MSNBC Correspondent Shuster Goes on Shameful Cindy Sheehan Style Antiwar Rant

In 2006, one of the most shameless Democrat pols in the media was certainly MSNBC correspondent David Shuster who repeatedly and consistently behaved more like a left-leaning political operative than a television journalist. On Wednesday’s “Hardball,” Shuster made it clear that objectivity and impartiality were not on his New Year’s resolutions list.

As NewsBuster Mark Finkelstein has been reporting, Chris Matthews has been virtually foaming at the mouth lately concerning his desire for American troops to be immediately withdrawn from Iraq. On Wednesday, his partner in crime nicely set up the 7PM EST installment with an antiwar rant that could have been performed by Cindy Sheehan (video available here).

After showing a brief clip of President Bush asking the new Congress to “set aside politics and focus on the future,” Shuster complained, “But the president made no mention of the Iraq War.” Then, the rant really began. The reader is hereby warned to put a lobster bib on to protect clothing from the foam spewing out of Shuster's mouth:

The total number of American service members killed in Iraq is now greater than the total number of people killed on 9/11. An attack Iraq had nothing to do with. And on the heels of one of the deadliest months since the war in Iraq began, NBC News has learned President Bush`s change in strategy will be to send in even more American troops.

These statements were extraordinary coming from a supposedly unbiased journalist. After all, if Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on America on 9/11, what does the number of American casualties that day have to do with the number of troops killed during the Iraq war? Furthermore, there has been a highly public discussion going on for weeks within the Bush administration and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle concerning a surge in troops. Was this the first Shuster had heard about this? Regardless, his rant continued:

According to U.S. officials, the president`s plan, known as "surge and accelerate", will be announced next week and will add another 20,000 troop to the 140,000 already in Iraq. It is not the change of course most American expected last November. When they voted Democrats into control of Congress. After the election, the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Commission urged the Bush administration to begin a gradual withdrawal of U.S. combat troops.

Yes, David. However, you failed to point out to your viewers that the ISG report also suggested a temporary increase in troops if it would strengthen security in Iraq now thereby making a withdrawal of troops more likely in the future. Of course, sharing that information with the viewer would have diminished the point. Alas, Shuster was just getting warmed up:

The American military has long been a staunch supporter of President Bush and the Iraq War. The 2004 presidential campaign, a survey of thousands of active duty military personnel found that 63 percent approved of the president`s handling of the Iraq War. Now according to a new survey by "The Military Times" the number is down to just 35 percent approval, 42 percent disapproval. The new poll also found that only 41 percent of the military believes the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place.

And when it comes to an increase of U.S. troops in Iraq, only 38 percent of the military supports the idea, 39 percent are opposed. And 13 percent say all U.S. forces should be removed from Iraq today.

Of course, no antiwar rant this week would be complete without suggesting how Saddam’s recent execution reflects negatively on the Bush administration:

Images of Shiites taunting Saddam in his final moments have been played repeatedly on Arab channels across the Middle East. And with Iraqis, Sunnis and Shiites already in a civil war, Democrats and Republicans in Congress fear the violence will now get even worse for the Iraqi government and for U.S. troops.

And, no anti-Bush rant would be complete without somehow bringing up one of the worst natural disasters in American history that the president didn’t miraculously prevent:

A White House spokesman later said President Bush has not yet seen the Saddam video. The images have been part of an international discourse for days. And critics say the president`s detachment is reminiscent of Hurricane Katrina when the president didn`t appreciate the aftermath or public war until an advisor showed him a tape several crucial days later.

How disgraceful. What follows is a partial transcript of this segment.

DAVID SHUSTER, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: Today President Bush met with his Cabinet and then urged the new Congress to work with the administration in a bipartisan fashion.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT: It is time to set aside politics and focus on the future.

SHUSTER: But the president made no mention of the Iraq War. The total number of American service members killed in Iraq is now greater than the total number of people kill on 9/11. An attack Iraq had nothing to do with. And on the heels of one of the deadliest months since the war in Iraq began, NBC News has learn President Bush` change in strategy will be to send in even more American troops.

According to U.S. officials, the president`s plan, known as "surge and accelerate", will be announced next week and will add another 20,000 troop to the 140,000 already in Iraq. It is not the change of course most American expected last November. When they voted Democrats into control of Congress. After the election, the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Commission urged the Bush administration to begin a gradual withdrawal of U.S. combat troops. And throughout the fall, the top U.S. commander in Iraq said a U.S. troop surge would be a mistake.

GEN. JOHN ABIZAID, COMMANDER, U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND: No, I do not believe that more American troops right now is the solution to the problem.

SHUSTER: The American military has long been a staunch supporter of President Bush and the Iraq War.

The 2004 presidential campaign, a survey of thousands of active duty military personnel found that 63 percent approved of the president`s handling of the Iraq War. Now according to a new survey by "The Military Times" the number is down to just 35 percent approval, 42 percent disapproval. The new poll also found that only 41 percent of the military believes the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place.

And when it come to an increase of U.S. troops in Iraq, only 38 percent of the military supports the idea, 39 percent are opposed. And 13 percent say all U.S. forces should be removed from Iraq today.

In Washington though, all eyes are on the Democrats and Republicans in Congress. Lawmaker in both parties have been exasperated, what they call the mishandling of the Iraq War. Evidenced again last week, according to lawmakers, by the execution of Saddam Hussein.

Images of Shiites taunting Saddam in his final moments have been played repeatedly on Arab channels across the Middle East. And with Iraqis, Sunnis and Shiites already in a civil war, Democrats and Republicans in Congress fear the violence will now get even worse for the Iraqi government and for U.S. troops.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you think Saddam`s execution was handled appropriately?

SHUSTER: A White House spokesman later said President Bush has not yet seen the Saddam video. The images have been part of an international discourse for days. And critics say the president`s detachment is reminiscent of Hurricane Katrina when the president didn`t appreciate the aftermath or public war until an advisor showed him a tape several crucial days later.

On Iraq, the political landscape for the president`s escalation strategy is daunting. As it stands, columnist Robert Novak wrote today the president will find support for U.S. troop surge in Iraq from only 12 out of 49 Republican senators.

(on camera): And as for the Democrats, on the House side today, they had a meeting interrupted by anti-war activists, complaining that oversight hearings on Iraq are not enough. In fact, most Democrats want the U.S. to start an Iraq withdrawal. But it still not clear if Democratic leaders in Congress have the stomach for a fight.

I`m David Shuster for HARDBALL in Washington.