digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at crooksandliars.com

Countdown Special Comment: Olbermann gets it right again!

crooksandliars.com — Kieth Olbermann is right on target as ususal. The neocons hate government and want to detroy it by starting wars and spending money until the government ceases to function. Mr. Bush has destroyed the constitution as we knew it. The lies, the corruption, just blows my mind. It's time to impeach him but, nobody has enough votes to carry it out.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • alphasubzero949, on 12/07/2007, -13/+49ITMFA.
  • nsareadthis, on 12/07/2007, -12/+99"We have either a president who is too dishonest to restrain himself from invoking World War Three about Iran at least six weeks after he had to have known that the analogy would be fantastic, irresponsible hyperbole — or we have a president too transcendently stupid not to have asked"

    KO ROX !!
    • colobikeguy, on 12/07/2007, -2/+9normally, the word 'stupid' and 'president' in the same sentence by mainstream media guy is ... well... not eva... but it was strangely... right...
    • sleeknerve, on 12/07/2007, -2/+12YUP, Bush just got KO'd (pun intended)
    • soehner, on 12/07/2007, -3/+7Digg should let you digg Olbermann's videos twice!
      • ssravp, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1Why?
        • Laughto, on 12/07/2007, -0/+3psst. he's saying he likes Olbermann's videos so much he wishes he could digg them twice.
          Thank me later ;)
  • toddcat, on 12/07/2007, -19/+78If only we had more journalists like Olbermann, this world would be SO much more peaceful.
    • machiavelli10, on 12/07/2007, -40/+14Keith Olberman is just as one sided as Sean Hannity is for the other side. Is it just me or does Keith Olberman do his makeup in a girlish way now? When he was on sportcenter back in the days, he never looked girlish.
    • Noctem, on 12/07/2007, -28/+16Journalist. Ha. Good one!
    • armor, on 12/07/2007, -19/+10He's not a journalist. I like him. And I like what he has to say. But he's not a journalist.
      • starkruzr, on 12/07/2007, -6/+6He *has been* a journalist. But yes, he's (unabashedly, I would say) an opinion pundit.
        • cmorwhat, on 12/07/2007, -3/+3Wow, one hell of a pundit tho. His last remark "good luck and good night" oh man that was classic. back from the 50's when the same thing that is happening today was going on with the Commies. It's just amazing how epic this has become. What a show what a show
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 12/07/2007, -5/+15Journalist: One whose occupation is to write for any of the public news media, such as newspapers, magazines, radio, television, or internet; also, an editorial or other professional writer for a periodical. [1913 Webster +PJC]

        He's a journalist.
    • cygnus183, on 12/07/2007, -3/+11I really like Olbermann, he gets me all riled up. But when he signs off with the venerable "good night and good luck" I felt that he was being a little pretentious comparing himself to Murrow. But then when I think about it, he's really doing the same thing Murrow was doing.
      • BrewBeau, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1He might be pretentious if he lit up the cigarette, too.
    • blackmage439, on 12/07/2007, -1/+8I regret not being able to catch Countdown more often, but I'm glad I did last night. He really ripped O'Riely, Beck, Bush, and that new White House Press Skank Perino new ones. Say what you want about the guy, but who else has the balls go and publicly call-out people like Kieth does? I guarantee that if just 25% of this nation was as vocal as him, Bush would have been impeached already, the 'Patriot' Act would be abolished, Habeas Corpus would be reinstated, and our troops would be home.
      • razor150, on 12/07/2007, -0/+3Truer words can not be said of this whole mess.
    • jtskier1200r, on 12/07/2007, -2/+0Peaceful, yep, he sure looks peaceful during his rants...thats what we need more of - bitter anger.
      • chijim70, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1Yeah, we should get back to shopping and just let the establishment look out for our best interest without any questioning of it. Lets get back to being good Bahaha sheeple.
        /sarcasm
    • MaximusD, on 12/07/2007, -0/+2There is an irony in the fact the the people who are outraged -- the people who are angriest -- are the ones for peace. But toddcat is still right -- we'd be more peaceful collectively if more individuals would get outraged.
  • HughManBeing, on 12/07/2007, -15/+121When are we going to accept that this administration is more corrupt than just lying us into war. They were involved with stealing two elections. They perpetrated the largest false flag act of terrorism this country has ever seen. They are successfully taking away our rights, devaluing our country's currency, and overriding our country's Constitution and driving us towards a police state and martial law. Olbermann did a fantastic job and this is refreshing, but what he said should be obvious to an informed society. It is simply a scratch on the surface of the criminal nature of this cabal. We have a lot more digging to do to get to the bottom of the truth of this administrations criminality. Peace.
    • pradaaddict, on 12/07/2007, -18/+8"They perpetrated the largest false flag act of terrorism this country has ever seen."

      can you offer proof of this?
      • AtomicTank, on 12/07/2007, -1/+9The point is moot, really. I'm don't swing either way on this issue (that being the purposeful demolition of the towers by our own government) and without an official all-encompassing investigation that isn't horribly mangled by the very people it would point the finger at, one that is likely never to happen, I can't really say anything more on it.
        Regardless, the point here is that the Bush administration used it to start an unlawful, unconstitutional war in Iraq and the horror of the situation has become so painfully obvious that just about the entire country wants him out of office. The super-patriotism our country experienced after 9/11 has worn off, Bush is hanging himself and his administration, and more and more people are starting to give a damn about the people who run our country. I'm not saying the issue isn't important, but we have to start looking towards the future at this point.
        • pradaaddict, on 12/07/2007, -10/+3no its not moot. If he makes a claim that he cannot prove then he should not be making it. This isn't some magical foxnews land where you don't have to back up your *****.
      • GhostyBoy, on 12/07/2007, -6/+8At this point all I can say is that it's so god damned obvious that it's ridiculous.
        • pradaaddict, on 12/07/2007, -4/+8how is it obvious that the Government decided to kill 3000 of its own citizens and blame it on a rouge terrorist organization? A document from the 60s that states that Flase Flag operations are good ways to start ***** in Cuba is hardly a casual relationship to 9/11. I hate this stupid Loose Change BS.

          BRING CREDIBLE PROOF OR DON'T CLAIM IT.
          • GhostyBoy, on 12/07/2007, -8/+3The proof is everywhere. You have to look at it. You clearly have the internet. Go look. I'm not going to hold your hand.
          • DogBotherer, on 12/07/2007, -8/+2Evidence of the preparedness of government to kill its own citizens is all over the place if you're prepared to look. The American government is not somehow special in this regard, you're just to close to it to be objective, like the mother of a serial killer. You could start your reading here:
            http://www.amvets-ca.org/pdfs/RECA/History%20Of%20 ...
      • alphasubzero949, on 12/07/2007, -9/+7911truth.org
        Should keep you occupied for a while.
      • cmorwhat, on 12/07/2007, -1/+4Ok ok fine. lets take that one out. but still look at the others. hes still one of the worst presidents in history and you CANT deny that!
      • mobiledescent, on 12/07/2007, -3/+4well i was agreeing with you until you started talking about the 9/11 conspiracy....
      • grenerd, on 12/07/2007, -0/+0Well, the Bush administration fought the creation of the 9/11 commission for 441 days, appointed Henry Kissinger as its head, who had to step down when he wouldn't disclose personal financial documents. Later Kean and Hamilton appointed Phillip Zelikow as executive director, the person who would have access to all the documents (the other commissioners didn't) and who decided who got to see what and what would be included in the final report. This is of significance because Phillip Zelikow is a close associate of the Bush administration, helped write their foreign policy and is a close friend of Condoleeza Rice.

        It is IMPOSSIBLE to make any reasonable argument that the 9/11 Commission Report (in which you and many others place so much trust) is the result of an unbiased and independent commission who carried out a thorough investigation. Period.
    • bieber, on 12/07/2007, -9/+11You've gotta be ***** me. Someone who seriously proposes that the United States government perpetrated 9/11 gets dugg up +30? This crap would make me laugh, if it weren't scary how many people actually take it seriously...
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 12/07/2007, -1/+6Nobody trusts the Bush administration, that's why. It's a measure of how little belief there is in them. Their actions suggest greater, sinister motives. Their own words paint a picture of unethical, corrupt war makers. Coupled with the many unanswered questions about the events of 9/11 and the many incongruities and gaps in the official account, people tend to look at other scenarios.
      • HippyInASuit, on 12/07/2007, -2/+3Well then research the claims yourself, fool.
      • Logicexe, on 12/07/2007, -2/+3I think people are digging him because his overall point is ok. The facts don't back the idea that 9/11 was an inside job, but the current administration has used and abused the 9/11 attacks for its own gain so many times that I can understand why someone might believe it.
    • mobiledescent, on 12/07/2007, -6/+7now if you would have left out the 9/11 conspiracy arguement i would have agreed with you 100% now i just think your crazy
  • pehpsi, on 12/07/2007, -13/+53Without a doubt, one of the most articulate men I have had the pleasure of hearing. I can only dream of being able to put my thoughts into works like Keith! Hats off!
    • Judasmac, on 12/07/2007, -23/+3Thoughts? I believe it's putting vomit into words.
      • MrNexus, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1I think both of you have the same problem.
    • postalblowfish7, on 12/07/2007, -1/+2Rats off to ya!
  • XiTDiS, on 12/07/2007, -13/+28@ toddcat - I agree
    @ HughManBeing - I agree completely.

    All I have to say is wow, Keith Olbermann is amazing. His words are so powering. After I heard that I got even more angry then before at Bush's imperialist house. I can't wait for his book to come out!
  • vatosplace, on 12/07/2007, -12/+73You know whats scary? The fact that Bush and Cheney have nukes TODAY, AT THEIR DISPOSAL!!!

    Sleep Well.
    • colobikeguy, on 12/07/2007, -4/+4any takers on a little game of tackle the man with the FOOTBALL?
    • cmorwhat, on 12/07/2007, -3/+1thats why i smoke myself to sleep
    • patrickxbateman, on 12/07/2007, -1/+4You guys live in some kind of hellish fantasy world if you believe that Bush can just nuke whomever he wants without Congress and UN approval.
      • Xinareiaz, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1Why would he need UN approval? the UN has no power over the USA if we don't want it to. Sure, they'd be pissed and everyone would yell WTF at us, but I don't think we need their permission.
        • patrickxbateman, on 12/07/2007, -0/+0Any act of war against another country without UN approval would be a violation of international law. Your point is moot.
      • chijim70, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1We didn't need UN approval last time... jeez, love how informed you people are...
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
        "With the failure of its resolution, the U.S. and UK abandoned the Security Council procedures and decided to pursue the invasion without U.N. authorization, a decision of questionable legality under international law."
  • sharpfork, on 12/07/2007, -9/+25Aug 9th- Bush made a technical change in his language while still trying to scare the American people. Most likely the time he leaned of the NIE. Yet he continued to try to scare the crap out of the American people using rhetoric like:
    Aug 28th - "nuclear holocaust"
    Oct 17th - "World War III"
    The Dems will not threaten their stroll to a landslide in 2008 with the politically risky impeachment so nothing is gonna happen unless we push hard for the constitutional solution of a president who lies to the faces of the American people about matters of life and death: impeachment.
    Too bad he didn't lie about a BJ...
    • cmorwhat, on 12/07/2007, -1/+2I dont know about you guys. But a BJ is like THE MOST evil thing a man can do! Give me 1,000 nukular holocausts but keep me the hell away from a BJ i mean....what if she were to bite?!?!


      the moral of this story is. fat chicks are easier to screw than sovergn powers
  • DFENS, on 12/07/2007, -12/+40At first i was uncomfortable with him saying 'good night and good luck'. didn't think he'd rearned the right to immitate such a great man. He's earned it. I was wrong.
    • colobikeguy, on 12/07/2007, -2/+9he was trying to bridge a gap to a more ... ethical time. by using the term again ... perhaps it is a signal of a new dawn?
    • Noctem, on 12/07/2007, -16/+5He earned the right to unabashedly steal someone else's (an _actual_ journalist, no less) catch phrase?
      • Scumbunny, on 12/07/2007, -6/+2Don't Digg him down folks - he's right. Uber-man is similar to every other journalist out there: He loves to hear himself elucidate and recycles cliche's (even if he is correct), but he should come up with something of his own if he's so perfunctory.
    • mrgreenjeans9, on 12/07/2007, -1/+3i dunno....i digg KO as much as the next clear thinking person but i've never been on board with his 'good night and good luck'.
      yes, we may be in similar circumstances as we were then, but why resurrect the phrase?
      if you're smart enough to come up with the 'special comment', you're smart enough to make your own sign off statement

      /and that's the way it is
  • Qtip42, on 12/07/2007, -13/+33Send the NEOCONS BACK TO THE FRINGE! ....................Believing in freedom, civil liberties, and the constitution is NOT kooky. You all know what I'm getting at here...


    RP08
  • goldfenix, on 12/07/2007, -7/+24God this is depressing.
  • bbrodsky, on 12/07/2007, -14/+33War Crimes and Treason Charges should be Brought and Tried in the Supreme Court.... not in a year or a month, but RIGHT NOW!
    got dammit America, WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!
    • slezzzter, on 12/07/2007, -3/+7The Supreme Court doesn't hear cases of war crimes, war crimes are only defined for the International Court.
      Treason, by the way, is explicitly defined by the consitution which states, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Bush has neither levied war against the United States nor given aid or comfort to enemies of the US. Lying is not treason.

      The supreme court doesn't automatically hear criminal cases against persons holding office in the government. A criminal charge against a president is called impeachment. Although the Chief Justice takes helm of the Senate for such proceedings, the Court does not actually hear the case.

      Love the enthusiasm, but try to learn a little bit more about what you're demanding, before you demand it "RIGHT NOW!" Also love your... um... creative use of capitalization.
    • bieber, on 12/07/2007, -4/+3The man speaks the truth, why the hell are we digging him down?
    • chijim70, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1War crimes are indeed international court jurisdiction - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime
      This is treason in the US - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason#United_States

      Now as for impeachable offenses... Tons of them apply to Bush and company.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment#Impeachab ...
      Impeachable offenses
      In the United States, impeachment can occur both at the federal and state level. The Constitution defines impeachment at the federal level and limits impeachment to "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States" who may only be impeached and removed for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." [2]. Several commentators have suggested that Congress alone may decide for itself what constitutes an impeachable offense[citation needed]. In 1970, then-Representative Gerald R. Ford defined the criteria as he saw it: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." [3] Four years later, Ford would assume the Presidency, following the resignation of President Richard Nixon. (Nixon resigned following a committee vote to approve impeachment proceedings, but before actual impeachment by the full House.)

      To fully understand possible impeachment reasons you must also understand the meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors" which is explained very well here - http://www.constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm

      I'm with the majority here to want rid of these idiots but you need to know what we can do legally in order to do anything about it.
  • MikeMitchell, on 12/07/2007, -12/+29I saw this one tonight. Easily one of his best!

    impeach that mother *****.
  • mdoerr, on 12/07/2007, -23/+4He's definitely right on....but a little hypocritical for condemning Bush's "hyperbole" and then he goes on to make the statements he just did.

    I still agree with him though.
    • DooM, on 12/07/2007, -2/+2Oh god how I wish what Keith was saying WERE hyperbole! Unfortunately they aren't exaggerations in the least bit... THAT's how bad this administration is.
  • colberrep, on 12/07/2007, -23/+10yes republicans and libertarians have the same end in mind---crippling the government and shifting whatever power is left over to corporations. libertarians are decent enough to let you get stoned.
    • colberrep, on 12/07/2007, -4/+6digg me down, I agree. that nasty fact of both parties is DISGUSTING.
    • tricks574, on 12/07/2007, -3/+6Don't compare libertarians to republicans, republicans are busy mortgaging all of our liberty for a false sense of security, while libertarians are mainly busy getting stoned and waxing poetically about Ron Paul.
    • TheLoneHoot, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1I'm with colberrep, Llibertarians want less government and less regulation to give more freedom to big corporations. Sure some personal freedoms would be enhanced with a Libertarian agenda, but ultimately it's all for the betterment of corporations and their shareholders.
  • Curlz31, on 12/07/2007, -15/+33I like most of what he says, but the problem with Olbermann is he sticks up for the warmongering Hillary and never mentions the good republicans like Ron Paul. He attacks the Republican party as a whole without mention that there actually are anti-war Republicans, and they are in fact the true Republicans. I hate to say it, but such behavior suggests partisan hackary.
    • machiavelli10, on 12/07/2007, -27/+7Olberman is a partisan hack. I bet he solicits gay sex to democrat politicos by footapping in restroom stalls.
    • mmacmu1, on 12/07/2007, -12/+10Olbermann uses something called facts. Why don't you tune the channel to Fox and friends you prick,
      • machiavelli10, on 12/07/2007, -13/+1What does that have to do with Olberman rubbing the bottom of bathroom stalls? lol
      • mmacmu1, on 12/07/2007, -1/+3loll sorry, in respnce to Machiavelli10 (which by the way may say something about the person)
        and its spelled Olbermann
        • Wartyboskfapped, on 12/07/2007, -1/+7He's just a troll. Don't feed the trolls. Bury them.
      • Curlz31, on 12/07/2007, -4/+3He uses alot of facts but unfortunetly he doesn't mention the FACT that Hillary is a war monger who voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment and the FACT that Ron Paul is a Republican who opposed the war every step of the way.
        • DooM, on 12/07/2007, -1/+3Actually he HAS mentioned those facts... on more than one occasion. Does your gut tell you that you're right because the facts disagree.
          • Curlz31, on 12/07/2007, -2/+1But does he mention them and then do a segment on how Hillary is a war monger.....NO.......i wouldn't be as pissed if he was talking about Kucinich (who is one of the good guys) but Hillary..........My conclusion is that he is a partisan hack, but he is talented and good at his job....i'll give him that
    • ScionAltera, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1He has come down pretty hard on the do-nothing Democratic congress in a few of his previous special comments. Mentioning Hillary in this particular comment would have been an irrelevant sidetrack. One of the things I like the most about his writing is that he uses direct relevant quotes heavily, sticks to a single point and digs deep rather than trying to overview the entire subject at a shallow level. There are so few people out there who do the research and go deep rather than taking the easy way out with a shallow survey of the information.
  • mal1964, on 12/07/2007, -11/+7Booya!
  • sgtpepperjack, on 12/07/2007, -7/+13Thank God that we are beginning to see honest political journalism that is not afraid to kiss the ass of those in power, sniveling and cowering in the face of honesty. I only hope that this continues to catch on.
    • sgtpepperjack, on 12/07/2007, -0/+7edit: "that is not going to kiss..."
      • userperson, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1It made more a little more sense the other way.
    • Scumbunny, on 12/07/2007, -1/+1It's been going on for a while, or have you not listened to The Savage Nation?
  • JuCee, on 12/07/2007, -10/+44Even if you hate Olbermann liberal slant, you have to admit: his words are poetry, and have infinitely more artistry than any of his right-wing equivalents. Go KO.
    • Wahoo06, on 12/07/2007, -14/+4No you don't.
    • Scumbunny, on 12/07/2007, -6/+2You forgot about Michael Savage. He has some 'artistry' as well. It's a bit more Jackson Pollack, but it's artistry.
  • dinorama1234, on 12/07/2007, -8/+20Can I get a Hallelujah! Can I get an Amen! Can I get-a-Witness!!!
  • revarien, on 12/07/2007, -4/+9"nobody has enough votes to carry it out." You mean nobody has the balls (or ovaries)...
  • JNudda, on 12/07/2007, -6/+18Thank you Keith.
  • KiwiHopeful, on 12/07/2007, -7/+42Why is he the only one on TV who has the balls to call a lie a lie and a liar a liar?
    • pyronik, on 12/07/2007, -17/+0olberman is a deceitful liar.. maybe thats why.. the only people who take him seriously are the people on the far left fringe... would that be 90% of the people on Digg?
      • johnnysaucepn, on 12/07/2007, -0/+10Spot the contradiction?
        • blackkbot, on 12/07/2007, -1/+6How can 90% of a population be a fringe?

          Do I get a cookie?!
      • DooM, on 12/07/2007, -0/+2Would you like to offer examples or are you just going to make baseless claims..?
      • jfowler27, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1I'm a moderate liberal and I always have agreed with Olbermann's special commentaries. I also agree with Joe Scarborough on a lot of stuff and he's more conservative. In the end it's not about partisan politics, but about the truth contained within their message. If you do not believe Bush is a deceitful liar, then I do not believe I can say anything that would effect the bubble of your isolated and delusional reality.
    • Scumbunny, on 12/07/2007, -1/+3Because Michael Savage got kicked off Television by not only the Liberal media, but the Conservative one as well. Otherwise we'd be talking about his rants.
      • TheLoneHoot, on 12/07/2007, -0/+2"The Liberal Meda" is a myth, has ALWAYS been a myth, and has been debunked countless times. Stop drinking the Kook-Aid that Rush serves up. Virtually ***ALL*** corporate media is conservative. Liberalism has few outlets/proponents in corporate media.
    • molecool, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1Chris Matthews has been making that point for several years - he's not as blatant about it, but has been questioning the truthfulness of this administration for a long time.
  • machiavelli10, on 12/07/2007, -61/+3Olberman solicits gay sex in mens bathrooms.
    • HHP2K, on 12/07/2007, -2/+14You must work for mainstream media. It works differently here on digg. When we bury you, you stay below the viewing threshold.
      • machiavelli10, on 12/07/2007, -19/+1LOL, in other words you oppose freedom of speech. Isn't that what you hate about our current administration?
        • omgTHEPATRIOTS, on 12/07/2007, -1/+9Slander and libel are not 'freedom of speech'. Read a law textbook, asshat.
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 12/07/2007, -2/+7He's a troll. Bury him, report him, ignore him.
    • Acewrap, on 12/07/2007, -0/+4Olbermann is not a republican. You're thinking of Sen. Larry Craig(R).
    • MrNexus, on 12/07/2007, -0/+2Hey, I didn't know Bill O'Reilly was on Digg. Hi Bill, you're a funny guy!
  • mmacmu1, on 12/07/2007, -8/+19***** GWB Keith is dead on
  • ajamison, on 12/07/2007, -43/+7KO is a complete hack who basically is only popular thanks to his enemy - Bush. He wouldn't be where he is today if it weren't for Bush. Same story with Jon Stewart.
    There, I said it.
    • HHP2K, on 12/07/2007, -8/+2And there, you're being dugg down.
    • ozanweb, on 12/07/2007, -3/+4none of us would be where we are today if it weren't for Bush. Oh, how I wish.
    • vade79, on 12/07/2007, -1/+2I'd be fine without stewart/olbermann if there was no bush...fair trade, what is your point?
  • odigity, on 12/07/2007, -7/+12Wow... I got chills. I can't believe he got away with this, the MSM is so controlled.
  • HHP2K, on 12/07/2007, -6/+18Keith is an amazing man.. he's incredibly articulate and has foresight that doesn't extend past most of our noses. What I love about his special comments is that while being completely serious, he somehow manages to inject a bit of humor into them. Good job Keith, you're a true American.
  • sleeknerve, on 12/07/2007, -7/+13I really dont like all the Bush Hating spamming, but its something about Olberman that makes you listen pay attention. I think that its the articulate manner in which he shows his viewpoints and speaks. If there was anyone to lead the charge against Bush, it should be him.
  • blndng, on 12/07/2007, -6/+27Olbermann's speech has blown me away with its power.
    I've been on digg for over a year and I have never dugg anything, not the ever beautiful Natalie standing firm or Eva posing nude. Heck, not even when it was annouced SC2 would be released.
    First time an article has made me want to login. Dugg.
    • fasm, on 12/07/2007, -1/+12I'm in the same boat..
      I rarely actually login and digg articles
      this deserved a digg most definitely
  • machiavelli10, on 12/07/2007, -31/+5Question. Why are the so-called tolerant so intolerant to those with opposing viewpoints and Christianity?
    • TomRitchford, on 12/07/2007, -1/+10Do you consider "causing the needless deaths of a million Iraqis and pissing away over a trillion dollars" simply "an opposing viewpoint?
    • jaxcs, on 12/07/2007, -1/+4Considering that since 9/11 any criticism of the govt has been met with jeers and accusations of being a traitor, "opposing views" as you say have had ample expression. As to the Christianity part of your comment, have you ever considered that people aren't hostile to Christianity per say but since it is a belief system that some feel should permeates daily life, it's expression is found in too many ways and places for others who do not share the faith to be comfortable?
  • machiavelli10, on 12/07/2007, -26/+3Why are my comments being dug down by those same individuals who hate the current administration for the current administrations so-called trampeling of our civil liberties? I think they are confused.
    • pradaaddict, on 12/07/2007, -2/+9^ Poor grammar. Niccolo Machiavelli was a very articulate man, you however are not.
      • machiavelli10, on 12/07/2007, -9/+1Is that all you have to say a out my comment?
        • pradaaddict, on 12/07/2007, -2/+8maybe if you clean up your argument a bit it will be worthy of a comment.
      • Judasmac, on 12/07/2007, -2/+0There should be either a period or a semicolon after "man," rather than a comma. There should be commas surrounding "however."
    • heartsblood, on 12/07/2007, -1/+2I just wanted to state for the record that I dugg you on accident, I meant I digg you down.
  • armor, on 12/07/2007, -5/+3He's pissed.
  • rhedwolf, on 12/07/2007, -5/+20Keith Olbermann said it perfectly. And impeachment hearings need to start. Now.
    • userperson, on 12/07/2007, -1/+1Yeah, that'll happen.
      People also need to let me hold a a 'dolla.
  • captbbq, on 12/07/2007, -12/+6Re-read what you wrote and think for a bit.

    That kind of thinking is simplistic shrill, and completely ignores human nature. People are motivated by hate, but personal gain. I attribute this kind of thinking cartoons, where everything is oversimplified and the villan, rather than being a human, has just some unexplained desire to take over the world or rule things, or comic books where sometone is someone elses arch-rival for no other reason than the writers needed a nemesis.

    Right, the "neocons" just hate government and want to desroy things... right. I I don't like the Neocons either, but I am not that stupid.
    • TomRitchford, on 12/07/2007, -3/+5I use that argument in other circumstances all the time. But watching the Bush administration, it's fairly clear that a lot of these people are literal, clinical psychopaths. You can't spend 10 seconds hearing Cheney without coming to this conclusion, for example.
    • bungoman, on 12/07/2007, -3/+4what's this? levelheadedness in a keith olbermann thread on digg?
    • jaxcs, on 12/07/2007, -1/+3First, If you read the article, you would note that KO never said that neo cons hate the govt. Second, although neo cons do not actually hate the govt, they are not too fond of it either - consider bush's comment that the constitution is just a piece of paper. I think they regard govt as a tool and a system to be gamed to gain what is truely wanted which is control and power.
  • Papajohn56, on 12/07/2007, -14/+4impeachment is a pipedream and a buzzword that will never get past anywhere but digg.
  • JoEBlack982, on 12/07/2007, -12/+5Me imagining Bill O'reilly on the same night: "George Bush is a true patriot. Talking points insists Americans to stick by our President."
  • Anub1s, on 12/07/2007, -4/+7It becomes more and more obvious to the American people (finally) that the person who is supposedly MOST against terrorism, is in fact a terrorist himself. I whole-heartedly agree with Mr. Olbermann. I really, really hope that we as a nation can finally pull ourselves out of this mile-deep whole that the idiot in office has dug for us.
  • GhostyBoy, on 12/07/2007, -5/+35I can't believe my eyes...I think I just saw...no it can't be....they've been extinct for years...

    Look, everyone: A News Reporter!
    • Narasil, on 12/07/2007, -8/+1You're right you can't believe your eyes...you're obviously blind.
    • headt0thebunker, on 12/07/2007, -0/+3Thats exactly what I thought the first time I watch the video.....HOLY *****....ITS A FREAKIN REPORTER
    • oakapple, on 12/08/2007, -0/+2If I could digg this comment twice, I would.
  • fabDisaster, on 12/07/2007, -7/+5i believe the saying goes "the first casualty of war is the truth".
    • PhilMoskowitz, on 12/07/2007, -1/+1so what happens when you create unending war? Do you understand Churchill's quote in the context of Orwell yet?
  • Treoinmypocket, on 12/07/2007, -7/+8"The neocons hate government... "

    Soooooo....the Democrats LOVE government? Yea. Sounds about right.
  • bingobongony, on 12/07/2007, -21/+8So, a sports guy is your hero, ultra lefties?
    • identifiedlogo, on 12/07/2007, -3/+6grow up will ya,
      • Btzarro, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1Republican cant they're inbreeding man-children.
    • ianzu, on 12/07/2007, -3/+4So a cheerleader is your president, ultra conservatives?
  • Judasmac, on 12/07/2007, -19/+9Such crazed ranting almost makes Bill O'Reilly look like a philosopher. Why do people like to bathe in this sort of mindlessness?
    • inane, on 12/07/2007, -3/+2Because this is digg, home of the ULTRAliberals. Moderate views are dugg down and flamed.
    • patrickxbateman, on 12/07/2007, -3/+2The internet as a whole is a cesspool of ignorant, bandwagon liberals.
    • NotAChickenHawk, on 12/07/2007, -1/+3Do you have anything to say about the FACTS that Olbermann presented? Facts are facts, not crazed ranting.
    • headt0thebunker, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1Well actually there is one pretty significant difference between O'rielly and KO.......O'rielly makes up the news.......KO just reports it....
    • chijim70, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1Gotta love how none of you idiots argues with one point he made with any facts. Just call him names and make generalizations that mean nothing. Shows the unintelligent depth of your perceptions and how such a moron came into power to begin with. It's OK though, your dopey cheerleader redneck will be gone soon enough.
  • Judasmac, on 12/07/2007, -17/+10Briefly: Iran has had a nuclear weapon program for years. They suspended part of it in 2003, though there is disagreement among agencies about this. They continue to enrich uranium, as the NIE says, and are therefore developing the process that could easily be used to make highly enriched uranium. Same process. The NIE doesn't mention the building of a heavy water nuclear reactor, which could also be used to make fissile material. They sit on top of one of the largest oil reserves in the world. THEY ARE WORKING ON NUKES, GET IT? And if they suspended part of the program in 2003 (gee, what was happening in the neighborhood in 2003?), they did so in part owing to intense international pressure. Bye bye pressure. In sum, Olberman is a know-nothing hack and needs medication.
    • haldir2012, on 12/07/2007, -1/+6I love how you threw in the oil reserves as a reason, even though it has zero relation to your argument. Also how you claim the existence of a heavy water reactor that our intelligence community "forgot" without heavily sourcing it. Finally, all your reasons point just as easily, if not better, at an Iranian nuclear power program, rather than Iranian nuclear weapons. If the President's position is that not only does no one get to have nukes, but neither does anyone get to have nuclear power, Iran won't be the last nation we demonize for this purpose.
      • kermit4karate, on 12/07/2007, -1/+1Actually, the mention of Iran's oil reserves is completely relevant to Judasmac's argument. Iran, in objection to most of the developed world, claims to need a nuclear energy program, yet they already have all the energy they need (for the next 200 years) in the form of oil.

        I am not saying Bush isn't an incompetent liar, but I do agree with Judasmac that the Iranian government is toying with us while they covertly work to game the system to build a nuclear weapon.

        Bottom line: no matter what, Iran with a nuclear weapon is a very bad thing, so continued pressure on Iran, under threat of violence if that's what it takes, is necessary to keep them from getting one.

        Iran does want a nuclear weapon - that's a fact. They don't need nuclear tech for energy. They want it to build a bomb. People are allowing their hatred and distrust of the Bush administration to color their judgment of Iran's government.

        Iran already supports countless terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah that specifically target civilians to make political points. This they have done for years. An Iranian nuke could rather easily find its way into terrorist hands.
        • haldir2012, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1Why isn't it possible that Iran realizes that oil is more valuable to them if they export it rather than burn it? Why can't they be smart enough to realize that however much oil they have, it is still a finite resource?

          Also, I think the Iranian government is smart enough to realize that there's already a nuclear power in the region that's had decades to get missiles, warheads, and early warning systems available. Any nuclear explosion traced to Iran equals Tehran erased, and I think Bush has proved that it's very easy to misdirect the wrath of an attacked nation, so even a nuke that could plausibly have come from Iran would have the same outcome. Hey, if mutually assured destruction worked for the big boys, why can't it work for the little ones? We (along with France) created our own problems by giving Israel the bomb.

          You say that since Iran supports Hamas and Hezbollah, they would give them a nuke. That's quite a stretch. Iran supports those terrorists because it's easy, cheap, keeps pressure on Israel, and looks good to the rest of the Arab world. A nuke in a missile silo is infinitely more valuable than a nuke in the hands of terrorists (however friendly they seem) or detonated over an enemy city.

          Our threats of violence are empty, and everyone knows it. Iran is much larger than Iraq, its citizens generally like their government, it has a much better economy and military, and we're already in two difficult occupations. A war against Iran would require either nukes or a big draft, neither of which Bush has the political capital to reach.
    • inane, on 12/07/2007, -0/+2Nice. People fail to see that many of the saber-rattling neighbors of Iraq have been very quiet since Saddam was removed from power. Not all, but many.
  • AgmLauncher, on 12/07/2007, -33/+5KO is such a crybaby. Always blows things WAY out of proportion.
    • PhilMoskowitz, on 12/07/2007, -2/+9Yeah, everything out of proportion. You have torture, secret prisons, habeus is out the window, domestic surveillance, a criminal war of resource theft. He's SOOOOOO overreacting.
    • omgTHEPATRIOTS, on 12/07/2007, -2/+4yeah, because Bush isn't the biggest criminal in this country's history or anything... except maybe Cheney.
  • paravis, on 12/07/2007, -28/+1haha is this guy trying to be that V for Vendetta TV host that gets killed in the shower?
    • omgTHEPATRIOTS, on 12/07/2007, -2/+8idiot, if you've ever seen the movie, you'd realize that Prothero is Bill O'Reilly.
    • mrgreenjeans9, on 12/07/2007, -0/+3someone didn't pay attention
  • bungoman, on 12/07/2007, -0/+3Even if he is right, everyone should to stop treating Keith Olbermann like he's some sort of messiah with balls of steel who goes against what everyone else is saying. He's saying almost word for word the same things that left wing bloggers and pundits have been saying since 2001. He just happens to have a TV and was known elsewhere before hand. Yeah he's articulate but that doesn't make him the best commentator ever. You people need to stop drinking the goddamn kool-aid.
    • jaxcs, on 12/07/2007, -1/+0He's pretty good. You even say he's pretty good. Are you also sipping kool-aid?
  • bigpapa4225, on 12/07/2007, -8/+3Olbermann 2008
    • Scumbunny, on 12/07/2007, -1/+2Yes! With Dennis Kucinich as Vice President! And Hillary can be the Surgeon General!
  • DavidinBoston, on 12/07/2007, -2/+4It's a shame that the MSM buried Bush's misleading of the country regarding Iran with Romney's "I'm no freak" speech, by which he attempted to save his floundering campaign.
  • iLemon, on 12/07/2007, -8/+2It must suck having to spend your day covering the actions of somebody you are vehemently opposed to. I bet he kills kittens as soon as he walks off the stage.
    • Btzarro, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1It must suck to be a republican,A walking sack of ***** who should have been aborted.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 106 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.