While Hyping Barack Obama's Killing of bin Laden, Chris Matthews Lashes Out at 'Sadist' Dick Cheney
On Tuesday's Hardball, while praising President Obama's handling of the killing of Osama bin Laden, MSNBC's Chris Matthews excoriated Dick Cheney as a "sadist."
Former Newsweek editor Howard Fineman contrasted the Bush/Cheney administration's dropping of bombs in Iraq with Obama's actions. Matthews responded by mocking, "There's a difference between being cold blooded- I think presidents have to be cold blooded- and being a sadist."
As if his point wasn't clear, the liberal anchor interrupted Fineman to add, " I was referring to Cheney, of course."
[See video below. MP3 audio here.]
Earlier, Matthews mocked Republicans, proclaiming that if Bush had killed bin Laden, conservatives would be calling for "secular canonization." The host dismissed, "The guy would be on Mount Rushmore if W. had done this. They'd be carving the stone tonight, right?"
A transcript of the May 3 exchanges, which began at 5:17pm EDT, follow:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: The President's personal approval, however, has gone way up in this poll. He is up at plus 18 points now, and was at minus three last month. Other polls out today show a smaller bump. See him there at 56 percent approval. But, while the country is positive on the handling of terrorism, his handling of Afghanistan. Still just 40 percent approve his handling of the economy. Duh. It has something to do with reality. Will killing Osama bin Laden prove to be a defining moment for this President? And Would Republican attitudes be different if this had happened while George W Bush was still- well, you don't have to ask that one. Howard Fineman is the editorial director [sic] for the Huffington Post and MSNBC political analyst and Todd Purdham is the national editor for Vanity Fair. Gentlemen, do I have to ask what Republicans- secular canonization. The guy would be on Mount Rushmore if W. had done this. They'd be carving the stone tonight, right?
HOWARD FINEMAN: Oh, there's no question.
MATTHEWS: They'd be dancing. The spiking of the football would be unbelievable.
...
5:20
TODD PURDHAM: I think it resonates with the notion that we are not going to mess around. And the White House was quite successful, I thought, in putting out those speeches from 2007 and 2008 in which at the time you'll recall people sort of mocked him. "Oh, yeah, if you saw bin Laden you'd take him out." And "you shouldn't say that out loud because it will hurt our relationship with Pakistan. It's not how it's done."
FINEMAN: By the way, he's put a lot more- he did put a lot more troops in Afghanistan, okay? He didn't put as many as some of the conservatives wanted.
PURDHAM: Stepped up the Predator attacks.
FINEMAN: Stepped up the present attacks with the drones. And here are the differences between President Bush and Dick Cheney almost literally pushing the 500 pound daisy cutter bombs down onto Iraq and not getting what they were targeting. And the President getting the person that he was targeting.
MATTHEWS: There's a difference between being cold blooded- I think presidents have to be cold blooded- and being a sadist.
FINEMAN: Yeah, but all the debate now-
MATTHEWS: I was referring to Cheney, of course.
FINEMAN: All the debate about whether Osama bin Laden was defending himself, whether he had a weapon or didn't have a weapon, let's face it, I mean, based on what we're thinking Obama- the President's orders were to shoot and kill.
- Scott Whitlock's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Chris Matthews is pure, unadulterated garbage.
Submitted by djwolf12 on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 6:50pm.
He is going out on national tv and slandering a former President and Vice President in the same manner of Pete Stark. Hey Chris, remember how you were thinking about running for office in Pennsylvania? They went Republican in 2010. You sound like you are contemplating running for office in Berkeley California.
Levin tonight was great in
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:56pm.
Levin tonight was great in defending enhanced interrogation tonight. Not sure if he has his shows available online. Also he tore into them caring about what people thought about Osama's burial. Here the DEMs and Obama don't care a lick about what 60% of our Country thinks (like Obama Care and spending) yet THEY care about what Alcida would think about the burial. How ironic.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Oh yes Maximus
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 10:28pm.
And for free, about 40 min after every show
Would Republican attitudes be
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 7:00pm.
Would Republican attitudes be different if this had happened while George W Bush was still- well, you don't have to ask that one.
I don't know about Republicans' attitudes, but Ace of Spades HQ points out that the media don't seem to care that Obama "slept on it" and took 16 hours to make the decision to send the team after bin Laden.
Can you imagine if President Bush waited until the next day????
(bolds mine):
7 Minutes Vs. 16 Hours: How The Media Reports Delay
—Ace
George Bush was relentlessly mocked for waiting seven minutes (actually waiting for his security detail to ready the exit and for his vehicle to be readied) before leaving the school he was visiting. He calmly finished reading My Pet Goat for the kids before going to his now-ready helicopter.
On the other hand, after Obama was told (most likely for the fifteenth time) that the CIA was really, really, really quite confident that Osama bin Ladin was at that compound in Abbottabad, he decided he needed to sleep on it.
Sixteen hours later (hours during which Osama might have fled-- bear in mind, his courier's name had just been outed by WikiLeaks), he made up his mind.
How does the media report this? Well, relying upon those in Obama's inner circle (that is to say, his political flunkies and spinners), we're told this:
Why does it matter that he did this "before they could speak"? They had spoken already yesterday when they strongly, strongly urged the president to give the order, and he had decided to sleep on it.
They were only waiting on him, after all.
So, after 16 hours of vacillation, during which the operation might have been rendered a failure by intervening invents, he fist-bumps a piece of furniture and finally makes up his mind.
This is something to brag about? This is, in Howard Fineman's words, "almost Biblical"?
Seems like a very cautious, feckless, indecisive individual delaying and delaying on critical decisions and then attempting to sound heroic when he finally does what he's being paid to do.
AMEN!!
mb---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 7:21pm.
Perfect post, that was.
It sums up nicely the derision pushed at Bush 43 and his "terrible and lackadaisical' seven minute stretch, versus the beatitudes felt for Obama by the liberal media and the lauding of his nearly every breath.
Plaudits pushed at Obama for the most plausible of reasons; and I mean plausible in the sense of being superficial and often specious.
Holding Obama up for praise is truly a ben trovato action by his worshipers.
MD
matthew, ACE says this
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:22pm.
matthew, ACE says this further down the page:
But the media still hasn't explained to me which of the previous presidents and which of the potential/hypothetical future presidents wouldn't have ordered this.
If everyone including Jimmy Carter would have ordered this, then I'm afraid I don't see why President Made a Poopie should be so praised for doing what everyone else would have done. That is, why praise him for being ordinary?
They continue to treat Obama like a two-year-old who has to be praised for picking up his toys or drinking all his milk! Obama does what any president worth his salt would have done, and suddenly it's heroic.
Everything that he does needs to be inflated as being over and above every other president; he has to be praised as the ultimate in everything.
If not, they worry that they might be racist.
Obama t akes...
Submitted by Dbak61 on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 8:44pm.
"DITHERING" to a new extreme!
Oh, it gets even better, MB
Submitted by ckc1227 on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 8:50pm.
After reading this, Obama's "I, I, me, me, I was the one in charge" victory speech the other night starts to make a little more sense.
And the money quote:
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:14pm.
Q: What changed the president’s position and enabled the attack against Osama Bin Laden to proceed?
A: Nothing changed with the president’s opinion – he continued to avoid having one.
Motherbelt's Surgical Strike
Submitted by stratman on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 8:53pm.
Best after action report so far.
Since Ace of Spades is lying about Bush, his credibility
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:20pm.
must be considered an issue.
...unless, that is, George Bush lied both to the 9/11 Commission and in Decision Points since in neither instance did he even remotely suggest the delay was related to his vehicle/helicopter? being readied. His explanation was that he wanted to project a calm image to the nation and not alarm the school children. Nor did he then leave after the 7-minute interregnum for his "now ready helicopter". He remained at the school to deliver an address to the nation announcing that America was under attack [while surrounded by school children who apparently were no longer inclined toward fear].
Oh, and the "16 hours of vacillation" reeks of partisan drivel as well. It doesn't square with the published timelines.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:33pm.
I guess you didn't read the piece.
But the president stunned officials when he told a national security meeting that he wanted more time to think - and disappeared out of the room. 'I'm not going to tell you what my decision is now - I'm going to go back and think about it some more,' said Obama, according to the New York Times. He then added 'I'm going to make a decision soon.'
The head of the CIA and other senior intelligence officers who were keen to proceed were left tense as they waited for the president's decision. But the next morning after 16 hours, Obama summoned four top aides to the White House Diplomatic Room. Before they could speak, the president put his fist on the table and declared 'It's a go'.
Why would you think that President Dither would be different this time?
[Edit]
Here's the NYT:
Mr. Panetta told the group that the C.I.A. had “red-teamed” the case — shared their intelligence with other analysts who weren’t involved to see if they agreed that Bin Laden was probably in Abbottabad. They did. It was time to decide.
Around the table, the group went over and over the negative scenarios. There were long periods of silence, one aide said. And then, finally, Mr. Obama spoke: “I’m not going to tell you what my decision is now — I’m going to go back and think about it some more.” But he added, “I’m going to make a decision soon.”
Sixteen hours later, he had made up his mind. Early the next morning, four top aides were summoned to the White House Diplomatic Room. Before they could brief the president, he cut them off. “It’s a go,” he said. The earliest the operation could take place was Saturday, but officials cautioned that cloud cover in the area meant that Sunday was much more likely.
The next day, Mr. Obama took a break from rehearsing for the White House Correspondents Dinner that night to call Admiral McRaven, to wish him luck.
Does that jive?
As a matter of fact, bkeyser...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 10:43pm.
I had read the Times account, and it bears only a faint resemblance to the warped version which emerged after Ace and all of the other usual suspects inhabiting the righty blogosphere finished spinning it into an anti-Obama screed.
The proposed operation was fraught with significant risks--not only tactical concerns but also enormous geopolitical implications associated with unilateral action within the borders of an ostensible ally. Bin Laden wasn't an overnight guest at the compound. He was residing there! I'm glad Obama slept on the decision.
Look, credit Bush and Cheney. Credit the military, the SEALs, the CIA, the NSA, The DoD, enhanced interrogation, etc. But, for pete's sake, can't the chronic detractors call off their desperate search to uncover something, anything to discredit the administration regardless of facts, or reason, or fairness...and just once give it a thumbs up for a good result?
Nah? Didn't think so.
Jer
Well I guess your right Jer
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 10:54pm.
Obama could had taken a pass like Clinton did
Also, your only happy he slept on it, because he did.
Actually Jer,
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 10:52pm.
I did credit Obama for this operation. I am pleased that he sent JSOC in lieu of a drone or cruise missile strike. And, of course, the military and intel units are chiefly responsible for the ultimate success of the operation. No president- in fact- no political appointee should take significant credit for an operation of this degree.
But, as I stated above, the decision should have been made long prior to D-day. The Team had prepared, the intel was verified and the chances were good we could pull this off. Any more delay, especially with the Wikileaks info out there that could have put the kibosh on the whole thing was perilously irresponsible. All of the concerns you mentioned above were not new as fresh as of Friday. He should have slept on this two months ago rather than add any additional risk. A confident leader would not have needed that additional night's sleep.
bkeyser...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 11:32pm.
I don't consider you a chronic detractor, bkeyser. And I did notice your 'moderate' ;-) approval on the other thread.
Note in the NYT article, even at the Thursday meeting there were still a lot of negative scenarios being tossed around. So there were obviously some serious questions and vulnerabilities which were still being considered. It was a gamble and the entire range of potential outcomes needed to be thoroughly analyzed. And where time, although important, was not of the essence, spending one more night weighing the odds doesn't seem imprudent.
Moreover, the article indicated the operation couldn't be commenced until Saturday at the earliest, so it may mean that sleeping on the decision until Friday morning didn't delay its implementation. [If the Saturday date was DUE to the 16 hour delay, then it did force a change in the D-day.] Weather caused a postponement until Sunday.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 11:36pm.
More from the Daily Mail:
There had been deep disagreement among the security team, with half of them – reportedly mainly the politicians – opposing the assault, instead favouring waiting until they could be sure Bin Laden was definitely in the compound, or mounting a less risky bombing raid.
bkeyser...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 11:47pm.
I waded through 10 Google pages of nothing but conservative hyperventilation over the extraordinary awfulness of the Sixteen Hour Delay and every link I opened sourced back to that one Daily Mail article. No offense, but I need to see something else--preferably American.
Jer
Trust Jer on this one Bk*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 11:57pm.
I can assure you that Jer did indeed wade thru exactly 10 google pages.
noted caj ;-)
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 12:03am.
.
cajun...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 12:02am.
I confess to taking a slight dramatic license. It was technically only eight. I rounded up.
Jer
Yeah Jer
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 12:01am.
Reading through that article it all sounded very familiar- it's almost verbatim from the NYT piece that I linked above.
On March 14, Mr. Panetta took the options to the White House.
On March 22, the president asked his advisers their opinions on the options.
Last Thursday, [...] It was time to decide.
Sixteen hours later, he had made up his mind.
The next day, Mr. Obama took a break from rehearsing for the White House Correspondents Dinner that night to call Admiral McRaven, to wish him luck.
The point behind all of this is that it's typical for the political side to dither on matters of warfighting- after all, they're worried about getting re-elected. Military men worry about surviving the mission, and tend to take their positions -not more seriously, but certainly more confidently. A strong leader doesn't dither. But the actions of this administration seem to be following along a very familiar path. I would say that it is quite different from the path of the last administration, at least in the steadfast approach toward the war on terror. It would be quite something for liberals to now admit that Obama is quite the cowboy. Are you ready to make that leap?
Yup.
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 12:10am.
Yup.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 12:31am.
For some reason, I feel compelled to make a fart joke - but I won't.
hydro...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 12:54am.
Was that the first screen fart? Any cinema history buffs around? Where is Jason C when we need him..
Jer
Jer
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 1:00am.
Good question.
I would Google it but I'm about done for tonight.
As an aside, by alternate response was to ask if you'd mind while I whipped this out...
but I had nothing to follow that.
Finally
Submitted by Rukus on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 12:58am.
"Excuse me while I whip this out." (Reaches into crotch area and pulls out...)
A birth certificate!
Rukus
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 1:03am.
Now that was funny.
bkeyser...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 12:50am.
BTW...you're not implying that his dinner rehearsing occurred before he delivered his decision, are you?
And where is the statement which Ace repeats about Obama being "strongly urged" to make the decision immediately?
Jer
edit. Excuse me..."strongly, strongly urged"
No Jer
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 9:45am.
I'm not implying anything. What was in italics was from the NYT piece in the order in which it was written. "Sixteen hours later... The next day..."
Good to know that you're fully on board with the Obama warmongering though. Now all you need to do is sell it to the millions of college kids in this country who won't be able to find a job this summer, and the the entire left coast who can't figure out why we're fighting these wars in the first place. If I have some time today, I'll try to come up with a nice campaign poster for the Cowboy Obama.
Okay, bk...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 9:59am.
It's just that I didn't--and still don't--understand the relevance of including a note about his reheasal for the dinner Saturday night.
But I look forward to your upcoming campaign poster.
Jer
"But, for pete's sake, can't
Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 10:56pm.
"But, for pete's sake, can't the chronic detractors call off their desperate search to uncover something, anything to discredit the administration regardless of facts, or reason, or fairness...and just once give it a thumbs up for a good result?
Nah? Didn't think so."
Yeah, it sucks when you have a bunch of people screaming day and night trying to tear down a president and use any little excuse to do so, doesn't it?
Wait a minute............there's something very familiar about this.....hmmmmmmmmmm, I can't quite put my finger on it, though..........
That being said, I think that everyone does deserve credit. Obama, Bush, the military and the intelligence agencies. This was a win for America, not necessarily for any ONE party.
Again, I think the bigger issue that our one party media avoid is how Obama bore the fruits of Bush's labor, all the while cursing Bush's tactics.
NC Cop...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 11:42pm.
On the contrary, I have seen numerous references to the benefits of the Bush/Cheney-endorsed interrogation techniques, and any gaps in the "one party media" coverage have been amply filled by the conservative outlets drumming it into the public skull--so much so that the vast majority of Republicans give Obama comparatively little credit.
But I agree with your well-stated judgment about the distribution of credit.
Jer
So Jer,
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 10:43pm.
How does Bush not mention waiting for his security detail equate to him lying about it?
How about Obama waiting 16hrs, so Osama could get away? How about that Jer?
Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 11:04pm.
Ace says the 7-minute delay was for the purpose of preparing the vehicles [or helicopter]--its a little confusing--for Bush's departure, after which period of time he left for the then ready helicopter. That is untrue. Bush didn't leave at the expiration of the seven minutes. He stayed at the school to deliver an address about the terrorist attacks.
Osama had been at the compound for months. He was a resident. He wasn't going anywhere. Surveillance, intelligence gathering and development of various operational options had been ongoing for many weeks. Within that context, waiting 16 hours for a "go" decision was inconsequential.
Jer
"waiting 16 hours for a "go"
Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 11:07pm.
"waiting 16 hours for a "go" decision was inconsequential."
And the consequences of Bush's 7 minute delay was????
NC Cop...AMERICA WAS UNDER ATTACK!
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 11:58pm.
Jet airliners were crashing into skyscrapers whose occupants were leaping from 90 floors to their death or remaining inside and being incinerated. More hijacked planes were headed for DC.
The President--and ONLY the President--could give a shoot-down order. Our CIC should have been immediately taking charge and not worrying about the sensitivities of six-year-olds.
It's not even an apples and oranges comparison. It's apples and some other food group altogether.
Jer
And how often??
Submitted by jon_torlin on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 12:24am.
Ok, so how often does something like this happen??
Every day of the week, I'm sure!
But looking at your comments, that seems to be the case, eh?
-Jon
I'm sorry, Jer, my question
Submitted by NC Cop on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 8:38am.
I'm sorry, Jer, my question was "What were the consequences of those 7 minutes?".
The "7 minutes" are entirely
Submitted by Smartypants on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 9:50am.
The "7 minutes" are entirely inconsequential. What was the president supposed to do, get up and run out of the room? He left after notice of the second plane hitting the WTC was provided. After the first plane hit, nobody knew what was going on; there was no reason for him to get up and bolt out of the room. It was not until the second plane hit that we knew it was a terrorist attack.
Well, Smarty...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 10:08am.
I've addressed this before but it has always been my opinion that there should have been a proactive, worst-case-scenario response after the first plane slammed into the WTC given the intelligence intercepts which had been sending up red flags all summer, the previous terrorist bombing of the WTC, and the overwhelming improbability of an airliner crashing into the tower accidentally in clear blue skies with unlimited visibility.
Jer
So you agree that the 7
Submitted by NC Cop on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 10:11am.
So you agree that the 7 minutes were also "inconsequential"?
NC Cop...the consequences may have been precisely
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 10:13am.
the same, but that couldn't have been known nor should it have been presumed at the time. Also, see my response to Smartypants above.
Jer
Sorry, Jer, you're Obama
Submitted by NC Cop on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 10:17am.
Sorry, Jer, you're Obama adoration is showing. You criticize Bush for 7 minutes that meant nothing, but because of what MIGHT have happened. Yet, Obama gets a pass for 16 hours of indecision that MIGHT have led to Osama escaping.
I don't think either scenario had any consequences and we can play the "what if" game all day.
Also, did you happen to catch the post about the children and staff that were present in the school that day? They are saying that Bush acted exactly the way he should have.
In covert actions, a "stitch
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 10:49am.
In covert actions, a "stitch in time saves nine." A leak along the line of people involved (or by observation of these people) could easily have gotten back to warn Osama within the 16 hrs.
Didn't the drug cartel leader keep escaping just prior to our raids? He did end up getting caught but the 9x more work is realistic.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Sorry, NC Cop...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 11:00am.
but my opinions regarding our national security interests are not based upon the assessment of events by those who were seven years old at the time of their occurrence.
Jer
Right. Who would want to
Submitted by NC Cop on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 11:07am.
Right. Who would want to listen to a bunch of people who were actually present at the time.
What do they know, anyway?!?!?! Apparently, but not surprising, you missed this part:
"Booker Principal Gwendolyn Tose'-Rigell, who died in 2007, later insisted, "I don't think anyone could have handled it better. What would it have served if [Bush] had jumped out of his chair and ran out of the room?"
I didn't realize that principals could be 7 years old.
NC Cop
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 1:10pm.
My bad. I skimmed through your post too quickly and thought you were only referring to the views of the children who were in the room. I'll be gone for awhile but when I come back I'll read the article and then post a reply.
Jer
No problemo, my friend!
Submitted by NC Cop on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 1:11pm.
No problemo, my friend!
NC Cop...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 12:28pm.
Sorry for the delay in responding. I have now read the recent supportive statements of two of the children who were in the classroom and likewise from the school principal [or was it the ass't principal?].
In any event, it doesn't change my opinion in the slightest about what I consider to have been an inadequate and inappropriate response by President Bush after he was informed that a second plane had struck the WTC--an indisputable confirmation that the nation was presently being assaulted by terrorist elements who had hijacked at least two and possibly more large passenger jets.
I have no problem with the projection of calm--the President need not have leaped out of his seat and run around like his hair was on fire--but the circumstances called for, in fact cried out for, immediate consultation and rapid decison-making. Time was of the essence! Every minute was critical.
As I've said before, Bush could have calmly announced to the kids that a very important matter affecting the entire nation had come up which required his immediate attention, and unfortunately he would need to excuse himself and attend to some "presidential" business.
What if he had been notified of a possible missile launch from Russia or China?....Or, God forbid, that Laura had just suffered a heart attack or been in a serious accident? Do you think in those circumstances he would have and should have remained seated for another seven minutes so as not to alarm the children. The suggestion is utterly preposterous.
I have no problem with the subsequent actions--his being kept away from DC, etc.--or Bush's impressive performance in the following days, but sitting there disengaged for ANY additional time on the morning of 9/11 with the knowledge that America was being attacked, and later justifying it on the grounds it was "for the sake of the kids" defies all reason and common sense.
Jer
Sorry buddy
Submitted by Rukus on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 2:18pm.
What could he have done in those 7 minutes? Or 5 minutes, or 5 seconds that would have made a difference? We were hit, it was done. He did good afterwards and that's what matters. He set up the intelligence to hunt down the fuckhead that did it, Barry inherited Bush's policies... end of story. I give kudos to Barry for letting our hero's take that bastard out, good for him. 7 minutes vs 16 hours?? Sorry my friend, Bush wins this one and Barry gets props for not saying no. Bin Laden (ef'er) is dead, dead, DEAD! I feel bad for the fish and worms that have to eat that sack of shit. JMHO.
"What if he had been notified
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 2:28pm.
"What if he had been notified of a possible missile launch from Russia or China?...."
So we're dealing with "what ifs" now? What if Godzilla was attacking?
Seriously though, you still have not told me, or anyone for that matter, what the consequences of those 7 minutes were. There were none, but you're going to get stuck on this point because of what COULD have happened? I guess this is where we will agree to disagree.
For the life of me though, I don't know how you can slam Bush for 7 minutes, yet defend Obama for a 16 hour delay. WHAT IF Osama had escaped and then planned the next big attack that killed thousands more Americans.
As I have said before, the 7 minutes and the 16 hours bore no consequences and I don't have a problem with either. But for you to complain about one and dismiss another is simply hypocritical.
Let me get this straight: You
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 3:00pm.
Let me get this straight: You are aware of course that highjacked planes were on their way to be deliberately slammed into the Pentagon and either the White House or Capitol, and that ONLY the CIC had the authority to issue a shoot-down order to interdict those attacks.
Yet, despite that, you justify the President's delay in immediately engaging himself in a situation analysis, issuing the shoot-down orders, and considering what other urgent steps might be necessary or appropriate because in hindsight it appears those shoot-down orders would have probably been too late anyway. That is a breathtaking rationalization.
The circumstances of the two incidents aren't even remotely analogous. In one, bin Laden had been tracked for months and was known to be living at the compound, and there was absolutely no indication that he was leaving. On 9/11, we were in the middle of an ongoing attack for heaven's sake!
Now, you can scoff at and refuse to address the hypotheticals if you wish. But, unlike Godzilla, they are appropriately relevant examples to gauge the consistency of your logic. And your simply brushing them aside suggests you are uncomfortable with the answer.
Btw...I have yet to see a source for the claim that Obama's sleeping on the decision actually delayed the operation. Can you provide one?
Jer
Geeze Jer
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 11:14pm.
Is it possible that upon the initial word of the attack, given the surprise nature of it and all, that the motorcade was somewhat ill-prepared for a hasty exit? And then, juuuuusssst maybe, someone altered the decision to leave and decided that it might be more appropriate to fill in the nation rather than waiting any longer?
Sometimes Jer, things need to be fluid. Sometimes plans change as conditions warrant. Sometimes, especially in the case of a large-scale terrorist attack the likes we -or the rest of the world for that matter- had never experienced, you kinda wing-it. Is it possible that as the events were unfolding in real time that alterations to the first reaction might take place and, in fact, be in order?
Stop being so stiff.
Are you kidding, bkeyser.. Stop??.
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 1:39am.
At my age, it's an aspiration. The word itself is sacrosanct.
Jer
Seriously, there is something
Submitted by liberalsarefunny on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 7:03pm.
Seriously, there is something wrong with this guy Matthews. Seriously......
The spin continues*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 7:23pm.
The liberal media condemned Bush-Cheney for 9-11, Katrina, Iraqi invasion even though the entire congress concurred. They attacked Bush for the Patriot Act, DHS, Gitmo and use of controlled torture.
Now, all is great, regardless of the high unemployment, rising gas prices, Gitmo still open, and corruption abounds. Anything Obama does is great, beautific, and what fails is Bush's fault.
They are giving Obama credit for the tough decision making it takes to take out Bin Laden.
But notice how the media has ignored this story. What part did Obama play in this decision?
Hard to tell since the media is basically been silent
so what else is new?
Submitted by MidAmerica on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 7:42pm.
Here's what most of these talking heads are missing about the takedown of osama.
What took so long?
We weren't surprised just relieved it went so well.
We know our military is the best in the world so we knew it was only a matter of time before we got him. Now that we have got him we will go right back to worrying about what we were worrying about before this little interruption, the economy.
What took so long! George Bush that's what!
Submitted by Villabolo on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 10:24pm.
What took so long?
Perhaps the fact that George Bush said, 6 months after 9/11 that Osama Bin Laden was no longer of any importance.
Don't forget the fact that in 2006 George Bush canceled the military operation that had been looking for Bin Laden for the past 10 years. That was 4 years before Bush began office. It was Clinton who started the search before 9/11. Bush ended the search in spite of 9/11.
For that Bush deserves no credit.
Villabolo
Wow
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 10:31pm.
Delusional much?
Well that means Clinton
Submitted by MightyMouth on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 10:40pm.
Well that means Clinton deserves no credit too? After all, he could have pulled the trigger on Bin Laden but chose not to. And Obama bashed everything the Bush admin did to catch terrorists. But then your buddy Obama, left every Bush policy in place to kill Obama (sorry Osama) . You do have to admit the GITMO feasco is one of Obama's greatest achievements! It's really funny that Obama will be defined by what he couldn't do...
Ever hear of a guy named Saddam Hussein....?
Submitted by NeoKong on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 7:44pm.
Uday and Qusay...?
Khalid Sheik Mohammed...?
Zacarias Moussaoui...?
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi....?
Chemical Ali....?
The Iraqi terrorist deck of cards....?
Uh hoh please...George Bush and Dick Cheney rained hell fire down on the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and guys like Obama cried like little girls about it. Now all because Obama finally has a little military success he becomes blood and guts Obama....? Why doesn't Chrissy Tingles discuss a certain guy living in Libya who can still walk the streets with impunity and who has publicly mocked Obama and his coalition....? There are guys with little wooden boats hijacking tankers and yachts and killing Americans and Obama has done nothing. Maybe Chrissy would like to discuss who has a higher casualty rate in Afghanistan if Obama is so successful there.
NeoKong---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 7:52pm.
A+
MD
Fantastic points,
Submitted by stratman on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 8:59pm.
Fantastic points, NeoKong.
I expect the White House to contact NewsBusters to delete your comments like they did with the Pleasanton Weekly.
Thank goodness
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:10pm.
NB's are made of sterner stuff
DC Insider has a different version of the events
Submitted by ckc1227 on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 8:53pm.
"President Obama was literally pulled from a golf outing and escorted back to the White House to be informed of the mission. Upon his arrival there was a briefing held which included Bill Daley, John Brennan, and a high ranking member of the military. When Obama emerged from the briefing, he was described as looking “very confused and uncertain.”
Such a reliable source! NOT!
Submitted by Villabolo on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:41pm.
DC Insider. What next? Bat boy from the National Enquirer?
Villabolo
So you're saying he wasn't playing golf Sunday?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 8:26am.
He gave the OK Friday. They couldn't move Saturday due to weather.
So what does he do Sunday? Why, he does what any president would have done... he leaves the WH and hits the links, of course.
Sickabolo
This isn't "bias"
Submitted by Chris Norman on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:24pm.
When reporting on the absolutely worthless garbage that Chris Matthews excretes, the NewsBusters motto should change to "Exposing & Combating Insane Over the Top Partisan Bile in the Media". The spit that flies from his mouth has more value than the inane words accompanying it.
Open mouth....
Submitted by Patriot II on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 1:13pm.
in this case ..."insert feet"! This is the most ignorant, embecilic clown on the air...and that's saying a lot because there is a shyt pot full of ignorant embecilic clowns on the air....Whoever is in charge of this piece of excrement needs to be fired.......because he is to lazy or inept, or stupid to remove the maggot matthews from the air!!
I still the that's a picture of crissy
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 3:16pm.
filling his depends.
Matthews fuming because Cheney was right.
Submitted by Boil It Down on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 6:52pm.
Cheney's vindication after Bin Laden's death must be really killing Matthews. I'm a little too pleased to watch Matthews suffer. Shame on me. -bidn-
Actually
Submitted by malthus on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 10:00pm.
Actually, I was hoping that after they subdued UBL they would have brought in Dick Cheney to finish him off.
It would have been fitting.
Only in a ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 10:08pm.
dumb ass liberal's mind.
MD
I beg your pardon
Submitted by malthus on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 3:13am.
I beg your pardon md. a stronger Republican you'll not find. I wish DC had been given the opportunity to pepper UBL's pock marked face with a direct shot, it was well deserved and overdue.
Does NCCop stand for Never Commuted? LOL, you in jail dude? When you get computer privileges tomorrow check this link dirt bag:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2069327-1,00.html
I'll post it again in case you don't know what paste is:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2069327-1,00.html
Dear God, I miss the adults.
My most sincere apologies, malthus---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 3:40am.
I totally misread your post and was way out of line with my smart assed reply to it.
I read it as you wishing Dick Cheney could get finished off, rather than Dick Cheney being allowed to finish off UBL.
Pretty sorry comprehension on my part.
I hope it helps to say that once you got my attention, that I agree with you 100%.
MD
up too late
Submitted by malthus on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 12:40pm.
No apologies needed, I probably owe the confined cop a partial one too.... what happened to edit?.
The EDIT button leaves once
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 12:57pm.
The EDIT button leaves once someone replies to your post. You can type up a long edit & submit it but it will bounce if someone replied while you were typing up your edit. That can be frustrating. You would then have to put the newer update in a new post or reply.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.