does he mention the 600000 to 1000000 dead iraqis as a result of this war? no.

excerpt: "This report considers many aspects of the conflict, with special emphasis on the US Coalition's responsibilities under international law. It also considers political and economic issues in Iraq and argues for urgent change, including a speedy withdrawal of Coalition forces.

The report does not examine in detail the insurgency, or the criminal gangs and militias which are so often in the news. These forces, which have diverse motivations, often engage in violent tactics and some are responsible for large numbers of deaths and injuries among innocent Iraqi civilians. The increasing bloodshed and sectarian division among Iraqis is abhorrent. But whatever responsibility Iraqis themselves bear for the present impasse within the country, the primary responsibility lies with the United States and its Coalition, whose military occupation gave rise to these groups and whose policies have failed to protect the Iraqi people or to bring peace, prosperity and democracy, as earlier claimed. "

Read the entire report here http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/occupation/report/full.pdf

KO needs to work on his delivery... the content is fine but it's too grating and windbaggy.

Grating? Windbaggy?

I reckon being a grating windbag is okay, in these circumstances. Hell, it's fucking outrageous to be anything else.

Brilliant piece. I don't know how he does it again and again.

my "baby daddy" does it again

Olbi-Wan rox my sox--he preaches the gospel of truthiness as a daily form of recreation... AND I LOVE HIM FOR IT... its about time someone, if not ALL of us put our collective foot down and say " enuff is effin enuff!"

Windbag? Been over to Faux lately?

KO speaks the simple truth re this war and pointing out what a coward our blood thirsty president is, is perfectly rational and in deed necessary.

Excellent teleprompter-reading skills. (I doubt he actually holds these views.)

I doubt he actually holds these views.

Care to elaborate on the basis for your doubt?

I doubt he actually holds these views.

Care to elaborate on the basis of your doubt?

Let’s enjoy these acts of free speech while we can. This executive order:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html

signed on Tuesday, stipulates that Bush can order the freezing and taking of all property, assets, possessions of any US Citizen that directly threatens or impedes (or demonstrates a significant "risk of threatening") the reconstruction, military, humanitarian efforts in Iraq. Let me repeat that. IN IRAQ!

In other words, if you march in a demonstration against the war or give money to an organization that is trying to end the war, or even blog about ending the war, you can (according to Bush’s new “Executive Order”) lose your job, your money, your house, and certainly your T.V. show!

This is the same type of "order" that King George III issued prior to the Revolutionary War in the late 18th century: the seizure of property of those opposed to British rule in America.

Wake up America, read the fancy letter that Dick Cheney wrote, Harriet Myers translated into legalese and Bush signed. These guys are not fucking around!

Firi just likes to be the cynic. firi says dumb unsupported things like that about people all the time. Firi aparently assumes everyone else shares his or her shaky values.

"you can (according to Bush’s new “Executive Order”) lose your job, your money, your house"

He must be daring us to impeach him, mustn't he?

Jef - I saw that too, but isn't it in conflict with the fifth amendment?

http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=3127

Olbermann still hates America. This is not news.

Andy – Yes, and warrentless wiretaps violates our fourth amendment and on and on and on but does that stop them? They are drunk with power and need to be removed! They ARE daring us to do something.

Who knows what will happen for a few hours tomorrow while Bush is under sedation for his colonoscopy and Cheney is president … yikes! I hope Jon Stewart's segment about this is as good as the one I'm imagining!

CHENEY: WAH! I'm president now! WAH! I'm not going back to vice president! WAH! Halliburton is now in charge of the Federal Reserve. WAH!

i finally figured out my disconnect with olbermann. and this is probably why jo ann likes him so much.

he sounds like a woman. i mean, his points are valid (ain't they always...) but they're not manly points, know what i mean? " you and your big ego, why don't you go fight that war yourself!" it was actually the pink tie that tipped me off.

now, the chomsky article in links for friday- THOSE are manly points.

:)

Good night, and good luck.

Well Jonathan! why, why, I never! You, you, you male you!

"Firi just likes to be the cynic. firi says dumb unsupported things like that about people all the time. Firi aparently assumes everyone else shares his or her shaky values."

Well, perhaps if you read my post a bit more carefully, you'd notice the gigantic "I" starting the sentence. Just because I think that he doesn't hold the views he preaches doesn't mean that you have to or that it is necessarily true, and I know this.

But since you asked so politely, the reason why I think that he doesn't necessarily hold the views that he preaches is because I'm sure that he has a team of writers behind the scenes who meticulously craft what he says into something that a specific audience will agree with, namely the audience that frequents this very blog.

If he does, in fact, write what he says himself and believes it, then great, I stand corrected. Just be sure to take note of the usage of "I."

I'm sure that he has a team of writers behind the scenes who meticulously craft what he says into something that a specific audience will agree with, namely the audience that frequents this very blog.

Of course, whether he has writers doesn't meen he doesn't believe what they write. But you are saying that he says whatever they write because he cares only about satisfying his target audience – and not because his audience found him and, naturally, agree with what he has to say. Is that right? If so, I'd say you are indeed a cynic - this doesn't mean you are wrong, but among the possible motives you might have attributed to K.O., you have to admit you've chosen the most cynical – and, from what you've said so far, without any evidence specific whatsoever - just a generalized cynicism.

I am usually a cynic when it comes to media matters, but I think Firi is going a bit too far - Olbermann may have a team of writers/researchers beavering away but I'm sure that the premise of these "special comments" are entirely from his own conscience.

Jonathan Becker put his finger on something - Olbermann only ever makes a singular point in his commentaries.

It's very deliberate and I'm guessing the reasoning is for clarity and maximum effectiveness.

However, I find myself tuning out from what he's saying - his speeches are too overworked for spoken language, although I'm sure they read great from paper.

If he "dumbed down" the language a bit he'd probably connect with more people.

I agree with everything Olbermann says, but as I've said before, newsreaders ought to remain impartial.

I agree with everything that Olbermann has said thus far, as well, and that's part of my problem. For a major news network such as CNN to host a show that has the kind of people who frequent blogs such as this one in agreement seems a bit strange to me. CNN also hosts such shows as Glenn Beck, who, from what I have seen, bashes all that is immigration (among other things).

I just like to see people practice what they preach, and when I see Olbermann sitting there robotically reading from the teleprompter, I can't help but wonder. Does this make me cynical? Maybe a little, but I'm certainly not going to unquestioningly accept everything Olbermann says, even if I agree with the majority of it. No one should, really.

I guess that I need to say this again: You need to know the difference between journalism and op-ed, or opinion and editorial. Olbermann’s show is not journalism, it is op-ed. And yes, he does read off of a prompter and, yes, someone else probably writes a fair share of his great diatribes against the Bush Administration. What he reads is well written, at least, which is more than you can say for most of what passes for TV “news.”

If you don’t like people reading then do more reading yourself. About the only TV I watch is the classic bits that Norm is kind enough to filter for us. If you want real news instead of opinion you need to go to the sources of news. If you need help finding good journalism, write to me and I’ll give you a reading list.

This piece by Keith Olbermann was another bull’s-eye. After five years of everything going wrong in Iraq Bush now wants to blame the War’s opponents. We cannot let that happen.

I agree with Olbermann almost entirely but I came to the same conclusions on my own. We probably read the same stuff.

I never watch television, either. I didn't know who Olbermann was until a few weeks ago, thanks to this blog.

As far as news goes, I read a few local papers and a few web sites such as truthdig.com and motherjones.com. I used to read Al Jazeera, but got tired of it. Recommend more if you want.

Also, I know the difference between op-ed and journalism, and I wouldn't really categorize Olbermann as either, because I doubt they're actually his opinions (again, I could be wrong), and it's certainly not journalism. Even though the piece is definitely an opinion, I just wonder if it's actually his. That's all.

I'm getting kind of tired of talking about this, though. I get poorly and puerilely attacked by ThomasMcCay ("I don't like what Firi types/thinks, so I'll just call him names and hope he leaves the blog."), then others decide to join forces and point out how wrong I am for making a conjectural statement, as well, because McCay is popular or something, so it's the cool thing to do, I guess. I see things on this board and others that I disagree with quite often, but I just keep my sentiments to myself like a mature adult should. Rarely do I actually confront others about what they type unless I know that it's wrong or can be proven otherwise, and I never call other people names or refer to their posts as "dumb."

While I do not really question ThomasMcCay's intelligence, I now most definitely question his reserve. I'm sure it doesn't mean much, since he obviously doesn't think highly of me, but at least now he knows that name-calling is best left in sixth grade. I hope the rest of you can learn from his childish mistake.

If you don't like what I or anyone else says, ignore it, especially if it's an opinion such as, "I doubt he actually holds these views." If I were to have said, "Olbermann definitely doesn't hold these views," then attack me all you want, because I would have made a normative, unevidenced claim and most likely deserve the flame.

Why does it even matter to you whether or not he actually believes what he says/reads? I don't know the guy personally so I couldn't care less. I do agree with the opinion expressed here, that Bush is seeking to lay the blame for this disastrous war at the feet of those of us who opposed it from the beginning.

If you are posting comments and opinions you should, in turn, expect yours to be questioned and challenged.

leftbanker - I'm tired of making this point too. I don't think we're on the same page.

Do you not think that television news media should strive for impartiality?

And a follow-up:

Are people intelligent enough to draw the distinction between when Olbermann is reading factual news and when Olbermann is speaking his mind?

The BBC would not in a million years allow any of its newsreaders or editors to make known their political beliefs.

To illustrate this, there was a huge caffufle recently about Emily Maitlis, a Newsnight presenter, writing a column for the Spectator. So in the BBC culture offline is even a problem.

Do you get it?

Are people intelligent enough to draw the distinction between when Olbermann is reading factual news and when Olbermann is speaking his mind?

What part of "Special Comment" do you not understand, Andy? Not only does Keith announce he's going to make a "Special Comment" before he begins his commentary, MSNBC also writes those words on the screen for the viewing audience just in case they didn't hear Keith's qualifying remarks. Special comment. Comments. Commentary. Speaking one's mind. Expressing opinions. Opinion Editorial (op-ed). I mean, really, MSNBC and Keith cannot prepare the audience any better that what is about to follow is op-ed.

Most people are much smarter than you give them credit for and understand this distinction. What an elitist you are, Mr. Smartypants, to speak so condescendingly of common "folks" as being incapable of rational thought or having common sense.

I find such elitist sentiment repulsive and childish. Not only do you appear to be dim-witted because you cannot make the distinction between "news" and op-ed (op-ed, I might add, that has been qualified before it is expressed as being just that, op-ed, by the speaker AND by the broadcast channel), you then insult the intelligence of people you don't even know and project your own dim-witted logic on them and expect them to be as dim-witted as you.

Maybe, just maybe, the problem lies in your own dim-witted mind. As a dispassionate observer who just read all the comments in this thread, I find you to be incredibly dim-witted. So sorry to call you on this. Your own words betray you.

I mean, sure, everyone is entitled to express opinions in these comments threads. But when you make such childish and dim-witted and petulent arguments as you have in here, don't get into such a hissy when people call you on them and point put the utter stupidity of them.

That's called debate. Exchanging banter. Arguing. It doesn't have to be friendly or even polite. And since you insist on throwing a tantrum and questioning the intelligence of Olbermann's viewing audience so flippantly, I don't really feel the need to candy-coat my admonishment of you OR your dim-witted remarks.

As far as "journalism" versus "op-ed", is reporting strictly on what the White House says truly journalism? How would you classify Judy Millers shamefull manipulation by government sources in the build up to the war?

This is a complicated subject.

Olbermann is stating a 'fact' and asking an honest question. Why is the White House trying to place blame for the war on the opponents of the war?

Maybe simply asking the questions is the true role of good journalism.

This seemed to be the point Michael Moore was making on CNN with Blitzer. Why didnt you media people ask the hard questions before the war? And why are you not asking them now?

The BBC would not in a million years allow any of its newsreaders or editors to make known their political beliefs.

Andy, With all due respect, even if ones not make it obvious what one's views are, everyone still has their own personal views. There are more subtle ways of getting across one's point of view. So if someone states outright what their views are, that seems to me to be more forthright and honest than attempting to claim that one's views are 'unbiased'.

Your claim that the BBC is unbiased is not the first time that I've heard an Englishman or Brit make this claim.

The bias may be more subtle, but for you to claim that there is no bias, seems to me to be a bit naive.

This has nothing to do with my own beliefs. In fact, the coverage from the BBC fits quite well with my political beliefs. But unbiased? I don't think so.

Firi, I don't have a dislike of you, I'm just a thorny bastard.

I should have worded the original remark differently but it was an honest response to the pure cynicism you have espoused more than once. I call your attention to your remark regarding the presidental scholars. I am speaking to a trend in your responses, not to one particular remark but we have two examples on board.

To put it in the simplest terms possible for me, the Cynics, a school of philosopy in Greece, believed that all human actions, even those that seem noble, are inspired by the basest human motives.

Your statements, and I id notice the use of the word "I" in you staement, are case book examples of cynicism. It is not, in and of itself even a criticism. You're a cynic. And I'm sure many other things as well.

I do lack reserve at times and sometimes I think I come across harsher than I intend. Sometimes it is intended.

Here after, I shall make the effort to be more conscious of my edge. Not to dull it but to be more thoughtful regarding the use of that edge.

Firi, I found your cynicism irritating and put too much vinegar in my response. You're still a cynic but I don't dislike you for it. I think it was your remarks I'm calling dumb rather than you. I should have worded ti different.

I learned something from your response, thanks.

Lack of integrity at the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6905810.stm

Not that Americans are any better but...

If what Olbermann is not speaking his own opinions, why does that matter? He represents a team of people, then, that came together and used their talents (research, articulation, and Keith's presentation...) to convey a point that they collectively think is important.

It's called cooperation. It's called collaboration. It's called what we should be doing more of.

So the "Peace" Movement didn't end the Vietnam War? I'm sorry, but that's been the traditional line, the "Peace" Movement ended the Vietnam War, which would mean they cause us to lose the war, seeing as how it ended, seeing as we didn't win, seeing as how the opposite of winning is losing and therefore the end was a loss, and the peace movement ended and lost the war for the United States then logically speaking. You can't claim credit for something then deny it when it's worded differently. Follow me?

The peace movement did not end the Viet Nam War. What ended the war for the US was the fact that our situation there was totally un-winnable, just as it is in Iraq. Eventually everyone will understand this like, some of us did from the beginning.

our situation there was totally un-winnable, just as it is in Iraq.

i agree that the peace movement, in and of itself did not stop or "lose" the war in vietnam. but the idea of an unwinnable war set my technicality antennae aquiver. there are actually very few "unwinnable" wars and neither vietnam nor iraq falls into that category.

i worked a lot of years in construction. clients used to ask all the time "can we do x,y and z?" and i would always tell them: in construction there's basically nothing that can't be done. its just a matter of how much of your resources you want to throw down. and there's a second factor, which i didn't mention for buisiness reasons: the house might not look EXACTLY like you had in mind.

i think these principles are true in war, too. the u.s., despite the zillions of dollars its throwing at this problem, is actually using a tiny fraction of its resources- including, and especially manpower. also, if it really went in all out, the "house" of iraqi democracy might look more like a parking lot-or a cemetary. but i have no doubt they could "win" if they wanted to. it just isn't going to happen while bush and his cronies are making money hand over fist by keeping it going.