As NewsBusters previously reported, Chris Matthews and Ari Fleischer had quite a debate Wednesday evening wherein the "Hardball" host acted like a shameless Democrat operative and the former White House press secretary behaved with grace and aplomb as he wiped the floor with his poorly-matched opponent.
Matthews must have realized how foolish he looked, for on Thursday he continued his debate with Fleischer, but curiously didn't invite Ari back to defend himself:
I didn`t catch something he said right at the end of his appearance just as I was thanking him for coming on. I didn`t hear it until I watched the 7:00 o`clock edition last night. But a lot of people caught it when it first aired and didn`t like it.
At issue was the following statement by Fleischer (video embedded below the fold along with full transcript):
But after September 11, having been hit once, how could we take a chance that Saddam might not strike again?
Having almost 24 hours to think about this question, Matthews took issue:
"We could not take the chance that Saddam Hussein might strike again."
Well, the problem with that statement is that Saddam Hussein didn`t attack the United States on 9/11. A lot of people were led to believe he did by statements coming directly from President Bush and Vice President Cheney and that made the case for them, got them to back the war, a kind of "Remember Pearl Harbor" kind of thing.
And in fact, in addition to all that talk about nuclear threat from Saddam and all that mushroom cloud talk, this was the gut deal maker, the big, nasty, powerful untruth that led so many middle-of-the road Americans to buy the Bush case for war, that Saddam Hussein had attacked us on 9/11 and we had to stop him from attacking us again. Three quarters of the American people bought that untruth.
Ari told me this afternoon that this is not what he meant last night on HARDBALL. He didn`t mean that Saddam Hussein attacked us on 9/11 but instead that Saddam had attacked other countries before and could attack us.
That explanation wasn't good enough for Matthews who decided to bring on David Corn from "Mother Jones" and former assistant secretary of defense Frank Gaffney to discuss it. Strangely, he treated them both with far more respect and courtesy than he accorded Fleischer the night before:
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Still fighting the war.
Let`s play HARDBALL.
Good evening. I`m Chris Matthews. Leading off: It never stops. Last night on HARDBALL, I had a pretty good tiff with former Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer. We both gave it a good effort, and I hope he comes back.
That said, I didn`t catch something he said right at the end of his appearance just as I was thanking him for coming on. I didn`t hear it until I watched the 7:00 o`clock edition last night. But a lot of people caught it when it first aired and didn`t like it.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MATTHEWS: Ari, agree to disagree.
ARI FLEISCHER, FORMER BUSH WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: ... and I believe this still today. And of course, you and I disagree with it. But after September 11, having been hit once, how could we take a chance that Saddam might not strike again? And that`s the threat that has been removed, and I think we`re all safer with that threat being removed.
MATTHEWS: OK. And I am glad-
FLEISCHER: And I`m proud to take that argument.
MATTHEWS: ... that we no longer have an administration that uses that kind of argument. Thank you very much, Ari Fleischer.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MATTHEWS: "We could not take the chance that Saddam Hussein might strike again."
Well, the problem with that statement is that Saddam Hussein didn`t attack the United States on 9/11. A lot of people were led to believe he did by statements coming directly from President Bush and Vice President Cheney and that made the case for them, got them to back the war, a kind of "Remember Pearl Harbor" kind of thing.
And in fact, in addition to all that talk about nuclear threat from Saddam and all that mushroom cloud talk, this was the gut deal maker, the big, nasty, powerful untruth that led so many middle-of-the road Americans to buy the Bush case for war, that Saddam Hussein had attacked us on 9/11 and we had to stop him from attacking us again. Three quarters of the American people bought that untruth.
Ari told me this afternoon that this is not what he meant last night on HARDBALL. He didn`t mean that Saddam Hussein attacked us on 9/11 but instead that Saddam had attacked other countries before and could attack us.
That said, we`re going to listen to the message that was coming out of the White House back when it mattered, back in the run-up to war and even after we invaded. Let`s start with Vice President Dick Cheney telling the story of how the leader of 9/11, Mohammed Atta, supposedly coordinated the 9/11 attack with Saddam Hussein.
And last night, you heard President Bush`s spokesman say it again, that they didn`t want Saddam Hussein to attack us again. We`re going at that right this minute.
Then tonight`s main event, Bill Cosby on the power and importance of President Barack Obama to change America. What can he do, and what can others -- what do they have to do themselves?
We begin tonight with David Corn of "Mother Jones" magazine and former assistance defense secretary Frank Gaffney, who`s with the Center for Security Policy.
Frank, let me talk to you about last night and what happened here when Ari Fleischer made that statement, which he later adjusted and said he didn`t mean it exactly the way it came across, that Saddam Hussein had to be prevented from attacking again and that`s why we went to war with Iraq. Your thoughts?
FRANK GAFFNEY, FMR ASST. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Well, I think it`s important that you read it back, Chris, because he didn`t say attack us again, so I think Ari was right in his characterization of it as Saddam Hussein could not be allowed to attack again wherever, including, as he had repeatedly promised to do in exacting revenge against the United States for the humiliation that we inflicted upon him in Desert Storm.
And as you and I have talked, sometimes with David, sometimes without him, in the past, we know on the basis of the investigation that was conducted inside Iraq after the place was liberated that he had plans to put chemical and biological agent in aerosol sprayers and perfume sprayers for shipment to the United States and Europe. That`s the kind of terrorist threat that I think President Bush was right in preemptively stopping and removing Saddam Hussein.
MATTHEWS: The polling that took place before we attacked, conducted by "Time" and CNN, showed that 72 percent of the American people, nearly three quarters, believed it was likely that Saddam Hussein was involved in the attack on us 9/11. How do you think they got that idea, that somehow going to war with Iraq was getting even for 9/11?
GAFFNEY: Well, as I said, he kept saying that he was going to try to get even against us for Desert Storm, so it wouldn`t be unreasonable for people to conclude maybe that that`s what he was doing. There`s also circumstantial evidence, not proven by any means, but nonetheless some pretty compelling circumstantial evidence of Saddam Hussein`s Iraq being involved with the people who perpetrated both the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center and even the Oklahoma City bombing.
So the American people, I think, are not stupid. I think that they were looking at a threat environment in which a guy like Saddam Hussein, who was repeatedly talking about exacting revenge against the United States, who was trying to shoot down our aircraft, who was actively supporting terrorism around the world, was a guy that you don`t want to have an opportunity to act on his threats. That may be what they were concluding.
MATTHEWS: OK. Well, before we hear from David Corn, let`s show right now the compilation we have of clips by -- comments made on the record, on the air by President Bush and by Vice President Dick Cheney about Iraq and its role in 9/11. Let`s take a look at them, beginning with Vice President Dick Cheney on "Meet the Press" talking a meeting he described between 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague, a meeting which the 9/11 commission said never took place.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RICHARD CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It`s been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia.
GEORGE WALKER BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: He`s a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda.
Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.
Used to be that we could think that you could contain a person like Saddam Hussein, that oceans would protect us from his type of terror. September the 11th should say to the American people that we`re now a battlefield.
The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MATTHEWS: David Corn, how did the American people get the overwhelming belief that Saddam Hussein had attacked us on 9/11, that he was involved very directly and personally -- personally -- in the attack on us on 9/11, and therefore, the war in Iraq was retribution?
DAVID CORN, "MOTHER JONES": Well, they listened to statements like those. Dick Cheney said "pretty well confirmed" the report that Mohammed Atta, the 9/11 ringleader, had met with Iraqi intelligence, an officer, in Prague. And at the time he made -- we know -- you cited the 9/11 commission to say that never happened, and that study came out years later. At the time that he made those statements, the CIA and the FBI had already debunked those reports, or at least cast tremendous amount of skepticism on it. Rather than being pretty well confirmed, they were dubious, at best.
MATTHEWS: You mean even by December of `01.
CORN: Yes. And he kept saying it up to and even after the invasion. He repeated that at least a half dozen times, if not more so, while his own intelligence community was saying, This is not true.
And what`s also doubly specious about this is even if Mohammed Atta had met with any one officer of the Iraqi intelligence service, what would it mean? Maybe absolutely nothing. Maybe the Iraqis wanted to keep dibs - - or keep tabs on al Qaeda. That would have made sense for their own purposes. It didn`t mean any plot. So he took an event that didn`t happen and put an evil connotation around it and sold it on "Meet the Press" and elsewhere to the American public.
Again, when Bush said, as we just saw, that Iraq is dealing with al Qaeda, and the present tense, intelligence analysts at the time were saying, Really, there`s not a strong case to be made for this. Bush also said at one point in time that Iraq had given training in poison and chemical weaponry to al Qaeda.
MATTHEWS: OK.
CORN: And that wasn`t true, either.
MATTHEWS: Well, the fact of the matter, all the polls show, going over those years from the time of 9/11, Frank Gaffney, all the way up until the invasion of Iraq -- or the liberation of Iraq, as you call it -- the American polled showed over and over again that people believed that the actual people in the airplanes that attacked us in those suicide raids on 9/11 were Iraqis. How did they get that idea? I would contend that the record here suggests that their leaders told them so. You disagree.
GAFFNEY: Well...
MATTHEWS: You disagree, right?
GAFFNEY: Yes, I do disagree. And certainly, none of the clips that you just broadcast said that. And on this question about who Mohammed Atta met in Prague and who he didn`t meet with -- look, I mean, I find it charming that David Corn would say maybe they were just getting together to keep tabs on one another, if they got together. And there were intelligence reports. Ultimately the CIA and DIA I think concluded that they were not persuasive, but there were intelligence reports...
(CROSSTALK)
CORN: At the time that Cheney said that...
GAFFNEY: ... ultimately, David, there were -- there were...
CORN: At the time that Cheney said that...
GAFFNEY: ... judgments made...
CORN: ... they were not pretty well confirmed. They were not confirmed when he said they were.
GAFFNEY: May I finish?
CORN: That`s a lie to the American public, Frank.
GAFFNEY: May I finish?
CORN: Is it not?
GAFFNEY: May I finish?
CORN: Yes.
GAFFNEY: At the time, there were reports that were confirming it, there were reports that were disputing it. I think Dick Cheney...
CORN: That`s not true!
GAFFNEY: ... was reflecting -- absolutely true.
CORN: No!
GAFFNEY: The point -- you said so yourself. The point is that when you look, Chris, at what Dick Cheney, what George Bush, what Don Rumsfeld, what all of the other people -- who you are still kicking around, to my astonishment -- were saying at the time was, We are in a dangerous world. We are indeed a battlefield. The idea they can`t hit us here is no longer true, that people wish to hurt us here is now beyond doubt. And the question was, was Saddam Hussein one of those people? I believe he was. I`m delighted that he is no longer in business, and I think the evidence that I`ve just suggested...
(CROSSTALK)
GAFFNEY: ... American people...
MATTHEWS: OK...
GAFFNEY: ... should be glad that he`s not in business any longer.
MATTHEWS: Well, let`s just quote the 9/11 commission. "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." Frank, do you at this moment in time, in March of 2009, do you challenge that?
GAFFNEY: I do. I believe that there is evidence that they were collaborating on all kinds of things. Whether we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt or to the satisfaction of that partisan -- or bipartisan, as you wish -- commission, I believe is an open question.
CORN: You know...
GAFFNEY: But here`s the point. Just hear me out.
CORN: No, no.
GAFFNEY: Please David...
CORN: Facts are the point.
GAFFNEY: Chris, just hear me out, please.
CORN: Facts are the point, not just what you believe.
GAFFNEY: Just hear me out. My point is...
CORN: Give us the facts.
GAFFNEY: I`ll defer to you in a moment. The point is that we don`t have omniscience about the world, most especially about secret terrorist organizations and police states. We have a lot of evidence that these guys were meeting, they were organizing something. They were sharing technology. They were sharing intelligence.
CORN: No. But there you go again, Frank.
GAFFNEY: We have lots of evidence of that.
CORN: No, no, no! We don`t!
GAFFNEY: The question, What were they doing about it? We don`t know. And I think...
CORN: Frank, Frank, Frank...
GAFFNEY: ... to reach the conclusion that they were just keeping tabs on each other is ridiculous, David!
CORN: Frank...
GAFFNEY: It`s ridiculous.
CORN: Frank, how do you breathe if you never pause?
MATTHEWS: I don`t pause because you`ll jump in and interrupt me. That`s why.
CORN: We don`t have good evidence. We have no solid evidence.
GAFFNEY: We have ample...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: OK, let me ask the rules of engagement. I just want to set the rules of engagement here. If we don`t know that 9/11 -- or Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, if we don`t know that, and you say it`s an open case, and we never were able to prove that he had nuclear weapons, do you go to war against another country with the loss of lives and treasure, of thousands of American lives and unlimited number of Iraqis dead -- do you do something like that, do you go to war with another country when you don`t have your case made? You admit it`s an open case.
GAFFNEY: But that`s...
MATTHEWS: I want to know the rules of engagement here. When you do you go to war, Frank?
GAFFNEY: Well, in this case, I said to you, in the immediate aftermath of 3,000 Americans being slaughtered by people, some of whom had, in fact, collaborative relationships with Iraqi intelligence.
CORN: There we go again. Who?
GAFFNEY: You take -- you take...
CORN: Who? Who had a collaborative...
GAFFNEY: You take preemptive action...
CORN: Frank, stop right there and tell me...
GAFFNEY: ... to prevent the kinds of attacks...
CORN: ... who had a relationship!
GAFFNEY: ... the kinds of attacks that we now know Saddam Hussein clearly had in mind with chemical and biological agents.
CORN: That`s the problem!
MATTHEWS: Why didn`t this evidence reach the bipartisan Iraqi -- why didn`t the committee...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Why didn`t the committee -- why didn`t the 9/11 commission have this information, if it exists?
GAFFNEY: I believe they may have had access to it and they went with the judgment of the intelligence community that it wasn`t clear-cut. It wasn`t dispositive. But it`s not the same thing as...
CORN: So this is -- this is...
GAFFNEY: ... that there`s no evidence. That`s simply not true.
CORN: This is the neo-conservative conspiracy theory!
GAFFNEY: It`s not the neo-conservative conspiracy theory!
CORN: The intelligence community...
(CROSSTALK)
GAFFNEY: It`s been published in books. It`s been published in magazines. take a look at them.
CORN: Yes, Laurie Mylroie wrote a book that`s been widely debunked and derided. Mike Isikoff and I took it apart in our own book. Yes, there are books out there, books out there saying a lot of things, Frank. Doesn`t make it so.
GAFFNEY: Look at Douglas Feith`s book...
CORN: When Dick Cheney...
GAFFNEY: ... which documents end to end...
CORN: Oh, Douglas Feith is another fellow...
GAFFNEY: ... what the president had...
CORN: ... with a great track record on this.
GAFFNEY: Well, he happens to have been there in the midst of it and had the documents that you`re disputing.
CORN: Yes. He was there. He was in the middle of this...
(CROSSTALK)
CORN: Listen, you say that it`s...
(CROSSTALK)
GAFFNEY: He was working with the evidence that was available.
CORN: Let`s go back to what the president said days before he invaded Iraq. He said the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction was beyond doubt. He didn`t say, We don`t know, maybe yes, maybe no, we can`t take a chance. He said it was beyond doubt.
GAFFNEY: It was.
CORN: That`s not even what you`re saying now.
GAFFNEY: It was, David.
CORN: So is that not misleading to the American public...
GAFFNEY: It was beyond doubt.
CORN: ... to say that we have intelligence that is rock solid?
GAFFNEY: It was beyond doubt at the time, and that was the view of all your Democratic friends, and by the way...
CORN: No. Half the Democrats...
GAFFNEY: ... intelligence services all over the world.
CORN: ... in the House voted against it. Half the Democrats in the House...
(CROSSTALK)
GAFFNEY: ... including the most prominent Democrats voted for it on the basis of exactly the same intelligence, starting with Hillary Clinton...
CORN: So now you`re going to...
GAFFNEY: ... starting with Joe Biden, starting with John Kerry.
CORN: You`re going to justify your actions...
GAFFNEY: No!
CORN: ... by Democratic mistakes being in line with your mistakes?
GAFFNEY: No, no. What I`m saying...
CORN: This was not...
GAFFNEY: ... is when you say this was...
CORN: There were people inside the intelligence...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: OK, I have to draw...
GAFFNEY: ... when you say this was wrong, that`s not true. It was -- it was...
MATTHEWS: OK, let me ask you this...
GAFFNEY: ... beyond a doubt to the minds of Democrats as well as Republicans at the time.
MATTHEWS: OK. Let me ask...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Can I ask you both -- I have to separate you for a second and ask you this question about what we learned. What did we learn in the case for war as it was made? Did we learn that it was made fairly and appropriately and we went to war for good cause and we made no mistakes, or did we learn that we rushed to war based upon a false apprehension on the part of the American people who believed there was some connection, as they did in the polling, between Iraq and 9/11, and a mistake, if you will, or a reckless case that there was nuclear weapons in the hands or about to be in the hands of Saddam Hussein and that was a justification for war?
Did we learn anything, or Frank, were we right to go to war and we did it right? Because I want the know what we`ve learned from this. It`s in the past. We can`t change it. What did we learn, Frank?
GAFFNEY: I think we did the right thing, and I think what we have unfortunately taken away from this experience is that we`re going to let everybody get their hands on these weapons of mass destruction, most immediately Iran, and then deal with it after they start probably using it. I think that`s a terrible lesson and the wrong one to have learned.
MATTHEWS: David, what did we learn?
CORN: The lesson is not to take at face value over-the-top, hyperbolic claims about what threats are. We had -- you know, Saddam Hussein was a potential threat. He wasn`t the dire threat that George W. Bush and others portrayed him to be. And in all this talk about, It`s great that Barack Obama has not inherited a world with Saddam Hussein in it, he also has not inherited a world with a 100,000 Iraqis who`ve been killed in the course of this time, you know, 3,000, 4,000 Americans and tens of thousands of casualties.
So it`s not such a simple equation when Ari Fleischer last night or Frank now says, Isn`t it great that Saddam Hussein is not here? It is great he`s not here. He was a lousy SOB. But the cost was high in blood and treasure, and not just our blood.
MATTHEWS: OK. I think we`ve got to know...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: I think the history hasn`t been written here, and I want to see more history written on this. I don`t think Doug Feith`s the last word on this, nor are we.
GAFFNEY: But it`s an important word.
MATTHEWS: Thank you, David Corn. Thank you -- well, unfortunately, people like him had their way. Thank you, Frank Gaffney.
GAFFNEY: Thank God.
MATTHEWS: Thank you, David Corn.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Ye Gods...
March 12, 2009 - 20:28 ET by Saint Zerowas that a debate?
Yes Saint
March 12, 2009 - 21:44 ET by jdlybrandHe was 'masdebating' on air again. Just loves that tingle thingy.
"Better to be thought a fool and remain silent than speak and remove all doubt"
Ari got PWNED
March 12, 2009 - 20:31 ET by SayAnythingLooking around the comments regarding this video along other blogs and all over Youtube, its clear that Ari was all over the place. Not defending Matthews in his interview style. But he has a way of making people say stupid things. Ari was forced to repeat a lie yet again. Trying to link Sadddam Hussein to 9/11.
Major Fail.
~Another Loobie
March 12, 2009 - 20:32 ET by choselife3xHope and Change= Despair and Socialism
"Another Loobie"
March 12, 2009 - 20:43 ET by HeavyChevyI second that.
Another rightie
March 12, 2009 - 20:54 ET by SayAnythingHope and Change = Republicans hope that somehow people will change their minds about the Bush legacy.
FAIL.
Wow. It looks like
March 12, 2009 - 20:58 ET by hydrodynDMWow.
It looks like someone's got their big-boy pants on and is itching for a fight.
Hope and Change =Obama
March 12, 2009 - 21:29 ET by HeavyChevyHope and Change =Obama "hopes" the American people don't mind the "change" they are left with when he bleeds the US dry.
Hope and Change?
March 13, 2009 - 07:30 ET by GeneralAlMr. Say Anything = Means Nothing! No one expects or hopes anyone will change their minds about Bush's legacy. As a military veteran, I am well versed in the effects of psychological warfare. If you continually brainwash people with lies, they will eventually believe them as truth. The Communist press, which you so adore, spent eight years openly and subliminly destroying President Bush in the eyes of the American public. There is no hope to repair his legacy in this or even the next generation. The hope is that one hundred years from now, if America still exists, and I doubt it will, that a more savvy group of historians will examine the facts and correct the wrongs placed on President Bush. In meantime, continue saying anything and meaning nothing!
Still don't get it . . . .
March 13, 2009 - 06:54 ET by Gat New YorkI saw the interview and Ari stopped Matthews at every corner and made him look like the left wing psycho loon that he is.
As far as Saddam, the link that Ari was stating was correct. We were attacked once and we did not want to be attacked again. Meaning that we (95% of Dems and Repubs and all worldwide intelligence) believe that Hussein had WMD going back to the Clinton administration and their intelligence. It would have been highly irresponsible to ignore that threat and wait, once again, for an attack on Americans.
That is what Ari meant.
Matthews is just a loud mouth peacenik who does not have the guts to fight so he lashes out at those who do.
Having this debate on Ari without Ari there was another example of how much of a coward Matthews is.
Yes
March 13, 2009 - 08:41 ET by cvgbuckeyeSayAnything: You are absolutely right. We definitely got rid of the wrong enemy in Saddam Hussein. The worst threat to America's way of life and freedom is your Marxist Butt Master, you worship, that is sitting in the White House today.
Do you know "The Abomination that causes desolation" or is that "Above Your paygrade" comrade?
Chrissy does much better
March 12, 2009 - 20:34 ET by d1carterChrissy does much better when he has guests that kowtow to him......!
Chris Mathews..and...
March 12, 2009 - 20:44 ET by Joe CamelLook, no one listens to this dimwit or anyone at that station..or any station that starts with the letter "c"..The only people I know who watch are liberals, Demonrats and goof balls on the left. No one with any semblence of intelligence watches them, as they are so transparent. Don't watch them and their numbers fall off the chart. Hit the lever on the toilet, and watch the waste go down...
Why doesn't Mathews remind people
March 12, 2009 - 20:45 ET by nwahsWhy doesn't Mathews remind people, Hussein put a $10,000 bounty on Americans (any American) heads. That was after 9-11-01 and that is indeed a threat to the United States and its citizens. Anyone who think Saddam was not a threat to the US is either incredibly naive or flat out lying.
You're irrational if you don't want the new president to succeed - Gingrich
Or incredibly well informed
March 12, 2009 - 20:52 ET by SayAnythingMany have said before and after the Iraq war that Saddam Hussein was just a toothless old lion. Turns out they were right. Ari Fleisher's lies don't change that. No matter how much he tries to pathetically link Saddam to 9/11. Keep hitting your heads against that keyboard revionists!
Another one got through
March 12, 2009 - 21:11 ET by cocodrieAnother one got through the looking glass. Wonderland must be like Mexico, none of them want to stay there.
Jesus Loves You
Saddam was giving suicide bombers money
March 12, 2009 - 21:11 ET by nwahs^ CNN (September 12, 2002) "White House spells out case against Iraq",
"the White House released a report early Thursday, listing some of the
principal accusations against Iraq and its leader.... Iraq is also
accused of sheltering two Palestinian terrorist organizations, and it
lists Saddam's decision in 2002 to increase from $10,000 to $25,000 the
bounty paid to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers."
http://www.answers.c...
You're irrational if you don't want the new president to succeed - Gingrich
~Loobie
March 12, 2009 - 21:18 ET by choselife3xSaddam Hussein was just a toothless old lion
Yeah, I hear the people he had chained in prison called him that.
Hope and Change= Despair and Socialism
UPDATE: Still awaiting your reply SayAnything
March 12, 2009 - 22:13 ET by Free StinkerBush didn't try to tie Saddam to 9/11
But . . .
Terrorists have been found in Iraq & there were numerous associations between Iraq & terrorists
Saddam Violated Gulf War Surrender Terms
And . . .
Assassination attempt on former President George Bush, Sr.: Washington Post - U.S. Strikes Iraq for Plot to Kill Bush
UPDATE: Still awaiting your reply SayAnything
This could possibly be the
March 13, 2009 - 00:36 ET by Sabre16This could possibly be the absolute best blog post in the history of the computer age.
Talk about taking out the freek'n trash. <SMACK!!!!> was the only sound I heard.
Pick a point on the compass. Saddam struck out at a neighbor.
March 13, 2009 - 00:39 ET by JWFFree Stinker has the last word here. Facts always win arguments hands down.
He struck out to the east with Iran.
He struck out to the north with the Kurds.
He struck out to the south with Kuwait.
He struck out to the west with Israel.
And he DID try to attack us. He attempted to assasinate a former President. As well as trying to shoot down our planes on a daily basis for 11 years.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Impressive!
March 13, 2009 - 00:47 ET by avenarBoy, am I glad you're on my team!
Toothless Lion?
March 13, 2009 - 07:11 ET by GeneralAlHeres one back at you, Mr. Say Anything! You refer to Ari Fleischers lies [Thats spelled Fleischer!], how do you know they're lies? Is it just because you hate President Bush and your Communist pals in the press have given you this information? Do you have undisputed facts such as Dan Rather's report on Bush's military record? I don't care if you want to swallow the Communist propaganda of the MSM but to call someone a liar escalates the war of words. Put your money where your mouth is and prove hes a liar, in fact prove Bush is a liar, prove Cheney is a liar! While you're at it, prove Obama is telling the truth!
Matthews was humiliated
March 12, 2009 - 20:56 ET by bigtimerMatthews was humiliated last night....and this is the stem of what this so-called man presents for all to see the next night to be able to crawl out from under that table to show face...
What a disgrace, and he doesn't even really see it.
What a waste of what he could have been.
Matthews...
March 12, 2009 - 21:03 ET by TexndocMatthews has been humiliated ever since his "thrill" line became famous. It's no wonder he's a bitter little hack, and incorrigible and going further over the edge since that day. I still say he had a shot at "Meet the Press" up until that moment - he wasn't any worse than David Gregory after all.
Chris has been going over
March 12, 2009 - 21:13 ET by bigtimerChris has been going over the edge far before the 'thrill/leg' thing...believe me....hint, hint...think of his breathless reporting with the Plame/Wilson Affair...(he still wants Cheeeeny with a passion)
...And as far as Gregory goes, I take him anyday over what Matthews would be like as moderator...and that is saying a lot Tex...if you know what I mean.... ;-)
Decision?
March 12, 2009 - 21:35 ET by slickwillie2001So I missed the second debate; did Matthews win this time?
Matthews = Brockman?
March 12, 2009 - 21:39 ET by Sergeant ROCKThis reminds me of Kent Brockman's interview of Homer Simpson.. lol.. the one where he's talking to a still-shot of Homer.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Brockman/Homer photo
March 12, 2009 - 22:29 ET by Texndoc"Your silence just condemns you, sir!"
3/4 of Americans think Saddam attacked us? Really? Source please
March 12, 2009 - 22:10 ET by krendlerMatthews: And in fact, in addition to all that talk about nuclear threat from
Saddam and all that mushroom cloud talk, this was the gut deal maker,
the big, nasty, powerful untruth that led so many middle-of-the road
Americans to buy the Bush case for war, that Saddam Hussein had
attacked us on 9/11 and we had to stop him from attacking us again.
Three quarters of the American people bought that untruth.
Ya know, Matthews has been spouting this "3/4 of American believe Saddam was behind 9/11" for years now. He's never cited the source. Gallup? Who?
I don't know ANYONE who believes Hussein had anything to do with 9/11 and here Matthews is telling us that 3/4 of Americans think Saddam was behind it. Funny. Then why all the talk about Osama bin Laden for years, when we all "know" Saddam did it, thanks to lies, of course, from Bush and Cheney.
Matthews is simply chronically full of $h*t. First he tells us that 3/4 of Americans think Saddam Hussein, not bin Laden, was behind 9-11 and secondly, we all think that because of Matthew's boogeymen Bush and Cheney.
Matthews is as dishonest, partisan and irrational as they come.
Remember Matthews flipping out because The Surge worked?
March 12, 2009 - 22:15 ET by krendlerCan't remember who he was "interviewing", but Matthews was literally screaming "THE SURGE DIDN'T WORK" repeatedly at someone who contended it had. Would love to get the video for it.
Last night Fleischer should have finished with "and by the way, Chris, the surge DID work and Petraeus and the troops DID win the Iraq war, despite the efforts of people like you and your hero, Barack Obama.
Matthews head would have exploded right then and there.
Do you mean this one,
March 12, 2009 - 23:51 ET by CortillaenDo you mean this one, Krendler (video linked within)? If, so, it was Pat Buchanan on the other side.
www.daybydaycartoon.... Proving that conservative comedy is very real.
"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
Chris Matthrews
March 12, 2009 - 23:06 ET by merlin61Mr.Matthews is not going to be satisfied until
everyone in the whole world agrees with his
corrupted feelings about the Iraq war. HEy,
Chris, we won, we weren't attacked since 2001.
Bush kept us safe. He and Cheney weren't the
only ones who thought he had weapons of mass
destruction., other countries also did, Congress
also voted on this decision. Bush did not act
alone. Get over it!!!!! Start keeping track of
your idol Obama and start reporting on his
errors. He's made plenty already and his idiot
Biden "gaffe man".
Bush made a distinction that Matthews doesn't grasp
March 13, 2009 - 00:58 ET by KC MulvilleYou know, it's easy to go back now, years later, and argue about what the public believed. But don't go by what they say other people thought. Go by what you thought. Did you support the war? Why?
I vividly remember exactly why I supported the war then. A few days after 9/11, Bill Clinton was on Larry King (that's just a figure of speech). Clinton claimed -bragged- that as soon as he heard of the second plane hitting the Tower, he knew that bin Laden was behind it. Clinton probably believed that his little brag would display how much he knew what was going on. But after a second's reflection, a different reaction occurred to me: if you knew this was the only guy who could pull this off, why didn't you stop him?
Clinton knew it was al-Qaeda because bin Laden had called for jihad against the United States, and he had the means to carry it out. He had already made other attacks, like the Cole. So when 9/11 happened, a lot of us were wondering why nothing had been done. And a lot of us said, basically, don't let it happen again.
Saddam hated the United States. He openly rejoiced about 9/11. He had the financial means, and he certainly had the intent. All of the evidence pointed to the likelihood that he was acquiring the weapons to carry out an attack, just as bin Laden did.
The reason we went to war was that we weren't going to be suckered a second time. If Saddam was becoming another bin Laden, we needed to get to him before he carried out a similar attack.
Even so, we followed the law. We followed the diplomatic process. We called on Iraq to fulfill the terms of its cease-fire agreement from Gulf I, and they didn't comply. We demanded that they turn over their WMDs, or evidence of their destruction, and Iraq didn't comply. We went to the United Nations and stated our concerns, and demanded Iraq comply. The United Nations agreed to demand compliance, and Iraq didn't comply. We gave them ample warning, and still they didn't comply.
That's why I supported the war. We weren't going to get fooled again, or attacked again. We followed the diplomatic process. Matthews wants to peddle the myth that Bush told us there were nuclear weapons and that Saddam was behind 9/11, but even so, Matthews forgets the buildup, and the months of warning we gave to Iraq to comply with UN resolutions. They didn't comply.
Typical liberal cowardice
March 13, 2009 - 02:28 ET by riff_raffLiberals are always acting tough and intellectually superior when there's no one around to challenge them. Remember when Slick Willy acted all indignent and was ready to resort to fisticuffs, over a perceived insult to Hillary by some columnist (I forget who). Of course when he called the guy out, he was surrounded by a half-dozen heavily armed secret service agents.
It's almost comical to listen to liberals criticize Bush over the Iraq war. Right now, Islamic Iran is on the verge of becoming a nuclear-armed, crazed theocracy. And the Obama administration perversely sees Rush Limbaugh as the biggest threat facing this country. The Iranian mullahs must be laughing themselves silly over the actions of the Obama administration.
"I refuse to participate in Obama's recession"
Good morning riff
March 13, 2009 - 03:02 ET by cocodrieIt's all about "the look".
Rush makes Present Obama look bad so he is enemy no. one.
Ihockedmydinnerjacket allows Pres. to posture and look good so he's A-OK.
Jesus Loves You
Chrissy and Cornnuts
March 13, 2009 - 06:51 ET by GeneralAlWe need to paint lips on Chrissy's buttocks! Thats where he talks from! Isn't it just heart warming how Miss Tingle Leg will accept the Teleprompter Messiah with a single sentence but still wants to beat up on GWB and his staff? Its easy to see why. If they can keep the negative spotlight on President Bush and his staff, they can keep atttention off President Teleprompter and keep his numbers up. Since he controls the press, he will never get a negative report. CBS gave him a warning shot the other night but it was to help him, not hurt him. To Sweet little Chrissy, we know what scheme you have hidden up that mini skirt of yours and it won't work on us! That is reserved for the Obamaniacs who worship him as their god. My God heals the sick, raises the dead, and casts out the Devil! Your Obama god heals the dead, casts out the sick, and edifys the Devil !
Haven't we really had
March 13, 2009 - 08:11 ET by ConservativeRexHaven't we really had enough of these fools who insist that Saddam meant the US no harm, wasn't a threat to the US, didn't have WMD's or any of the other BS the left would have idiots like themselves believe?
To paraphrase a certain wide butted secretary of state the US has, "we would have to suspend disbelief to think that there were no terrorist in Iraq dealing with Saddam".
Once and for all, so the leftists that visit this site can understand : There were terrorist all over South Florida for a pretty good while for Pete's sake. If they were there, what in the world would make you think they were not in the very epicenter of terrorist activities, Iraq?
Everyone had the same intel....
March 13, 2009 - 08:19 ET by MortimerGAFFNEY: I think we did the right thing, and I think what we have unfortunately taken away from this experience is that we`re going to let everybody get their hands on these weapons of mass destruction, most immediately Iran, and then deal with it after they start probably using it. I think that`s a terrible lesson and the wrong one to have learned.
CIA Release of NIE: We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions. If left unchecked it probably will have a nuclear weapon within this decade.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/nie.pdf
A good read - http://www.salemthesoldier.us/resolve.html
A man should be upright, not be kept upright - Marcus Aurelius
But a lot of people caught
March 13, 2009 - 08:26 ET by fitzfongBut a lot of people caught it when it first aired and didn`t like it.
Yes, I'm sure your entire audience called you to complain. All five of them.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
Chrissy!
March 13, 2009 - 08:55 ET by blazermaniacI don't know if Matthews could ever win any debate, including those of which he debates himself.
"Matthews Debates Fleischer
March 13, 2009 - 09:31 ET by SickofLibs"Matthews Debates Fleischer Again -- But Without Fleischer Present"
Noel, that is one of the all-time-great NB headlines.
Mathews"Constitution has no Bill Of Rights"
March 13, 2009 - 11:26 ET by JIMMY1660I'm sure BHO and his band of Media Midgets can rewrite anything including the Constitution. BHO is a well educated Boob. With a give away mentality. He is surprised he is getting push back-just wait, America will wake up" what have we done"
BHO- ill equipped to lead America
Answer It This Way...
March 13, 2009 - 11:12 ET by Bill W.So, let's see if I have this right. Al Qaeda was in Iran, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Palestine, Pakistan, Algeria, Afghanistan, India, Algeria, Morocco, Turkey, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang in China, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Myanmar, Lebanon, Kuwait, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, Tunisia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Dagestan, Sudan, Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania, Azerbaijan, Eritrea, Uganda, Ethiopia, as also in parts of the West Bank and Gaza. Indonesia, the Philippenes, Spain, Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Florida(flying lessons), San Diego(flying lessons)…
But, not in Iraq?
Do you think, on the remote chance, that if Al Qaeda was in Iraq that they would be operating there without Saddam’s knowledge and approval?
Don't forget Minnesota
March 13, 2009 - 12:18 ET by CobraManDon't forget Minnesota (jail cell). That was Moussaoui.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Chris Matthews
March 13, 2009 - 13:13 ET by Edward CropperWhy give this girly-man, leg thrilling, fact-less sorry excuse for a
"reporter" any more exposure than is absolutely necessary. He is a disgrace to
honest journalism and a sissy to boot. His 8 or 10 viewers are proof positive
that his program is not appealing and just doesn't come up to the level of
honest unbiased professional news reporting.
Stawmen arguments
March 13, 2009 - 17:27 ET by exLibIt's amazing to me that the "public" buys what these people are selling.
Too many strawman arguments to keep track of, so it's easy for them to keep knocking them down.
Bush's SOTU speech post 9/11 made it clear that there were about 9 reasons to invade Iraq.
So what does the liberal press do? They realize that most people didn't see the SOTU speech and if they don't replay the parts were Bush reiterates his 8-9 reasons and only play the ones that are easy to knock-down, especially 2-3 years later.
So, they supposedly didn't find a nuclear arsenal, so of course that HAS to be the reason we invaded Iraq and the reason "Everyone" went along with Bush on the war.
I have personally talked to a couple of service men who personally moved WMDs out of Iraq under the cover of darkness. Eventually that will come out, probably years from now.
However, I must say that since most historians are decidedly liberal, and anti-Christian, I can't really place too much faith in the hope that eventually the truth will come out and Bush will get a fairer shake in the future.
Most of these myths are too ingrained in the public's mind due to their desire to finally elect a democrat "like them".
Let the man talk...
March 14, 2009 - 02:27 ET by iconoclastthe more he opens his piehole the lower his ratings go. A couple of months ago he was getting 1M - 1.3M viewers a night. But since then his ratings have been declining steadily. Last night he was at around 700k total viewers and a little over 200K in the 25-54 range.
It's obvious the man is getting desperate.I don't think the leg is tingling much these days.
Source: http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/03/13/cable-news-ratings-for-thursday-march-12/14533