Marine to Matthews: Surge This!

Photo of Mark Finkelstein.

On this afternoon's Hardball, the old lawyer's adage rose up and bit Chris Matthews hard: never ask a witness a question to which you don't know the answer. Matthews's guest was retired Marine Corps Major General Arnold Punaro, Chairman of the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves. Matthews's substance and tone left no doubt that he wanted his questions as to the availability of sufficient troops to pacify Baghdad, and the advisability of using Guard and Reserve troops as part of such a "surge," answered in the negative.

Matthews: "Do we have the troops to dramatically increase our complement of troops in Iraq, sir?"

Punaro: "Absolutely. Between our active military and the number of troops we have in the Guard and Reserve, should the Commander-in-Chief, on the advice of the combatant commanders in the field and with the concurrence of the Congress make the decision that we want to increase the size of the force in Iraq, we certainly have the ability to surge those forces."

Whoops! Matthews tried a tactical retreat, thinking he might achieve his goal by denigrating the abilities of the non-active military: "What about the National Guard people and the Reservists, are they the kind of people it's appropriate to send into house-to-house combat in the middle of that huge city of Baghdad, where they'll be getting shot at every moment and where they'll be killing Arabs. Is that the right place for them?"

Again, the Major General wouldn't sing Matthews's song: "First of all, over 550,000 Guard and Reserve personnel have been mobilized since 9-11. Many of them have served extensive tours in Iraq and Aghanistan. They've been side-by-side with their active components. They've been in the thick of the combat. The Marine Corps and Army ground forces are trained the same as their active duty counterparts. They're every bit as capable of closing with and destroying the enemy as their active counterparts."

Matthews gave it one last try: "And you believe that's an appropriate use of Guardspeople to put them into house-to-house like we're talking about? We're talking about going in and cleaning out Baghdad, something that the Iraqi forces haven't been able to do, that the 17,000 regular Army and Marine forces haven't been able to do. You're saying throw in the National Guard to do it?"

Punaro: "Well the question you first asked was are they capable of carrying out those kind of missions, and the answer is 'yes'."

Surge that, Chris.

View video of the Marine's mano a mano with Matthews here.

Finkelstein spent 10 days in Iraq in November, largely on Marine bases in Anbar Province. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net

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


Comments Policy

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

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Please let me know if you'r

Please let me know if you're having trouble viewing the video in Firefox. Plays fine in IE.

Doesn't work on Firefox.Wat

Doesn't work on Firefox.

Watched it on IE, Great Video, even with Chrissy caughing in the background.

Earlier in the show Chris w

Earlier in the show Chris was really hacking up a storm. All kidding aside, I hope he's fully recovered from his health issues and that this is nothing more than a winter cold.

What is wrong with him, Hea

What is wrong with him, Healthwise?

According to this report he

According to this report he was out with complications related to diabetes.

Thanks for the info. I had

Thanks for the info. I had heard he was sick, but did not know what the problem was. If he is having these kinds of problems with diabetes at his age, it aint good.

Maybe he's finally reached hi

Maybe he's finally reached his limit of lies and he's having a had time choking out new ones.

I'll never wish the enemy w

I'll never wish the enemy well. I'm not that nice. If he's sick... I hope it gets worse. He deserves it as far as I'm concerned. Leftists in this country are my enemy and all America's enemy and I for one want them defeated... and if their sick or dying of some disease, all the better.

As for his attempt to impugn the Military once again.... nice job on the ret. General on knocking his barrage of BS questions totally out of the park.

Yes its freezing up Firefox

Yes its freezing up Firefox and not downloading.

Firefox

I also had trouble viewing the video in Firefox. Video did work fine on IE.

Luke

Methinks Major Punaro's caree

Methinks Major Punaro's career as a consulant for Hardball has come to a swift end. Didn't follow the script there, Major.

Certainly won't see him on Olbermann's show, that's for sure.

I'm sure MAJ Punaro would w

I'm sure MAJ Punaro would wear a short Hardball lifespan as a badge of honor. He will be celebrated in many more important places.

Good Item But....

I'm pretty sure Punaro is a retired Major General...not a major.

You are absolutely correct

You are absolutely correct and I've made the correction. Thanks for bringing to my attention.

"Archly"? I don't see that. S

"Archly"? I don't see that. Seemed like a pretty standard question in its delivery and tone. You make it sound like Matthews was hovering over Punaro, ready to pounce, then stumbled backwards after Punaro's response. "Tactical retreat"? Sounded more like a follow up to the answer given.

The last part, yeah, Matthews spun the question to make it sound like Punaro was advising the use of "weekend warriors" to do the job. But I don't think you've characterized this give-and-take accurately.

Yeah, Mark. You really twiste

Yeah, Mark. You really twisted Matthew's words to make him look like an unfair partisan hack, when we all know this gentleman is so fair, balanced and non-partisan, he makes Brian Lamb, on C-Span, look like James Carville. As Balboa points out, the poltically neutral Mr. Matthews (does anyone know to which party he belongs?) was doing some gentle follow-up, as he always does, just to present the issue fairly.

The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.

- Arabian Proverb

I didn't say that. I said I t

I didn't say that. I said I thought he mischaracterized Matthews' tone, as well as the nature of his follow-up question.

You're so all over the place

You're so all over the place you can't know what you say.

The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.

- Arabian Proverb

It's a valid point. I think

It's a valid point. I think Finkel tried to create an impression of the interview that wasn't there.

Once again it's clear that th

Once again it's clear that the MSM has a very low opinion of the troops which is obvious and very telling - not to mention probably very insulting and demoralizing to the troops in the field...very helpful to our success in Iraq, Chris old buddy...thanks very much...

...what do these anti-military leftoids think the military reserves train for anyway? Military operations, perhaps?

Truthmonger,I'm not so sure t

Truthmonger,

I'm not so sure the troops in the field are "demoralized" by the MsM's coverage, not to mention their attitudes.

I think the troops are mad about it.  Sean Hannity showed a clip last week.  It wasn't a set piece nor an interview, just a bunch of guys talking to Hannity.   Several of them were quite angry about the bad coverage, and non-existent coverage of the positives.  One guy was absolutely furious about the notion that the military is a bunch of uneducated losers. 

If you want to see a funny picture, go to Kerry's webpage and look at the picture of him with the troops in Iraq on Saturday (I posted it on the bottom of yesterday's open thread).   It appears to me that Kerry's lucky he didn't get fragged during this photo op.

Thanks very much for the ref

Thanks very much for the reference - and I would certainly like to think that they are not demoralized - and although no one can be completely sure I'm afraid that many of them are - and furthermore I believe that many in the pondscum DNC and MSM know this, and HOPE for this, which is why I truly believe that many should be tried for treason and imprisoned...

In short they're damn lucky I'm not in charge...

Truth, no, no, no. You've g

Truth, no, no, no. You've got it all backwards. The primary mission of the Guard and Reserves is to perform humanitarian missions in their respective states.

Just think how valuable those F15's, F16's and A10's are in rescuing people stranded in raging rivers and flooded neighborhoods. Think how valuable all those KC135's are for, for, well, I'm sure they are very valuable in Search and Rescue missions. And oh, those Abrams tanks, they are invaluable in pulling cars from mudslides, I'm sure.

So see, the best and highest purpose of those units are for humanitarian and emergency purposes. And if stupid Bush deploys them to fight a war, well he's just putting the poor people of the states at risk, And he probably did it on purpose.


Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!

Hey John...

...well if I informed myself about current events exclusively via comedians like John Stewart - like so many of our fine young folks do - I'd certainly know they were handy for bombing New Orleans blacks out of their homes during Katrina...

Please go back and review h

Please go back and review how Matthews was setting up a worst-case scenario of reservists getting shot at "every moment," etc. and tell me he wasn't fishing for an answer.

Well, Mark, Matthews went

Well, Mark,

Matthews went fishing all right...using the wrong bait in the wrong body of water. He was fishing for perch and ended up catching a great white shark. Snap!!! Careful of those teeth, Chrissy.

I thought he was framing the

I thought he was framing the situation, so if Punaro said "Yeah, that's what we want" Matthews could leave the impression that we might not be sneding the right people for the job.

But I still don't think Matthews was executing a "tactical retreat" because he didn't get the answer he wanted from the first question. Just a follow up.

Matthews (aka tweety bird for

Matthews (aka tweety bird for duers) has had years to frame issues the old fashioned democratic way--lie, distort, exaggerate, fiegn, make-up, obfisgate, shade, ommit, steal, change the subject, interupt, spin, and generally carry on the noble cause of our American version of Pravda.

Liberalism is a convenient lie.

I wish he'd told Chriss

I wish he'd told Chrissy, "Drop and give me fifty, maggot!" And then while Matthews struggles: "You will NEVER question the resolve or the capability of United States forces again! DO YOU HEAR ME, TWEETY PIE?" Yeah, yeah, I mean I wish he'd really gone R. Lee Ermey on Matthews' butt.

I'm a lot more interested whe

I'm a lot more interested when Punaro said this:

'...should the Commander-in-Chief, on the advice of the combatant commanders in the field and with the concurrance of Congress make the decision to increase the size of the force in Iraq...'

Isn't this a decision reserved strictly for the Commander-in-Chief? Is he saying if the combatant commanders OR if Congress disagree, then he would not increase the size based solely on the Commander-in-Chief's decision?

Why didn't Matthews get into this?

Doesn't sound that way to me-

Doesn't sound that way to me- sounds like the Commander in Chief will make the descisions based on what trhe ground commanders advise- correct me if I'm wrong?

http://sacredscoop.com

Well, he said on the advice o

Well, he said on the advice of commanders in the field AND the CONCURRANCE of Congress. Sounds like he would respond if there is a 3-way agreement to send troops.

But, that could just be my poor interpretation.

Actually, Congress only has t

Actually, Congress only has the power of the purse strings and the initial declaration of war. They don't have a say of whether or not to send more troops, or draw them down. It's not their call. That is why the President is called the "Commander in Chief" as found in Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. So I too am a little confused by his statement.

Money issue

My take was that it was clearly a money issue. The President sends them, but Congress has to agree to pay for them. If they do not, the President has to find money elsewhere or bring them home.

Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower

Matthews didn't question that

Matthews didn't question that because HE LIKES THE THOUGHT OF BUSH HAVING OBSTACLES...the more the merrier...

You can tell so much about these MSM types by their methods of questioning - or lack thereof...

We should use bigger bombs an

We should use bigger bombs and more of them.

Liberalism is a convenient lie.

crshedd,I believe what MG (re

crshedd,

I believe what MG (ret.) Punaro was alluding to was this:

The commander-in-chief does ultimately make the decision.  But a wise commander-in-chief will listen to the advice of his ground commanders.  If either GEN Abizaid (CENTCOM commander) or GEN Casey (Multi-National Force-Iraq commander) come back and advise the president that troops should not be increased, then the president needs to note that.  President Bush has the preogative to override the advice of his ground commanders, but he has to at least give them a voice in the decision-making process.

Now, Congress comes in because they have to allocate the funding for an increase.  There's a litany of costs associated with deployments, from transportation to move people and equipment to combat pay for the troops.  If the funds are not currently there to support the increase, then the president has to go back to Congress for supplemental funding.

Now, don't get me wrong, the president (in his capacity as commander-in-chief) must not make a decision by consensus or committee.  His decision is his alone and we, the military, executes that decision and Congress needs to step forward and assist financially.  I'm just laying what I think the thought pattern was from MG (ret.) Punaro.

I'm shocked that Matthews eve

I'm shocked that Matthews even let the guy answer his question. He usually answers his own questions!!!

Cunservatyve military medical guy

If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul's vote!

Take that Monsieur Matthews

Take that Monsieur Matthews! Go cry over your bree and baguettes because you couldn't dupe and honest to goodness Devil Dog! OOOORAH!

Funny what can happen when you get an apolitical military expert to honestly answer your questions instead of some self serving sloth like Weasley Clark.

vacation for crap'n

My Goodness: two days in a row, getting B!tch slapped,the PAIN so much disrepect, didn't he know who he was being interveiwed by, the nerve!!! "YOUR FIRED" Where's "weltering" clark when i need him.