Comments on: Tucker defends Pollack, attacks ‘hysterical’ bloggers.

By: Tom Murphy

Tom Murphy — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 07:42:52 +0000

Creeps like Tucker allow Bush and others to get away with outrageous lies. See these two links for examples of just how crazy it really is: here’s a huge burden of guilt to be laid at Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, both parties for simply lying to the American people.

President Bush Pushes War Propaganda Tricking People Into Supporting An Attack On Iran

By: albieg

albieg — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 11:10:32 +0000

Sow hatred, reap hatred.

By: mouth of the south

mouth of the south — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 03:35:11 +0000

Did any of you happen to see Tucker’s show last night? He referred to Hillary Clinton as “a chick” and Obama as “a black guy.” I blasted off an email to him and to MSNBC about his remarks. I vow I will NEVER watch this very shrill and hysterical Koolaid drinker again. I say we start emailing HIS sponsors too and see if we can’t rid MSNBC of this idiot.

By: napthia9

napthia9 — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 00:45:06 +0000

I can believe that Tucker doesn’t really know who Glenn Greenwald is. It all makes sense if you assume that somebody just handed him a printed copy of Greenwald’s post and told him what to think about it before shooting. Thus the Grenwald/Greenwald mixup, and the 11 pages comment.

Who’s not doing their reporting now, Tucker?

By: Juanito

Juanito — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:23:57 +0000

Tucker Carlson…he must be the comedian on MSNBC. If Tucker was actually interested in real journalism and being credible, he would have done some actual research on O’Hanlon and Pollack in order to find out what both men had said in the past. I mean, both mean have in the past claimed that “the next six months are crucial” back in 2006, and yes, both men were cheerleaders for the war. Tucker just pulled that “you’ve actually been tough on the administration” outta his ass, just like Charlie Gibson did yesterday.

Our media is so pathetically lazy.

By: mdhatter

mdhatter — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:25:22 +0000

Nooooo.

The bow-tie is gone!

What a sell out.

By: pucker

pucker — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:32:33 +0000

Is he really Karl Rove’s leather slave?

By: Rich

Rich — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:20:38 +0000

Greenwald’s post is “11 pages” long? Interesting way to measure the size of a post. I usually use kilobytes myself. Three to seven KB is a standard personal note, 10 to 15 KB is a normal editorial, at 20+ KB, I warn people that it’s a substantial piece. By copying Greenwald’s post into Mozilla’s Seamonkey webwriter program (It’s coding of the document is very lean, so it’s about the same kilobyttage you get in Notepad) and saving it, I get 31 KB. Yeah, that’s pretty long, but it’s mostly quotes that Greenwald uses to illustrate what complete hacks Pollack and O’Hanlon are.

By: junius brutus

junius brutus — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:10:16 +0000

Ad hominem name-calling (”hysterical”)is what you do when you don’t have facts or logic on your side, which is why name-calling is Tucker Carlson’s forte.

Glenn Greenwald is 1000 times smarter and more intellectually honest than Tucker Carlson. Just read a couple of Greenwald’s posts and compare them to anything Carlson has ever said or written and the disparity is obvious.

By: JenJen

JenJen — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 14:52:00 +0000

This morning on The Bill Press Show, in discussing why he felt the Republican candidates are right to duck out of the CNN/YouTube debate, Tucker said, “Why should they take questions from weird people? We’re the ones who should be asking questions. We’re educated, informed and know the right questions to ask.” So, Tucker, the Prince Heather, at least came clean that he disdains voters, and the American People in general.

Where’s Jon Stewart when you need him? Didn’t he take this little jerk down once and for good in 2004?

By: mikel1814

mikel1814 — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 14:25:08 +0000

A war cannot be in the state of “going well.” A war, by nature, is a failure of diplomacy – a direct result of things reaching the apex of not “going well.”

If someone is having a heart attack and you are have finished the CPR chest compressions you don’t turn to the person next to you and say. “Time for the assisted breathing, this resuscitation is going well.”

If a general says we are meeting our goals and issues reports about specific objectives, that’s one thing. But for TV pundits to be arguing in such a vapid manner about how “well” a war is going, we have serious problems as a society.

A war is won when it has achieved all intended goals, and/or one side quits, surrenders, or in some way gives in to the other warring parties demands. Until then, it’s just a war.

Please pray tell, who is going to quit, surrender, or give into our demands? And what exactly is our objective again? Or perhaps the pundits should start debating if this is really even a “war” anymore?

Right wingers have already destroyed the words “liberal,” “terror,” “compassion,” and “Commander in Chief.” I’d never guess that they could completely rewrite the definition of the United States being “at war.”

By: Peter Principle

Peter Principle — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 14:21:20 +0000

As opposed to being a hysterical talk show host?

Tucker’s not hysterical. Just vapid, stupid and boring. Also the son of Satan. But that’s another story.

By: rfklives!

rfklives! — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 14:20:57 +0000

Tucker is a tool; he and his fabulous ratings are on for the same reason glen beck has a show-faux news imitation-like CSI Peoria, CSI Houston. When you start to run low on second stringers-Tucker and Glen!

By: JustJim

JustJim — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 14:14:12 +0000

I’m very sure Tucker is aware of who Glenn Greenwald is, considering Glenn did a post about how he was supposed to appear on Tucker’s show to discuss David Vitter . He wasn’t able to do so because of scheduling conflicts. Tucker’s view was that the Vitter matter was private and we should leave the whole thing alone and Glenn was coming on to disagree, because Tucker didn’t behave that way with the Clintons and seemed to be salivating over the details daily.
What followed, was a post Glenn did, that basically ripped Tucker a new one over his hypocrisy between then and now. I don’t think Glenn is one of Tucker’s favorite people now!

By: milo

milo — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 14:10:59 +0000

or I guess bowtie could have asked ‘Grenwald’ to debate on air…just saying

By: Rich

Rich — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 14:03:24 +0000

Tucker is an idiot who is best ignored.

By: c4logic

c4logic — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:58:17 +0000

Tucker is the kid who thinks he’s the smartest in the class. He thinks all his little games make him cool. But he is just another shill for the ruling class. He is not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be;
He’s an attendant lord, one that will do
To swell a progress, start a scene or two,
Advise the prince; no doubt, an easy tool,
Deferential, glad to be of use,
Politic, cautious, and meticulous;
Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse;
At times, indeed, almost ridiculousâ€”
Almost, at times, the Fool.–apologies to TS Eliot

By: Vice President Bush

Vice President Bush — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:39:06 +0000

Like he doesn’t know who Greenwald is. Baloney.

By: Fran

Fran — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:58:38 +0000

Anyone know if Carlson is on his way out at MSNBC? There are rumors that his days are numbered. His hysterical rants are clear proof of his spoiled background. He claims he’s a libertarian , when in fact he is always agreeing with the Republicans. His whining voice and carping are hard to watch and listen to. The trouble is, the competing news channels are a vast wasteland. The NYT Op-Ed piece by Pollack and O”Hanlon was clearly part of the Bush propaganda machine. How else was Carlson able to so quickly get Pollack on his show?

By: Jimbo

Jimbo — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 07:25:20 +0000

I was amused how Tucker pretended that he never heard of Glenn Greenwald. On his Monday show, Tucker feined an inability to pronounce Greenwald’s name. Clearly, Tucker is frightened that more people read Greenwald’s blog than watch Tucker’s show.