided so I had to see for myself and, unfortunately, it became a habit. I guess it’s like people stopping on an expressway to watch an accident! I told around twenty of my conservative friends about this A Mess NBC accident and they too got hooked because it became a circus watching this orange / green faced conceited jerk make a fool of himself each night and brag about the ratings of his show which is STILL in at least THIRD, more times than not in FOURTH and sometimes even behind reruns of DEAL OR NO DEAL on CNBC!!
Anyway, the fun is not over because it will be very interesting to see how his ratings plunge even lower! And now I can get back to watching Billo at 8PM or even Nancy or even anything else on!!
Comment by Paul — March 1, 2007 @ 3:58 pm
“Keith is also the only journalist/commentator to never issue a retraction/apology for any misquote, mistake, or lie that he made either inadvertently or purposely on the air.”
He’s just emulating our glorious leader.
Comment by Arthur — March 1, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
What the Fox ‘News’ defenders don’t get is that the Administration doesn’t need a network dedicated to backing or apologizing for them. They already have the best bully pulpit in the world in order to articulate and defend their policies with.
Comment by Mike — March 1, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
Keep up the great postings, Shaun! I’ll bet Spud is secretly pleased there are more than just a few of us who enjoy this site despite the crazy wingnuts who hijack his comments pages (yeah, kinda like cable “news”). You’ve said most of what I would have said already, so I’ll just add that the end of “that” site couldn’t happen to more despicable, dishonest and pathetic people. So sad. :)
Comment by museglet — March 1, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
The hypocrisy of Olbermahn lovers knows no bounds. The rip on Fox constantly for being nothing but pro-Republican, yet everyone from Nancy Pelosi to Al Sharpton to Hillary Clinton is allowed to get their viewpoint out on Fox. How many Republicans, or those who might have had an opinion other than Olbermahn’s ever appeared on his show? One. John Ashcroft…. after he was out of office.
Comment by bigred — March 1, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
“very ANGRY about constantly having our patriotism being called into question by our own President, and his apologists…”
Mike, how the hell do you get very angry at something that doesn’t happen? Anytime a Dem/lib is criticized, their response is “Don’t question my patriotism!” It’s not your patriotism that needs questioning. It’s your logic and common sense.
Comment by bigred — March 1, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
It’s not your patriotism that needs questioning. It’s your logic and common sense.
Comment by bigred
So bigred any one who may have different political views than you lack logic and common sense?
Comment by myview — March 1, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
Did I say that? No. I said the common defense from libs whenever they’re criticized is a totally b.s. claim that their patriotism is being attacked. Pelosi tried it just a few days ago, when absolutely nothing what said about her patriotism.
Mike tried the same ridiculous tactic…. and his very ANGRY about it.
Comment by bigred — March 1, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
Red,
In all seriousness, how often has Clinton, Sharpton and Nancy Pelosi been on Olbermann’s show? While I don’t have the opportunity to watch it often, I rarely see politicians on Olbermann’s show. It is usually a few regular pundits.
Since when did Fox News write the Bible on what a show’s format should be?
Comment by elmonica — March 1, 2007 @ 6:15 pm
El, he can have whatever format he wants. But don’t sit there and tell me he’s a journalist or that he’s fair, while FOX only tells one side of the story and does nothing but praise Bush.
There are many varying points of view heard on every single FOX show. There’s only one point of view heard on KO’s show.. his.
Comment by bigred — March 1, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
It’s amazing that for months, we’ve been able to come to this site and disagree with each other, yet manage to get along, without heated rhetoric and name-calling. Now all of a sudden, things have changed. I believe we have a “bad apple” in the bunch, but I’ll let Spud sort things out.
Hopefully the “apple” will knock it off and take the rhetoric down a few notches, so as to not ruin the site for everyone else.
Comment by Missy — March 1, 2007 @ 6:50 pm
Missy, there are bad apples on both sides. As for the tone here lately, it’s become very nasty .In fact way too nasty for me. If it’s this political and nasty now can just imagine what it’ll be like closer to 2008 election. So guys, go at it if that’s what you all want but adios from me for the time being.
Comment by myview — March 1, 2007 @ 6:55 pm
Don’t go away, myview, or others. Maybe things will settle down in a few days. Let’s hope so.
Comment by Missy — March 1, 2007 @ 6:58 pm
Missy, I’d like to stay and maybe one day will return.No doubt keep reading as habits are hard to break. When I talked about nasty tone I wasn’t just referring to other people.I find my tone is getting nastier as days go by.Wouldn’t talk to people in my real life as snotty as I feel I am some days here, so would be best if I quit posting before I have a complete personality change.:)
Comment by myview — March 1, 2007 @ 7:26 pm
I agree myview, both sides are very nasty on here. It’s like all the far left and far right people who don’t respect each other and call each other losers invaded the blog. I hope things can calm down and get some more moderate views.
Comment by Mike Beckham — March 1, 2007 @ 7:33 pm
You guys are right - we wouldn’t talk this way to people in our own lives. I will definitely try to be more civil, here and elsewhere.
Comment by Missy — March 1, 2007 @ 7:47 pm
If anybody thinks the tone is “getting nasty” on here, they obviously have never read Olbermannwatch, and that IS the subject of this thread.
Comment by Mike — March 1, 2007 @ 7:48 pm
Don’t go away mad, Olbermann watch - just go away!
Comment by Becky in OH — March 1, 2007 @ 7:55 pm
You all need a collective cold shower or something because you’re getting way too wrapped up in this. Go out and smell flowers or something. If not I’ll just have to delete any comments that go too far. I’ve wiped out 12 already and I could go further but I’m in a hurry…
Comment by Spud — March 1, 2007 @ 8:04 pm
Check it out! Olbermannwatch shuts down now spud is going to have to go to work.
At least at olbermannwatch you could post free, here if you get out of line spud is going to give you the boot!!!!!
Spud if you think this is bad wait till 1:00 a.m. when the bars begin to let out!!!!
Comment by puck — March 1, 2007 @ 8:19 pm
1am for the bars? Where do you live? It’s 2am here. Though in New York it’s 4am…
Comment by Edward Schatz — March 1, 2007 @ 8:27 pm
Okay, I’m out of the shower. The first thing I thought of while reading this post was all the comments and commenters from OBWatch, and all the hateful rhetoric that would be migrating over here. I hope that doesn’t happen. I avoided that site in the past mainly because of the language. And to any newcomers from OBWatch: wash your mouths out with some good lye soap, keep things to a low simmer, and I for one will look forward to your input.
Comment by erljr — March 1, 2007 @ 10:09 pm
erljr, please note that it was actually Keith’s supporters that injected that type of language over an OBWatch. We conservatives are not that well versed in cuss words and the like.
Comment by Missy — March 2, 2007 @ 7:25 am
Never had been to OBWatch till now, but based on the comment of doing more harm than good,…maybe Olbermann can go back to being a good show now. When Katrina occurred it was the only time I tuned in to get a recap of the days events.
Comment by brettfan — March 2, 2007 @ 10:15 am
Only thing I like about Olbermann is that he irrates the Fox News crowd cause Fox News tends to irriate me, especially the way they dumped Kiran Chetry and don’t care for Iraq news.
Comment by brettfan — March 2, 2007 @ 10:19 am
ohh please missy thats what you would love to believe. You guys are just as venomous as those on the far left.
Bigred always brings up the fact that Olbermann doesn’t have any opposing viewpoints on his show, without acknowledging the fact that except for the WPITW and “special Comments” the other segments of his show aren’t opinion segments, its where he interview guests, most of which are moderates.
If you love balance so much why dont you come on here and complain about the business bloc on FNC, why dont you complain about the half hour news show (they pretty much made it clear that their issue is just to make fun of liberals and democrats).
Comment by Sam — March 2, 2007 @ 10:29 am
Face, KO! You are and will remain a poor excuse for “David” who spends his life trying to slay “Goliath”. Maybe you should try a bigger rock Olby baby.
Comment by Roger — March 2, 2007 @ 10:35 am
We conservatives are not that well versed in cuss words and the like.
(eyeroll)
Comment by Spud — March 2, 2007 @ 10:37 am
^
Hey, that could be true =), I was watching Red Eye yesterday and they were talking about a survey on curse words in lib blogs compared to conservative blogs and it was something like 8 to 1 or was it 18 to 1 but it was a BIG differance.
Comment by Lurker — March 2, 2007 @ 11:10 am
Deja Vu…
I haven’t been watching Red Eye, but I did last night; and it was last night Lurker. I don’t remember what the survey said, but the “panel?” had a wide array of opinions, from 2-to-1 to 20-to-1 to Rachel Marsden, who said conservative label too many words as cuss words. I tend to agree with something in the middle.
Missy - I’m no expert on Olbermannwatch, but I’ll take your word for it. What I saw there was liberals using bad language, and conservatives responding in kind; and having a cussing/swearing-fest does nothing to elevate either argument.
Comment by erljr — March 2, 2007 @ 11:59 am
Now Here’s what I noticed on Olbermann Watch. While many of the liberals were certainly not above using bad langauge, at least half of the vicious personal assaults using such language came from the anti - Obermann crowd. More than once, I posted a simple opinion without using any bad language only to receive incredibly vicious profanity laced responses calling me every name in the book. I wish I had remained above responding in kind every time it happened, but unfortunately, I can’t make that claim.
One more thing, many of the so called “conservative vs liberal” exchanges on Olbermann Watch were really “pro-war vs anti-war” arguments, which I have never believed were one and the same.
Comment by Mike — March 2, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
“the other segments of his show aren’t opinion segments, its where he interview guests, most of which are moderates.”
What? Sam, name one “moderate” he interviewed. Arriana Huffington? The OutFoxed producer? The author of “Bush’s Brain”? Come on. Give me that extensive list of “moderates’ which comprise most of his guests.
And how do you figure the other segments of his show aren’t “opinion” segments. Other than Oddball, there isn’t a single part of his show that isn’t an opinion segment.
And the opinion is always that Bush/FOX/Republicans/ conservatives are all evil.
Comment by bigred — March 2, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
I agree that Keith leans left. That’s one of the reasons I like him. But it’s not at all true that he never has conservatives on his show. Pat Buchanan has been on many times, as has Barry MacAfree (sp?). Clint van Zant doesn’t seem to be very liberal either, nor does Jack Jacobs. All are regular or at least recurring guests.
It’s fairly obvious when there’s a point of disagreement between Keith and a guest. When it happens, the tendency seems to be to minimize the disagreement by moving on to another point. Sometimes I like that and sometimes I don’t, but it does seem to be a consistent policy.
I’d call it counter-programming. If folks want to see a conservative host arguing with liberals, there’s another channel readily available where they can watch precisely that.
Comment by berberry — March 2, 2007 @ 9:43 pm
That’s it? That’s all you guys can come up with?
Buchanan is as anti-Bush as it comes. McAfree was a Clinton appointee. All 4 people you mentioned are on the NBC payroll, and other than Buchanan, none are or have been in the political arena. Most KO guests or “correspondents” are anti-Bush reporters, bloggers, writers, etc. There has never been a pro-Bush opinion on that show.
Sam says most of the guests are “moderates”. Berberry tried to bail him out. Time fo you to step to the plate, Sam.
Comment by bigred — March 3, 2007 @ 5:01 am
Buchanan is anti-Bush because Buchanan is WAY MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN BUSH and you know it, so stop acting like you’ve made some profound point. McAfree has only recently become an anti-Bush critic, as has almost everyone else - conservative or liberal - who isn’t still cheerleading this insane war.
I didn’t say that Olbermann brings on a lot of Bush supporters. Why the hell should he? You can get that on virtually every program on Fox. By now, you have to be an absolute idiot to still support that war criminal in the White House and his stupid war. Why waste airtime with such morons?
What I said was that Keith DOES bring conservative voices on his show. I said it because it’s true. You’re equating “conservative” with “pro-Bush”. Dumb mistake.
Keith’s doing exactly what Keith SHOULD be doing!
Comment by berberry — March 3, 2007 @ 8:00 am
You know, I have to say something else too, bigred, because part of your argument is completely absurd. I throw out names like Jack Jacobs and Barry McCafree and you come back with crap about how they haven’t been part of the “political arena” (even while you note that McCafree once held a political position - I’ll just bet you’re a big fan of Sean Hannity, aren’t you?) But that point aside, what does the “political arena” have to do with anything, and what purpose does it serve in qualifying a potential conservative or moderate guest as acceptable or unacceptable to you for apperance on Keith Olbermann’s show?
Comment by berberry — March 3, 2007 @ 9:30 am
“Buchanan is anti-Bush because Buchanan is WAY MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN BUSH”
Huh? So if you’re a conservative, you’re anti-anyone who isn’t as conservative as you are? And you call my argument absurd.
So Bush is a “war criminal”? What about Hillary? Or John Edwards? Or John Kerry? Or all the other Dems who voted for the war? Are they war criminals too? And don’t bother w/ the b.s. spin that they weren’t voting for war. They knew exactly what they were voting for.
Olbermann can have whoever he wants on his stupid show. The point is, Sam said “most of the guests are moderates” and most of the segments “are not opinion segments”.
You named 4 people who might be considered moderates. Shall we compare that to the dozens & dozens who are definite lefties?
Comment by bigred — March 4, 2007 @ 1:47 am
“So if you’re a conservative, you’re anti-anyone who isn’t as conservative as you are? And you call my argument absurd.”
Yes, absurd in the extreme, just like this nonsense. You’re not even making sense. YOU said that Buchanan was anti-Bush after I used him as an example of a conservative who appears on Keith’s show. “Conservative” DOES NOT equal “pro-Bush”, no matter how much you want it to. I never said that conservatives are “anti-anyone who isn’t as conservative as [they] are”. You made up that nonsense. What I said was that Buchanan is a conservative. You said he’s anti-Bush. Both statements are correct and non-contradictory. The world does not revolve around that war criminal in the White House, and we don’t call people “conservative”, “moderate” or “liberal” based on the degree to which they agree with him.
Can you follow that, or does it need to be broken down further? I did not name 4 people who “might be considered moderates”. I named 4 conservatives.
George W. Bush is a war criminal for, among other things, the lies and mischaracterizations he used in starting this war. Anyone, democrat or republican, who knew as much as we now know Bush knew at the time of the invasion who voted to approve it would indeed also be a war criminal. Absolutely! So show me that Hillary, Edwards or Kerry knew - for instance - that the claim about yellowcake from Niger was bogus or at least highly questionable and I’ll call them war criminals too. It won’t be hard for me; I don’t much like any of the three anyway.
Comment by berberry — March 4, 2007 @ 7:21 am
I admired Bob Cox’s dedication to free speech, but after reading the posting rules at Johnny Dollar’s Place, I think Olbermann Watch would have been a better place had it had the same standards.
Comment by Cecelia — March 4, 2007 @ 10:12 am
Blah, blah, blah. You’re making my head spin w/ your babble. You made this nonsensical statement, not me : “Buchanan is anti-Bush because Buchanan is WAY MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN BUSH”
Secondly, you named one conservative, Buchanan. I’d love to see your proof that the other 3 are “conservative”.
And here’s a news flash for you berberry… Joe Wilson has been proven to be a complete fraud and liar by BIPARTISAN senate panel. He claimed his wife didn’t request him for the trip. Lie. He claimed he found no evidence of Iraq & Niger doing business deals. Lie. His own report disputes that.
As for your incorrect claim that Bush lied about the yellowcake from Niger deal, check out this:
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html
You almost might want to google Hillary Code Pink speech from days before the Iraq invasion and get her true feelings on the war.
Comment by bigred — March 4, 2007 @ 2:05 pm