-> But it reversed a Clinton era decision requiring the essential
-> acoustic
-> backups, calling them too costly, and those faulty blowout preventers
-> a fail safe."
->
-> www.businessandmedia.org

-> Very nicely done. Too bad; a waste. Hullet has never changed his mind
-> after mere facts are presented.

What "facts" do you think DD presented?

Did you think, for instance, that his little snippet from
"businessandmedia.org" was factual?  Actually he was a bit selective in
his snipping.  Here are the first two paragraphs of that article:

"Usually, the crazy rantings of MSNBC host Keith Olbermann can be
dismissed as the norm and easily ignored. But on May 5, Olbermann gave a
glimpse of an obsession with former Vice President Dick Cheney  a man
that has been out of office for 471 days  that was just too bizarre to
let go.

Although Olbermann didnt outright absolve the Obama administration for
not responding quick enough to the BP oil spill, he channeled the blame
in a strange direction."

later on:

"'Mr. Obamas administration certainly did allow BP to bypass
environmental requirements,' Olbermann said."

"Olbermann admitted Obama was somewhat culpable for the spill since his
Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar, exempted BP from certain regulatory
requirements."

and the subtitle of the whole article accuses Olbermann of using "loose
associations" to reach his conclusions about Cheney.

So, gee, John, where are these "facts" you were talking about?

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10