It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Olbermann: It's time for Cheney to 'leave this country'

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigvig316
You know not all the Bush and Chaney did was bad. The fact that we never had another 9/11 is proof that some of the policies that they endorsed helped to protect us. They did what needed to be done at the time in order to make a more secure nation. And if Chaney is going to give a warning it should be takes seriously. Besides who is Keith Olbermann to tell any one to go away. We can say the same about his leftist views. What if Bill O'Reilly said the same thing about a democrat?

How many 9/11 happened before Bush and Cheney got into office?

that logic works well with my elephant deterant.
I put an elephant deterant out the back and it seems to be working because I havn't seen any elephants yet.
I also come from a country without native elephants, but we do have zoos and circuses and they can get out.




posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by bigvig316
 


I hope you're not serious.

The ONLY, yes ONLY, reason the U.S. has not been attacked since 9/11 is because the war on terror is a HOAX.

There's no such thing as a war on terror. Just like how there's no such thing as a war on poverty, war on drugs, etc

You CAN'T win a "war" against an invisible enemy. Who are terrorists? People defending their countries against enemies?

If you go to the Middle East the west are terrorists. If you go to some parts of Africa the white men are terrorists.

Get real dude.

Cheney and Bush were behind 9/11, and Cheney saying "America is most likely going to get attacked again," should be taken SERIOUSLY because his people will DO it!!

He shouldn't be leaving America. He should be behind bars.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   
WooT!! olbermann is off the hook i love this guy the media need more like this guy so the truth can be spoken i have been hooked on his show for around 6 or so months very enjoyable.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by munkey66
 


Oklahoma city
the first World Trade Center
The Use Embassy in Africa
The USS Cole (not as big but a stepping stone to 9/11)

After 9/11 you have the bombing is the London subway
the Spain bombing that caused Spain to withdraw all there troops from action.
There has of yet to be another one here on US soil. It can be attributed in part to the work of the government in the fight against terror and the fear or inaction of the terrorist to attack us again seeing our measured response.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by bigvig316
 


I take it you are just ignoring other peoples' posts.
I have already addressed your arguments. You didn't respond.
Too bad, this looked like it would be a good thread.

By the way, I think that Olberman's commentary was spot-on, once again.

Edit to add: Once again, you aren't making much sense. You speak of four specific instances, claiming that these things haven't happened since 9-11 on US Soil, while two of your examples NEVER occured on US Soil.
The only of your examples I haven't already addressed, is the Embassy Bombing. But once again, that didn't happen on US Soil.



[edit on 5-2-2009 by Jay-in-AR]



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigvig316
What I was trying to say that since nothing has happen to America since 9/11 should be some proof...


Should be, in your mind. Unfortunately it isn't proof of anything. There are too many other explanations that would fit. I favour the one that says, there wasn't another 9/11 because Dick couldn't pull off another one - although the missing Minot nuke is a worry.

So, for it to be "proof", it would have to be the only explanation that fits the facts, and if you look at the other posts, you'll see that there are other possibilities.

You might also note that two countries were invaded on a pretext but OBL was never caught. Iraq didn't have WMDs, and Afghanistan didn't refuse to hand over OBL, they just said they couldn't find him: well, the US has been in Afghanistan for 7 years now and done no better. Which anyone could have predicted, of course.

So why did the US invade those countries again?

Oh, and while we're on the subject of the successes of Cheney's turn at the helm, how 'bout those anthrax attacks? Anyone get caught for that? They narrowed it down to someone from Fort Detrick (having said the words "foreign terrorists" over and over until everyone fell asleep) and then... nothing.

And johnSky and Dimensional Detective - you both made me laugh pretty hard - I gave you stars, little enough really but all I could.

And what about the anthrax attacks?



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Swatman
 


Agreed. Who the hell is he to tell anyone to leave? Perhaps someone should tell Keith Olbermann to take his own advice. He'd be doing the American public a favor. He's little more than a liberal version of Ann Coulter with a TV gig. He can say whatever he wants, I suppose, but his opinion is worth less than a pile of dog **** as far as I'm concerned.

As for Cheney, he's got as much right voice his opinion on the matter as anyone, regardless of whether some fourth rate political commentator wanna-be thinks otherwise.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigvig316
reply to post by munkey66
 


Oklahoma city
the first World Trade Center
The Use Embassy in Africa
The USS Cole (not as big but a stepping stone to 9/11)

After 9/11 you have the bombing is the London subway
the Spain bombing that caused Spain to withdraw all there troops from action.
There has of yet to be another one here on US soil. It can be attributed in part to the work of the government in the fight against terror and the fear or inaction of the terrorist to attack us again seeing our measured response.


And which faction was Timothy McVeigh with? Al-quidea? Taliban? Hamas?
You missed a couple as well
Gulf of Tolkien
USS liberty

The first attack on the towers was 1993 so who ever was in power prevented an attack for 8 years after without really altering the law to much.
I wouldn't go into London underground too much because there really does seem like some strange events there, and also it happened after 9/11
same with the Bali bombings.
So Bush and Cheney stopped the US from being attacked and made other parts of the world targets.
Thank you for that.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


It is funny that you used absolutely no logic to just FLIP the topic on its head without anything substantive to add.

I would ask you to find one falsehood in Olberman's commentary. Please, just one. I GUARANTEE YOU I can find MANY in Cheney's.
So, in my book Olberman is FAR more qualified to speak on these matters than a man who is a known liar and war criminal.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigvig316
This is my view on torture. It isn't right but is something that we are going to have to accept because they just aren't going to give up information willingly. And who are we trying to kid about torture. It goes on in American prisons. How many times we hear about a confession being beaten out of guy or people being put in the hole and given half ration to be given time to "think" about things. Or making a inmate exposed to a rape gang until he flip and they move him to different quarters. Until we get rid of torture here in our prison systems and on our own citizens, the pow in GITMO should come second. Besides when we close GITMO now next year, where are these prisoners going to go. Some place like Yemen where the torture they could receive would be worse than water boarding.


As I'm going into criminal justice, I can tell you torture does NOT work. You want to get into their head, play a little good-cop/bad-cop routine, offer a lighter sentence, show why the other side is wrong, believe me, if it works on the HARDEST of mobsters, it can work here. You know why some authorities say they NEED to use torture? Because they enjoy it, I know, I've worked with some of these deranged *snip*. And most of the ones who enjoy it are corrupt, take bribes, or are involved in other violent crimes of their own. Nice balance.

You realize too many of those in Gitmo were given to us by the Northern Alliance; a gang with as bad a reputation as the Taliban. They were paid for each person. Nice incentive on being honest.

And to 'accept it', let's get rid of the ban on cruel and unusual punishment too. Or create massive camps. How about allowing detainment based on race?


[Mod edit - Profanity]

[edit on 6/2/2009 by Sauron]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Jay-in-AR
 


And you're reading too much into what I said. I did not defend Cheney except to say that he has a right to voice his opinion on the matter. As far as Olbermann is concerned, you can value his opinion if you wish. I don't.

The stupidity of his argument here is astounding. He accuses Cheney of being partisan, yet he's the one telling a two-term VP to get the hell out of the country because he has the audacity not to fall in lockstep with Obama. He's essentially saying that, in his mind, there's no room for dissenting views in Obama's America. That, my friend, is as partisan as it gets and he's a hypocrite for saying it.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


And I think you are reading far too much into Olberman's words. He didn't mention Obama's name even once in that video, Cheney did that.
His issue was entirely with... well, exactly what he said it was with. He pretty well pointed out that Cheney was a criminal. And that is all.

He pleaded with Cheney to just leave. Yeah, emotional, but that is how he feels, I feel. I know many who feel the same way and it has nothing to do with Obama.

And against the sake of purely being argumentative here - why is it that you tell me I'm reading too much into your two sentences of a response and then take two more paragraphs to "explain" what you meant before?
Maybe you should have clarified your response earlier.



[edit on 6-2-2009 by Jay-in-AR]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   
Olbermann can make sure the job gets done by being Mr. Cheney's personal escort. I'm quite frankly sick of his tirades. It was entertaining to see him channel Howard Beale for the first few dozen or so "special comments"... but special comments are only special when they're rare. His rants, regardless of whether factually right or wrong, fall on deaf ears because once the stage trick is revealed through overuse, it ceases to be entertaining and begins to sound like incessant whining.

The pity of it is, without this all-too-obviously false intellectualist outrage - the guy falls flat on his face. He's just not likable. Not entertaining. Which is all pundits are... mindless entertainment. They're not news... they're someone's opinions of news stories. You can get that through general human interaction (well, maybe not a genuine opinion) and at least have someone to respond to you. With a pundit, you get no input or interaction on their opinion - so it becomes preaching. You know where I'm going with this... and I know you see the mindless "dittoheads" on both sides of the false dichotomy of "Left" and "Right" spouting their favorite talking heads opinions as if they're quoting scripture.

I want to cuss now. For god's sake, stop listening to these people!!! Isn't this exactly what Howard Beale was ranting about in that movie... and now, he's being used as a character archetype that ultimately only serves to further kill unique and individual thought.

Olbermann should win a Peabody award for best use of irony.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by bigvig316
 





You know not all the Bush and Chaney did was bad. The fact that we never had another 9/11 is proof that some of the policies that they endorsed helped to protect us.


Please don't misconstrue this as "Bush Bashing", but really, the fact that we didn't have another 9/11 event during his term in office is not "proof" that his policies were effective. It just means we didn't have another attack. We won't really know just how effective/ineffective his policies were until the files are opened. Good luck on that one.

(And yes, of course, not all he did was bad. He wasn't an evil person, and I believe he was genuinely looking out for what he saw as America's best interest. I may vehemently disagree with many of his decisions, but he is not the devil.)

[edit on 6-2-2009 by Lasheic]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Jay-in-AR
 


Not to be argumentative, but my initial post was in response to another poster, not you, and my position was in agreement with his. I did not feel the need to elaborate.

As for Olbermann, again, he can say or think whatever he wants, but as far as I'm concerned, he's crossing the line when he tells people who he disagrees with to leave the country. And he did say:


"...from Mr. Cheney can only serve to undermine the nation's new president."


That's from the initial post on this topic. So perhaps he didn't mention Obama by name, but when he speaks of undermining the new president, its rather obvious who he's speaking of.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   
I would like to point out that if you STILL think that Bush was a bad president, You obviously don't know anything about politics.

I know this because all I ever see is from Bush haters is:

-Complaints about 9/11
-Ohhh the Economy ( If you did a little research you will find that Economy's Boom from times of War )
-People whining about the death of soldiers in Afganistan and Iraq. You know what.. those soldiers knew what they were getting into when they signed the dotted line.

I never see any valid arguements because people just repeat what CNN says ... OHHH If Olberman said it, IT MUST BE TRUE OMG!

Olberman is a wack job, how can anyone take him seriously.

[edit on 6-2-2009 by Cio88]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   
I just love how Republicans who spout this garbage of how Bush protected us after 9-11 just happen to forget the anthrax attack that killed people and to this day have zero information on what happened.

Oh and not to mention how 9-11 happened on their watch.

Neo Conservatives are frankly not apart of this reality but instead live in Rush La La Land.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Waco, Texas- Branch Davidians, anyone.
I seem to recall, while Clit-on was CIC, he had a BBQ, and didn't invite Bush, or Chaney. I also recall a paltry few American children were at the BBQ...a good time was had by all.

Can any one tell me the crime committed by the BDs, or thechildren who were tortured?

Take care in your words on torture- water or fire- which would you prefer happen to yours?

Wake-up! It matters not who occupies the White House- we are at risk from all of them.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   
I thought he was moving to Dubai with Haliburton to run the new headquarters!
Seriously funny thread



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by AllexxisF1
 


I have posted some links below. Nothing really big, but the major issue before 9/11 was miscommunication between the intelligence agencies. Because each agency has their own classifications for what is considered top secret and what is not, many classified documents are not easily nor readily disposable to other agencies. As for the anthrax attacks, there's been a multitude of information regarding what happened. However, there is also speculation that it may have been someone else that was involved.

The Spy Factor

Wikipedia

Excuse the wikipedia source. This was the only site in which I was able to find that had a comprehensive view of the investigation. However, there are many sites that have sporadic information regarding the investigation.




top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join