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.
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
Details...details...details.
May 15, 2008 - 18:29 ET by BuffNBoneDetails...details...details.
"Fighters are fun but bombers make policy"
fix the link, I want to see
May 15, 2008 - 18:31 ET by wiwffix the link, I want to see it!
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
Whoops! Sorry about that.
May 15, 2008 - 18:35 ET by Mark FinkelsteinWhoops! Sorry about that. LINK WORKING NOW. I encourage people to watch. An epic Hardball exchange.
I wonder why the Think
May 16, 2008 - 00:48 ET by mulerider24I 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 - 18:33 ET by CortillaenShould 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 - 18:33 ET by Michael M. BatesCHRIS 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 - 19:17 ET by kgMatthews:
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 - 21:25 ET by mjgMatthews 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 - 18:38 ET by harry flashmanIn 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 - 18:43 ET by alienfog55If 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 - 18:56 ET by ThisnThatIs 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 - 19:05 ET by Gary HallMatthews 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 - 19:39 ET by Saul GoodeThat 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 - 15:57 ET by QueenMumBut 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 - 19:07 ET by upcountrywaterNo 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 - 19:24 ET by CellaChrissy 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 - 19:37 ET by Chris NormanMatthews does, at the least, give the appearance of being somewhat unstable, doesn't he?
I have to side with
May 15, 2008 - 19:40 ET by motherbeltI 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 - 19:52 ET by Chris NormanIt'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 - 20:02 ET by motherbeltYou'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 - 20:07 ET by Chris NormanNo 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 - 01:16 ET by skylightsIf 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 - 16:14 ET by TruthMongerF*CK MATTHEWS
"What did Chamberlain do...?"
"What did Chamberlain do...?"
"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 - 19:55 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 - 20:08 ET by JerThe 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 - 20:31 ET by motherbeltIt 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 - 20:46 ET by Jermb...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 - 21:16 ET by dahliatraversThe 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 - 21:53 ET by JerThanks, 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 - 12:06 ET by BDSubjected 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 - 15:11 ET by JerC'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 - 15:55 ET by BDNot 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.
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 - 17:08 ET by JerI 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 - 18:31 ET by BDAs 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.
During the transition of administrations period, Bush and his incoming senior officials were pointedly informed of the gravity of the issue.
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.
BD... Apparently Bush was
May 16, 2008 - 19:32 ET by JerBD...
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 - 19:43 ET by Clear thinkerJer...
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 - 19:58 ET by JerYeah, 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 - 23:52 ET by JerOkay 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 - 13:41 ET by BDMistakes 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 - 23:14 ET by goldwaterfanThe 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 - 11:15 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 - 03:47 ET by mastersofdeceitJer, 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 - 04:21 ET by Jermod...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 - 04:34 ET by mastersofdeceitJer, 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 - 19:58 ET by tdavisjrLet'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 - 20:53 ET by Jack BauerMatthews 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.
Matthews
May 15, 2008 - 20:57 ET by lhbarnesWhat an absolute idiot!
Matthews is becoming more delusionary by the moment. He now
May 15, 2008 - 22:01 ET by daveinbocabelieves 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 - 22:42 ET by harry flashmanRush recently has been referring to MSNBC as "MSLSD."
Appropos.
I believe you are thinking
May 15, 2008 - 23:14 ET by red_dragon311I 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 - 22:42 ET by pbthinkerLet'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 - 23:27 ET by charlietexaschris 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 - 01:42 ET by USpatriotChris 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 - 01:50 ET by R D HelmUSpatriot,
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 - 02:15 ET by USpatriotIf 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 - 02:20 ET by Cool ArrowInasmuch 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 - 02:31 ET by USpatriotBut 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 - 02:36 ET by USpatriotBased 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 - 02:50 ET by R D HelmAs 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 - 03:27 ET by USpatriotIm 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 - 03:34 ET by R D HelmAnd 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 - 03:48 ET by USpatriotsorry gang, my internet connect is bouncing
causing double postings...
But once you pre-emptively attack
May 16, 2008 - 03:46 ET by USpatriotYou 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 - 03:46 ET by USpatriotYou 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.
Creating more terrorists?
May 16, 2008 - 16:17 ET by BDCreating 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 - 03:46 ET by USpatriotYou 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.
USpathetic, If you knew your history, which you don't...
May 16, 2008 - 03:55 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 - 04:21 ET by USpatriotYou 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 - 03:47 ET by USpatriotYou 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 - 04:01 ET by Sua Sponte 75Taking 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