How Is This Bush’s Responsibility?

I guess Keith Olbermann blasted Bush last night in his special comment section. I say I guess, because I just read it at Crooks and Liars, since I missed Olbermann and Bush’s address, instead choosing for a MNF double-header. Here are some of Olbermann’s comments:

However. Of all the things those of us who were here five years ago could have forecast — of all the nightmares that unfolded before our eyes, and the others that unfolded only in our minds… none of us could have predicted… this.

Five years later this space… is still empty.

Five years later there is no Memorial to the dead.

Five years later there is no building rising to show with proud defiance that we would not have our America wrung from us, by cowards and criminals.

Five years later this country’s wound is still open.

Five years… later this country’s mass grave is still unmarked.

Five years later… this is still… just a background for a photo-op.

It is beyond shameful.

You canrap this administration for a lot of things- but for not controlling the internal real estate power struggles and fights in NYC? Gimme a break.






168 replies
  1. 1
    Rusty Shackleford says:

    Where does the buck stop?

  2. 2
    Pb says:

    First, John, do you really think that if Bush had wanted to do something with it in the past five years (besides erecting a kiddie pool the other day for a photo op), he couldn’t have pushed for it? Even if it was temporary? The fact is, he took no leadership on this, and he didn’t care enough to do anything but put up a set for a photo-op. I’m with Olbermann on this one–beyond shameful.

    And, second, I think that a lot of that was more of an analogy or a lead-up to his real point than anything else.

  3. 3
    schwankmoe says:

    Interesting, as the comments you block-quoted are from the first part of Olbermann’s remarks, yet make no mention of Bush at all. He does say that ground zero is “still… just a background for a photo-op” and later in the speech he does indeed take Bush to task on various things, but I don’t see how that means that the first comments were meant to lay the blame for the lack of construction at ground zero on the president.

    I think you’re reaching here, John.

  4. 4
    Zifnab says:

    Five years later this space… is still empty.

    Five years later there is no Memorial to the dead.

    Five years later there is no building rising to show with proud defiance that we would not have our America wrung from us, by cowards and criminals.

    Five years later this country’s wound is still open.

    Could the President have put pressure on the Towers’ land owner to clean it up faster or turn it over to those who would? Sure. There are memorials at Gettysburg and Pearl Harbor that didn’t involve rangling real estate disputes. Is this Bush’s fault? Pataki’s fault? Gulliani’s fault? Bloomberg’s fault? (funny, they’re all Republicans) I can’t really say. But the fact that the site sits, five years later, still gapping and raw says something about the President’s – the nation’s – priorities over the past five years.

  5. 5

    This really is all Bill Clinton’s fault for not using his super powers to default Al Qaeda.

  6. 6
    dedgeorge says:

    Olberman compares the hole in the ground with the hole in America’s psyche— a hole left by W’s deliberate inaction on restoring American society’s sense of unity and purpose ( I mean, did YOU feel you were striking a blow for liberty, smighting OBL philosphy each time you bought something at WalMart during the Christmas Season of 2001??)

    The literary device Olberman uses in doing this is called a METAPHOR … try it sometime…..

  7. 7
    Andrew says:

    Lookit, the President is too busy saving marriage from the gays to worry about rebuilding Ground Zero or New Orleans. It’s called “havin priorities” and “keepin America safe from the evildoers.”

    The gays, liberals, and Islamists are still here, 5 years after 9/11. It only took Roosevelt 3 and half to beat the Nazis. I think this makes it pretty clear which axis of evil is the bigger threat.

  8. 8

    The gays, liberals, and Islamists are still here, 5 years after 9/11. It only took Roosevelt 3 and half to beat the Nazis. I think this makes it pretty clear which axis of evil is the bigger threat.

    It’s true! teh gays, liberals and Islamofascist robots are a much greater evil than Nazis!

    If not for GW Bush, we’d all be speaking Islamofascist Arabic!

  9. 9
    srv says:

    Bush has been busy tearing apart the ME for 5 years. He doesn’t have time to do anything constructive.

    Afghanistan
    Iraq
    New Orleans
    Rule of Law
    WTC

    The Entropic Administration will be measured by its failures, and the WTC is pretty low on the list.

  10. 10
    jg says:

    Its symbolic of Bushs presidency John. Domestic shit doesn’t get done when he’s running the show. I feel bad for your students.

  11. 11
    VidaLoca says:

    John,

    Technically, you’re right; Bush doesn’t have much direct influence over the jungle of Manhattan real estate. However, that’s only the first 1/4 – 1/5 of Olbermann’s comment; in the subsequent paragraph he takes off into a most excellent rant:

    At the dedication of the Gettysburg Memorial — barely four months after the last soldier staggered from another Pennsylvania field, Mr. Lincoln said “we can not dedicate – we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.”
    Lincoln used those words to immortalize their sacrifice.
    Today our leaders could use those same words to rationalize their reprehensible inaction. “We can nto dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground.” So we won’t.
    Instead they bicker and buck-pass. They thwart private efforts, and jostle to claim credit for initiatives that go nowhere. They spend the money on irrelevant wars, and elaborate self-congratulations, and buying off columnists to write how good a job they’re doing — instead of doing any job at all.
    Five years later, Mr. Bush… we are still fighting the terrorists on these streets. And look carefully, sir — on these 16 empty acres, the terrorists… are clearly, still winning.
    And, in a crime against every victim here and every patriotic sentiment you mouthed but did not enact, you have done nothing about it.

    Not just “done nothing about it” in the sense of building a memorial — “done nothing about it” in the sense of doing f*ck-all about it. Where’s Osama, you jackass? You may not think it’s important any more but we sure do.

    He doesn’t care. He simply doesn’t care. Except when it comes time to highjack the symbolism to his own purposes, then he cares.

    So it’s like dedgeorge says, it’s a metaphor. Kinda like that thing about the Jade Hamsters of the Left thing was a while back. You may remember: the Hamster didn’t really have anything directly to do with what it was accused by somebody of doing but that was OK since it was being used as a metaphor for something that would have if it could have … or something…

    [/scurries off]

  12. 12
    Larry says:

    Most of the cable talking heads were using the “hole” as a backdrop for their bloviations last yesterday. Olbermann did the same, but turned the tables on his peers. Rather than descend into bathos, as most of them did, he used the hole as a metaphor for whatever was wrong with us right now.

    It seems more than fitting to associate those issues with Bush. It was a totally appropriate theatrical thing to do, and I applaud him for doing it.

    but for not controlling the internal real estate power struggles

    True, and what Bush was “blamed” for was terrible leadership, not necessarily for “real estate” problems. Although, the real estate problems were enough to get even Rudy Giuliani to bemoan the lack of progress there, along with Pataki, and just about every official who showed up for the photo op.

    I doubt that anyone “blames” Bush for the real estate snafus, as you say. But I also doubt that anyone seriously thought that that is what Olbermann meant.

  13. 13
    BlogReeder says:

    I think it’s unreasonable. That’s why “Bush Derangement Syndrome” describes this kind of rhetoric so well. There is nothing Bush can do that would please some people. I agree that to infer that he could do anything about the disposition of Manhattan real estate, is especially unreasonable. Imagine if he ordered NYC to build something. What would Kieth’s reaction be? I know saying “He’s got BDS” is a crutch sometimes used to stifle further discussion, but what else fits?

  14. 14
    Mr Furious says:

    Watch the damn video, John, if reading the transcript is too literal and confusing for you.

    As VidaLoco says above, Olbermann reflected how Lincoln was able to do more to memorialize Gettysburg with mere words than any structure. Bush has done nothing more than hold 9/11 tightly against his body like a football as he runs around using it to score points.

    If you can’t watch the video of Olbermann’s comments and come away with a different reaction than what you have revealed thusfar, then you haven’t come as far since Fall 2004 than you believe (or the rest of us give you credit for).

  15. 15
    Pb says:

    And maybe this is or should be really obvious, but the photo-op is the perfect metaphor for this Presidency–that’s really all they care about and all they do, try to make themselves look good, and not actually achieving any real results.

    Do they actually think that al-Qaeda has a better PR organization than they do? Are they actually baffled that some people choose to believe actual reported facts rather than their incessant spin? Or do they just believe their own spin? That would explain a lot:

    “In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn’t like about Bush’s former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House’s displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn’t fully comprehend — but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

    The aide said that guys like me were ”in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who ”believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ”That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. ”We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”” — The New York Times, Ron Suskind, 10/17/04

    Is the media suddenly ‘liberal’ because they occasionally report–often years too late–on actual death squads in Iraq or IEDs in Afghanistan or illegal government wiretapping or corruption and war profiteering or territory now held by the enemy instead of schools being painted in Iraq? Well, they do still report on photo-ops.

    And George W. Bush is the photo-op President.

  16. 16
    Mr Furious says:

    I clicked the stupid BlogAd link in the upper left to see who the choices are for “Who’s the Worst Person for America”… Olbermann is the first choice.

    Good for him.

  17. 17
    Foo says:

    I am a foreigner. Isn’t symptomatic of the mindset of your great nation that nobody either at federal, state or city level dare have a act of authority by setting a commemorative plaque in memory of victims of 9/11, yet everyone is daydreaming about a 1776 ft high ghost tower?
    Who’s in charge there?

  18. 18

    That’s why “Bush Derangement Syndrome” describes this kind of rhetoric so well. There is nothing Bush can do that would please some people.

    This does raise an interesting question.

    Can the President do anything right?

  19. 19

    I clicked the stupid BlogAd link in the upper left to see who the choices are for “Who’s the Worst Person for America”… Olbermann is the first choice.

    They call this Olbermann Derangement Syndrome. There is nothing Keith Olbermann can do that would please some people.

  20. 20
    DougJ says:

    Gutsy stuff, John. Most people are afraid to take on Olbermann.

  21. 21
    Pb says:

    BlogReeder,

    Although it may not be possible for George W. Bush, it is possible for Presidents to provide leadership without just ordering people around. The mere words of a President–even a former President–still carry a special weight to them in America. But promises must be kept–it’s called accountability.

    “Reaching these goals will require the broad support of Americans. So today I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent: To make this nation stronger and better I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust.” — George W. Bush, 2004

    I–and many others–have yet to see this.

    “We are required now to work together for the good of our country. In the days ahead, we must find common cause. We must join in common effort without remorse or recrimination, without anger or rancor. America is in need of unity and longing for a larger measure of compassion.” — John F. Kerry, 2004

    Which is why we all have yet to see this.

  22. 22
    BlogReeder says:

    He can ride a seqway. No, wait, he can’t.

    His fitness regime should be praised. He’s the fittest president.

  23. 23
    Punchy says:

    Hey Strawman Cole–

    Where’s the reference to Bush in that blockquote? Where’s the ref to his Administration?

    Ouch. Making shit up is tough, ain’t it? You just keep on fighting that straw, Good Man, while the rest of us in Realityville will actually read the comment in the context for which it was intended.

  24. 24
    aaron says:

    This does raise an interesting question.

    Can the President do anything right?

    Of course not. Had Bush pushed hard for new construction, the very same people here would be screaming at him for not respecting the dead and for worshipping economic concerns instead of remembering the meaning of the site.

  25. 25

    His fitness regime should be praised. He’s the fittest president.

    We should all be proud that the President can tie his own shoes!

  26. 26
    DougJ says:

    I blame Cindy Sheehan for all of this. Whatever it is.

  27. 27

    Of course not. Had Bush pushed hard for new construction, the very same people here would be screaming at him for not respecting the dead and for worshipping economic concerns instead of remembering the meaning of the site.

    Only because that’s probably what he would have done and then we’d all have to listen to you whine about how you hate everybody complaining about Bush.

    Got a little hint for ya’ll. This will help you if you ever want to run for politics.

    When people make complaints, you aren’t going to win them over by calling them names. And you can’t wint them over by pandering. You win them over by listening and answering.

    A few years ago I went to a City Council building permit meeting which was going to talk about them building a Condo project on a hill nearby my house. I mainly just wanted to see what they were doing, and if it looked like a nice proposal I wanted to support it.

    There was somebody who came and complained, stating that the hill was the only piece of natural wilderness left in the community and it was a nice place to take a walk.

    The city council member, instead of saying “What are you a stupid fucking communist!?” said something more like “You’re right, and I understand what you saying, but this man owns the piece of property and we can’t prevent him from building something on it. We can only guide the planning so that it fits in with the community.”

    The person who complained accepted the answer and sat down.

    Quite amazing. I made sure to get that council member’s name and voted for them in the next election.

    Remember that next time you feel the desire to accuse everybody who disagrees with you a name.

  28. 28

    Oh yeah, forgot a point. Sometimes people making complaints have good complaints. If you call them names, all you do is make yourself look like a fucking fool.

    If you take the reasonable complaints and revisit what you are doing you can more often than not win people over.

    Seriously, if Bush came out tomorrow and admitted he was wrong for invading Iraq and apologizing. I’d be more than happy to help clean up the mess.

    But without that apology, without the acknowledgement that we were right, and he was a fucking bonehead. you know what?

    Fuck you

  29. 29
    Andrew says:

    On the other hand, Other Steve, some people really are fucking idiots and we should dismiss their pathetic grasping at apologist straws.

  30. 30
    schwankmoe says:

    I know saying “He’s got BDS” is a crutch sometimes used to stifle further discussion, but what else fits?

    I don’t know, maybe actually reading Olbermann’s remarks instead of starting with the supposition that he’s merely bashing bush based on a misreading of said comments?

    Indeed saying “he’s got BDS” is such a crutch as traditionally it’s used to pigeonhole comments and commenters as blaming something or other on Bush when they do no such thing. As in this case. Also as in last year’s dishonest right-wing attempts to portray leftist criticism of Bush’s reaction to Hurricane Katrina as ‘blaming Bush for the hurricane’.

    It’s a ridiculous strawman, but I doubt it’ll change. People will ignore what they want to, get as much mileage out of it as possible and go about their ignorance as if nothing else happened. General Stupidity, indeed.

  31. 31
    Andrew says:

    On the other hand, Other Steve beat me to the punch.

  32. 32
    scs says:

    There are memorials at Gettysburg

    Funny people bring up Gettyburg as I grew up right near there. (Go South Central PA!) Anyway, what people are failing to remember is that Gettysburg and other memorials are Federal memorials, built on government land. The WTC site is a private site, intended to serve real people through work and retail space. Now unless the Dems want Bush to come in and do an emminent domain ( which they do seem to be very fond of actually) it is none of Bush’s beeswax what they do on that site and instead is a local affair. Actually that is part of the Republican philosphy-not to come in and micromanage everyone’s business. That even includes New Orleans as well. I guess you all will have to wait till we vote in a Dem president to tell everyone what to do.

  33. 33
    radish says:

    Heh. “Olbermann was blaming Bush for not building at ground zero” is quite the stretch all right. I’m amazed you didn’t pull a muscle writing that…

    Can the President do anything right?

    He’s been extremely successful in certain respects.

    It all depends what “right” mean in this context. He wanted to become president and he succeeded. He wanted to invade Iraq and he succeeded. He wanted to expand the power of the executive to an extent not seen since FDR (or possibly Lincoln) and he succeeded. He wanted to give the neocons an opportunity to try out their geostrategic plan and he succeeded.

    Go ahead, nominate me for a Davies Prize. Maybe they’ll give it to me this time. Damn academics…

  34. 34
    BlogReeder says:

    Interesting quote from John Kerry, Pb. Reading these comments, I can’t see any common cause.

  35. 35
    chopper says:

    Actually that is part of the Republican philosphy-not to come in and micromanage everyone’s business.

    unless yer queer.

  36. 36
    Joey says:

    Actually that is part of the Republican philosphy-not to come in and micromanage everyone’s business.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
    Holy shit, that made my day, especially if you actually believe that.

  37. 37
    Pb says:

    Also as in last year’s dishonest right-wing attempts to portray leftist criticism of Bush’s reaction to Hurricane Katrina as ‘blaming Bush for the hurricane’.

    And, lest we forget…

    The Photo-Ops

    The Reality Today

  38. 38
    BlogReeder says:

    Schwankmoe, you’re right, I didn’t read Olbermann’s transcript. I was agreeing with John’s comments based the excerpt. I think John is right about the gist of the excerpt.

  39. 39
    Bombadil says:

    Wonderful. Olbermann writes a masterful slam against Bush and Company, and you need to find something to defend your hero from and you come up with this.

    What about the rest of Olbermann’s commentary?

    What about this?

    [F]or me… this was, and is, and always shall be, personal.
    And anyone who claims that I and others like me are “soft”, or have “forgotten” the lessons of what happened here — is at best a grasping, opportunistic, dilettante — and at worst, an idiot — whether he is a commentator, or a Vice President, or a President.

    Or this?

    At the dedication of the Gettysburg Memorial — barely four months after the last soldier staggered from another Pennsylvania field, Mr. Lincoln said “we can not dedicate – we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.”
    Lincoln used those words to immortalize their sacrifice.
    Today our leaders could use those same words to rationalize their reprehensible inaction. “We can nto dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground.” So we won’t.

    Or this?

    [I]n a crime against every victim here and every patriotic sentiment you mouthed but did not enact, you have done nothing about it. —
    And there is something worse still than this vast gaping hole in this city, and in the fabric of our nation.
    There is, its symbolism — of the promise unfulfilled, the urgent oath, reduced to lazy execution.

    Or this?

    History teaches us that nearly unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government, by its critics.
    It can only be squandered by those who use it not to heal a nation’s wounds, but to take political advantage.
    Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being American first, and political, fiftieth. Nor did the Democrats. Nor did the media. Nor did the people.
    The President — and those around him — did that.

    No, let’s not bother to comment on all that. Let’s just belittle Olbermann because he says Bush should be “controlling the internal real estate power struggles and fights in NYC”.

    What a fucking wanker.

  40. 40
    scs says:

    By the way, Olberman is crazy and I am suprised more people don’t talk about it. He is obviously obssessed to point of unhealthiness about Bill O’Reilly. He seems to manage to slip him in there practically everytime I watch the show. Like he is constantly comparing his tv ratings with Bill’s, the other day he compared his just released new book’s NYT ratings (like 14) with Bill’s book (pretty low, like 200) and gloated.

    The problem is I don’t know which Bill book he is talking about. Bill new book is coming out I think the end of September, and his old book has been out forever. Everyone knows book rating, like movies, have a shelf life so it is misleading to compare a just released book with one that has been out for a long time (which I believe went to Num One in the past).

    The guy has a mental problem and doesn’t know how to be a good loser.

  41. 41
    capelza says:

    Uh, scs…are you saying that Gettysburg was Federal land in the 1860’s? Or any of the other battle sites? How thoughtful those Civil War planners were to only fight on Federal land!

  42. 42
    Andrew says:

    Come now, Bombadil, bitching about the particulars of a misunderstood criticism of the President is surely the trademark of the John Coles of the right.

  43. 43
    Bombadil says:

    scs, you’re going to call Olbermann crazy by comparing him to O’Reilly?

    You are stark staring mad.

  44. 44
    Bombadil says:

    Come now, Bombadil, bitching about the particulars of a misunderstood criticism of the President is surely the trademark of the John Coles of the right.

    And completely missing the point is apparently the trademark of the John Coles of Balloon Juice.

  45. 45
    Bombadil says:

    Oh, and based on previous run-ins with JC on just this sort of topic, I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if I join ppGaz in exile. That’s what happened the last time I called him a “wanker”, anyway.

  46. 46
    scs says:

    are you saying that Gettysburg was Federal land in the 1860’s

    Well good point. Probably not. But there is one small difference. Gettysburg was a country/farm land in a rural area. (I don’t even think a lot of it was farm land as a lot of it is, if you’ve seen it, pretty rocky.) The WTC however is a billion dollar heart of the city that serves thousands of people every day. It might be a little easier and a little less controversial to do an emminent domain on a field than a place like the WTC, even back then.

  47. 47
    Pb says:

    BlogReeder,

    Reading these comments, I can’t see any common cause.

    Well, as it turns out, there was no common cause because there was no common ground. Bush’s issue for 2005 was Social Security, but he was unwilling to find a common ground on that issue. His approach–as usual–was that we should trust him instead. But he did nothing to earn that trust.

    I should note that after 2000, Bush didn’t have to earn my trust, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. However, like many Americans, he did earn my trust–or at the least my hope and a measure of respect–after 9/11. And then he squandered it, in spades.

    And at this point, he’d have to do a *lot* to earn it back and make amends–perhaps more than would be possible in the next two years. He’d have to fix what he’s broken, he’d have to apologize for what he’s done and what he hasn’t–but should have–done, he’d have to actually try to bring us together instead of trying to divide us, to actually find common cause, and in short he’d have to try to rule like an American President rather than a monarch.

    I don’t know which of these things would be the hardest for them, but I have a feeling that just fixing what he’s broken could seriously take decades at this point. Never again.

  48. 48
    jg says:

    No, let’s not bother to comment on all that. Let’s just belittle Olbermann because he says Bush should be “controlling the internal real estate power struggles and fights in NYC”.

    Darrells gone so someone has to toss us some jackalopes.

    By the way, Olberman is crazy and I am suprised more people don’t talk about it.

    Time to attack credibility. If they don’t someone might start to listen to him. If you call him crazy people will ignore him. Keep playing along scs. Listen to the apporved sources and ignore the ones they say you shouldn’t listen to. You’re a good little sheep.

  49. 49
    capelza says:

    Olbermann crazy? Did he the MSNBC security after O’Reilly?

    Back to the original point…I have to agree, it was a metaphor for the whole damn shebang of the last five years. The little pond (I didn’t know what that was till now) is awful. HIs handler’s made up a memorial for a photo op?

  50. 50
    capelza says:

    scs…it wasn’t federal land at all, you should know that as it is your stomping grounds. I am not suggesting that downtown Manhattan should be taken over. Just that you think things through before you post.

    In fact, now that I think about it, the little duck pond Bush had set up should be left there. THAT is the perfect metaphor for his leadership.

  51. 51
    Bombadil says:

    But there is one small difference. Gettysburg was a country/farm land in a rural area. (I don’t even think a lot of it was farm land as a lot of it is, if you’ve seen it, pretty rocky.) The WTC however is a billion dollar heart of the city that serves thousands of people every day. It might be a little easier and a little less controversial to do an emminent domain on a field than a place like the WTC, even back then.

    SO FUCKING WHAT?????

    Olbermann was not talking about goddamn real estate transactions! Go read the transcript again, or better, watch the tape — you can find it at Crooks and Liars.

    Jeebus, is this the best you and Cole can come up with to try to prop up this cheap little weasel of a president?

  52. 52
    Pb says:

    Heh. Olbermann’s feud with O’Reilly (and vice versa) is hilarious. It’s all theater (just like O’Reilly’s show is), at least on Keith’s part. O’Reilly makes some veiled comment about MSNBC that could only be about Keith’s show, and Keith publicly responds. O’Reilly says something incredibly inane on his own show, and Keith calls him on it. Keith has a lot of fun with it, and I find it to be quite entertaining. And the whole Fox Security fiasco was amazingly farcical, even for O’Reilly:

    when a caller mentioned Olbermann’s name on O’Reilly’s radio show March 2, 2006, O’Reilly appeared to have promptly disconnected him and responded “we have your phone number, and we’re going to turn it over to Fox security, and you’ll be getting a little visit.” O’Reilly then said, “When you call us, ladies and gentleman, just so you know, we do have your phone number. And if you say anything untoward, obscene, or anything like that, Fox security will then contact your local authorities, and you will be held accountable”.

  53. 53
    jg says:

    After the media blitz over the weekend I have a feeling I might remember 9/11/06 more than 9/11/01. So much ‘do you remember that day?, what do you remember about that day?, that I don’t know if I’ll ever forget the day they wouldn’t stop asking me if I ‘rememeber the day’.

    Why would terrorists hit us again here? They united the country and had the whole world on our side. Unless they have faith that Bush could completely squander that again why would they take that chance when we are still over in the middle east creating muslim unity against us?

  54. 54
    Mac Buckets says:

    Gutsy stuff, John. Most people are afraid to take on Olbermann.

    Well, what with the many years of reporting (well, reading the highlights) at ESPN, KO’s very knowledgeable about…ummmmm, the American League Central race? The day I care about what the Sports Mustache thinks about anything besides the NHL season is the day I start to wonder about Chris Berman’s foreign policy stances.

    “Boo-yah”? No, wait, that wasn’t him.
    “En fuego”? No.
    “Bring me your finest meats and cheeses”?
    “Rumblin’, bumblin’, stumblin'”?
    Oh, yeah! “Dick Trickle” updates! How soon we forget.

  55. 55
    scs says:

    It’s all theater (just like O’Reilly’s show is), at least on Keith’s part

    Yeah, I’m not too sure about that. Do you see the little hysterical gleam in Keith’s eyes and insane, gleeful, look on his face everytime he brings up Bill to knock him? I really think the guy is serious. That’s what’s scary.

  56. 56
    capelza says:

    Yeah, I’m not too sure about that. Do you see the little hysterical gleam in Keith’s eyes and insane, gleeful, look on his face everytime he brings up Bill to knock him? I really think the guy is serious. That’s what’s scary.

    And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

  57. 57
    jg says:

    KO’s very knowledgeable about…ummmmm, the American League Central race? The day I care about what the Sports Mustache thinks about anything besides the NHL season is the day I start to wonder about Chris Berman’s foreign policy stances.

    So he once worked as a sportscaster so he can’t possibly be educated on other subjects and shouldn’t be taken seriously? What about Rush? He was fired from ESPN too?

    Do you see the little hysterical gleam in Keith’s eyes and insane, gleeful, look on his face everytime he brings up Bill to knock him?

    So he shuold appear to not enjoy doing something he does for the sheer fun of doing? You’re deranged.

  58. 58
    Sojourner says:

    It’s my understanding that the city owns the land and was leased by Silverstein Properties Inc.

  59. 59
    scs says:

    So he shuold appear to not enjoy doing something he does for the sheer fun of doing?

    Ummm, not THAT much. Especially since he does it all the time- you’d think the thrill would have worn off by now.

  60. 60
    Andrei says:

    You can rap this administration for a lot of things – but for not controlling the internal real estate power struggles and fights in NYC? Gimme a break.

    I won’t take the road others who are disagreeing with you take here.

    I’ll just simply say that *YES*, you can put blame on George Bush for not seeing to it that at the very least, a memorial funded by federal money and pushed through by federal influences should have happened by now to heal the physical wounds of 9/11 on private land.

    If George Bush had successfully done so much else in his presidency to heal the country, to bring people together for the common good, to actuallly lead given the overwhelming support he was provided right after the attack, then such a remark would most definitely be unfair.

    But Bush has not done anything to say the least, which is part of the larger point Olbermann was making.

    The way in which you phrased this post makes it seem like you are trivializing what was an amazing, direct and passionate commentary by Olbermann, who is quickly becoming our generation’s Edward Morrow if not already. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you did not intend to do that, but it seems clear from the reaction of others to this post that is how your words are being taken. If so, you may actually want to clarfiy.

    If not, and you are indeed trying to trivialize Olbermann’s words, then I wish you luck on your path back to being part of the problem.

  61. 61
    Andrew J. Lazarus says:

    OK, let’s give Doofus-in-Chief a pass on not clearing up the insurance payoff for the WTC site. Care to explain his GOP-only appearance (no Schumer, no Hillary), and bringing in the little pool so the place would look better in his photo ops?

    Olbermann tells it like it is.

  62. 62
    jg says:

    Ummm, not THAT much. Especially since he does it all the time- you’d think the thrill would have worn off by now.

    What I (or you) think doesn’t matter.

    What do you think of the actual reporting he does? How do feel about how he covers day to day issues?

  63. 63
    capelza says:

    Ummm, not THAT much. Especially since he does it all the time- you’d think the thrill would have worn off by now.

    Why would it, O’Reilly continues to step in it on a regular basis. Do you watch Olbermann that often anyway, scs?

    Sojourner, is that how the land deal works? That seems straightforward enough. Wonder why it is so complicated?

  64. 64
    Sojourner says:

    Sojourner, is that how the land deal works? That seems straightforward enough. Wonder why it is so complicated?

    What is not clear to me is what happens to the lease when the property on it is destroyed.

    Anyone know?

  65. 65
    Mac Buckets says:

    So he once worked as a sportscaster so he can’t possibly be educated on other subjects and shouldn’t be taken seriously?

    It’s more that he ONLY worked as a sportscaster and NEVER worked as a news reporter, but yeah, you’re getting the gist.

    What about Rush? He was fired from ESPN too?

    You can take Rush just as seriously as you take Olbermann, if you want to. I’m sure they both speak to someone’s level.

  66. 66
    VidaLoca says:

    Foo,

    I am a foreigner. Isn’t symptomatic of the mindset of your great nation that nobody either at federal, state or city level dare have a act of authority by setting a commemorative plaque in memory of victims of 9/11, yet everyone is daydreaming about a 1776 ft high ghost tower?
    Who’s in charge there?

    It’s very simple. We live mostly in the past.

  67. 67
    Mike in SLO says:

    Thank you Mac Buckets. Since you don’t care a whit about what Olbermann has to say then you won’t be posting anymore to this thread, right?

  68. 68
    John S. says:

    Yawn.

    The levees aren’t Bush’s responsibility part deux.

  69. 69
    Pb says:

    scs,

    Actually I hear the ‘thrill’ has worn off a bit, as it were. From his recent Salon interview:

    Any chance of a truce with Bill O’Reilly?

    We have of late. I made kind of a joke of it [on Sept. 6]. He attacked MSNBC [on his show] along with a plethora of usual suspects for, in his opinion, misreporting the Valerie Plame story, and demanded that we say that we’re sorry that Karl Rove was not indicted. And I said, “All right, Bill, you’re right. We are sorry Karl Rove wasn’t indicted. But please, I can’t play with you now. I have bigger fish to fry.”

    From, let’s see, a year, year and a half ago, the whole tenor of this thing changed. It had essentially been me pointing out what kind of crap he was putting on the air, and then it became anything that was said about Bill merited some sort of brilliant overreaction, like an on-air petition to get me fired. Or this thing — and it would be really funny in a different context — where he thought he could call up Fox security and local police and get them to somehow go to the house of someone who called his radio show and mentioned my name. I just wait for his overreactions and respond to them now. It’s really, it’s almost a passive feud from my end. Also, the level of the fight from him has dropped off appreciably. His stuff is getting very old, and we’ve had to raise the bar a little bit higher because his answers get a little lower. So we devote less and less time to him. I wouldn’t say a truce, but I don’t think there’s very much fight left in him at this point.

    Everyone else,

    There’s also lots of great stuff in there about his ‘special comments’ and other things. Read the whole thing if you haven’t.

  70. 70
    scs says:

    Okay a little history for us all. This is what I found on the Gettysburg memorial on Wiki. It seems that even back then, private individuals provided the momentum.

    Two individuals immediately began to work to help the town recover and to preserve the memory of those who had fallen: David Wills and David McConaughy, both attorneys living in Gettysburg. A week after the battle, Pennsylvania Governor Andrew Curtin visited Gettysburg and expressed the state’s interest in finding its veterans and giving them a proper burial. Wilson immediately arranged for the purchase of 17 acres (69,000 m²) next to the Evergreen Cemetery, but the priority of burying Pennsylvania veterans soon changed to honoring all of the Union dead.

    McConaughy was responsible for purchasing 600 acres (2.4 km²) of privately held land to preserve as a monument. His first priorities for preservation were Culp’s Hill, East Cemetery Hill, and Little Round Top. On April 30, 1864, the Gettysburg Battlefield Memorial Association was formed to mark “the great deeds of valor … and the signal events which render these battlegrounds illustrious”, and it began adding to McConaughy’s holdings. In 1880, the Grand Army of the Republic took control of the Memorial Association and its lands.

    On November 19, 1863, the Soldiers’ National Cemetery was dedicated in a ceremony highlighted by Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. The night before, Lincoln slept in Wills’s house on the main square in Gettysburg, which is now a landmark administered by the National Park Service. The cemetery was completed in March of 1864 with the last of 3,512 Union dead were reburied. It became a National Cemetery on May 1, 1872, when control was transferred to the U.S. War Department.

  71. 71
    Mr Furious says:

    Well, what with the many years of reporting (well, reading the highlights) at ESPN, KO’s very knowledgeable about…ummmmm, the American League Central race? The day I care about what the Sports Mustache thinks about anything besides the NHL season is the day I start to wonder about Chris Berman’s foreign policy stances.

    Yeah, a guy with a degree in Communications from Colgate must be a real dolt. Twent-six years in journalsm, ACE and Murrow awards, but he needs to shut up because he once worked in sports.

    Rush Limbaugh was a Top-40 DJ. He can shut the fuck anytime now, I guess.

  72. 72
    scs says:

    I just wait for his overreactions and respond to them now. It’s really, it’s almost a passive feud from my end.

    The guy is insane. He talks about him practically eveyday, now as much as ever. My own personal opinion is that Keith should devote a little more time talking about the news, and a little less time talking about what he thinks about Bill O’Reilly. But that’s just me.

  73. 73
    Mike in SLO says:

    Oh wait, Mac, I spoke too soon. As soon as I posted, there is another post from you! I guess instead of listening to wait you say, I’ll watch what you do for your true colors to show. You fear the Olbermann’s of this world and it shows…

  74. 74
    scs says:

    a guy with a degree in Communications

    Phweew, yeah! That’s almost as hard as a Psychology degree!

  75. 75
    Mr Furious says:

    It’s more that he ONLY worked as a sportscaster and NEVER worked as a news reporter, but yeah, you’re getting the gist.

    Sean Hannity: worked construction. Never a reporter.

    Keith Olbermann: He won an Edward R. Murrow Award for reporting from the site of the attacks for 40 days on ABC Radio and Los Angeles radio station KFWB.

  76. 76
    Pb says:

    On November 19, 1863, the Soldiers’ National Cemetery was dedicated in a ceremony highlighted by Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. The night before, Lincoln slept in Wills’s house on the main square in Gettysburg

    Now *there* was a President.

    The guy is insane.

    ROFL.

  77. 77
    jaime says:

    Well, what with the many years of reporting (well, reading the highlights) at ESPN, KO’s very knowledgeable about…ummmmm,

    Paging Jeff Christie, Paging Jeff Christie

  78. 78
    Mr Furious says:

    Maybe you missed this part:

    FROM COLGATE!

    Not Apex Tech.

    Come on, scs.

  79. 79
    Bombadil says:

    Yes, Olbermann has primarily been a sports reporter. That’s something he and and O’Reilly share; in fact both were in Boston for a time, KO at WCVB and BO at WHDH. However, according to wikipedia, “The September 11, 2001 attacks provided the impetus for Olbermann to return to full-fledged news reporting. He won an Edward R. Murrow Award for reporting from the site of the attacks for 40 days on ABC Radio and Los Angeles radio station KFWB.”

  80. 80
    Andrei says:

    My own personal opinion is that Keith should devote a little more time talking about the news, and a little less time talking about what he thinks about Bill O’Reilly.

    Spoken like someone who doesn’t actually watch Olbermann.

  81. 81
    Mac Buckets says:

    Thank you Mac Buckets. Since you don’t care a whit about what Olbermann has to say then you won’t be posting anymore to this thread, right?

    No, I’m still free to express whatever opinions I might have, including that The Sports Mustache is not to be taken seriously by serious people.

  82. 82
    Pb says:

    hahah!

    not to be taken serioiusly by serious people

    — Mac Buckets, angling for a guest spot on The O’Reilly Factor

  83. 83
    Pb says:

    *and pardon my typo, Mac, I should have just cut-and-pasted that bit

  84. 84
    Mr Furious says:

    Anyway, all of this bullshit about Olbermann “not paying his dues” or whatever the fuck Mac is claiming (with scs’s incompetent assistance) is irrelevent when the guy can write like he does. Olbermann is rapidly becoming one of the most important political commenters out there. I don’t give a shit if he never ran around shoving a microphone in somebody’s face…

  85. 85
    Tsulagi says:

    There is nothing Bush can do

    That’s pretty much correct. Except when he’s really focused on something and screwing it up beyond belief.

  86. 86
    Tom says:

    No harsh words for the terrorists, Keith? Not a one?

  87. 87
    Redleg says:

    I thought Bush was master of the bully pulpit. I guess I was wrong. Bush thinks it’s fine to micro-manage public education but he doesn’t want to get involved in rebuilding the area around the former WTC?

  88. 88
    Richard 23 says:

    scs was right about Terri Schaivo. So she’s probably right about KO. I mean look at him. He looks crazy, gleam in the eye and all. Ever seen his eyes when a balloon is waved in front of him?

    O’Reilly can’t seem to tell the difference between Stuart Smally and Al Franken. What’s your diagnosis, Dr. scs? Do you work with Dr. Frist?

  89. 89
    Mac Buckets says:

    Yeah, a guy with a degree in Communications from Colgate must be a real dolt.

    I’m sure he’s an excellent reader, and knows how to work the camera.

    Twent-six years in journalsm,

    21 of it in Sports. Like I was saying.

    I’m not sure we can call much of what he has done “journalism.” Reading Sports highlights… and then talking-heading at MSNBC?

    he needs to shut up because he once worked in sports.

    He doesn’t need to shut up. Everyone, no matter how unqualified, has the right to get paid to rant about whatever. It’s just that serious people don’t need to care about what he says.

    Rush Limbaugh was a Top-40 DJ. He can shut the fuck anytime now, I guess.

    Again, he has the right to get paid to rant, too. I suppose that he and Olbermann have roughly equal credibility, and that they speak to the same kind of people, just at different ends of the political spectrum.

  90. 90
    Redleg says:

    The “Bush Derangement Syndrome” is a psycho-babble term coined by conservatives, who haven’t been able to see any serious failings in Bush, to describe those people having a better grasp on reality. BDS is simply a “phenomenon” that Bush sycophants can invoke whenever Bush critics hit a nerve by stating the obvious fact that Bush is truly a feckless turd.

  91. 91
    Mr Furious says:

    What’s your diagnosis, Dr. scs?

    Yeah, apparently psychology degrees come in cereal boxes, you must have several…

  92. 92
    Redleg says:

    Equating Olbermann and Limbaugh is like comparing apples and assholes. Olbermann offers his ideas, not as fact, but as opinion, while Limbaugh routinely distorts and lies about facts. Both certainly want to influence their viewers but Limbaugh chooses to do so by dissembling.

  93. 93
    Andrei says:

    Twent-six years in journalsm, 21 of it in Sports. Like I was saying.

    Reagan spent 3/4 of his life in acting. Didn’t stop him from being what some consider a great President. (Not by me, but by plenty on the right.)

    Why don’t you actually comment on what Olbermann said Mac Buckets? You know… the things he actualy wrote and broadcast last night.

    Unless you really are pining to be the new Darrell since now that troll was finally banned.

  94. 94
    Redleg says:

    Perhaps we should coin the term “Olbermann Derangement Syndrome” so we can dismiss any criticism of Olbermann by the haters.

  95. 95
    Bombadil says:

    a guy with a degree in Communications

    Phweew, yeah! That’s almost as hard as a Psychology degree

    !

    Hey, Prof. Cole — do you agree that a communications degree is that easy to get?

  96. 96
    Richard 23 says:

    Mac, get over your ODS. It cannot be healthy!

  97. 97
    jaime says:

    and that they speak to the same kind of people, just at different ends of the political spectrum.

    So that puts you squarely in the middle, Mac?

    And what? When and why was Darrell banned?

  98. 98
    John S. says:

    Hey, Prof. Cole—do you agree that a communications degree is that easy to get?

    I’m not Prof. Cole, but when I was in college nearly all the athletes were Communications majors. It was well known to be the easiest Bachelors to obtain.

  99. 99
    Geoduck says:

    It should be pointed out that sports reporters actually need to know what they are talking about, because, unlike politics, sports is something that viewers actually care about.

  100. 100
    Mac Buckets says:

    Anyway, all of this bullshit about Olbermann “not paying his dues” or whatever the fuck Mac is claiming…is irrelevent when the guy can write like he does.

    I mean, yeah, if you don’t care that he doesn’t really seem to know what he’s writing about, I suppose you could really like it when he parrots your partisan views. The article that’s the subject of this post is a great example of a big, ice-cold pitcher of Kool-Aid for the true believers. It’s no better or worse than a decent comment at Jeff Goldstein’s or dKos, or the opening monologue of the Rush radio show. But it doesn’t offer anything of substance, it’s just a vaguely-asserted, willfully-partisan, self-righteous “shame-on-you” in faux-solemn tones. Sorry if I don’t buy it for a millisecond.

  101. 101
    Mac Buckets says:

    Equating Olbermann and Limbaugh is like comparing apples and assholes. Olbermann offers his ideas, not as fact, but as opinion, while Limbaugh routinely distorts and lies about facts.

    Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Kool-aid, anyone?

  102. 102
    jaime says:

    It’s no better or worse than a decent comment at Jeff Goldstein’s or dKos, or the opening monologue of the Rush radio show.

    Wow! Mac is quite Hillary-esque in his race to the center.

  103. 103
    Mike says:

    As a New Yorker (today & on 9/11/01), let me say this: I’m mad at Pataki & Silverstein & Bloomerg & Lifkind (or whatever that hack architect’s name is) for mucking up the process of rebuilding. I wish they’d stop the back-scratching and back-room dealing and build something, even if it’s a friggin ten-plex showing Scream IV.

    Anything but that scar, that hole, that testiment to the worst day in my city’s history. At least since another event of the Summer of 1863, The Draft Riots.

    That said . . . good for Olbermann speaking up. Maybe Bush did nothing to bring about 9/11, nor did anything to prevent the city/state/private interests from rebuilding. True.

    And that’s the point: he did NOTHING. Absolutely fucking nothing.

    And to him, the President, I say Get out of my city, you bastard, and stay out. I won’t blame you for anything, but I’ll credit you with nothing. And if I could’ve hurled model 767s at your head while you stood at Ground Zero on Sunday, metaphorically jerking off on the graves of my fellow citizens, and the foundations of two of my city’s favorite buildings, I would. Shame on you, George Bush. Fuck you.

    Luckily for all of us, Olbermann’s more eloquent than I am.

  104. 104
    Perry Como says:

    “The September 11, 2001 attacks provided the impetus for Olbermann to return to full-fledged news reporting. He won an Edward R. Murrow Award for reporting from the site of the attacks for 40 days on ABC Radio and Los Angeles radio station KFWB.”

    What a hack.

  105. 105
    Otto Man says:

    It’s more that he ONLY worked as a sportscaster and NEVER worked as a news reporter, but yeah, you’re getting the gist.

    Reminds me of that baseball announcer and actor who thought he should run for president. What was his name? Ronald Reagan?

  106. 106
    John S. says:

    Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Kool-aid, anyone?

    I’d love some! Unfortunately, you’ve drank it all.

    = (

  107. 107
    Pb says:

    This just in, Mac Buckets incapable of distinguishing fact from fiction, substance from satire, or solemnity from spin; he is not to be taken seriously by serious people. Film at 11!

  108. 108
    Bombadil says:

    I’m not Prof. Cole, but when I was in college nearly all the athletes were Communications majors. It was well known to be the easiest Bachelors to obtain.

    Yeah, same where I went (either Communications or Political Science).

    But I was more interested in what the guy who teaches, um, communications thought about it.

  109. 109
    Otto Man says:

    Not to pile on here, John, but I have to agree with the folks here who’ve said that (a) you’re missing the point of Olbermann’s piece, which — when actually watched — is phenomenal and (b) yes, the president using the bully pulpit could’ve gotten something done there.

    Every time I take the PATH through the WTC site, I can’t believe it still has nothing in it. It still looks like it did in 2002. Five years later, and it’s Bush and his portable pool photo op.

    Imagine if December 1946 rolled around, and Pearl Harbor was still filled with nothing but wreckage. (Yes, I know the Arizona’s still there, but you get my point.)

    Part of me thinks this administration wants the hole in the ground, and Osama bin Laden on the run, just so it can point at them every now and then and play on our emotions. It’s bullshit.

  110. 110
    Mac Buckets says:

    Why don’t you actually comment on what Olbermann said Mac Buckets? You know… the things he actualy wrote and broadcast last night.

    I thought I did. His comments are not knowledgeable, they are saccharine in their self-righteousness, and make assertions where he really needs to prove with evidence (you know, like a Journalist would). It’s mawkish hackery for those who like mawkish hackery, and will score big points with the Regulars, like Arsenio Hall yukking it up with his Dawg Pound. “You know how white people dance?”

    I may waste time blasting it apart line-by-line myself, but I’m don’t have the time right now. I’m sure there are some good fiskings out there — this article is practically begging for it.

  111. 111
    Jeff says:

    Last time I checked, a President of the United States has nothing to do with local real estate. Do you really want the President and the Federal Government micro-managing every detail of reconstruction in New York City? By the way, New Orleans and New York City have both been controlled heavily by Democrats for decades. Plus, Bloomberg can in no way be called a real Republican.

  112. 112
    jg says:

    Unless you really are pining to be the new Darrell since now that troll was finally banned.

    Not at all. He’s just come along to point out how unserious KO is and thay he’s not to be taken seriously by serious thinkers . Darrell wouldn’t do that.

  113. 113
    Mac Buckets says:

    Mac Buckets incapable of distinguishing fact from fiction,

    Why link to an anti-Rush site? You should really learn to read big words one day, Pb (because I’m obviously never going to be able to dumb it down enough for you). That way, you might’ve caught that I never defended Rush Limbaugh.

  114. 114
    John S. says:

    and make assertions where he really needs to prove with evidence (you know, like a Journalist would)

    Who makes the journalistic cut in your world, Mac?

  115. 115
    jg says:

    His comments are not knowledgeable, they are saccharine in their self-righteousness, and make assertions where he really needs to prove with evidence (you know, like a Journalist would).

    Is this substance?

  116. 116
    Pb says:

    Mac Buckets,

    If you weren’t defending Rush Limbaugh, then I challenge you to prove your point that Keith Olbermann is somehow equivalent. For example, go through what he reported last night–he reported on five stories–and tell me what was false. Find me a blatant falsehood on his part, or concede the point.

  117. 117
    Jeff says:

    And by the way, do you consider Olberman calling people “The Worst Person in the World” should be considered fact or opinion?

  118. 118
    Mac Buckets says:

    Reminds me of that baseball announcer and actor who thought he should run for president. What was his name? Ronald Reagan?

    Anyone who cannot see the various levels of drivel here, please leave the intertrons immediately.

  119. 119
    Bombadil says:

    And by the way, do you consider Olberman calling people “The Worst Person in the World” should be considered fact or opinion?

    Opinion.

    Next stupid question, please?

  120. 120
    jg says:

    That way, you might’ve caught that I never defended Rush Limbaugh.

    You’ve never really said anything other than whatever a lefty poster had said, was wrong.

  121. 121
    Bombadil says:

    Anyone who cannot see the various levels of drivel here, please leave the intertrons immediately.

    don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

  122. 122
    Andrei says:

    Well then Mac Buckets, I and, others I’m sure, will have to respectfully disagree.

    As a final comment on it — and I won’t waste my time since you have proven time and again to be similar to Darrell in that you ask for discussion but seem to be more interested in only reinforcing your own mistaken world view (imho) — Olbermann sat in front of the 9/11 site, still in shambles and still a large gaping hole in the ground five years later.

    The evidence you are asking for — the very thing Olbermann was commenting about — was right behind him.

    Not sure how you could miss that, but apparently you did.

  123. 123
    jg says:

    Anyone who cannot see the various levels of drivel here, please leave the intertrons immediately.

    Not rebuttal, character attacks.

    Where should serious thinkers get there information? Obviously bot KO so who?

  124. 124
    Mac Buckets says:

    If you weren’t defending Rush Limbaugh, then I challenge you to prove your point that Keith Olbermann is somehow equivalent.

    Why wouldn’t they be? I’ve already explained why I consider them equal-but-opposites.

    For example, go through what he reported last night—he reported on five stories—and tell me what was false. Find me a blatant falsehood on his part, or concede the point.

    It wouldn’t take me five stories. It only takes a cursory reading of the little piece John linked above. I said I might fisk it later.

    Rush probably “reported” (and to say either of these guys “report” from behind their desks, reading words probably written by staffers, is kind of silly) on twenty or thirty stories in three hours yesterday. If I were as ridiculous as you are, I could easily say, “Show me a blatant falsehood, or concede, well, whatever point you think we’re arguing.”

  125. 125
    Redleg says:

    Mac Buckets,
    You would have Kool-Aid to offer. I’m not drinking- I am part of the reality-based community rather than part of the Bush loving, bed-wetting community.

  126. 126
    Pb says:

    Yeah, Mac, refute an opinion piece, that should be interesting. And you’re supposed to be one of the ‘serious people’?

  127. 127
    jg says:

    If I were as ridiculous as you are, I could easily say, “Show me a blatant falsehood, or concede, well, whatever point you think we’re arguing.”

    You said he wasn’t knowledgable. You said he wasn’t for serious thinkers. You’re being asked to defend those statements. Stop dodging. Back up your opinion.

  128. 128
    John S. says:

    If I were as ridiculous as you are, I could easily say, “Show me a blatant falsehood, or concede, well, whatever point you think we’re arguing.”

    That’s totally fucking ridiculous.

    The things Limbaugh “reports” on are debunked on a daily basis. It wouldn’t be very difficult to go through what Limbaugh says and find a multitude of falsehoods. Clearly, you think the same applies to Olbermann, yet I have yet to see a link to someone debunking him or showing where he is stating facts (not opinions) not in evidence. Unlike Limbaugh.

    And again, who makes the journalistic cut in your world, Mac?

  129. 129
    Redleg says:

    I especially like how defending the likes of losers like Bush will make people think you’re insane. LOL!

  130. 130
    Olbermann's Mom says:

    Keith is a good kid. He once had a pillow fight with O’Reilly and Bill sucker-poofed him in his glutimus minimus…gave him an oblique injury that’s deep and not playable.

    Ever since that day, my son has been angry-chair with the Irascible Irishman. Long after rehab, those “feathers-from-nowhere” have rubbed Keith wrong. I’ve tried to get him to gang up with Dan Patrick and go drop some forearm shivers on the Fox Faker, but instead he just engages in verbal demolition-derbies.

    And how angry he looks! Oh, what a face! We call it his “O-face”…

  131. 131
    Mr Furious says:

    Here’s where Mac truly pulls a Darrell and disappears. He hijacks the thread by making it about Olbermann’s “creds” and hen faced with backing up his assertions, he disappears.

    I recognize that it is the workday, so I won’t begrudge anyone from stepping away, but I look forward to Mac’ “fisking” of this OpEd. Truly. Let us know when you’re done, Dr. Buckets.

  132. 132
    Mac Buckets says:

    The evidence you are asking for—the very thing Olbermann was commenting about—was right behind him.

    If all The Sports Mustache had said was, “Why isn’t there a monument yet? I asked (blank) and he said (blank) — I think that’s weak for the following reasons; (blank)” I’d have no problems with it. That would be journalism. Asking people who know and, if your station allows you an opinion, constructing a substantiated argument against their explanation.e

    But Olbermann’s not interested in that — he’s interested in self-righteous fantasy. He just asserts, in a flurry that could be the Final Exam in Spot the Logical Fallacy 101, that the reason there is no memorial is because of Bush — because Bush was so busy squandering this and photo-opping that and (most ludicrously) spending the 9/11 memorial money on paying journalists to write nice things (???). Mustache, ever the gloryhound, even vaguely sets himself up as a poor victim of GOP rhetoric (Saying that I have “forgotten?” Well, you’re an idiot, Mr. President! — Ummm, hate to break it to you, KO, but I’ve never heard the president even cough your name by accident). No wonder they call him the poster boy for Bush Derangement Syndrome.

    Well, I’ve wasted enough time now. More later if I feel like it.

  133. 133
    Mike says:

    He just asserts, in a flurry that could be the Final Exam in Spot the Logical Fallacy 101, that the reason there is no memorial is because of Bush — because Bush was so busy squandering this and photo-opping that and (most ludicrously) spending the 9/11 memorial money on paying journalists to write nice things (???).

    That’s your “fisking”??? That’s really what you think Olbermann was saying???

  134. 134
    Mac Buckets says:

    The things Limbaugh “reports” on are debunked on a daily basis. It wouldn’t be very difficult to go through what Limbaugh says and find a multitude of falsehoods. Clearly, you think the same applies to Olbermann, yet I have yet to see a link to someone debunking him or showing where he is stating facts (not opinions) not in evidence. Unlike Limbaugh.

    What color is the sky on your planet.

    Well, Always Wrong John, you are (drum roll, please) wrong again! The Mustache has at least one website devoted to debunking his rhetoric.

    Another instance of Keith=Rush. It’s frankly uncanny!

    Way to keep your 100% record still intact!

  135. 135
    Mac Buckets says:

    That’s your “fisking”??? That’s really what you think Olbermann was saying???

    No, and yes.

  136. 136
    Mac Buckets says:

    I recognize that it is the workday, so I won’t begrudge anyone from stepping away, but I look forward to Mac’ “fisking” of this OpEd. Truly. Let us know when you’re done, Dr. Buckets.

    Will do.

  137. 137
    Bombadil says:

    Is this your idea of “fact checking”, Buckets?

    The Hour of Spin began with the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann sounding grumpy and sour.

  138. 138
    Mike says:

    and yes

    Has it occurred to you — if only for a fleeting moment — that Olbermann’s outraged by Bush leveraging 9/11 for his own political gain, his own agenda?

    To many people (maybe even to Keith!) 9/11 was an event of great importance, and great tragedy. George Bush, however, is a man who’s obviously not very popular in NY, a man who reneged on his promise to give financial aid to NYC, a man who chose not to involve himself in efforts to rebuild or memorialize the buildings & the deaths.

    I’m outraged as Bush’s grandstanding. Don’t stand in a friggin hole and brag about how great you are, what a leader you are. Olbermann felt the same.

  139. 139
    Larry says:

    I never defended Rush Limbaugh.

    Which is more useful in a commentariat? People who take strong positions and defend them, or people who just throw sand at strong positions?

    Mac, can you list for us several clear positions you hold WRT the political aspects of 911, the war, journalism and the media … things that would provide dots which might reasonably be connected to form a frame around your worldview? For a person who posts here a lot, you seem a little fuzzy in my viewfinder.

  140. 140
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    Well, my God, people, Bush is only human. Try though he may, the man just can’t be responsible for EVERYTHING that’s done wrong.

  141. 141
    Andrei says:

    But Olbermann’s not interested in that—he’s interested in self-righteous fantasy.

    How is putting the screws to the leaders of this nation — especially the President — self-righteous fantasy? Was Ed Morrow doing the same when he blasted McCarthy?

    Have you even watched the Olbermann segment?

    Please… by all means, tell us where Olbermann is wrong in your world view. Tell us where Bush has succeeded in bringing this country together, to winning the Iraq war, to capturing Bin Laden, to making Iraq a shining example of democracy in the Middle East, to making us all safer from terrorism.

    One of the days, those of you who believe that conservative policies are the right way to go politically speaking will actually disconnect yourselves from the win all elections by any means necessary route of the current GOP hacks who have hijacked your party and get back to actually being real conservatives. You know, the ones would tar and feather an incompetent like Bush.

    Anyone with any real interest in conservatism as a viable political philosophy will look at a piece like Olbermann’s — and while it pangs them to do so — agree that if anything, Olbermann’s sentiment is spot on. Bush has failed, and the gaping hole in the ground five years later in NYC is the metaphorical wound that has not healed.

    Get with the program already Mac. Where’s the true conservative roots you claim to hold? Do you honestly believe that Bush is doing a heckuva job? Do you honeslty believe that Olbermann was out of bounds and more importantly, way off the mark in his overall criticism and observation of the current situation we find ourselves in today?

    If you do, then say so. I’ll gladly wash my hands of you.

  142. 142
    Pb says:

    The Hour of Spin began with the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann sounding grumpy and sour.

    Wow, who does that sound like? Rush Limbaugh? More pompous? Bill O’Reilly? Hannity? Savage? That’s like a cartoon conservative caricature there. Are you sure that isn’t a spoof site?

  143. 143
    Mike says:

    Try though he may, the man just can’t be responsible for EVERYTHING that’s done wrong.

    Then why is he averse to criticism and advice. Why does he take no responsibility for his actions, including owning up to his failings. Why no accountability?

    Didn’t he say, “I’m the Decider, and I decide what’s best”?

    I’m sick of the apologia for Bush, and I won’t take it lying down. I wish everyone else would do the same.

  144. 144
    Pb says:

    I decide what’s best

    I’ve never seen him actually “decide what’s best”. If only.

  145. 145
    Redleg says:

    From what I could see, the site Olbermannwatch is less a site debunking Olbermann’s “lies” than it is a site criticizing Olbermann’s criticism of Bush and his admin. officials. The commentators on that site are kind of bitchy because Keith regularly and articulately insults the subject of their erotic fantasies- Dubya Bush. The site reminds me of a blog high-schoolers might use to discuss the doings of the popular and not-so-popular at school: “What did that mean Keith Olbermann have to say about Bush tonight?”

  146. 146
    Andrei says:

    Right on cue with my sentiment… Here’s some required for Mac Buckets and his like:

    Time for us to go.

    You want to make conversations largely about the character or intentions of guys like Olbermann instead of the meat of what Olbermann was actually saying, go right ahead. You do so at the expense of your own credibility.

  147. 147
    Andrei says:

    Ugh… Here’s some required *reading*…

  148. 148
    HyperIon says:

    it’s posts like this one that make me glad Mr. Cole is pretty much out of the picture at this site. really pathetic.

    on one hand i understand. it’s got to be hard to stay interested/motivated for years. i couldn’t do it.

    but the quality of the thinking in his posts has really declined IMO. everyone has a finite number of ideas and opinions. so after a while you just run out of insight. Mr. Cole’e voice was striking 18 months ago but now i kinda think he has spoken his “piece”. oh, well, all good things must come to an end.

    i think this blog should be re-constituted for football only. he still writes with spirit on this topic.

  149. 149
    Otto Man says:

    Try though he may, the man just can’t be responsible for EVERYTHING that’s done wrong.

    Give him time. He’s busy working on a Grand Unifying Theory of Incompetence.

  150. 150
    John S. says:

    Well, Always Wrong John, you are (drum roll, please) wrong again! The Mustache has at least one website devoted to debunking his rhetoric.

    I love how you always call me that, because it is the harbinger of you succeeding in looking like a fucking dolt – again.

    I never said Olbermann didn’t have a site dedicated to ‘debunking’ him, I said I had not yet seen anyone link to one. Sorry if I don’t keep up on all the blogs in the righty fever swamp. Again, reading comprehension proves VERY difficult for you.

    And the fact that you think this website is equivalent to this website (with the cute little animation of Olbermann = Hitler) really speaks volumes about what a dishonest douchebag you truly are.

    Another instance of Keith=Rush. It’s frankly uncanny!

    Yes, uncanny that you don’t seem to understand what the ‘=’ symbol means.

    Way to keep your 100% record still intact!

    When this is always your first – and last – retort, I wear it like a badge of honor. So long as you keep thinking that you’re right and I am wrong, then I am confident that all is as it should be.

  151. 151
    Balloon Juice's Mom says:

    it’s posts like this one that make me glad Mr. Cole is pretty much out of the picture at this site. really pathetic.

    I’m offended at this comment.

  152. 152

    Mac Buckets erroneously opined:

    It’s more that he ONLY worked as a sportscaster and NEVER worked as a news reporter, but yeah, you’re getting the gist.

    In fact (see Q&A Web site) Olbermann won the Edward R. Murrow Award for his coverage of the events of 9/11.

    But never mind about a little thing like that. Just consider the facts, logic and power of what Olbermann has to say.

    He could be a window washer, truck driver or short-order cook, but if he can come up with an important opinion piece that hits the nail on the head, that’s what matters.

  153. 153

    Mac, can you list for us several clear positions you hold WRT the political aspects of 911, the war, journalism and the media … things that would provide dots which might reasonably be connected to form a frame around your worldview? For a person who posts here a lot, you seem a little fuzzy in my viewfinder.

    That’s a pretty intelligent point.

    Mac Buckets, care to respond to the challenge?

    What does Mac Buckets actually stand for, other than throwing temper tantrums?

  154. 154

    Jeff asked:

    And by the way, do you consider Olberman calling people “The Worst Person in the World” should be considered fact or opinion?

    Often, obviously it’s opinion, although Olbermann always explains why someone is being chosen, so viewers can come to their own conclusion. However, when it comes to Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, their reputations precede them in such a way that the latest reason for being cited as The Worst Person in the World is just a formality.

  155. 155
    t. jasper parnell says:

    This back and forth about Oberman’s intelligence is mornic. I know quite a bit about students from Colgate and — for that matter — all manner of other institutions. Neither the name of the insitution nor the area of specialization has anything whatsoever to do with intellectual fitness.

    In this instance Mr. Cole insists that the president was powerless to interfer. Nonesense on all manner of sticks.

    he could have told the various parties of the dispute one week to resolve things or Eminent Domain and the whole are beocme a 9/11 memorial park and memory garden.

  156. 156
    Andrew says:

    Fuck the god damned memorial garden.

    If a real leader were President, they cold have completely rebuilt the World Trade Center by now. Construction was started on the first tower in 1966 and the first tenants were moving in by 1970.

    With Republicans in charge at every level, we have a big fucking hole in the ground.

  157. 157
    Pb says:

    t. jasper parnell,

    This back and forth about Oberman’s intelligence is mornic. I know quite a bit about students from Colgate and—for that matter—all manner of other institutions.

    George W. Bush went to Yale, and to Harvard Business School.

    Neither the name of the insitution nor the area of specialization has anything whatsoever to do with intellectual fitness.

    Agreed.

  158. 158
    Kimmitt says:

    scs —

    Oh, for fuck’s sake. Olbermann’s point is that O’Reilley, and the fact that he still has a TV show despite obviously being a psychotic, lying, fuckwit, is a metaphor for the utter intellectual bankruptcy of the Right. By continuing to highlight O’Reilley’s batshit insanity, day after day, he hammers away at our cynicism regarding the fuckwittery of the Right, reminding us that not only is this guy a complete douchebag, but he still has an audience of millions. The repetition is part of the point; “Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead,” and “O’Reilley is still the worst person in the world — and still a well-watched and highly respected pundit.”

  159. 159
    scs says:

    The repetition is part of the point

    Kind of like it is for propaganda right?

  160. 160
    Richard 23 says:

    The Editors was kind enough to answer the question.

    A: It’s a metaphor.

    Well, that was easy. Next!

  161. 161
    Jon H says:

    “Of course not. Had Bush pushed hard for new construction, the very same people here would be screaming at him for not respecting the dead and for worshipping economic concerns instead of remembering the meaning of the site.”

    Only because Bush probably would have had Halliburton build a giant solid-gold “Republican Freedom Tower And Intelligent Design Center” that looks like Jesus on one side and Bush on the other, on a cost-plus no-bid contract. (Which, when completed, would turn out to only be gold-painted, though the taxpayers were billed for solid gold.)

    There’s no real contradiction between saying Bush should have done ‘X’, while also *expecting* that Bush’s implementation of ‘X’ would be crappy, objectionable, and politically opportunistic in the most foul partisan manner possible.

    But he could always surprise us.

  162. 162
    Beej says:

    S.W. Anderson,

    I didn’t see the Olberman piece, didn’t read the whole thing, so I won’t venture a review, but I would like to offer one comment on your last comment: Since the Olberman piece was, by your definition, an opinion piece, it only “hits the nail on the head” if you subscribe to the same opinion. And it is, after all, an OPINION that is being alternately praised and criticized here. So, it seems to me that perhaps Mr. Olberman did precisely what he was hired to do, offer an opinion that starts a debate, that might, finally, get some people off the dime and get something done about the WTC site.

  163. 163
    Beej says:

    Sorry, it wasn’t S.W.’s last post, but the one before that. Mea Culpa.

  164. 164
    terry chay says:

    BTW, If you watch the video, he clearly labels that part of the Countdown as an Opinion piece. He did the same with his Rumsfeld piece last week: an earlier countdown reporting the news and then a final countdown labeled as Opinion recounting that as a springboard into his eloquent polemic.

    Which doesn’t preclude the (well-known liberal biased) reality that it is full of truths. What is being argued is not whether or not you agree with Olberman’s opinion, but instead to denigrate the whole body and impugn the facts via a large thread-jack via ad hominem.

    I don’t understand this strange belief among some that news reporters with a clearly labeled opinion is wrong, but those who happily and blindly report distorted truth or present lies couched as news is totally okay.

    I don’t personally live in New York City. But from the perspective of about 4 out of 5 New Yorkers, George W. Bush used the graves of their fellow citizens as a photo op and just peed on it (right down to leaving a puddle) yesterday. Keith Olbermann points this out. Five years later and we seem further from our goals than ever, more divisive than ever, have forgotten, on this anniversary, the promises we all made (French newspaper Le Monde on 9/12/01: “Today, we are all Americans.”). Olbermann marks that and states flat out that he was taking it personally when those same people who squander such an amazing national unity and international sympathy impugn his patriotism. Yes, it’s an opinion and you can disagree whether or not Bush’s photo-op and speech (yet again confounding the Iraq War to 9/11) was disrespecting or honoring/consecrate/hallowing them.

    But that doesn’t change the fact that it is full of truths. All the Ad Hominem in the world doesn’t change that.

    Is this too much to understand?

    For some people on this thread, it appears so.

    (And no, John Cole doesn’t appear to be one of them which probably explains his silence on this thread. And yes, I think John Cole gets the metaphor thing. No need for everyone to beat him with it again. I’m sure his students are, right now, having a private chuckle about this.)

    In the meantime, I’ll sit back and watch what appears to be a regularly scheduled and thoroughly enjoyable bitch slap.

  165. 165
    Nikki says:

    Didn’t Bill O’Reilly do tabloid journalism, i.e. “A Current Affair”?

  166. 166
    Andrew says:

    Didn’t Bill O’Reilly do tabloid journalism, i.e. “A Current Affair”?

    Why are you using the past tense to describe Bill O’Reilly’s tabloid journalism?

  167. 167
    Kimmitt says:

    Kind of like it is for propaganda right?

    The difference being that for propaganda, it is supposed to be an invisible effect, whereas for Olberman, it is supposed to be a visible and obvious effect.

  168. 168
    HH says:

    “Why isn’t Bush doing more – it’s not like state and local governments are actually responsible for anything… What’s that, Bush is overhearing conversations overseas? How dare he overstep his authority?”

Comments are closed.