Diluted Sins

Where did liberal bloggers ever get this notion that Keith Olbermann never lies? I mean, seriously, do they just not scrutinize what he says or something, tend to give the guy a break because he agrees with them politically? It has to be something along those lines, obviously..............................................................And, yes, folks, I say it here, obviously, because obviously the son of a bitch DOES lie. Just last week, for example, the thin-skinned Olbermann went on a retaliatory, lie-soaked tantrum against a media critic named David Zurawik (Zurawik apparently committed the unpardonable sin of negatively critiquing the host for his mean-spiritedness, partisanship, etc.). Mr. Olbermann's main charge was that Mr. Zurawick was either a blind ideologue or that he was somehow on the take from somebody. A scurrilous charge, in other words.................................................................And, yes, folks, so, too, did it represent a bald-faced deception. Mr. Zurawik is a frigging media critic. Hell, most of the pieces he writes for the Baltimore Sun don't even deal with political programming. And when he does write about news programs, the man has a vast and clear-cut record of non-partisanship. In fact, amongst his more brutal reviews are those he's written about Fox; Greta Van Susteren, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc.. For Mr. Olbermann to so blatantly distort and pillory this man's record is as vile a thing as I've seen in quite some time. And, yes, folks, it also shows, categorically, just how low that this complete and total creep will go to 1) advance his partisan agenda and 2) take a whack at anybody who has the audacity to disagree with him.......................................................................Of course, there is in fact a highly amusing aspect to all of this as well. The fact that this utter hack would have the temerity to call ANYBODY an ideologue - that, me-buckos, is side-splitting. It's also a textbook example of projection and, hence, exceedingly hilarious in that regard, too.

A Motley Screw

Ed Schultz refers to Dick Cheney as "the shooter". Sean Hannity refers to Treasury Secretary Geithner as "Turbo Tax-cheat, Tim Geithner". And, yes, believe it or not, folks, these are two of the more intelligent things that these clowns have been saying lately. It's like, I almost can't believe what I've been seeing of late - partisan stooges, not only having a high profile on cable news channels....but each having their own frigging program, too!...................................................................And the fact that they seemingly spend 50% of their allotted air time....attacking each other!! I mean, just the other night, for example, Keith Olbermann (along with his guest for the segment, Arianna Huffington) did an entire feature on Rush Limbaugh's apparent lack of mental stability (the implication being that Rush is losing it - as we speak!). And, yes, they passed it off as frigging news story, for Christ!!........................................................................The thing that I most want to know, though, is this. Who in the hell are the idiots who are putting THESE idiots on the air? And why? I mean, it's all got to be about the money/ratings, right? What in the hell else could it be? It's certainly not about serving the public-good. That is abundantly obvious.

The Wright Decision, Por Favor

As I hope you've noted, folks, on several occasions, I've actually gone as far as to commend the President for his decision-making. It seems that whenever there's a crisis to address, he addresses it - decisively and, yes, for the most part, effectively (the boondoggle-ladened stimulus package, obviously, an exception), too....................................................................But I don't know here. On some of these issues (some of the more political ones, especially), I'm starting to get a creepy feeling that there's at least a small level of expediency involved. The most obvious example, of course, is the Reverend Wright fiasco. The President (admittedly, just a candidate then) started off by saying that he could no easier disown Reverend Wright than he could his own (white, he had to throw that one in there) grandmother. He THEN, a couple of weeks later, when it was obvious that Wright had zero intention of amping it down, did a 180 and tossed him under the bus. Decisive, yes, but maybe a little poll-driven, too.......................................................................And, now, of course, we have the controversy over Sotomayor's rather questionable (or what were perceived to be) comments (a wise Latina woman making better decisions than a white man). It seemed like here, too, folks, that the President only wanted to address these comments when they were causing him embarrassment. Kind of like he was reading the polls or something. I don't know, that's what it seems like anyway.

My Very Own Fast Track to Hell

She was as fat as a fire-hydrant, for Christ! Kind of like a cow plopping, too. And the fact that even Retch himself couldn't nearly see through it; vast, the opaque nature of her girth so plain, etc.. Of course, the supple way that pretty much everybody seemed to be letting it "hang", far be it for us to cast dispersions. I mean, think about it, folks. What if not for a newer and nastier nature for chubbiness? What in the hell could be more natural than that? Retch - him taking heifers for a ride, especially!!

Changing (As in Exchanging) Stripes

President Obama's Supreme Court appointment, Sonia Sotomayor, is clearly and unequivocally qualified to sit on the bench. She has as much experience and educational attainment as anybody in recent memory. The fact that her judicial philosophy is at odds with the conservatives in Congress is immaterial. The President won the election and he absolutely should get the type of judges he wants. I mean, sure, you can always scrutinize and ask, has every single decision she's ever rendered been an unimpeachable one? Has every single statement she's ever made been a prudent one.?But, seriously, folks, if that ends up being the criteria for each and every court appointment, we're probably going to be looking at an empty bench for a while........................................................................Of course, having said all this , it also must be pointed out that Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Judge Alito were also highly qualified....and that, yes, then Senator Obama (capitulating to the base, perhaps) voted against both of these solid/distinguished Bush nominees. So, no, if in fact a Republican (or ten) does vote against Sotomayor, the Dems really aren't in all that great of a position to complain about it. Not, that is, unless they're willing to be called hypocrites anyway.

Killing Two Legacies With One Roadblock

According to NBC News (2002), in his last conversation with President Clinton, Yasser Arafat told the President, "Sir, you are a great man." Clinton responded by saying, "The hell I am. I'm a colossal failure, an you made me one."...........................................................................Yep, that's right, folks, Clinton was pissed and, I'm telling you, if the former president had a gun with just a single bullet in it, I'm not so sure he wouldn't have pushed Kenneth Starr aside and plugged Arafat instead. I mean, I remember it. Clinton was so steamed he couldn't even look at Arafat. I can't say that I blame him, either. This, I'm saying, in that that son of a bitch probably did more to promote regional hostilities than anybody (save, perhaps, for Saddam Hussein). He actually should have been vilified more than he was. That's my opinion, anyway.

The Exception That Proves Not a Lot

I suppose it's possible that enhanced interrogation techniques work on some people; promote them to confess the truth under duress, etc.. I mean, they're probably the minority and all. Most of the literature I've read (a lot of it coming from people who've actually done interrogation and NOT George Tenet, Bill O'Reilly, Dick Cheney, etc.) seems to indicate that these techniques provide unreliable information. But, hey, anything here's possible, I guess.................................................................I point this out because Dick Cheney now wants to declassify documents which show (according to him) that the water-boarding of Khalid Sheik Muhammad, etc. provided intelligence that conceivably saved thousands of lives. Well, guess what, folks? I say fine - release 'em. But I also think that we should release all of the other documents, too. This, I'm saying, in that I'm sure that there are probably a lot of other documents showing enhanced interrogation techniques leading to dead-ends, dead-ends that possibly led to the LOSS of human life (coercing people to admit to an Al Qaeda-Iraq connection, for example, leading us head-first into the Iraq War)....................................................................Look, folks, both of these sides are cherry-picking. The Dems can be just as bad as the Republicans. But on this particular issue, I really think it's imperative that we, as citizens, take a firmer stand here. Don't you think?......................................................................And, then, of course, there's the possibility (if in fact these techniques did work) that we could have gotten the intelligence legitimately. Take Abu Zubaydah, for instance. The story that I've been getting is that Zubaydah was actually cooperating better WITHOUT THE WATER-BOARDING! It was only after they started torturing the bastard that he started becoming a problem for us. Hopefully, folks, they'll have the decency to release that "document", too.