Matthews Slams 'Chickenhawks' & 'Crazy Neocons' Who 'Want to Go to War with Other People's Children'
During Tuesday's live coverage of the New Hampshire Primary on MSNBC, at about 6:53 p.m., Chris Matthews asked guest Tom Ridge why it is that "crazy neocons" and Republican "chickenhawks" always want to "go to war with other people's children."
As he began the interview, Matthews listed several Republicans who have not served in the military and whose children have not served, and then posed: (Video below)
These other flamethrowers out there, they love the concept of war, as long as it doesn't affect their families. I mean, these guys are making irresistible, crazy, biblical commitments about going to war with Iran that are totally outrageous. Nobody should be making these kind of commitments before an election, certainly during a political hot campaign.
He continued:
Explain why the chickenhawks want to go to war with other people's children, and the guys who have served and the guys who have children serving are the moderates of war. Why is it always so clear that way?
A bit later, the MSNBC host continued to press Ridge as he cited President Reagan's invasion of Grenada, and President George H.W. Bush's invasion of Panama:
Governor, it's worse than that because here's the problem: Your party, on its right, always seems to have a war in the on-deck circle, you know, and it's not just the Michael Ledeens, the far-out, crazy neocons. There's something about your party that always has to have a war cooking somewhere.
It's either Afghanistan or Iraq, or it's Libya, and there you got this Iran thing that you constantly talk about in biblical terms like, "We have to do it for some Armageddon reason, we have to face this down." What is it that wants war in your party, that seems to want to have a war always ready to go?
After Ridge accused the MSNBC host of using "hyperbole," Matthews claimed that it was still "a fact." Matthews:
Well, Bush One went to Iraq, he went down to Panama, they went to, they went, Reagan went to Grenada, this guy now, all your candidates are talking about going to Iran. What is it? It's always what's next. There's always one they want to cook up. Maybe I'm overstating it, but it's a fact.
Below are both video and a transcript of the relevant portion of MSNBC's coverage of the New Hampshire Primary from Tuesday, January 10, at about 6:53 p.m.:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: I'm going to tee you up here, my friend, Governor, because I am so amazed at the amazing reality of American politics, and it gets worse every year. Mitt Romney never served in the military. None of his kids did. Newt Gingrich never served. As far as I know, his children haven't. Whereas, Huntsman, your guy, and you, you were a combat veteran in Vietnam. Huntsman's got a couple of kids in the service now. You guys are the moderates on war.
These other flamethrowers out there, they love the concept of war, as long as it doesn't affect their families. I mean, these guys are making irresistible, crazy, biblical commitments about going to war with Iran that are totally outrageous. Nobody should be making these kind of commitments before an election, certainly during a political hot campaign. And yet, you and your guy, and Ron Paul, to his credit, are willing to say, "Let's stop the war fever in this country." Explain why the chickenhawks want to go to war with other people's children, and the guyswho have served and the guys who have children serving are the moderates of war. Why is it always so clear that way?
TOM RIDGE: Well, I'm not sure if it's quite as clear as you suggested, Chris.
MATTHEWS: It sure seems that way.
(...)
MATTHEWS: Governor, it's worse than that because here's the problem: Your party, on its right, always seems to have a war in the on-deck circle, you know, and it's not just the Michael Ledeens, the far-out, crazy neocons. There's something about your party that always has to have a war cooking somewhere. It's either Afghanistan or Iraq, or it's Libya, and there you got this Iran thing that you constantly talk about in biblical terms like, "We have to do it for some Armageddon reason, we have to face this down." What is it that wants war in your party, that seems to want to have a war always ready to go?
RIDGE: Well, Chris, I don't think that's a fair characterization.
MATTHEWS: Well, when is the last time they didn't have one, they haven't wanted one?
RIDGE: There's been some real hyperbole in that characterization, Chris, and the bottom line is the-
MATTHEWS: Well, Bush One went to Iraq, he went down to Panama, they went to, they went, Reagan went to Grenada, this guy now, all your candidates are talking about going to Iran. What is it? It's always what's next. There's always one they want to cook up. Maybe I'm overstating it, but it's a fact.
- Brad Wilmouth's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Matthews is an idiot...
Submitted by NC Cop on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 9:50am.
and a poor one, even by idiot standards. So when Iran does develop a nuclear weapon and either uses it on Israel, unleashing armageddon in the middle east, or holds the entire region hostage, morons like Matthews will be complaining that we didn't do anything about it when we had the chance.
Low lying, scum sucking pigs like Matthews is why I will never vote for a democrat.
Wrong - NC Cop
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 3:49pm.
They will be complaining that Bush didn't do anything or Congress didn't do anything or even the next Republican President but they will be sure that Obama and Clinton are clear of all charges.
Chris Matthews: Long on Wind, Short on Facts
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 10:01am.
Once again, Matthews attempts to build a thesis on some throw-away phrases like "biblical commitments" and "wars in the on-deck circle," as if he read them somewhere or heard them at some seminar, and without testing the new thesis against facts, runs around repeating them as if he's some deep-thinker.
- Bush-One - Iraq. Well, this came after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. The UN resolved that member nations expel Iraq from Kuwait, which Bush-One did. How did Bush "cook"" this one up?
- Reagan-Grenada. Grenada was in the midst of a violent revolution, and American citizens were at risk. Reagan didn't cook this war up; it sparked on its own.
- Bush-Two - Afghanistan. AQ, which afterall did attack us on 9-11, was based in Afghanistan and had to be routed out. Bush didn't cook this one up.
- Reagan - Libya. This was a measured response to a Libyan terrorist bombing of a West Berlin disco, in which an American soldier was amongst the dead victims. It was less intensive than Obama's Libya campaign, and it had the desired effect on Qaddafi. Reagan didn't have this in his "on-deck circle" or he wouldn't have waited til his second term to launch it. And he didn't describe it as a 'humanitarian operation' like our current President did.
Peace Corps alumnus Matthews apparently isn't alarmed by the fact that our President defined the strike operations in Libya as a "humanitarian mission," which lays the foundation for intervening military virtually anywhere.
you left out a couple...
Submitted by c5then on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 10:08am.
Clinton - Bosnia. This came about because the Muslim population in Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia were being systematically exterminated and the UN was powerless and reluctant to intervene. The US took over the lead (meaning did everything ourselves) and officially became the world's police force. This was a clear humanitarian need and had to be done.
Clinton - Somalia. This came about when the fragile country disintegrated after muslim and drug terrorists fractured the weak government and set up small city-states ruled by local warlords. Fresh from our success in Bosnia, we went into a completely chaotic and murky situation with incompetent and apathetic backup (UN forces)and eventually had to leave. This was completely unclear and the reasons for our involvement nerver actually well articulated. This one could be put in the "cooked up" category.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
Good point
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 1:05pm.
I was focusing on Matthews' assertion about GOP Presidents, but you're exactly right. Bosnia and Kosovo would qualify as "humanitarian" operations under Obama's defintion.
And Bush-One initially inserted Marines into Mogadishu before he left office after Candidate Clinton badgered him about not doing enough. Eventually on Clinton's watch, the Marines were relieved by Army rangers and Delta Force troops who were deployed to hunt down Aideed -- the American public was totally unaware of this mission until the "Black Hawk Down" incident occurred, resulting in the deaths of 18 US soldiers and probably thousands of Somalis.
Perhaps the counter-question to Matthews is: "Why does your party always dropped bombs on people and call it humanitarian? Is that to skirt the Congress?"
Gal, the American public was also unaware
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 2:49pm.
that Clinton and Les Aspin turned down the requests for armor and AC-130 gunships, and Apaches, because they didn't want to "offend" the sensibilities of the ones who insisted we only had to hand out food and everyone would ride into town on their unicorns, scattering Skittles in front of the unarmed trucks passing out food.
Hey Chris...
Submitted by c5then on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 9:55am.
What about the "people" who have said that their goal is to wipe other people's children off the face of the map and are now striving to get a weapon that will actually enable them to do it?
Should we allow them to get that weapon, use it killing millions of women and children and then take them before the UN and accuse them of violating "international law" and ask them to say sorry?
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
No Questions about Obama?
Submitted by Fredy on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 10:17am.
Mathews should have been asked:
Why did Obama infuse more troops into Afghanistan?
Why has/is Obama attacking targets in Pakistan?
Why is Obama attacking people in Yemen?
Why has Obama deployed troops to central Africa?
Why did Obama randomly bomb in Libya?
Why did Obama have a drone Over Iran?
Of course, a slow footed guest asked NONE of the questions about the 'chickenhawk' we have in the White house today.
Chickenhawk, Fredy?
Submitted by Newsbubba on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 1:38pm.
Dat would be more like Chicken Shiite.
Commander-in-chief
Submitted by Cactus Kurt on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 10:19am.
Matthews spewed: "Mitt Romney never served in the military. None of his kids did. Newt Gingrich never served. As far as I know, his children haven't."
And what about Obama, Chris? Barry's experience in military affairs can be summed up in one word "corpse-men". Commander-in-chief, indeed.
Matthews is correct, the
Submitted by cristo on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 10:27am.
Matthews is correct, the neocons like Bill Crystal, love to nudge our military leaders towards wars that get other people's kids killed even while as they themselves sit on the sideline. So what branch of the service did Matthew serve in? Oh, that's right, he didn't serve in the military when he had the opportunity.
He's a lot like Geraldo, though, christo.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 1:40pm.
Chrissy and Geraldo both love to sniff GI jock straps.
Where did Mrs. Matthews little boy Chrissy serve? Why, I do believe it was the draft dodging Peace "Corpse."
Headline: Matthews Calls Obama Chickenhawk Neocon
Submitted by HockeyKid on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 10:31am.
Apparently Tingles forgot that Reagan and both Bushes were vets when the committed troops overseas. He also forgot to mention Clinton and Obysmal--neither a vet--who also engaged our military in attacks on foreign countries.
How many actual firing neurons does Chrissy still have?
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
What about LBJ and JFK
Submitted by ricklail on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 12:51pm.
They were vets but they sent others to die in Nam. The total US deaths there were a lot worst than in Irag or Afganistan.
FDR and Truman
Submitted by Schofield Kid on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 9:00pm.
FDR was not a vet (I assume since he was crippled) but he sent men off to die in foreign wars (not to mention interring American Citizens of Japanese ancestry). Not sure if Truman was a vet, but he was a Democrat. Did he have the Korean War "on deck" after he bombed the hell out of Japan?
The point is presidents may have to make a decision to go to war whether they served or not. This whole left wing argument is just plain silly and quite frankly I think its shelf-life expired in like 2003!
I think Chris Matthew's leg is actually much smarter
Submitted by WarEagle01 on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 10:37am.
than he is.
Who in the GOP field is relying on biblical commitments?
Submitted by Conservator on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 12:46pm.
Crissy states, "I mean, these guys are making irresistible, crazy, biblical commitments about going to war with Iran that are totally outrageous." Matthews has lost all control and is acting like he just had a Diabetic Attack.
What Happens During a Diabetic Attack?
Confusion
A person experiencing a diabetic attack may become incoherent and confused. They may become anxious, fatigued, weak, have rapid breathing, or go into shock.
Change in Senses
A diabetic attack can cause blurred vision, headaches, and double vision. Sweating, tingling, numbness, and foot pain may also be present...
IMO, incoherent, confused and tingling describes Crissy's diatribe rants well. Also, let's not forget that Matthews compared Mitt Romney to a whore, a "dog-trained," and mocked him for wearing "Mom jeans"
Crissy had to apologize for using the sexist term "Mom Jeans" Based on what I just read, he owes Governor Ridge an apology as well.
Lastly if I recall my history correctly, Democratic Presidents have lead America into war more often than Republicans
Is Matthews implying that
Submitted by Immortal Fish on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 1:22pm.
Is Matthews implying that Sasha and Malia led from behind in Libya?
I wonder which one of them took bin Laden out.
Simple Chris - D's decimate
Submitted by amyshulk on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 3:32pm.
Simple Chris - D's decimate the military and make us look weak, and R's have to clean up afterwards. I read a great oped by a former military man {forgot who} that made the point I *tried* to make to Jer last year, and which Pres. Obama just recently confirmed.
IMHO, D's want all the goodies {free housing/food/medical} but they don't want to have to work for it, ie; join the military!!!
Ronald Reagan