Matthews Rips Guest For Ignorance of History, Then Claims Cole Attack Happened Under Bush

Matthews Rips Guest For Ignorance of History, Then Claims Cole Attack Happened Under Bush

By Mark Finkelstein (Bio | Archive)
May 15, 2008 - 17:26 ET

A Hardball epic . . .

Message to Chris Matthews: when ripping a guest for his lack of historical knowledge, try to avoid making a history mistake of your own in the same segment.

It happened on this afternoon's Hardball. After lambasting a guest for not knowing his Neville Chamberlain history, Matthews surmised that the attack on the USS Cole in October, 2000 happened under . . . President Bush.

View video here.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

In to discuss President Bush's comments before the Knesset condemning the potential appeasement of Iran were Air America's Mark Green and conservative radio talk show host Kevin James.

In joining the president in criticizing the potential appeasement of Iran, James invoked Neville Chamberlain's notorious appeasement of Adolf Hitler. Matthews repeatedly attempted to force James to state just what it was that Chamberlain had done. "What did he do?" Matthews demanded over and again, shouting the question angrily on one occasion. It eventually became clear that James had, shall we say, a petite lacuna in his knowledge on that particular point. Matthews, sensing this, ridiculed his guest at length:

You are BSing me.
This is pathetic! [more than once]
You don't know what you're talking about [also more than once.]
We're talking with people with blank slates in terms of history.
Kevin, when you're going to make a direct historic reference, get it straight.
You don't understand what appeasement is, don't use the word.
I think we just had the sideshow.

Matthews ire was in measure understandable. James should have had his ducks in a row and known, as Matthews eventually explained to him, that Chamberlain didn't merely talk with Hitler, but signed the Munich Agreement, ceding the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia to Germany.

However . . . Matthews stuck his foot in it in responding to James' argument about President Clinton's ineffectual responses to terrorism leading to 9-11.

KEVIN JAMES: What happened to us in 9-11 is because all Bill Clinton did for years was talk while we were attacked, over and over and over again. Alright? We were attacked in '93, we were attacked in the Cole, we were attacked with our foreign embassies. And what happened? We ended up with 9-11.

MARK GREEN: Read Richard Clarke's book. Because for nine months [less than eight, actually], the president on 9-11 was not Clinton, it was Bush. And they did nothing despite all the entreaties of the Clinton people.

JAMES: Watch Pathway to 9-11, Mark. Watch Pathway to 9-11.

That's when Matthews [4 min. 50 secs. into the clip] went astray.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Wasn't the USS Cole under Bush? I mean, I don‘t know what we‘re talking about here—the first Bush.

Note: this is the second time in less than a week that we've noted an MSM people-in-glass-houses moment. On April 10, after mocking a Sparks, NV street department employee for spelling "scool" on the pavement, the GMA crew committed two math errors in the same half-hour.

Update: The lefty blog Think Progress is revelling in James' predicament, but fails to mention Matthews blooper. [Think Progress subsequently cited NewsBusters and mentioned Matthews's gaffe.]

Update II: fairness compels me to admit that I had misspelled Hitler's first name as "Adolph" rather than "Adolf." Thanks to reader Steve for bringing to my attention.

—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Details...details...details.

May 15, 2008 - 17:29 ET by BuffNBone

Details...details...details.

"Fighters are fun but bombers make policy"

fix the link, I want to see

May 15, 2008 - 17:31 ET by wiwf

fix the link, I want to see it!

The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy

Whoops! Sorry about that.

May 15, 2008 - 17:35 ET by Mark Finkelstein

Whoops! Sorry about that. LINK WORKING NOW. I encourage people to watch. An epic Hardball exchange.

I wonder why the Think

May 15, 2008 - 23:48 ET by mulerider24

I wonder why the Think Progress video is 1:52 shorter than the one Mark posted. One can only assume they are trying to preserve bandwidth over there. Those liberals are so responsible.

Should I be sad that this

May 15, 2008 - 17:33 ET by Cortillaen

Should I be sad that this doesn't surprise me in the least? You know what this calls for? It's what we call the news.

www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.

"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi

Don't know what I'm talkin' about

May 15, 2008 - 17:33 ET by Mike Bates

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Wasn't the USS Cole under Bush? I mean, I don't know what I'm talking about here.

Why should today be any different?

Matthews: Don't know much

May 15, 2008 - 18:17 ET by kg

Matthews:

Don't know much about history

Don't know much geography

Don't know much about a Democratic crook

Don't know much about the French I took

But Obama you know that I love you

And I know you love Obama too

What a wonderful world this will be

"Forget change, I want improvement!"

Matthews reminds me of

May 15, 2008 - 20:25 ET by mjg

Matthews reminds me of people who don't know anything about historical time line, and he calls himself a journalist. The song is appropriate, when describing Matthews.

Prissy lil' Chrissy

May 15, 2008 - 17:38 ET by harry flashman

In a full and glorious form we present to you the future junior Senator from Pennsylvania.

A dead-on ringer for Spector-the-Defector's seat.

"I mean, I don't know what I'm talking about here."

No shit, Sherlock.

BDS at it's finest

May 15, 2008 - 17:43 ET by alienfog55

If these "commentators" used half as much energy to look into Obama as they do to attack Bush.........

Nevermind, that'll never happen.

Is there no penalty for

May 15, 2008 - 17:56 ET by ThisnThat

Is there no penalty for being a fool on MSNBC? No penalty at all??

___________________________________

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

Matthews might be surprised to find out..

May 15, 2008 - 18:05 ET by Gary Hall

Matthews might be surprised to find out.. a lot of things:

- Bin Laden declared Jihad against the US in 1996 and in 1998 (adding civilians targets to the 2nd announcement)

- Rwanda occured during Clinton's term, and his complacency play a definate role in the shame which occurred.

- Next, in Africa, millions more died in the civil wars and genocides which followed during the Clinton era; the DR Congo, Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast.

- HIV/Aids became a real global pandemic, spiraling out of control, especially in Africa, while Clinton watched and did not act. Bush did - millions will no live.

-Darfur started under Clinton's watch.

- The Taliban ransacked the country of Afghanistan, had their own mini-genocide (60,000 killed) and took control of this once proud country, and Clinton decided not to continue his support for the pipeline across the country. Otherwise, Clinton looked the other way.

- And, Clinton left Bush an economic crisis; a historic economic bubble and stock market collapse; hunderds of companies failing; millions of Americans loosing their jobs, their life savings, their kids college education funds, their health insurance; and the country's tax revenue instantly drying up and the budget returning to massive deficits because of the economic bubble he and Matthews do not understand.

That radio guy should have

May 15, 2008 - 18:39 ET by Saul Goode

That radio guy should have known the details about Neville and his kissing up to Adolph, but Chrissy was worse because the Cole bombing was more recent and has been the topic of discussion regarding Clinton's history of non-response.

But Saul, Matthews has been

May 16, 2008 - 14:57 ET by QueenMum

But Saul, Matthews has been programmed to ignore any historical fact that reflects negatively on William Jefferson Clinton. If something bad happened at any time during the 90's and beyond, Pres. Bush must have been at fault - whether he was actually in office or not.

I am the exotic Queen Mum, and I approved this message.

That was one of the MOST worthless clip i've ever seen.

May 15, 2008 - 18:07 ET by upcountrywater

No wonder Rush never shows up on these rude "shows". Sheeh

The POPE says, GOD BLESS AMERICA!! Liberals/are/crazy/IranianUranium/<sleep>

Obsessive Compulsive

May 15, 2008 - 18:24 ET by Cella

Chrissy slipped into mania today. I have never seen anything like it. He was bedeviled.

This was more than a bee in his bonnet. This was obsessive compulsive behavior if I have ever seen it. He couldn't let it go.

Matthews does, at the least,

May 15, 2008 - 18:37 ET by Chris Norman

Matthews does, at the least, give the appearance of being somewhat unstable, doesn't he?

I have to side with

May 15, 2008 - 18:40 ET by motherbelt

I have to side with Matthews on this. He was right to pressure the guy. He was using the example of Chamberlain, but he had no idea what Chamberlain did that made him an appeaser. He just knows "Chamberlain was an appeaser" and attempted to argue from that standpoint. That's why he wouldn't answer the question, and why he kept going back to the President today and talking about "legitimizing" the enemy.

That'll teach him to be prepared next time he wants to make an argument.

It's true, MB, that the guy

May 15, 2008 - 18:52 ET by Chris Norman

It's true, MB, that the guy was just voicing what he understood as the buzz phrase of the day without knowing the history behind it (that's a problem with some of these local talk show hosts). However, Matthews probably knows that Chamberlain sold out Czechoslovakia and essentially gave Hitler the Sudetenland, so why did he intentionally embarrasses an invited guest, interrogating him so maniacally? Then he compounds his behavior by not knowing his own history. Perhaps, in the future, Matthews should be courageous enough to have on an opponent who is more knowledgeable and won't be open to being bullied around. I think he intentionally invites lightweights on his show so he can do this.

You're right about Matthews

May 15, 2008 - 19:02 ET by motherbelt

You're right about Matthews not knowing the when the Cole bombing took place (He said the first Bush administration). And you may be right about his inviting "lightweights" (I don't even know who that guy is!).

But the fact is that the guy attempted to use a "buzzword" argument (thanks for supplying the word...that's what I was looking for) without the knowledge to back it up. It's like Democrats saying Republicans will use a "Willie Horton type" ad against Obama without an iota of knowledge about what it was...they just know it was "racist."

IMO, anyone who does this should be called on it. When they go on shows like Hardball, O'Reilly, H&C etc, they'd better be loaded for bear. Because the hosts will be.

No doubt, the guy (who was

May 15, 2008 - 19:07 ET by Chris Norman

No doubt, the guy (who was formerly a big shot entertainment attorney in Los Angeles and used to appear on CNN on legal matters!?!) made an ass of himself - and conservatives - in the process. But what Matthews did to him was a sideshow. It was designed to embarrass. It was designed to invalidate the appeasement argument. Using this "rationale", Matthews opinion on the fight against terrorism is invalid because he thought Bush was the president when the Cole was attacked. The very definition of a bully is to pick a weaker opponent to easily beat, to ridicule, in an attempt to make himself look bigger.

If the guy had just admitted

May 16, 2008 - 00:16 ET by skylights

If the guy had just admitted he didn't know, he would've looked a lot less like an idiot. He came onto the show willingly, then made bold references to history that he knew nothing about. Matthews was right to rip this guy. Particularly since it illustrated the comparison of Obama to Chamerlain is invalid.

puhlease people

May 21, 2008 - 15:14 ET by TruthMonger

F*CK MATTHEWS

"What did Chamberlain do...?"

...well, day one - he was born, one minute later he cried, one minute later - he was still crying...

GOT SEVENTY MORE F*CKING YEARS TO GO THROUGH IT ALL, MATTHEWS???????

stick it up your BDS...

we all know what appeasement is, you retarded MSM Nazi - or do I need to memorize the f*cking Munich accord or whatever the hell it was called???? absolutely pathetic - typical "hardbull" excrement...

gimme a GD break...

About those Cole bombers..

May 15, 2008 - 18:55 ET by mastersofdeceit

"... all the defendants convicted in the attack have escaped from prison or been freed by Yemeni officials."

http://www.washingto...

"To this day, al-Qaeda trumpets the attack on the Cole as one of its greatest military victories"

"Despite the initial promises of accountability, only limited public inquiries took place in Washington, unlike the extensive investigations that followed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks"

mod...re. Cole

May 15, 2008 - 19:08 ET by Jer

The attack occurred shortly before Bush took office. He had ample opportunity to respond, but chose not to.

Jer

It took place shortly before

May 15, 2008 - 19:31 ET by motherbelt

It took place shortly before Bush was elected....in October of 2000. It was Clinton's responsibility to respond, and he chose not to.

mb...I believe it was

May 15, 2008 - 19:46 ET by Jer

mb...I believe it was toward the end of October, was it not? Bush was in office in a little over 60 days. Either he or Clinton could have chosen to react militarily within an appropriate time frame. Neither did.

Jer

-

May 15, 2008 - 20:16 ET by dahliatravers

The Cole attack occurred on October 12, 2000.

President Clinton's second term ended on January 20, 2001.

President Bush had not even won the election on the day of the attack; that would happen one month later.

Thanks, dahlia...for some

May 15, 2008 - 20:53 ET by Jer

Thanks, dahlia...for some reason I thought it was around October 27 or 28.

But I stand by my earlier statements. Even if the attack had been definitely linked to Al Quaeda prior to the election [and that is disputed], had Clinton launched an attack at that time, he would have been subjected to withering criticism for trying to influence domestic politics.

After the election [and the prospect of a Republican presidency], an outgoing president--especially one of the opposite party--has to be particularly careful in the undertaking of foreign policy initiatives which might hamstring his successor.

I think both Clinton and Bush made mistakes leading up to 9/11. But I don't blame either for the non-response to the Cole attack.

Jer

Subjected to WHITHERING

May 16, 2008 - 11:06 ET by BD

Subjected to WHITHERING CRITICISM?

oooooh, poor baby.....

Dem's just do not have the gumption to stick bayonets into our enemies. They prefer to relish the victimhood of laying on their backs. As if that somehow acheives anything.

C'mon BD....try looking at

May 16, 2008 - 14:11 ET by Jer

C'mon BD....try looking at the circumstances objectively and not through the prism of your anti-Democrat, anti-Clinton biases.

There were wholly justifiable reasons why neither president responded militarily to the Cole attack.

And Clinton and the Dems demonstrated just as much willingness to "use the bayonet" as did Bush and the Repubs prior to 9/11.

Jer

Fix bayonets, Jer!!!!!!!

May 16, 2008 - 14:55 ET by BD

Not looking at it from any other prism other than national security.

I do not mind a president not launching into a war immediately upon arriving in office, consolidation of the staffs successfully takes time after all.

Clinton and the Dems did NOT demonstrate just as much willingness to "Use the bayonet" for the past twenty years.

Embarrassing the country after the Tehran Embassy seige of 444 days.
No significant reply after Khobar, SANG Barracks, Several embassies, and assasinations around the globe.
Cole Bombing, WTC I, etc.

In fact the perfect example of the Dems inability to use the bayonet exists when the Iraqi Intelligence Service plotted the assasination of the former US president. The Democrat President ordered that their Headquarters be destroyed using SLCM. They purposely selected a early morning strike to minimise casualties. The mission only killed the cleaning staff and maybe a watchstander or two.

Boy, aint that TELLING!!!!!

BD: Bush's "bayonet"

May 16, 2008 - 16:08 ET by Jer

I likewise try to view things through a national security prism, BD. That's why I am, for example, far less troubled by the civil liberties implications of the Patriot Act or as fastidiously parsing of "torture" definitions than are many on the left [and some on the right].

As such, I would think you would be extremely critical of the Bush administration's exasperating and inexplicable lack of attention to the Al Quaeda storm clouds gathering in the months leading up to 9/11. During the transition of administrations period, Bush and his incoming senior officials were pointedly informed of the gravity of the issue. The Hart-Rudman commission on terrorism completed and published its [chillingly prescient] report. During the summer of 2001, there was "unprecedented" intelligence chatter warning of a spectacular attack....George Tenet was running around "with his hair on fire".

Regrettably, instead of staying in Washington, connecting dots and publicizing concerns, Bush went to his ranch and hosted barbeque parties. If he unsheathed a bayonet at all, it was only to use it as a grilling utensil.

Jer

As such, I would think you

May 16, 2008 - 17:31 ET by BD

As such, I would think you would be extremely critical of the Bush administration's exasperating and inexplicable lack of attention to the Al Queda storm clouds gathering in the months leading up to 9/11.

I can only recall what my frame of mind and that of my colleagues was in the late 90's to the period of 2001.

We had a poster on our office wall showing Osama Bin Laden and some of the attacks that had occurred by his organization. Sort of a "This is a bad guy, he is dangerous."

But we also had a poster of Kim Jong-Il of North Korea and posters of the various Theater Ballistic Missiles (TBM) he had been building and marketing to regimes as well as photos of the Iranian gear being developed.

That is why I was happy to hear the "Axis of Evil" speech that so many libs were infuriated by.

As I have said before, attacking within months of a change in administration was not in the cards. Nothing worse than trying to go on the immediate offensive without preparation with a new CO.

During the transition of administrations period, Bush and his incoming senior officials were pointedly informed of the gravity of the issue.

Yes, they were presented a briefing on the situation, as well as a briefing on the other situations I have laid out earlier. Then they received a brieifng on the Chinese, and the Sudanese, and the Bonians, and the Syrians, and the Kosovars, the Iraqi's, the nK, The Russians, the Somali's, and to top it off they had a P-3 Orion knocked down by the Chinese MIG about the same time and the crew interned at Hainan Island.

I receall them being very busy times in those early months.

Pick the needle out of the haystack and then try picking the needle out of the needlestack.

During the summer of 2001, there was "unprecedented" intelligence chatter warning of a spectacular attack....George Tenet was running around "with his hair on fire".

Will not discuss messages of the time period. At least Tenet had access to the Bush Adminitration. Did you realize he did not had access to Clinton? Never actually had a meeting with the president the entire time he was CIA Director.

Regrettably, instead of staying in Washington, connecting dots and publicizing concerns

The president has access to C3 nodes where ever he is, regardless of location. Being in DC is no additional benefit other than it puts him closer to other politicians. The Intleligence/Military C2 nodes are just as adequate.

Bush went to his ranch and hosted barbeque parties.

Works for me.

If he unsheathed a bayonet at all, it was only to use it as a grilling utensil.

In the past seven years of the administration, the "bayonet" has been used in:

Iraq

Afghanistan

Horn of Africa

Mindinao

Sulu Archipelago

Yeman

and a whole host of other locations not commonly thought of by training AT forces.

Each of these locations were available for Clintons action. Example - Sulu Archipelago. In the late 90's US Citizen Jeffrey Schilling and a whole host of Euro hostages were kidnapped by the ASG and held for nearly a year. The Clinton Administration chased interns around the desk.

When Martin & Gracia Burnham as well as Guillermo Sobero were kidnapped in the same regionduring the present adminstration, an entire JSOTF descended on the area and worked the issue and are still there working it today.

BD... Apparently Bush was

May 16, 2008 - 18:32 ET by Jer

BD...

Apparently Bush was too busy looking for needles in haystacks and failed to notice the barn was on fire.

So, after 9/11, Bush brought out the "bayonet". Well, whoop-de-doo. After Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt brought out several million. Other than the bayonet's, is there a point to that argument?

By the way, you do realize that shortly after leaving office, Clinton received criticism from the "right" that he had been excessively focused on terrorism?

But, time out. Simple questions: Do you believe that Bush made any mistakes regarding Bin Laden/Al Quaeda prior to 9/11? Conversely, do you believe Clinton did anything right regarding Bin Laden/Al Quaeda?

And then we can continue.

Jer

Jer... Can I see the

May 16, 2008 - 18:43 ET by Clear thinker

Jer...

Can I see the accounts proving your assertion of... "By the way, you do realize that shortly after leaving office, Clinton received criticism from the "right" that he had been excessively focused on terrorism?"

"Abstain from McCain"

Yeah, Clear....I'll see if

May 16, 2008 - 18:58 ET by Jer

Yeah, Clear....I'll see if I can find it again, or the post where I linked it two or three months ago. I believe it was a senior foreign policy official in either the Reagan or Bush I administration who made the observation.

Dammit...I was hoping nobody would ask. :>)

Jer

Okay Clear thinker...

May 16, 2008 - 22:52 ET by Jer

Okay Clear thinker...

Here is the link you requested to my post in February referencing the article. A couple of notes: The statement was made by Robert Oakley and published in the Washington Post on December 24, 2000, just before Clinton left office. Oakley had been appointed director of the State Department's office of counter-terrorism during the Reagan administration. My recollection and wording was "excessively focused on terrorism." I should have said "excessively focused on Bin Laden. [Oakley gave the Clinton administration high marks on combatting terrorism, by the way.] It does change the meaning of my words, and I apologize for the mischaracterization. Still, Oakley's view undercuts charges that Clinton ignored Bin Laden and was inattentive to the threat of terrorism.

Jer

Mistakes regarding AQ prior

May 17, 2008 - 12:41 ET by BD

Mistakes regarding AQ prior to 9/11?

At the Strategic level no,

At the Operational Level, he could have begun defunding the various Hawalla's in the US that were funding AQ. It would have been AMAZINGLY unpopular with groups like the ACLU and others, probably leading to congressional investigations and much headline grabbing, but it could have been done.

At the Tactical Level no.

What did Clinton do right? THe SLCM strikes on the AQ camp were a nice preparatory fire, but he wasted the opportunity by only DOING the prep fire work. Clinton never struck significantly while the metal was hot. See?

My appreciation of the American frame of mind is that it only allows us (The military) to respond within a finite window following an attack. Those windows were squandered.

Examples - would the American public allow us to go into SOmalia now to take on the Abur Ghidr Clan of Black Hawk Down fame? No.

Would the American Pople allow us to begin attacking the Hezzies in Lebanon for the pain they have caused us? No.

The metal is not hot. Other counties and cultures have much longer rage/memory than we do.

The Cole attack

May 15, 2008 - 22:14 ET by goldwaterfan

The Cole attack happened at the end of Clinton's term. The CIA did not identify the attacker as Al Qaeda until Bush was in office. It was up to Bush to respond, and he did nothing.

That's not true

May 16, 2008 - 10:15 ET by CobraMan

"The CIA did not identify the attacker as Al Qaeda until Bush was in office"

That’s not true. The CIA couldn't determine if Bin Laden ordered the Cole attack, but they knew Al Qaeda was involved long before President Bush took office.

Shortly after the Cole attack, the CIA informed President Clinton that Al Qaeda was most likely responsible for the Cole attack. Clinton believed this assessment and ordered the CIA to fire a hellfire missile from a Predator UAV at a car carrying Abu Ali al-Harithi, a member of Al Qaeda who was suspected of planning the Cole attack. This missile killed Mr. al-Harithi on November 3rd 2000. This was Clinton’s only “military” response for the Cole attack.

As for President Bush, Condoleezza Rice testified to Congress that President Bush was appraised of Al Qaeda once he took office but related that President Bush was tired of “swatting at flies” and did not want a limited military response to the Cole attack and that he wanted to take out Al Qaeda once and for all. This was just a few months before 9/11. We all know what happened after that.

Hindsight allows us to see that both Presidents could have and should have done more and they might have prevented 9/11 if only they acted differently after the Cole attack. I doubt this is true since the people who carried out 9/11 was already in the country for a year before the 9/11 attack and this attack was planned years before it was carried out. At any rate, “could have,” “should have,” “might have,“ and “if only” are just wishful thinking and they don‘t really mean anything.

Jer, I wasn't trying to do a

May 16, 2008 - 02:47 ET by mastersofdeceit

Jer, I wasn't trying to do a "blame clinton" post, so no need to drag bush into it. Clinton said "justice would be served" and I believe it was; however judiciary the response may have been. I blame Yemen and their fumble f++ of everything else as to what has happened to the perps.

mod...Sorry about getting a

May 16, 2008 - 03:21 ET by Jer

mod...Sorry about getting a little too "Clinton defensive". When I first read your post, I took it to be an augmentation of Gary's post which had that "every ill in America and every problem faced by Bush is Clinton's fault" ring to it.

I did not realize all of the Cole attackers/murderers were now free. That is truly outrageous.

Jer

Jer, no biggie. I was more

May 16, 2008 - 03:34 ET by mastersofdeceit

Jer, no biggie. I was more just throwing it out there for information. I got it off jihadwatch. This whole trying to place blame of the Cole investigation by USP is rediculous though.

Classic

May 15, 2008 - 18:58 ET by tdavisjr

Let's see if Matthews pushes Obama when he has him on for not knowing there were 50 United States not Islamic States.

Matthews is talking through

May 15, 2008 - 19:53 ET by Jack Bauer

Matthews is talking through his arse. It's a pity the radio guy wasn't sharp enough to smack him right back in the face.

The appeasement of Hitler DID NOT begin and end with the Munich Agreement which recognized Hitler's right to the Sudatenland.

Appeasement of Hitler began in 1933 and ran thru to 1939, with Chamberlain being an integral part of all the pointless "talks" and "diplomacy" which Hilter had NO intent of ever agreeing to ,as he always planned to do what he did NO MATTER what France and Germany said.

Just like Iran.

The Munich agreement was simply the CULMINATION of all that previous activity.

And it is perfectly analogous to Obama's idiotic idea of him, personally as President talking with Iran face to face. What a dumbkopf Obama is.

Yes, Chamberlain signed an agreement with Hitler but that was merely a SECOND act of appeasement that was codified.

Following years of "talks" and "diplomacy," the first appeasement by Chamberlain was the Anschluss, or the annexation, of Austria into Greater Germany by the Nazi regime on March 12, 1938.

And seeing Iran has been annexing parts of Lebanon through its proxies for years, there again is another perfect analogy.

Vote 4 change. Vote 4 anything. See Jack & Mr Shy's first campaign ad for the ONLY viable 3rd party candidate.

Matthews

May 15, 2008 - 19:57 ET by lhbarnes

What an absolute idiot!

Matthews is becoming more delusionary by the moment. He now

May 15, 2008 - 21:01 ET by daveinboca

believes he is a suitable candidate for the PA Senate seat than Specter occupies. I don't even think this guy has a college degree, but he reads a few books on Winston Churchill & like Tom Cruise vis-a-vis psychiatry, thinks he's a Jen-You-Wine historian.

He's constantly interrupting or shouting at guests---Bill O' also has a bit of that Irish flaw---but O'Reilly has a Masters & Matthews is a boyo-on-the-go.

As Rush puts it, PMSNBC. Keith-O is worse than the rest put together, and he never has opposite thinking on his Punch and Judy circus.

However, the FoxNEWS people put up a Lincoln-Douglass debate teaser with the black reformer rather than the Illinois senator facing Honest Abe. Someone should fact-check these things better---though Fox Faces are soooo much better than the Malveaux's and Dana's of the CNN brood. Turner is a compleat moron who now claims in the New Yorker that he was "born green." Uh, sure Ted....where's the money you promised the UN, that $10 billion. His network is like its founder, full of fraud & ugliness.

MSNBC

May 15, 2008 - 21:42 ET by harry flashman

Rush recently has been referring to MSNBC as "MSLSD."

Appropos.

I believe you are thinking

May 15, 2008 - 22:14 ET by red_dragon311

I believe you are thinking about .....my hero..... Mark Levin

he's called it MSLSD for a long time, Rush says PMSNBC

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
-Thomas Jefferson

Let's face it,

May 15, 2008 - 21:42 ET by pbthinker

Let's face it, James knew his set of facts, the way Matthews knew his set of facts, both were lacking. James's point, however, shouldn't have been missed.

The Democrats are circling the wagons because Obama is obviously flawed and they don't want people to realize how much, before the election.

Democrats: Stuck on Stupid since 2000.

chris is a moron...to bad

May 15, 2008 - 22:27 ET by charlietexas

chris is a moron...to bad Kevin didnt catch the USS Cole slip.

But Matthews DIDNT slip if you look at it this way..

May 16, 2008 - 00:42 ET by USpatriot

Chris Matthews said "wasnt the USS Cole under Bush?"

USS Cole was bombed Oct 12 2000 but wasnt investigated and delt with until Bush took over in 2001. Condi Rice told the 9-11 Comm Bush didnt want to respond to the Cole directly and was tired of swatting flies and wanted to atttack all of Al Quada at once.

So Matthews was right...when Kevin said Clinton was at fault for 9-11 and appeased by not responding to the Cole....saying "Wasnt the USS Cole [response] under Bush?"

ANSWER: YES

And that was the entire context for the question. You have to put this in context and know your history. Nearly every comment above have no ideas what they are talking about historically and just hate Matthews and the press.

Anyone can run around the neighborhood screaming news bias. Newsbusters is as biased as the news. They've become what they hate. Pure nonsense.

USpatriot,

May 16, 2008 - 00:50 ET by R D Helm

USpatriot,

You should employ extreme caution when engaging in mental gymnastics of that severity.

You could easily injure yourself. :-)

Legalize Freedom-Vote Libertarian

Am I wrong? Wasnt the USS Cole response up to Bush in early 2001

May 16, 2008 - 01:15 ET by USpatriot

If you have information to the contrary please submit. Otherwise, Matthews was right. The Cole response was up to Bush. Who did nothing directly about it.

»→ You are right Patriot

May 16, 2008 - 01:20 ET by Cool Arrow

Inasmuch as Clinton was hapless throughout his Presidency to take ANY significant action against ANY terrorist attack, it is logical that the next occupant of the WH be expected to act.

♣ a seal

Clinton on Terrorism

May 16, 2008 - 01:31 ET by USpatriot

But Clinton did do many things, perhaps not enough, however:

- The mastermind behind the 93 WTC bomb is in jail as we speak.

- Clinton Bombed AQ bases in Sudan

- He Kept Saddam in a no fly zone cage for years

Look, fact is 9-11 happened on GW Bushs watch. Period.

To make matters worse, he has said he "is not concerned about Bin Laden" at a press conf only 6 mo AFTER 9-11. This is a very foolish statement by a VERY foolish man. Dont believe it? Watch here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o

On Bin Laden, Bush is either an Idiot or a Liar.

May 16, 2008 - 01:36 ET by USpatriot

Based on this video he is caught in a lie or is a fool.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRY_BOYeySc

Quick. Whats your answer?

U-(IS)pathetic, now you are pissing me off.

May 16, 2008 - 01:50 ET by R D Helm

As I am beginning to suspect that you are a closet Clintonista.

Billy Joe Bob Clinton was offered Osama's worthless behind at least twice (that we know of) by the Sudanese government. He wiffed both times.

And despite my myriad differences with George W. Bush, he is neither a liar nor a fool.

Go back to the Land of Kos, little one.

Legalize Freedom-Vote Libertarian

Closet Clintonista Im not...

May 16, 2008 - 02:27 ET by USpatriot

Im just trying to figure it all out. Im fiscal conservative and social centrist. Voted for Repubs and Dems and Indeps. I know there is spin and lies on both sides. Its a mystery novel to me and I want to know whats on the who dunnit page very badly.

Do you have a comment on the video? Why is Bush dropping OBL as a priority? Its insulting to the 9-11 victims families at the very least let alone 300 million suffering ameicans...isnt it?

At least Bush is doing what Clinton refused to do.

May 16, 2008 - 02:34 ET by R D Helm

And that is arranging meetings for thousands of murdering barbarians with Allah.

After all, once they are dead, terrorists can no-longer kill innocent people.

Sadly, that is something Billy Bubba the Trailer Boy never was able to comprehend.

Legalize Freedom-Vote Libertarian

But once you pre-emptively attack

May 16, 2008 - 02:48 ET by USpatriot

sorry gang, my internet connect is bouncing

causing double postings...

But once you pre-emptively attack

May 16, 2008 - 02:46 ET by USpatriot

You also create terrorists as the CIA says...along with sending 100s of thousands of innocent women and children to allah as well. Or perhaps you create more terrorists BECAUSE you kill innocents. Hmm. I guess our kids will find out.

But once you pre-emptively attack

May 16, 2008 - 02:46 ET by USpatriot

Creating more terrorists?

May 16, 2008 - 15:17 ET by BD

Creating more terrorists? Shows how little you understand the middle east.

Culturally, the peoples of the middle east respect shows of strength, including abnormally LARGE and horrendous displays of strength. (Please see the example of Hama Syria, that lead to the middle eastern phraseology "Hama Rules.")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_Massacre

Laying on your back, looking like a bleeding victim in the middle east gets you more of the same.

But once you pre-emptively attack

May 16, 2008 - 02:46 ET by USpatriot

USpathetic, If you knew your history, which you don't...

May 16, 2008 - 02:55 ET by R D Helm

...you would know that the ragheads have been at war with the civilized world for fourteen centuries.

As for pre-emptive attacks, we have done nothing of the kind. The terrorists managed to kill nearly 3000 of our own people before we finally did anything about it.

You know, I bet you are one of those people that wants to sit around with your head up your ass and wait until after Akhmedinadinnerjacket manages to nuke Tel-Aviv before we do anything to intervene.

-Just a guess, you understand, but I bet I am right.

Legalize Freedom-Vote Libertarian

Stunning...had to return

May 16, 2008 - 03:21 ET by USpatriot

You said:

As for pre-emptive attacks, we have done nothing of the kind. The terrorists managed to kill nearly 3000 of our own people before we finally did anything about it.

Are you aware even Bush has said Iraq was not involved in 9-11.

We all agreed on Afgan. Did you know the 19 hijackers were Saudi and Egyptian? Sheesh. Im out. Peace.

But once you pre-emptively attack

May 16, 2008 - 02:47 ET by USpatriot

You also create terrorists...along with sending 100s of thousands of innocent women and children to allah as well. Or perhaps you create more terrorists BECAUSE you kill innocents. Hmm. I guess our kids generation will find out.

If done right...

May 16, 2008 - 03:01 ET by Sua Sponte 75

Taking out a training camp or putting a JDAM down the pipe of a car that carries a cell leader and such sends a message. Do innocents sometimes get rolled up in the action, absolutely, but if you knew much about the targeting process you would be amazed at the amount of details, hours, checks and balances that are gone through before hand. We just don't press a button a forget it. Unfortunately innocents do get rolled up in it, that's a sad fact of warfare. These individuals are indoctrinated into the role, they're not waking up one morning and saying hey, think I'll strap on bomb today and go down to the market. Terrorism is much more deeply rooted than that generality, until that is understood, people will continue to state that our protecting ourselves and being pro-active is creating more.

Although al-Qaida functions as the movement’s vanguard and remains, along with its affiliate groups and those inspired by them, the most dangerous present manifestation of the enemy, the movement is not controlled by any single individual, group, or state. What unites the movement is a common vision, a common set of ideas about the nature and destiny of the world, and a common goal of ushering in totalitarian rule.

What unites the movement is the ideology of oppression, violence, and hate.

Our terrorist enemies exploit Islam to serve a violent political vision. Fueled by a radical ideology and a false belief that the United States is the cause of most problems affecting Muslims today, our enemies seek to expel Western power and influence from the Muslim world and establish regimes that rule according to a violent and intolerant distortion of Islam. As illustrated by Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, such regimes would deny all political and religious freedoms and serve as sanctuaries for extremists to launch additional attacks against not only the United States, its allies and partners, but the Muslim world itself. Some among the enemy, particularly al-Qaida, harbor even greater territorial and geopolitical ambitions and aim to establish a single, pan-Islamic, totalitarian regime that stretches from Spain to Southeast Asia.

This enemy movement seeks to create and exploit a division between the Muslim and non-Muslim world and within the Muslim world itself. The terrorists distort the idea of jihad into a call for violence and murder against those they regard as apostates or unbelievers, including all those who disagree with them. Most of the terrorist attacks since September 11 have occurred in Muslim countries – and most of the victims have been Muslims. In addition to this principal enemy, a host of other groups and individuals also use terror and violence against innocent civilians to pursue their political objectives. Though their motives and goals may be different, and often include secular and more narrow territorial aims, they threaten our interests and those of our partners as they attempt to overthrow civil order and replace freedom with conflict and intolerance. Their terrorist tactics ensure that they are enemies of humanity regardless of their goals and no matter where they operate.

For our terrorist enemies, violence is not only justified, it is necessary and even glorified – judged the only means to achieve a world vision darkened by hate, fear, and oppression. They use suicide bombings, beheadings, and other atrocities against innocent people as a means to promote their creed. Our enemy’s demonstrated indifference to human life and desire to inflict catastrophic damage on the United States and its friends and allies around the world have fueled their desire for world domination.

For the enemy, there is no peaceful coexistence with those who do not subscribe to their distorted and violent view of the world. They accept no dissent and tolerate no alternative points of view. Ultimately, the terrorist enemy we face threatens global peace, international security and prosperity, the rising tide of democracy, and the right of all people to live without fear of indiscriminate violence.

"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"

Agreed...but thats AQ...what about Iraq

May 16, 2008 - 03:16 ET by USpatriot

Even Bush has said there was no AQ in Iraq and there was no working connection with 9-11. Why not go into Saudi? 15 of 19 hijackers you know.

I Thought..

May 17, 2008 - 00:20 ET by Sua Sponte 75

we were discussing the Cole and leading up to it? Yes this can be addressed however it's a de-railer considering the point of this thread....

"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"

Sua I wouldn't bother doing

May 16, 2008 - 03:55 ET by mastersofdeceit

Sua I wouldn't bother doing the typing with this one.

Sua I wouldn't bother doing

May 16, 2008 - 03:55 ET by mastersofdeceit

Sua I wouldn't bother doing the typing with this one.

Rehash

May 16, 2008 - 01:59 ET by Sua Sponte 75

I'm sure there will be more from the "old playbook"

-The mastermind behind the 93 WTC bomb is in jail as we speak.

(of course going after the supporters, financers, harbors was a no-no)

-Clinton Bombed AQ bases in Sudan

(can't do anything but laugh at that, once agin had numerous opportunities to pursue, na, send in one missle, that'll teach 'em)

-He Kept Saddam in a no fly zone cage for years

(while ignoring everything else)

-Look, fact is 9-11 happened on GW Bushs watch.

(and the facts also show we would not have been to that point should the previous not treated terrorism as a local criminal threat)

"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"

»→ Patriot

May 16, 2008 - 02:03 ET by Cool Arrow

OK, so BJ Clinton agonized over the legal authority to take out bin Ladin and the shot was lost.

Meanwhile, there's no evidence he hesitated in dipping his wick in direct violation of the Clinton-Rodham Accord.

Wow, Patriot. Clinton was successful in capturing a blind guy! I'm impressed.

♣ a seal

More than that...

May 16, 2008 - 02:23 ET by USpatriot

Okay. You missed most of what Ive said here but...in the here and now: Why doesnt Bush make OBL priority one now? He had a "clear shot" in Tora Bora. Didnt come thru either. Why split the force chasing OBL in Afgan in half and send them to Iraq? Was that smart?

Why is Bush "not that concerned with OBL"?

The 19 hijackers were Saudi and Egyptian. Why are we in Iraq and not putting more pressure on source of the killers?

»→ Yo, Patriot

May 16, 2008 - 04:06 ET by Cool Arrow

I called that one years ago, but the Dems were way too stupid to pick up on the one argument that would have stopped the invasion of Iraq.

17 of the 19 Hijackers were Saudi, so you decide to attack Iraq. DO THEY ALL LOOK ALIKE TO YOU?

Hell, I'm a conservative, and I saw that argument, but the Dems were busy falling all over themselves jumping on the war wagon they didn't even raise it.

Iraq was probably the last time bipartisanship actually existed.

♣ a seal

USpatriot, I am certainly no fan of George W. Bush's.

May 16, 2008 - 01:36 ET by R D Helm

As I believe that he is, aside from fifty years of government "education," the biggest reason that Barack Hussein Obama is going to be the next president.

As for Wllliam Jefferson Clueless, probably the most useless president since Jihad Jimmy, if not of all time, the attack on the Cole should have never happened. The sailors on that ship should have blown that raft straight to hell, long before it got close enough to set off its explosives.

Of course, Billy-Joe-Bob Clueless did less than nothing each of the five times Osama's goons attacked this country.

Hell, even when the 7th Century bass-ackward illiterate barbarians tried to blow up the WTC the first time, Butt-head Bill couldn't retrieve his stogie from the clutches of Monica Lewinsky long enough to even visit the city of New York.

As for Bush's non-response, as you put it, to the attack on the Cole, what, pray tell, would you have done differently? Nuked half the Middle East?

I mean, at least Mr. Bush finally woke up to the threat the towel-headed camel-herders actually pose to the continuation of Western society, which is far more than his predecessor ever did.

And I really don't appreciate your slam against NB, either. This site isn't perfect, but it is a damn sight better than most.

Legalize Freedom-Vote Libertarian

I agree with you...

May 16, 2008 - 02:04 ET by USpatriot

I agree with you that our government is broken and needs help and that the USS Cole shouldnt have happened. Hopefully sailors in the mideast have a shoot first order on all approaching unknown vessels. Id imagine they do. What that has to do with Clinton I dont know. You seem to imply something. What would I have Bush do? Well they did finally capture some of them but the Yemini authorities let them off. Perhaps he could improve our standing in the world so other countries extradite criminals? Oops. He did the opposite didnt he. He single handedly enraged the moderate Arab world therefore causing MORE terrorists in the future as per a current CIA briefing. Perhaps he could go after Bin Laden who he has said he doesnt pay mind to. Yep, true. Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRY_BOYeySc

On Clintons response to terror: Didnt the feds spoil AQs first attempts in crossing the boarder in Seattle/Vancover and bombing LAX? And the spoiled plane bombs over the pacific? Would you call that successful? Didnt they capture those involved in WTC 93? Yep. Didnt "clueless Clinton" send those missles to Sudan, Afganistan and Iraq? Werent a lrage percent of those involved in the AQ embassy bombings under Clinton killed or captured? Yes to all. Geesh, theres alot here man. Want more? http://www.snopes.com/Rumors/clinton.asp

I dont think Clinton was the best president or the worst. But 9-11 happened on Bushs watch and his admin has made a mess of the occupation of Iraq and Afganistan. Far worse IMO that anything Clinton would have done. BTW, didnt Clinton not lose a single fatality in Kosovo? True.

On Newsbusters. Im sorry for slamming your fav site. However it is biased toward the far right if you havent noticed yourself. It may be entertaining--and I enjoy some of it--- but it is biased-- and occasionally inaccurate-- commentary.

You ought to..

May 16, 2008 - 02:04 ET by Sua Sponte 75

Spend a little time, maybe even do a search here as all of this has been gone over sooo many times before.

"He did the opposite didnt he. He single handedly enraged the moderate Arab world therefore causing MORE terrorists in the future as per a current CIA briefing"

Riiight. Until then there was no terrorism or acts directed against the U.S.

So Billy does all this wonderful stuff, hmmm, guess he didn't do much since they still continued on with attacks..

"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"

Just stating the facts Sue...

May 16, 2008 - 02:18 ET by USpatriot

I too am weary of the merry go round so I'll end with a response:

Riiight. Until then there was no terrorism or acts directed against the U.S. I mever said Bush started anti American terror, just increased it. Actutally the CIA said it.

So Billy does all this wonderful stuff, hmmm, guess he didn't do much since they still continued on with attacks.. He obviously didnt get them all but he got some of them. Is that why I should blame him for 9-11.

"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem". What if you just someone who comes up with old slogans that dont really mean anything. <snicker>

First of all..

May 16, 2008 - 02:26 ET by Sua Sponte 75

It's Sua, as in Sua Sponte, not that you would have a clue.

The agency has been limp wristed since the '70's, especially in the ME. They never needed any reasons to attack us and the metality and will has always been there. What they needed was someone NOT to pay any attention to them. No, you don't have to blame Billy directly, did he have a part in it, absolutely. If you know anything about history, specifically terrorism, you would then know that this all actually dates back to the carter years. He like Billy slashed and burned the intelligence community and turned it into a social club.

"What if you just someone who comes up with old slogans that dont really mean anything. "

What if you're just a clown? Guess it struck a cord with you then....

"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"

Sue 'Sua Sponte" 75

May 16, 2008 - 02:42 ET by USpatriot

Sua sponte, Latin for "of one's own accord," to act spontaneously without prompting from another party. Got it. Sorry, the name font is so small.

What is your source with the CIA data. Ive read the slash came with the end of the cold war and Bush I. Okay, so I have you saying you CANNOT blame Bill directly. But now you are blaming Carter? What about Eisenhower directing the CIA to arrest the legally elected Iranian Pres in 1951 in favor of a radical cleric all after the Pres nationalized the oil. That probably pissed of a few million people. Or you could go back to all the Islam v Christian fun: the Ottomans, Crusades, Barbarry Pirates and so on.

I agree that radical islam is the enemy. I think we need a better way to go about it. Sorry about the joke on your slogan. No disrespect intended. I just think its a subjective saying. At first glance it means: If your against MY solution your part of the problem. Hmm. Should be what carved in the walls at CIA HQ: seek the truth, and the truth shall set you free.

No Harm, No Foul.

May 16, 2008 - 02:51 ET by Sua Sponte 75

What and who I do blame are those that raped our intelligence gathering capablilties and ignored the threat from the get-go. Yes, in a way I do blame the smacker of "killer rabbits" (hostage crisis in Iran is one of many lead-ups) and Billy when it comes to the lane of terrorism, that's what we're discussing here. And their way of going about it is "having talks" with them? Please, this whole we can talk to them and everything will be fine hasn't worked the past several hundred years, how's it going to work now? These individuals are calling for the complete annialation of us and all we hold dear, to include our allied countries. Saying that we spawn terrorism is ludicrous at best and a cop out and illigitimate attempt to explain away the actions. There is only one way to approach it, but many don't like that approach which is why we are where we are today.

"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"

Sua, I think we are dealing with another dipsh*t troll here.

May 16, 2008 - 03:02 ET by R D Helm

He is using all the leftard buzzwords, and he has all the linear logic of a fly-swatter.

He apparently thinks that Islamic terrorism did not begin until the day GWB took the oath of office, thus ignoring 1400 years of nailed-down history.

Personally, I think he attended some government school and probably doesn't know any better.

Legalize Freedom-Vote Libertarian

Sorry, I cut debate off at curse words

May 16, 2008 - 03:14 ET by USpatriot

I would probably agree with you on many things. For the record I was the first one to mention the 1400 yrs of islam v christian history 10 posts ago. I get it.

I probably would agree with you on your website for a fair tax on you NB bio. But we shall never know. Fare thee well.

For the record I was the

May 16, 2008 - 20:25 ET by R D Helm

For the record I was the first one to mention the 1400 yrs of islam v christian history 10 posts ago.

Too bad you didn't learn anything from it.

God knows Jihad Jimmy and Billy Joe Bob Bubba didn't, either.

Uspatriot? The elected

May 21, 2008 - 14:34 ET by bassndude

Uspatriot? The elected prime minister was replaced by the son of the former Shah. He was not a Cleric in any sense of the word. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was the Shah of Iran. He was the one that modernized Iran. You know...water, electric, sewers..the little things. Not your "radical cleric". As a matter of fact, Pahlavi was the one ousted by Khomeini who was a very radical cleric. Thats when Jimmy Carters 444 shinning days started.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

9/11 did occurr on Bush's watch...

May 16, 2008 - 02:18 ET by R D Helm

...but we now know the planning for that attack goes back to at least 1996, four years before GWB took office.

Why did the Muslims hate us enough in 1996 to plan such an attack? After all, Billy Joe-Bob Bubba Clinton was such a swell guy that the whole world just loved us, right?

I mean, that is what the MSM has been telling us for the last seven years.

Yeah, right. The ragheads loved us so much that they only attacked this country five times while BJ was CIC. Some love.

BTW, since 9/11, we have suffered 0 attacks. Four less than when Billy Boy was president.

And why did the Iranians occupy our embassy in Tehran in 1979? Was that because of George W. Bush as well?

Legalize Freedom-Vote Libertarian

So, they hate us for our Clintons?

May 16, 2008 - 13:28 ET by Toom

As long as we are going to talk about motivations, let's look at a little historical perspective, shall we? From the 9/11 report...

"In August 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. Bin Ladin, whose efforts in Afghanistan had earned him celebrity and respect, proposed to the Saudi monarchy that he summon mujahideen for a jihad to retake Kuwait. He was rebuffed, and the Saudis joined the U.S.-led coalition. After the Saudis agreed to allow U.S. armed forces to be based in the Kingdom, Bin Ladin and a number of Islamic clerics began to publicly denounce the arrangement. The Saudi government exiled the clerics and undertook to silence Bin Ladin by, among other things, taking away his passport."

"Plans to attack the United States were developed with unwavering single-mindedness throughout the 1990s. Bin Ladin saw himself as called "to follow in the footsteps of the Messenger and to communicate his message to all nations," and to serve as the rallying point and organizer of a new kind of war to destroy America and bring the world to Islam."

"In August 1996, Bin Ladin had issued his own self-styled fatwa calling on Muslims to drive American soldiers out of Saudi Arabia. The long, disjointed document condemned the Saudi monarchy for allowing the presence of an army of infidels in a land with the sites most sacred to Islam, and celebrated recent suicide bombings of American military facilities in the Kingdom. It praised the 1983 suicide bombing in Beirut that killed 241 U.S. Marines, the 1992 bombing in Aden, and especially the 1993 firefight in Somalia after which the United States "left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you."

In other words, the desire to attack us had nothing to do with Clinton, he just happened to be President right after we stationed troops in Saudi Arabia.

"Yeah, right. The ragheads loved us so much that they only attacked this country five times while BJ was CIC. Some love.

BTW, since 9/11, we have suffered 0 attacks. Four less than when Billy Boy was president."

How exactly are you defining "attacked this country", attacks on American soil or attacks on American interests, either way your numbers just don't add up.

Huh?

May 16, 2008 - 19:00 ET by CobraMan

"How exactly are you defining "attacked this country", attacks on American soil or attacks on American interests, either way your numbers just don't add up."

Huh? How can you justify that claim? I'd REALLY like to know how many attacks have occurred against American interests since 9/11 and where they took place, outside of Iraq an Afgainistan as those are war zones an war zones ALWAYS are suffering attacks by one side or another. I wouldn't use Spain and Briton if I were you. Those attacks were directed solely at the governments of those countries and not at the American government or it's citizens.

Also I do hope you remember that terrorist attacks have been made on Americans and our interests LONG before the Gulf War. I remember the airline bombing that was occurring in the early 80's. Does Pan Am Flight 103 come to mind? If not, I suggest you look it up.

It's obvious that the "motivation" you are referring to is a lot more complicated than you know and it stretches back a lot farther in history than you realize.

Toom, I was referring to the five attacks Osama's goons

May 16, 2008 - 20:31 ET by R D Helm

Toom, I was referring to the five attacks Osama's goons carried out against this contry, or its interests, during the eight year rein of Billy Joe Bob Bubba and Broom Hitler Clinton.

I consider any attack on our interests, even if those interests reside on the moon, as an attack on the physical US of A.

Poo Flinging Trolls

May 16, 2008 - 03:01 ET by mastersofdeceit

"wasnt investigated and delt with "

Really? Is that why:

"The day after the attack, a planeload of armed FBI agents arrived in Aden.."

Most longtime readers of NB should recognise a poo flinging troll when they see one. This one wants to argue the minutae of "who's watch" the Cole investigation was under. Engage at your own peril.

"Newsbusters is as biased..."

Not really. NB just points out everyday, several times a day, how the media is pro democrat.

Quote me correctly please

May 16, 2008 - 03:04 ET by USpatriot

Please quote me correctly and in context:

I said: "USS Cole was bombed Oct 12 2000 but wasnt investigated and delt with until Bush took over in 2001"-- This is a fact.

Condi Rice, CIA director Tenent and others have said they briefed Bush on the vague conclusions, though they were of the impression it was AQ. Bush responded. One perp is in Gitmo. One was killed with a hellfire misssle. Cole was Bush's baby. Facts werent clear until then. Its a fact.

The entire point of the entire article above is that Matthews implied that the slow Cole response was under Bush. Thats true. But it was slow because they need to do it right. Im not blaming Bush here. Just putting it in context.

And one great lesson learned from forums, if you call all posters with alternate views trolls you will never learn anything new.

NB is biased. So is all news these days. Some to the right as well. IF you dont see that you arent paying attention.

NB isn't "news"

May 16, 2008 - 03:27 ET by mastersofdeceit

NB isn't "news"

So Matthews was

May 16, 2008 - 05:20 ET by motherbelt

So Matthews was right...when Kevin said Clinton was at fault for 9-11
and appeased by not responding to the Cole....saying "Wasnt the USS
Cole [response] under Bush?"

First of all, he didn't say USS Cole "response" under Bush. He meant wasn't the attack under Bush. (James had just referenced the Cole attack).

And if you listen closely to that section of the video (starts around 4:50) where James is talking and Matthews is kind of mumbling in the background about not knowing what we're talking about, Matthews says "the first Bush."

Matthews DID slip, as did you

May 16, 2008 - 10:43 ET by CobraMan

"You have to put this in context and know your history."

You should know your history as well. Nether you nor Matthews seems to remember the actions that were taken after the Cole attack. See my previous post as the what happened after the Cole attack and what both Presidents knew about it and Al Quada and what actions each was or was not taking concerning a response to that and other attacks.

USS Cole was bombed Oct

May 16, 2008 - 10:50 ET by Jack Bauer

USS Cole was bombed Oct 12 2000 but wasnt investigated and delt with until Bush took over in 2001.

NOT TRUE. In fact, borderline idiotic.

Where are you getting your information. Chris Matthews?

U.S. Department of State
Office of the Spokesman
October 27, 2000
Statement by Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright
And FBI Director Louis Freeh
Investigation of the USS Cole Bombing

Yemeni and U.S. investigators have now completed several phases of the initial investigation into the attack on the USS Cole. The initial phases include a forensic examination of the ship, as well as analysis of various locations in Yemen.

Vote 4 change. Vote 4 anything. See Jack & Mr Shy's first campaign ad for the ONLY viable 3rd party candidate.

this james character was a joke

May 15, 2008 - 22:58 ET by Mrltavern

As a conservative, I am embarassed at this Kevin James character. All the guy had to say was "Pumpkinhead, Chamberlin went to meet Hitler, Hitler lied to him and it was HIS FAULT that he didn't have the vision to see that Hitler was pulling his leg! That's what he did wrong in MUNICH, so shut up already!"

Seriously, Softball w/ Chris Matthews strategically picked this idiot to go on in order to make a fool out of a conservative. Matthews saying that the COLE attack happened under Bush is absurd. He needs a vacay.

Kevin James is a retard

May 15, 2008 - 23:03 ET by goldwaterfan

What an ignorant idiot. Bush is just as stupid, He has no idea what happened with Chamberlain and Hitler either.

WTH...

May 15, 2008 - 23:26 ET by danybhoy

I want to know a couple of things...

What does someone have to do to lose their job at MSNBC? Serious question...

What sort of dirt do the likes of Mathews, BathTubBoy, Abrams, Shuster, & Mika have on whoever runs that turd? Imus got sacked, but that was different on some levels...

At what point does General Electric pull the plug on this money pit? This is a money loser, so what gives? They are selling off their appliance division, stuff like dishwashers, ovens, whatever. Selling that off over a money loser like their cable operations makes more sense to me...

Here is a personal message to Chris Mathews, you are rumored make about $5,000,000 a year, your ratings suck, you will never crawl out of the grave in that regard, & now there are reports that you want to run for office...HAA! Do it! I want to see you crash & burn, & then see if MSNBC will have you back.

Here's the deal, you are a "large" part of a cable news operation that has become the most blantently biased American channel I have ever seen. MSNBC is an asylum that has a roster that includes the worst hacks from places like The New York Slimes, Newsweak, Error Amerika, & The Daily K00ks, I might be missing 1 or 2 other quality political operations. Anyone with an once of fairness should see how over the cliff MSNBC has gotten, & Phil Donahue is no longer on the air anymore. I can no longer take NBC seriously as a news source, & I only go to NBC for sports, that's it. You guys only make up the numbers on my Dish Network programming package, but at least XM dumped your feed years ago.

As for James, go away & read some history books...

"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise" Mark Levin

The Cole was hit on October

May 16, 2008 - 02:00 ET by fastfood

The Cole was hit on October 20, 2000 while refueling at Aden harbor. 17 Americans were killed and 39 injured. It was later learned that it was the work of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization. Retaliation should definately have been carried out.

Retaliation was needed

May 16, 2008 - 02:22 ET by goldwaterfan

After the CIA identified Al Qaeda as the culprit in January 2001, President Bush did nothing.

You mean while Clinton was

May 16, 2008 - 04:10 ET by Jack Bauer

You mean while Clinton was still President. After the CIA and the FBI identified al-kayda for the first WTC bombing, Clinton did NOTHING.

After the CIA asked for the okay to take out Bin Laden in 97, Clinton did NOTHING.

Vote 4 change. Vote 4 anything. See Jack & Mr Shy's first campaign ad for the ONLY viable 3rd party candidate.

»→ Yes he did Jack

May 16, 2008 - 04:17 ET by Cool Arrow

He thought about what to do.

Let's be fair here.

♣ a seal

Well, Cool...at least he

May 16, 2008 - 04:32 ET by Jer

Well, Cool...at least he was thinking about Bin Laden. That in itself puts him ahead of Bush.

Jer

»→ Absolutely Jer

May 16, 2008 - 04:49 ET by Cool Arrow

You realize you just made a big joke of the American troops currently serving in Afghanistan, don't you Jer?

Not that you think there's anything wrong with that.

Tell me how many Al Qaeda got killed on BJ Clinton's watch.

I think the American troops in Afghanistan joke was a bit uncalled for, though.

♣ a seal

Cool...huh? You realize

May 16, 2008 - 05:00 ET by Jer

Cool...huh? You realize I'm talking about pre-9/11, don't you?

How many Al Quaeda got killed on Clinton's watch?

A few low-level operatives when he tried to atomize Bin Laden with cruise missiles. Maybe a handful on other occasions. How many did Bush get before 9/11?

[And, please, you know me better than to think I would joke about our troops in Afghanistan]

Jer

»→ I'm learning Dem tactics, Jer

May 16, 2008 - 05:12 ET by Cool Arrow

Of course I know you better than that, Jer.

Problem is, I do not now, nor have I ever, thought BJ's Aspirin Factory (verified as not a war factory by independent investigators) bombing was anything more than distracting attention from his own problems at home.

But I'm honing my skills. Trying to think like a Dem. Getting ready for when they really start calling me a racist.

Thank God for secret ballots, huh?

After November, there's gonna be a bunch of us (regardless of the outcome) straight facedly saying "See, I'm not racist. I voted for Obama"

It's gonna be one of those "my father marched with Dr. King" things to say.

♣ a seal

Cool...

May 16, 2008 - 05:18 ET by Jer

I'll vouch for you, buddy. And we both remember watching the marches on TV and being there in spirit...right?

Jer

»→ Shoulder to shoulder

May 16, 2008 - 05:20 ET by Cool Arrow

Arm to arm, Satchell to Paige - Firesign Theater.

Join the I voted for Obama ♣

Cool

May 16, 2008 - 05:30 ET by Jer

And don't look back...somebody might be gaining on you. [I think Satchell said that.]

Gotta take my son to the school bus.

Later, Jer

»→ Right Jer

May 16, 2008 - 05:34 ET by Cool Arrow

We really are old, aren't we?

♣ a seal - starve a Polar Bear

Cool...

May 16, 2008 - 05:56 ET by Jer

You just had to remind me, didn't you? And, I'm chalking up another year next Wednesday. So, I'll have you by 5+ years...and I'd love to have them back.

Jer

Sorry no age refunds

May 16, 2008 - 11:01 ET by CobraMan

"I'll have you by 5+ years...and I'd love to have them back."

Sorry, age refunds are no longer availabe.

Jack...It was not until

May 16, 2008 - 04:29 ET by Jer

Jack...It was not until sometime in 1996 that our intelligence really put the pieces of the Al Quaeda/Bin Laden puzzle together. And if you want to keep a scorecard of Clinton administration missteps over the ensuing four years vs. Bush administration blunders prior to 9/11, I believe the results would be close to a tie.

Neither president exactly covered themselves with glory on the terrorism issue.

Jer

Jer -- I agree. There's

May 16, 2008 - 05:10 ET by Jack Bauer

Jer -- I agree. There's plenty of blame to go around. And I am not even remotely happy with President Bush on many issues relating to terrorism right now. But I'm attacking that from the right, so we probably don't agree. That's okay.

(I just really object to an allegation that Bush did nothing as the poster did. You might not like what he did, or disagree with what he did, but that's a different argument.)

On the issue of the first bombing, I think you have the timelines all wrong here buddy.

I just checked on Andrew McCarthy and he has written that bin Laden's spiritual advisor (I love these advisors) "Sheikh Omar Abdel Rachman" was indicted in 1993, so I guess they had that nailed down well before 96.

Here's my prediction. Up until receently Bill Clinton got huge protection from the media over his lack of strong military action in the 1990s re: al-kayda.

But that was because they thought his wife was going to be the nominee. That is all about to end. Expect a dam of hit pieces to break.

Vote 4 change. Vote 4 anything. See Jack & Mr Shy's first campaign ad for the ONLY viable 3rd party candidate.

»→ Jack

May 16, 2008 - 05:16 ET by Cool Arrow

Up until 9-11 Bush was doing a pantywaist rope-a-dope stolen election/legitimacy war with a bunch of crybaby litigators.

♣ a seal

Understood, Jack...I just

May 16, 2008 - 05:26 ET by Jer

Understood, Jack...I just get a little defensive over the endless schoolyard "it was all his fault" finger-pointing. It doesn't accomplish a damn thing.

Jer

»→ Maybe Finkelstein misses the story

May 16, 2008 - 05:00 ET by Cool Arrow

"What did he do?" Matthews demanded over and again

My take on the interview was "What did Chamberlain do that was so wrong?"

We're hearing hoofbeats and thinking zebras.

♣ a seal

I just listened to the tape

May 16, 2008 - 10:56 ET by Jack Bauer

I just listened to the tape and I'm pretty sure I heard Matthews call it the USS Gary Cole...

It's scary how plausible that is!

Vote 4 change. Vote 4 anything. See Jack & Mr Shy's first campaign ad for the ONLY viable 3rd party candidate.

"Thanks, Dahlia. . .but I stand by my original statement"

May 16, 2008 - 14:46 ET by Oregonian1

Dahlia - here is some more ammo to support your position. Bush took office on January 20, 2001, but his cabinet members were not approved and in position to take action for months - due to the snit over the Florida election results by the Senate Democrats. The presidential transition was deliberately hindered, so that the Bush administration was not in a position to take actions that a normally-functioning cabinet would have addressed immediately. But don't waste them on Jer . . .his mind is made up; don't confuse him with the truth!

Excellent Excuse

May 21, 2008 - 14:05 ET by PTW

For not reading the "historical" PDB or taking action from direct briefings on Al Qaeda

msnbc has played this over

May 16, 2008 - 15:14 ET by bigtimer

msnbc has played this over and over ad nauseum today as if it is a performance to be proud of by Matthews, by the way they omitted the huge Cole mistake Matthews made to-boot....Mathews makes me ill...he is a rude, loud interrupting b*$t#rd with an agenda...all I could think of was where is Zell Miller when you need him.

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill