Before the midterms, Chris was asked why he doesn't have Amb Wilson on to explain his side of the Plamegate gig-where his accusations against the VP, the President, Rove, etc were proven to be lies as well as his reports of Niger Uranium. Chris privately tried to reply that Wilson would just lie more. Chris knows reality.

The night of the election, Newsbusters pointed out that Chris was confronted with the greatest lie of the war in Iraq: Democrats never even started to brainstorm a plan for their "New Direction In Iraq", and after Gov Dean admitted this, after Dean was off the air, Matthews stopped just a heartbeat shy of telling his panel that Dean was a liar of the worst degree.

Now we have other reporters pointing out the ice-water-cold-truth: lacking an alternative plan (because they lied and mislead people like Chris), Americans can either support the President, or accept defeat.

Some reporters are seeing this very clearly, but being shut down by the liberal drool machines who know reality, but can't accept it (ie Chris Matthews, CNN, MSNBC leadership, etc).

link

Even harder for Moonbattus Denialus' like Chris Matthews is the fact that more and more mislead Bush-haters are having to face this reality as well

If Chris was a real journalist, a real political media cog in the check and balance of govt, he'd ask why the excuse-making continues, why there's no impeachment for a buzzillion crimes against humanity claimed by the Dems, and then he'd look in the mirror and ask himself if he was a patriot or a partisan.

Sadly blood-sucking vampires have no reflection.

SO, has Chris Matthews presented any other plans for Iraq, has he supported the war effort (ie, the anti-war, but for victory excuse is DOA), or has he accepted defeat like a French surrender Monkey?

I want to focus some attetion on the banner in the photo which reads "Can Congress stop White House plans?"

I think this is something the fine people here at NewsBusters should take up. I wrote about it on my blog.

I have been staggered by the obvious double-standard on display across the media front with Pelosi becoming the new Speaker vs what they did to Gingrich in 1994-95. It is so obvious and so blatant, I don't know how the media people can look each other or the public in the eye. -- And this "Can Congress stop White House plans?" is a big part of that story.

If you look back at the bombardment Gingrich and the new Republican majority in the House got immediately after the 1994 election (well - as part of the run up to it as well) --------- one consistent theme was how ---- Gingrich as a personality, the man, was bad. He was demonized as being so confrontational and so driven by "extremist" view points on issues ---- his elevation to Speaker was a dire omen for things to come in Congress.

The specific mantra was that he and the new Republican majority were going to make national politics so divisive, Congress would grind to a halt and stay in gridlock -- to the detriment of all the dear readers listening to the media barrage.

Fast forward to today, and what a different message we get pelting us relentlessly about the head!!

Now, obstructionism is not just fine -------- people like Matthews keep repeating to anybody who will listen that fighting Republican policy tooth-n-nail is the sacred mandate the voters gave them, and people like Matthews say they are afraid Pelosi isn't going to push hard enough....

It is all truly shameful. The media's memory must be like that of a gnat (and the scrupples to match).

Support from Obama - on Iran/Syria

I'm taking this out of context a bit - but to the MSM, context is not usually an important consideration.

Following President Bush's speech last week, Obama said: "I think there's nothing wrong with us as part of a broader military strategy making sure that Iran and Syria aren't engaging in mischief in iraq."

So Chris, is Obama evil, also?