Olbermann’s ‘cold-hearted killers’

When MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann last week said President George W. Bush created an American that “includes ‘cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives,” he set off a firestorm in the rabid right-wing blogging community with demands he be fired. Many accused the acerbic MSNBC commentator of calling the troops “cold-blooded killers.”

Olbermann fired back last night with a new commentary that clarified that when he talked about “cold blooded killers,” he was talking about hired mercenaries like Blackwater USA and cold-hearted politicians like Dick Cheney.

Here’s the commentary:

Comments

  1. ekaton

    “It is such a relief Kent to see people like you, Seal, Bryan, and Mr. Nemo who see through all the Dog and Pony Show Antics of the Democrats.”

    Klaus, thats some pretty heady company there. I don’t think I belong in the same group with all of you but I sure do enjoy reading your thoughts.

    I’ve been kicking around an idea. I’m wondering how difficult it might be to put together a conference of readers and participants of CHB, Common Dreams, and Information Clearing House. I’m wondering if there might be enough interest to make worthwhile trying to organize something. Dates, times, locations, reserved blocks of hotel rooms etc. Some of us could research various subjects and put together lectures and workshops. The idea would be that something, anything useful might arise. And, I have a feeling this is NOT by any means an original idea. We might find there are similar groups all over the country that we could somehow link up with. What would be the goal or the end result? Probably not something as ambitious as a new political party, but who knows?
    SOMEBODY out there has some good “out of the box” ideas and I think we need to make some kind of effort to find them.

    — Kent Shaw

  2. Klaus Hergeschimmer

    Yes! Yes! Now that you mentioned it, I remember that jogged my memory about the Gauleiter overseeing Phil Donahue’s show superseeded any greed by the network.

    The Chimp in his solidarity with the Cuban People is just as
    phony as Fancy Pants Pelosi meeting with the Dali Llama to
    validate herself as ‘fighting for the people’ all the while she is writing the Chimp more checks for the occupation.

    It is such a relief Kent to see people like you, Seal, Bryan, and Mr. Nemo who see through all the Dog and Pony Show Antics of the Democrats.

    I post often at my left coast paper, the San Francisco Chronicle but I get frustrated because so many of the posters on S.F. Chron blogs are just lap dog Hillary Supporters or Obama of which I can vote for none of them.

    With Hairy Reed fighting for immunity for AT&T and Fancy Pants Pelosi eagerly feeding ChimpCo checks for the Occupation I just get disgusted at Pillary and her lies claiming not to know about WMD evidence being cooked by the office of Special Planning in the Pentagon. But all the Dems on S.F.Chron are enraptured by the Obama/Hillary Dog & Pony contest and couldn’t care less that Hillary aided and abetted the Chimp’s Occupation.

  3. Sandra Price

    Pollchecker, Olbermann is not married! He has a steady girl but they have not married. Go girl!!!He lives in New York near the NBC Studio and broadcasts his MSNBC in New York. I guess they are all there now from their move from New Jersey.

  4. Flapsaddle

    Lots of ignorance out there, Dr. D.. That may very well be an indication of just how successful the neoconservative disinformation campaign has been.

    I find that most people have difficulty understanding the difference in being a conservative and a Conservative, much less understanding the basic tenets of conservatism and – perhaps in intellectual laziness – just assume it is synonymous with Republican or neoconservative. Much the same with terms such as “conservative Christian” and “religious right.”

    Most sincerely,

    T. J. Flapsaddle

  5. pollchecker

    The Washington post has an interesting commentary on the battle shaping up against GW and NBC/MSNBC. Check this out!

    The President vs. the Peacock

    It has been quite apparent to anyone who knows GW, that he has a distinct dislike for NBC’s David Gregory. GW has ALWAYS had this passive agressive snide way of picking on those he held with contempt.

    Perhaps this is why he gave an interview to someone who may be perceived as a friendlier at NBC. That was his mistake…to ASSUME that in this political climate anyone would give him a break on his record. Too bad. So sad!

  6. ekaton

    “I do however remember when Phil Donahue’s show was axed because he had to many opposition guests as well as himself. Phil Didn’t Sieg Heil enough so they canned him.”

    Yup! And, when they cancelled him his was their highest-rated show. Normally, advertising dollars are the prime directive, so you KNOW this decision was made by “the overlords” and was NOT a financial decision.

    — Kent Shaw

    PS — OFF TOPIC — As I write this, Chimpy is on TV addressing the “Day of Solidarity with the Cuban People” gathering. His face is as red as though sunburnt but it is not. He is SO HUNG OVER it is glaringly obvious from his manner and appearance. I’ve had hangovers, thankfully not for many years, and I can tell. This guy is hitting the bottle again.

  7. pollchecker

    MSNBC Vs. Fox News/White House

    The feud between GE/NBC/MSNBC and the White House/Fox News has intensified.

    I just hope GE understands how many people count on Olberman and MSNBC for something other than DISINFORMATIONAL PROPAGANDA like FOX/WHITEHOUSE PROPAGANDA or CNN, the NEW CONSERVATIVE NEWS NETWORK!

    I have to admit of the 3 network nightly news show, ABC is the least biased. Since Michael Eisner, left, that station’s new has become quite enjoyable again. Of Course Charles Gibson is NO Keith Olberman.

    If only he were unattached (sigh-grin)!

  8. Klaus Hergeschimmer

    I don’t have cable tv anymore because I refuse to be reamed for $50.00 a month (that was over 7 years ago, I suppose it’s much more). I do however remember when Phil Donahue’s show was axed because he had to many opposition guests as well as himself. Phil Didn’t Sieg Heil enough so they canned him.

    The Democrapic Party is lame beyond belief and let the Neo-Con Goebbels and Himmler’s run around and intimidate them.

    Jack-Ass Hairy Reed doesn’t feel any tinge of guilt whatsoever in his quest for retro-active immunity for telecoms.

    I am stunned by many of my liberal friends when they shrug their shoulders when I tell them to quit voting Democrapper and they just sigh and say,”it’s lesser of two evils”.

    Lesser of two evils! They just don’t seem to care that Hairy sold out to Telecoms, Fancy Pants Pelosi sold out to AIPAC, Feinstein votes in racist circut judges, etc etc etc.

    A largely mercenary occupation in the name of Halliburton and the most people can say is: “What time does Dancing with the Stars come on”.

  9. Dr.D

    Ditto,Flapsaddle.I tried to enlighten Wexler as to the differences between conservatives and neo-cons the other day,to no avail.Ed

  10. Flapsaddle

    Genuine conservatives – and I consider myself to be one – share none of the appalling desire for statism, militarism, jingoism and the pax americana nonsense associated with the neoconservatives and the PNAC crowd that fronts for it/them.

    Most sincerely,

    T. J. Flapsaddle

  11. DejaVuAllOver

    Right on, Wexler. Conservativism is a mental disorder. I consider it another form of fundamentalism or megalomania; an all-purpose justification of self-worship and egomania. And conservatives, like religious fundamentalists, serve as a support-group and/or enablers for other similarly self-righteous slimeballs. Atta boy, Keith.

  12. ekaton

    John Parker: “Keith Olbermann is exactly the breath of fresh air we need. He’s a man of deep integrity and conviction who is not afraid to call it as it is, not as it should be presented. There is no one else like him on MSM right now.”

    I agree, but also let’s give a nod to Jack Cafferty of CNN. From his new book, “Its Getting Ugly Out There”:

    “The bottom line is that our government no longer works for us. The government works for the lobbyists who have had a big hand in influencing (if not helping to draft) legislation favoring not the average American citizen but instead big business: health insurance, pharmaceutical and oil companies, and defense contractors, among others. These are the guys who can make the kinds of political contributions that are needed to finance today’s multi-million-dollar political campaigns.”

    Another excerpt:

    http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/05/cafferty.excerpt/

    And, his MSNBC blog, “The Cafferty File”.

    http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/

    He’s worth a look.

    Also, quoting counsel Capus via John Parker, ” … blatantly partisan talk show hosts like Christopher Matthews and Keith Olbermann … ”

    So, catching a politician in lies and calling them on it is now considered partisan?

    — Kent Shaw

  13. John Parker

    A Perfect Example

    Talk about control…..Seems Bush’s fat-assed mouthpiece didn’t like the way Bush’s interview with Richard Engel was presented. Oh, and he also was kind enough to mention Olbermann and Matthews. Talk about uptight and paranoid.

    This, courtesy of Talking Points Memo:

    THE WHITE HOUSE
    Office of the Press Secretary
    For Immediate Release May 19, 2008

    Setting The Record Straight:

    The following is a letter from Counselor to the President Ed Gillespie to NBC News President Steve Capus:

    Steve Capus
    President, NBC News
    30 Rockefeller Plaza
    New York, N.Y. 10112

    Mr. Capus:

    This e-mail is to formally request that NBC Nightly News and The Today Show air for their viewers President Bush’s actual answer to correspondent Richard Engel’s question about Iran policy and “appeasement,” rather than the deceptively edited version of the President’s answer that was aired last night on the Nightly News and this morning on The Today Show.

    In the interview, Engel asked the President: “You said that negotiating with Iran is pointless, and then you went further. You said that it was appeasement. Were you referring to Senator Barack Obama?”

    The President responded: “You know, my policies haven’t changed, but evidently the political calendar has. People need to read the speech. You didn’t get it exactly right, either. What I said was is that we need to take the words of people seriously. And when, you know, a leader of Iran says that they want to destroy Israel, you’ve got to take those words seriously. And if you don’t take them seriously, then it harkens back to a day when we didn’t take other words seriously. It was fitting that I talked about not taking the words of Adolf Hitler seriously on the floor of the Knesset. But I also talked about the need to defend Israel, the need to not negotiate with the likes of al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas. And the need to make sure Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon.”

    This answer makes clear: (1). The President’s remarks before the Knesset were not different from past policy statements, but are now being looked at through a political prism, (2). Corrects the inaccurate premise of Engel’s question by putting the “appeasement” line in the proper context of taking the words of leaders seriously, not “negotiating with Iran,” (3). Restates the U.S.’s long-standing policy positions against negotiating with al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas, and not allowing Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon.

    Engel’s immediate follow-up question was, “Repeatedly you’ve talked about Iran and that you don’t want to see Iran develop a nuclear weapon. How far away do you think Iran is from developing a nuclear capability?”

    The President replied, “You know, Richard, I don’t want to speculate – and there’s a lot of speculation. But one thing is for certain – we need to prevent them from learning how to enrich uranium. And I have made it clear to the Iranians that there is a seat at the table for them if they would verifiably suspend their enrichment. And if not, we’ll continue to rally the world to isolate them.”

    This response reiterates another long-standing policy, which is that if Iran verifiably suspends its uranium enrichment program the U.S. government would engage in talks with the Iranian government.

    NBC’s selective editing of the President’s response is clearly intended to give viewers the impression that he agreed with Engel’s characterization of his remarks when he explicitly challenged it. Furthermore, it omitted the references to al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas and ignored the clarifying point in the President’s follow-up response that U.S. policy is to require Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment program before coming to the table, not that “negotiating with Iran is pointless” and amounts to “appeasement.”

    This deceitful editing to further a media-manufactured storyline is utterly misleading and irresponsible and I hereby request in the interest of fairness and accuracy that the network air the President’s responses to both initial questions in full on the two programs that used the excerpts.

    As long as I am making this formal request, please allow me to take this opportunity to ask if your network has reconsidered its position that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war, especially in light of the fact that the unity government in Baghdad recently rooted out illegal, extremist groups in Basra and reclaimed the port there for the people of Iraq, among other significant signs of progress.

    On November 27, 2006, NBC News made a decision to no longer just cover the news in Iraq, but to make an analytical and editorial judgment that Iraq was in a civil war. As you know, both the United States government and the Government of Iraq disputed your account at that time. As Matt Lauer said that morning on The Today Show: “We should mention, we didn’t just wake up on a Monday morning and say, ‘Let’s call this a civil war.’ This took careful deliberation.'”

    I noticed that around September of 2007, your network quietly stopped referring to conditions in Iraq as a “civil war.” Is it still NBC News’s carefully deliberated opinion that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war? If not, will the network publicly declare that the civil war has ended, or that it was wrong to declare it in the first place?

    Lastly, when the Commerce Department on April 30 released the GDP numbers for the first quarter of 2007, Brian Williams reported it this way: “If you go by the government number, the figure that came out today stops just short of the official declaration of a recession.”

    The GDP estimate was a positive 0.6% for the first quarter. Slow growth, but growth nonetheless. This followed a slow but growing fourth quarter in 2007. Consequently, even if the first quarter GDP estimate had been negative, it still would not have signaled a recession – neither by the unofficial rule-of-thumb of two consecutive quarters of negative growth, nor the more robust definition by the National Bureau of Economic Research (the group that officially marks the beginnings and ends of business cycles).

    Furthermore, never in our nation’s history have we characterized economic conditions as a “recession” with unemployment so low – in fact, when this rate of unemployment was eventually reached in the 1990s, it was hailed as the sign of a strong economy. This rate of unemployment is lower than the average of the past three decades.

    Are there numbers besides the “government number” to go by? Is there reason to believe “the government number” is suspect? How does the release of positive economic growth for two consecutive quarters, albeit limited, stop “just short of the official declaration of a recession”?

    Mr. Capus, I’m sure you don’t want people to conclude that there is really no distinction between the “news” as reported on NBC and the “opinion” as reported on MSNBC, despite the increasing blurring of those lines. I welcome your response to this letter, and hope it is one that reassures your broadcast network’s viewers that blatantly partisan talk show hosts like Christopher Matthews and Keith Olbermann at MSNBC don’t hold editorial sway over the NBC network news division.

    Sincerely,

    Ed Gillespie

    Counselor to the President

    I rest my case…………..

  14. John Parker

    Keith Olbermann is my hero!

    He tells like it is and doesn’t shrink. How many others are like that today in the MSM? Charles Gibson (ABC) makes a half-hearted attempt of trying to be objective, but that short lease he’s on rears its ugly head every now and then. Katie Couric, Brian Williams, Joe Scarborough, Chris Matthews, et al? Please. These puds only worry about their own survival and ratings. To ignore their respective corporate directives in reporting (or spinning) the news is a death knell of the highest order. I’ll offer you an example of how punitive the corporate influence can be: Kevin Sites. Kevin was a contracted freelance journalist to NBC who put himself directly in the meat of the battles during the initial occupation and continuing battles of Iraq. He just about became a nightly household name when all of a sudden he reported the unwarranted execution of wounded, passive, semi-conscious Iraqi “insurgents” by a trigger happy marine unit. After that segment aired and the brouhaha settled, Kevin was persona non-grata. Who made that decision? The corporate heads of NBC to keep from alienating the Bush administration. In short, the so-called big wigs turned into jellyfish almost immediately to save their collective behinds and bottom line. Pathetic.

    Keith Olbermann is exactly the breath of fresh air we need. He’s a man of deep integrity and conviction who is not afraid to call it as it is, not as it should be presented. There is no one else like him on MSM right now. I’m sure his superiors convulse in pain during his special comments section. And so they should; they have someone who has the integrity and morals to defend the most basic values of this country. We need more like him; however, MSM’s “sovietisation” of current events won’t let this happen anytime soon, or in the near future. Now that’s disgusting.

  15. Sandra Price

    When I wrote to Olbermann, I mentioned Rachel Maddow and how I enjoy her on the program. I also mentioned Capital Hill Blue and how he would find many who agree with his words.

    Off topic: Ted Kennedy has been diagnosed with a brain tumor.

  16. ekaton

    Sadly, Olbermann’s audience is miniscule. One evening recently he had Rachel Maddow (unsure of spelling) on as a commentator, and the same evening proclaimed her to be one of the “worlds best people”, because standing in for him one evening recently she drew 416,000 viewers, more than Olbermann himself ever has at MSNBC. I’d be willing to bet that 300 million people in this country have never heard of Keith Olbermann. Let us not forget that people who attempt to acquire and share knowledge, like CHB readers and participants, probably constitute, again sadly, less than 1% of the population. Somehow we need to change this.

    — Kent Shaw

  17. douin

    The Righties, in calling for Keith Olbermann to be fired, only makes it obvious that he is having a great impact against all the blatant propaganda that Fox News slings out, ad nauseam, day in and day out. The voice of truth is impossible to silence no matter how hard they try.
    Keith Olbermann has my gratitude and my unyielding support. Fire him and that will mean another voice that upholds the truth of what this Administration is doing to us has been silenced. Do not allow that to happen.
    No one that listened to what Olbermann said in any of his Reports could even remotely think that he was casting any aspersions on our brave troops. Only a Rove Liar could so twist words to imply any such thing. Only a moron would believe such a lie.