Wow honora, you give Hannity and Bush a solid 10.0 and Olby and Hill a 9.0.

Now I have heard Hannity criticize Bush on several fronts, including amnesty for illegal aliens and overspending on the fed budget. I have also seen Hannity invite and debate liberal democrats on his program.

I was talking about the interview between H and Bush. Should have clarified. I agree that Keith O is more completely biased in the ways you mention than H, but the interview, I stand by my “scores”.

On the suck up scale, 9.0. (O’Reilly with Bush being a 7.5 and Hannity with Bush being a 10.0)

Wow honora, you give Hannity and Bush a solid 10.0 and Olby and Hill a 9.0.

Now I have heard Hannity criticize Bush on several fronts, including amnesty for illegal aliens and overspending on the fed budget. I have also seen Hannity invite and debate liberal democrats on his program.

I have NEVER heard Olberdouche criticize any of his liberal guests and I have NEVER seen a conservative across the table from him on his own show, to force Olby to deal with facts rather than biased opinion.

So let’s be honest here.

Olby suck up rating with any guest, since they are all libs like him ……. 10.0!

I don’t understand why pundits do this–it makes their subjects look weak and them look smarmy.

Have to add to the list of things I don’t get.

I don’t know what the big deal is over Hillary. She’s barred from serving a third term…

LOL, wish I’d said that.

Olbergasm’s question about how we’re going to be able to stand 2 years of the MSM lovefest is a good one. There isn’t any love lost between some of the Dem candidates and the primary has the potential to get pretty ugly.

It’s going to be interesting to see how the media can pull off making their darlings look good while they all smear each other.

What, in your opinion, is, as of right now, the State of the Union?

Wow, I was completely surprised that she didn’t mention the record-high stock market that doesn’t seem to be based on fly-by-night internet ventures, historically low unemployment, or unprecedented levels of home ownership.

Gee, I thought, surely she’d mention some of these figures. But then I remembered Jim Webb’s stalwart rebuttal to the SOTU address, and I realized that these things weren’t helping “the right people” and that they hadn’t come about for “the right reasons.” Robber barons, people. Robber barons and the need to end the Korean War.

Strong. Smart. Sleeping with a picture of your dad.

Who gave you the “pearl necklace”?, and did you have to swallow???

- “Keith, because it would be the ultimate power and honor to lead screw and manipulate a nation as gullable as ours. An honor and a privilege, indeed. And, I would finally feel vindicated with Bill”.

Same goes for yours Rick. The questions would have been fine IF they had been asked by a real journalist and not a democrat shill.

csdeven on January 25, 2007 at 12:22 AM

I disagree. A real journalist would not have asked her such a question. They would go after her to find out why she voted for it in the first place, and not given her an out or accepted her, and every other waffling liberal’s excuse (that she was “misled”).

The 22nd Amendment

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

The following is the official U.S. Army analysis of the military mission in Somalia during your husbands administration;

The United States entered Somalia in December 1992 to stop the imminent starvation of hundreds of thousands of people. Although it succeeded in this mission, the chaotic political situation of that unhappy land bogged down U.S. and allied forces in what became, in effect, a poorly organized United Nations nation-building operation. In a country where the United States, perhaps naively, expected some measure of gratitude for its help, its forces received increasing hostility as they became more deeply embroiled into trying to establish a stable government. The military and diplomatic effort to bring together all the clans and political entities was doomed to failure as each subelement continued to attempt to out-jockey the others for supreme power. The Somali people were the main victims of their own leaders, but forty-two Americans died and dozens more were wounded before the United States and the United Nations capitulated to events and withdrew. American military power had established the conditions for peace in the midst of a famine and civil war, but, unlike later in Bosnia, the factions were not exhausted from the fighting and were not yet willing to stop killing each other and anyone caught in the middle. There was no peace to keep. The American soldier had, as always, done his best under difficult circumstances to perform a complex and often confusing mission. But the best soldiers in the world can only lay the foundation for peace; they cannot create peace itself.

Doesn’t your ‘new way forward’ in Iraq spell the same end for the Iraqi people as happened to the Somali people if we withdraw from Iraq?

Sincerely,
K.Oblypundit

http://www.army.mil/cmh/brochures/Somalia/Somalia.htm#p26

Never liked the expressoin “many thanks” but Mr. Olberkind has caused me to feel like puking every time anyone says it; now he switched to “greatest thanks” – watch for others to emulate this soon…he is soooo eloquent!

How would you feel about the questions if he had rejected her answers and pressed her?

IE: (Ians example) Had KO reminded her of the stock market gains, low unemployment, new jobs created, etc., the interview would have had more meat while the question remained the same.

Same goes for yours Rick. The questions would have been fine IF they had been asked by a real journalist and not a democrat shill.

# How would you answer people who’ve approached this and say, I could not possibly vote for anyone who, no matter how misled they might have been, no matter how misled the country might have been, voted in any way to authorize what has happened in Iraq? How would you answer them?

How about the Unites States policy under President William Jefferson Clinton for “Regiem Change” in Iraq, which included a military invasion, as sanctioned by the United Nations,

but no one had the “balls” to do it untill President George W. Bush, of the United States Of America…

Mz. Hillary????

{rickets chriping agiain}

Go ahead, sit on your hands for the SOTU address…..

{more crickets chriping…..}

# How would you answer people who’ve approached this and say, I could not possibly vote for anyone who, no matter how misled they might have been, no matter how misled the country might have been, voted in any way to authorize what has happened in Iraq? How would you answer them?

Yeah, real tough. Ogreman with this question is saying: “don’t worry Hill, I got your back. I know that the Bushitler misled all of us. You only did what you thought was best, based on the lies the evil administration told us.”

Please, the guy is basically running her campaign with this $hit.