Countown Special Comment: The President Of Hypocrisy

Search Tags:

Categories:

Countown Special Comment: The President Of Hypocrisy

Uploaded by: thejoshuablog
Video Description:
Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on MSNBC's Countdown blasts the Idiot in Chief for his cowardly and un-American behavior of "pimping General Petraeus" and hiding behind him.

Tags for this video: Comment Countown Keith Olbermann SMNBC Special

Find more videos in the "News" category
See more videos uploaded by thejoshuablog

Related Videos

Keith Olbermann special comment - 9/11 ™ (9/10/08)	KEITH OLBERMANN SPECIAL COMMENT ON IRAN INTELL DEC 06, 2007	Countdown - Keith Olbermann with a Special Comment on John Mccain's Childish Behavior

Countdown: Special Comment May 14, 2008 Part 1	Countdown: Special Comment "Bush Shut The Hell Up" Pt.02	Countdown: Special Comment "Hillary You Went Too Far" 5-23-8

Share This Video:

Comments for this video: Show || Hide

Comments for this video on YouTube

Actually, the ... ( 1 year ago by jperryam)

Actually, the question regarding Clinton was: "Have you been campaigning for this all along, or are you just one of those "Clinton did it too" Bush apologists trying to help him get away with HIS crimes?"
You Bush fascist footsoldiers sure have a short attention span. But thanks - you've pretty much answered the question anyway. You couldn't care less about accountability for Clinton. He's just one of your tools of distraction.

At least your ... ( 1 year ago by jperryam)

At least your hopelessly transparent propaganda is consistent. No legitimate refutation, just personal attack. That crap is wearing pretty thin, don't you think?

"You couldn't care ... ( 1 year ago by groenhagen)

"You couldn't care less about accountability for Clinton. He's just one of your tools of distraction."
Actually, I think you couldn't care less. You're more interested in making a partisan attack on Bush than you are in justice. You moonbats are going to vote for Hillary nice year even though her husband's policies vis-a-vis Iraq gave us 9/11 and other "messages with no words."

There you go, ... ( 1 year ago by jperryam)

There you go, thinking again. Not only do you Bushie fools have a short attention span, but it's incredibly narrow. Everything is black/white, liberal/conservative, republican/democrat. Everyone who opposes you is a flaming liberal who can't wait to vote for Hillary. The truth - I never voted for Bill and will SURE AS HELL NOT vote for Hillary. And I'll leave the partisan attacking to you.

Again with the Iraq ... ( 1 year ago by jperryam)

Again with the Iraq-9/11 lie. Jeezus, don't you idiots know that Bush himself has stated publicly multiple times that there was no evidence tying saddam to 9/11? BUSH is the one who IGNORED DOZENS of pre-9/11 warnings, both from other governments AND HIS OWN. BUSH is the one who IGNORED the August 6, 2001 PDB that screamed "Bin Laden determined to Strike in U.S." Trying to pin that disaster on Clinton is the most heinous of partisan attacks. How long are you going to continue the fraud?

Array ( 1 year ago by groenhagen)

jperryam:
I said Bill Clinton's policies vis-a-vis Iraq led to 9/11 and other "messages with no words." That is a fact. Keep in mind that the 9/11 hijackings were planned before Bush became president. Some of the hijackers were even in this country before Bush was elected president. And Richard Clarke wrot
e in "Against All Enemies" that there was "no proof or specificity" concerning an impeding al Qaeda attack during the summer of 2001.

What matters is not ... ( 1 year ago by jperryam)

What matters is not when they were planned, but when they happened, which was eight months into BUSH'S presidency. "Bin Laden determined to Strike in U.S." is not specific enough? The Pretender-in-Chief did NOTHING with that information. The attempt to absolve him of any and all responsibility for 9/11 is nothing more than pathetic political spin.

If you believe ... ( 1 year ago by groenhagen)

If you believe Richard Clarke was wrong and there was something specific concerning an imminent al Qaeda attack in the August 6 PDB, I invite you to share it.

Another unanswered ... ( 1 year ago by jperryam)

Another unanswered question. Good job. I shared from the 8/6/01 PDB what I thought was, at the very least, specific enough for Bush to do SOMETHING resembling preventative action. Again, he did NOTHING. You will never effectively argue that he bares no responsibility. Maybe we'll learn exactly how much he deserves if we ever see a legitimate, independent investigation of 9/11.

Again, there was no ... ( 1 year ago by groenhagen)

Again, there was no specific information in the August 6 PDB. If there had been, Richard Clarke would not have written that there was none. And no one has claimed that bares no responsbility. I'm saying that Clinton deserves far more of the blame because his policies vis-a-vis Iraq led to 9/11 and other "messages without words" sent prior to the Bush presidency.

"And no one has ... ( 1 year ago by jperryam)

"And no one has claimed that bares no responsbility" - Assuming you meant to put Bush's name in there. Great! Then you of will of course support the truly legitimate, truly independent 9/11 investigation that has yet to happen, to see just how much responsibility each administration bares, and to finally get justice for the victims and their families. Gee groenhagen, maybe I've been wrong about you all along...

Indeed, and Bush ... ( 10 months ago by Scotty7617)

Indeed, and Bush was briefed on the threat of Al-Qaeda even before the election. Bush did not address the issue of terrorism before 9/11 and expressed no interest in it.

What are you ... ( 10 months ago by groenhagen)

What are you smoking? The invasion was not illegal and no credible report on deaths in Iraq comes even close to one million, let alone 500,000.

Where have you been ... ( 10 months ago by jperryam)

Where have you been for the past month? Watching O'Reilly re-runs and sniffing Sean Hannity's ass or something? The United States Constitution itself proves that the invasion and occupation of Iraq are indeed illegal. Maybe you should read it sometime.

I've read it. Show ... ( 10 months ago by groenhagen)

I've read it. Show us where removing Saddam from power was illegal.

The Constitution ( ... ( 10 months ago by jperryam)

The Constitution (The Supreme Law of our land) mandates that all international agreements/treaties we sign on to (UN Charter, Geneva Conventions, etc) automatically have the force of US law (as well as international law). Also states that only Congress may declare war. No Declaration...no approval for use of force from UN Security Council...No legitimate claim of self-defense...ILLEGAL invasion and occupation. It's irrefutable. But I'm sure you'll make some lame attempt anyway.

Congress voted to ... ( 10 months ago by groenhagen)

Congress voted to authorize force against Iraq in October 2002. Maybe you missed that. UNSC resolutions also authorized force against Saddam, but you have apparently failed to have read those.

The sissy Olbermann ... ( 10 months ago by groenhagen)

The sissy Olbermann has no evidence that Bush took a planted question. However, we have evidence that Hillary took planted questions last week in Iowa. The sissy Olbermann was silent about that.

Interesting. Having ... ( 10 months ago by jperryam)

Interesting. Having read the Constitution, you should understand that the Congressional vote to authorize force against Iraq was itself ILLEGAL. Congress cannot legally transfer its war-making power to the president without a Constitutional Amendment, which also requires a three-fourths majority vote of state legislatures. I defy you to show us any pre-2003 UNSC resolution that authorizes Bush's use of military force against Iraq.

Have you ever read ... ( 10 months ago by groenhagen)

Have you ever read the joint resolution authorizing force against Iraq? It clearly noted that force was justified because Saddam had violated UNSC resolutions. Fortunately for you, the boob at the top of this page spares you from being the stupidest person here.

Have you ever ... ( 10 months ago by jperryam)

Have you ever realized that ignoring the ugly truth will NEVER change it? The AUMF is illegal. The "war" is illegal. I have explained EXACTLY how this is so, not with rhetoric, but by using the Constitution. You are ignoring the truth. The UNSC did not authorize the use of force. Bush had no reason and no legal authority to act on his own. Deal with it.

You have yet to ... ( 10 months ago by groenhagen)

You have yet to show why Operation Iraqi Freedom was illegal. You need to go back and study the UN resolutions against Iraq. We merely had a ceasefire in 1991. Iraq's refusal to comply with UNSC resolutions was one of the main reasons the House and the Democrat-controlled Senate authorized force against Iraq.

How's the weather ... ( 10 months ago by jperryam)

How's the weather in your little fantasy land? I have explained exactly why and how George's invasion and occupation of Iraq are illegal. Anyone can scroll up exactly 4 posts (and 6 posts) above this one to see this for themselves. You have yet to legitimately refute it. Regardless of whatever UN resolutions Saddam violated, George STILL needed legal authorization for military action, which he NEVER got, because there was NO legitimate justification for it.

Olberman is a beast ... ( 3 months ago by dln3472)

Olberman is a beast...he was the man on Sportscenter and he's even more real now. Clownin' these uppity suits!

Tell a friend:

Videos @ danielroot.com

Turn-Key Video Sharing Sites www.pageranksite.com

Countown Special Comment: The President Of Hypocrisy

URL
Embed Code