There is no doubt he is a clown, but an entertainer? Unless you think of his audience as those who think of Oprah as an icon.

Olberman rants, instead of thinking. He moans and groans, instead of reflecting. He almost reminds me of a a child with ADD trapped in a grown man’s body. Would Ritalin perhaps help?

Just study the contrast in the writings of Murrow and Blabber man highlighted here, and one can see how preposterous it is to compare the two. The fact is Blabberman thrives on nothing but his big mouth, with no cerebral feedback, while Murrow writes not only with grace and intelligence, but with a civility that most liberals have lost.

Am so glad Rick had the guts to expose this phony. It’s no wonder MSNBC is always at the bottom of the ratings. Time to kick hard his butt.

Thank you Rick, here’s your bro’ from the New Republic:

If the president is guilty of anything, it’s not that he’s dwelling on 9/11 enough. It’s that the administration has not done a good enough job of probing and underscoring the nexus between the Saddam regime and al Qaeda. It is absolutely appropriate, it is vital, for him to stress that connection.

Link 6/29/05 http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200506290912.asp

What if someone reads that and concludes conflation?

There is no hope for those that view other sources of information. I offer up other sources than Rick’s prose. The word of the day is ‘conflation’. Look it up. Or I will give you an example.

“The FDA recommends that you eat from ALL food groups to achieve a sound mind in a sound body. But let us not forget that Hitler was a vegetarian.”

“The link between fascism and vegeratianism has yet to be disproven.”

media inflation later…conflation proves that facism=vegetarianism.

This is what the Bush administration has succeeded in doingwith 9/11 and Saddam/Iraq, that is to conflate two different ideas/events together. Rick you are correct to state that Bush never made this connection directly, but then you would be a legalistic weasel. Is Keith incorrect for his choice of words, ie ‘fabricated?’.

Perhaps we can consult other sources…
Here we can see example of conflation:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm

The administration has clearly succeeded with conflating 9/11 with Saddam

Has this been successful? We must calibrate for best results at two points, before and after.
Before, from this link:http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein.

And after…

But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either “most” or “some” of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.

So Rick, how did people become so confused? Was it the Main Stream Media acting as mouthpieces for the administration? Was conflation a “success”?
Absolutely. Get legalistic on Olbermann and you become a weasel.

Why are you then so upset? The Democrats have been your enablers all along. Your inchoate, desperate plea becomes “Stop me before I kill again.” But I’m wrong on that bit, and in your eyes my whole post becomes suspect.

“Don’t stop me, I know when to kill. Trust me on this.”
Carte Blanche, thanks to your enablers.

Until I read your post, I hadn’t paid much attention to Olbermann. I just youtubed a bunch of his special comments. I know that the above exercise would be “tiresome” for you, so I’m not going to ask you to rebut. After all, it’s your blog, and you can write about whatever you want.

Plus, I know that there is no hope for me, but after listening to Bush speak, and hearing him say Saddam and 9/11 over and over again, the implied link is quite obvious. I don’t understand how anyone could discount the onslaught of association. Anyone who knows anything about advertising or basic psychology can see what the administration is doing. Asked point blank, Bush denied it. But that’s a one time question. When every speech mentions Saddam/Iraq and 9/11 within mere sentences of each other, the unspoken implication becomes obvious. Maybe I should start writing my Christmas list early this year. Santa just might be listening.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/09/france_and_us_see_eye_to_eye_o.html

That is a naive post, written obviously by a naive person who thinks Sarkozy is pro-American.

Sarkozy is an anti-American socialist just like Chiraq. His government opposes the ABM defence network in Poland, opposes free trade agreements, doesn’t want to abolish subsidies for farmers, won’t abolish national caveeats and doesn’t want to deploy French soldiers to Iraq. France has always been, and still is, America’s enemy.

This is excellent analysis.

The article you referenced is from the Nation magazine. It is as left wing as Olbermann. The idea that they would shower him with such praise is not very surprising. The analysis is as biased as Olbermann himself.

No.

Good thing I am not paid by the word.