Matthews compared Bush performance at press conference to Lincoln
During MSNBC's special coverage of President Bush's May 25 press conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Chris Matthews touted Bush's repudiation of previous remarks in which Bush stated that he wanted Osama bin Laden brought to justice "dead or alive," and in which he seemed to dare Iraqi insurgents who would attack U.S. troops, stating, "Bring 'em on." Matthews stated that Bush's remarks contained a "little bit of Lincoln" and that the "shared grief with the American people" expressed by Bush during the conference was "what Lincoln felt too."
During MSNBC's special coverage of President Bush's May 25 press conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Hardball host Chris Matthews and chief Washington correspondent Norah O'Donnell effusively praised Bush. Matthews and O'Donnell touted Bush's repudiation of two of his previous remarks -- in which he stated that he wanted Osama bin Laden brought to justice "dead or alive," and in which he seemed to dare Iraqi insurgents who would attack U.S. troops, stating, "Bring 'em on."
Matthews stated that Bush's remarks contained a "little bit of Lincoln" and that the "shared grief with the American people" expressed by Bush during the conference was "what Lincoln felt too." Matthews further asserted that Bush "elevated himself above his critics and his supporters" by acknowledging that he "see[s]" the human "price" of the Iraq war "every day."
O'Donnell stated that for Bush "to be so open" in acknowledging his own mistakes suggests that he is "willing perhaps to change" and "again seek reconciliation," adding that Bush is "looking towards his legacy."
From MSNBC's special coverage of the May 25 press conference, featuring Newsweek assistant managing editor Evan Thomas and Keith Olbermann, host of MSNBC's Countdown:
MATTHEWS: Well, we're joined, of course, right now by MSNBC's chief Washington correspondent, Norah O'Donnell. Let me ask you a second question. Do you think that's going to be the headline tomorrow in the newspapers? The admission of error.
O'DONNELL: I do. You know, the president, when he was asked that question, he kind of joked and said this is becoming a familiar refrain, because he is frequently asked, "What mistakes have you made?" And he has resisted ever admitting that he makes mistakes.
And for him to be so open, so open tonight suggests a reflectiveness, suggests a man in his second term who's willing perhaps to change, who is willing to again seek reconciliation. And saying I -- that I said, "Bring it on," "Dead or alive," that cowboy image in the world that he is viewed. It also suggests, I think, in some ways that he's looking towards his legacy.
[...]
MATTHEWS: Keith, let's take a look right now at what the president said in that amazing moment of reflection we saw near the end of the press conference.
BUSH [video clip]: Saying "Bring it on." Kind of tough talk, you know, that sent the wrong signal to people, that I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner, you know, "Wanted dead or alive," that kind of talk. It -- I think, in certain parts of the world, it was misinterpreted. And so I learned from that. And, you know, I think the biggest mistake that's happened so far, at least from our country's involvement in Iraq, is Abu Ghraib. We've been paying for that for a long period of time.
MATTHEWS: A little bit of Lincoln there, I think, Keith.
OLBERMANN: Yeah, the idea, of course, then becomes, what did the president think that those statements -- how did he think those were going to be interpreted originally when he made them? They were not all made at once, they were made over a series of days after 9-11 and before we went into Afghanistan, if my chronology serves me, here. So, again, I think your point is well taken about this window inside the president's appreciation of where his comments played and how they played internationally. But, they do raise those two other questions, which is, why are we just hearing this now, and some of these things were said 3 1/2 or more years ago and what -- what, entirely, do they mean in terms of openness against that backdrop where, during the debates two years ago, he literally had no answer to the question "What are your most -- what things do you most regret?"
[...]
MATTHEWS: Let's go into our -- let's go to colleague Joe Scarborough [host of MSNBC's Scarborough Country]. Joe, I know at this moment there's some people in the anti-war front who are saying, "I told you so," and are going to jump on that. I'll tell you, this is a moment, I think, where Bush elevated himself above his critics and his supporters by saying, you know, "I'm a wartime president. This is not a happy time for me, and I don't like this death scene we're watching. I maybe have a policy, but I see its price every day."
[...]
MATTHEWS: Evan, there is an old expression in politics, "Don't get so far ahead of the parade that you can't hear the music." Is it possible that what the president was trying to do tonight was to reconcile his own sort of tough views of the war with what he knows to be the sad views of most Americans about this war? He knows we're sad about the war, right, left, and center. As long as he looks too cheerful about it, too upbeat about it, he's out of sync. He has to at least step back into crowd again and say, "Although we disagree on whether we should fight this war, we both agree on one thing, this is painful. We're coming up to Memorial Day. I share your grief about this war, even if we disagree."
THOMAS: I thought he sounded vaguely depressive tonight.
MATTHEWS: Depressive.
THOMAS: Depressive. He was so weary that it was like a guy who's sleepy because he's depressed. Now, whether that was calculated, a tone that he's trying to, as you're suggesting, trying to show a sadness to the American people or that's just the way he feels.
MATTHEWS: It's what Lincoln felt, too, so I'm giving him that credit. It is something that a great leader should express in wartime. Not joviality, in fact, not even overconfidence, but a shared grief with the American people. Every day he has to bury some more people, and he's certainly the president, the commander in chief, who has to write the letter, and it's -- maybe it's a good time to admit that.
THOMAS: It's not just writing letters. He's meeting with these families on a regular basis.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Mathews has already shown himself to be a partisan hack, so HIS comments mean nothing.
Bush not commenting on his "I just don't think about him" bin Laden statement and waiting this long to denounce his "bring 'em on" comments speaks volumes. And just because Bush "feels" the pain of Iraq everyday doesn't justify us being there, prisoner abuse, warrantless phone tapping, tax breaks for the rich, a soaring deficit, etc., etc.
I do think O'Donnell is right about one thing - it's now about rescuing a legacy for future history books.
I didn't know Lincoln, but in any event, I'm sorry Mr. Bush, you are no Lincoln.
"prisoner abuse, warrantless phone tapping, tax breaks for the rich"
Blah, blah, blah! What prisoner abuse? Warrantless phone tapping? This is a perfect example of why Americans don't trust liberals when it comes to national security. You know full well that no one is listening in on anyone's phone calls. Are you just as concerned that your local super market knows how much beer you buy? Are you just as concerned that your Master Card company knows you bought that copy of Playboy? Are you just as concerned that your gas card company knows exactly where you took your last car trip to? We are at war and our security forces are trying to track the phone patterns of people who want to kill you and your family? And finally, the endless cry by liberals when it comes to tax breaks for the wealthy. Have you ever taken a course in basic economics? You obviously don't understand that the more money you let people keep, the more money they will spend. Do you think that the extra money people get from tax breaks is being hidden under their mattresses? No, it's either being spent or invested both of which creates JOBS! But I wouldn't expect a leftist liberal to understand these things.
I keep hearing about how great those tax cuts were, but the only facts I've seen are 1) In Bush's words, 2/3 of the jobs created were in the service industry (he's got the illegal aliens covered!) 2) y'all brag about what happened since 2003 but ignore the previous 3 years and 3) what did happen, after all? Individual income receipts went down slightly, corporate income receipts increased slightly, whereas the only real gains realized were in social insurance taxes, excise taxes and customs receipts. So basically we pay more for what we consume, we pay more into social security and we pay more to purchase as we travel.
These FACTS courtesy of the Congressional Budget Office.
"2/3 of the jobs created were in the service industry"
So? In case you haven't noticed we have become more and more of a service related economy over the last 30 years. Other countries around the world produce things cheaper than we can. It's called "comparative advantage". Get over it!
Would you like fries with that order?
You could super-size your order for an additional 39 cents.
Yes I would like fries with my order! Listening to you nay sayers you would think that the only jobs we are creating in this country were hamburger flippers. We heard the same nonsense when Reagan was President also. You completely ignore jobs created by the IT industry, stock market, real estate, and banking just to name a few.
I did love the Reagan years. The interest rate on my mortgage was over 15%. What's not to love about trickle down economics? Good old Ronnie did his best to crush the labor movement and turn back the clock to the 1920's for working people. He was also instrumental in getting rid of the "Fairness Doctrine". it was fun watching the footage on TV when they pulled those damned nuns from their graves in Central America. If they knew that Ronnie's policy was to aid the oppressors in the area, they should not have gone down there to help the poor. There was much more to love, illegal arms deals with terrorists, etc. And his greatest legacy was in ignoring the emerging AIDS epidemic, after all they were just getting a little wrath of god for their aberrant behavior.
We can't say too many nice things about him.
... during most of his second term, he made new friends every day.
"I did love the Reagan years. The interest rate on my mortgage was over 15%."
Nice try. Reagan inherited the highest interest rates from Carter and by the time he left office they were extremely low. He also inherited an extrenely high unemployment which he also greatly reduced. How about Carter's inflation?
"What's not to love about trickle down economics?"
Does the inconvenience of it working bother you?
"turn back the clock to the 1920's for working people."
A perfect example of liberal rhetoric. Of course you have the opportunity to respond to that charge with an example or two?
"We can't say too many nice things about him"
How about the crushing defeat of Communisn? Oh wait I forgot, American liberals credit Gorbachev with this.
Yes, and now we have the Reagan beat communism tripe, as if the Berlin Wall fell because Reagan told Gorbachev to take it down, and not because of the fact that Russia's communism was inherently unworkable and doomed from the start.
Reagan did help with his support of the Afghan holy warriors. You remember, when he put us in bed with Bin Laden. In case you don't remember, that was after he put us in bed with Saddam Hussein. Yeah, quality individual, that Ronald Reagan.
Are you talking about the same stock, real estate, and banking industries that resulted in the crash of '87, and the savings and loan bailout during those years?
I give the facts about the tax cuts and all you got is drivel about service related jobs being good? I notice you didn't bother to defend the facts about where the revenue increases came from. Methinks someone is trying to divert the direction of this conversation...
it was trickled on economics.
so let's get rid of this hideous program. None of us will ever see a penny of what we paid into it.
Blah, blah, blah!
That's right, expose your own childishness and avoid answering anything. Very efficient of you.
What prisoner abuse?
Where were you when Abu Ghraib made the news?
Warrantless phone tapping?
Are you implying this isn't happening, despite the evidence?
This is a perfect example of why Americans don't trust liberals when it comes to national security.
Polls show the opposite. Republicans are the ones who aren't trusted.
You know full well that no one is listening in on anyone's phone calls.
Until the recent blow-up about immigration, the phone tap scandal was the biggest item in the news. The powers-that-be weren't denying it, as you are, but were trying to justify it. At least get on the same page as the other conservatives.
Are you just as concerned that your local super market knows how much beer you buy? Are you just as concerned that your Master Card company knows you bought that copy of Playboy? Are you just as concerned that your gas card company knows exactly where you took your last car trip to?
A stunning stream of irrelevancies. And for the record, I don't buy beer, I don't have a Master Card, I don't buy Playboy, and no gas card company can possibly know where you drive. Get real, already.
We are at war and our security forces are trying to track the phone patterns of people who want to kill you and your family?
That would be fine if true, but those in the real world know that most of the monitored calls have had no connection to Al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization.
And finally, the endless cry by liberals when it comes to tax breaks for the wealthy. Have you ever taken a course in basic economics?
Yes, and I'll bet I got better grades than you ever did.
You obviously don't understand that the more money you let people keep, the more money they will spend.
When the wealthy have more money, they invest it in things that benefit themselves, such as purchasing Republican congressmen.
Do you think that the extra money people get from tax breaks is being hidden under their mattresses? No, it's either being spent or invested both of which creates [sic] JOBS!
If that's the case, then why Bush's miserable record on the creating-jobs front?
But I wouldn't expect a leftist liberal to understand these things.
What we "leftist liberals" (as opposed to "rightist liberals," I suppose) don't understand is how any sane person can come up with drivel of this sort. Or am I assuming facts not in evidence?
"Where were you when Abu Ghraib made the news?"
This constant carping about Abu Ghraib doesn't make you lefties look too good. No one has ever been able to show or prove that any torture happened there. Did some take distastful pictures? Sure, and they were wrongfully punished because of Bush haters like yourself. Did American soldiers die because of your constant harping abou Abu Ghraib? You bet they did!
"Warrantless phone tapping? Are you implying this isn't happening, despite the evidence?"
What evidense is there of "warrantless phone tabs"? Be specific.
" And for the record, I don't buy beer, I don't have a Master Card, I don't buy Playboy, and no gas card company can possibly know where you drive. Get real, already."
Boy, this one went right over your head?
"those in the real world know that most of the monitored calls have had no connection to Al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization"
Oh really? How do I get a ticket to your "real world"?
"When the wealthy have more money, they invest it in things that benefit themselves, such as purchasing Republican congressmen."
Stop being so naive. Do some? Of course. Do some wealthy liberals donate to Democrat congressmen. You bet they do. Your statement is ridiculous!
I've debated with many people on board here with whom I've disagreed, but rarely have I seen anyone who could consistently write so words with so little substance.
I won't take the time to refute all your new points, since you didn't refute any of mine. I merely ask that you go back to the main subject--Chris Matthews' amazing comparison of Bush to Lincoln--and try to defend it. If you can't do it (and here's a quick hint for you: you can't), then just go away and stop wasting all our time.
" If you can't do it (and here's a quick hint for you: you can't), then just go away and stop wasting all our time."
I have no desire to defend him, I do have a great desire in refuting ridiculous rhetoric coming from you liberals.
I have no desire to defend him,
So you don't care about the actual topic of the thread? Somehow that doesn't surprise me.
I do have a great desire in refuting ridiculous rhetoric coming from you liberals.
Best of luck! But, with your track record so far, you have an equally good chance of winning at Daytona. On foot.
Flag and move on, people.
We haven't seen a single word of substance from this troll. It's one thing to engage in debate and cite references to back up your claims (like MMFA does). It's quite another to go "you liberals blah blah blah" and talk about how Trickle Down worked (THAT one was cute, you might as well say the moon is made of green cheese).
Flag and move on.
This person will wise up quickly and realize either that A) you gotta back up your sh*t; and B) no one will listen to you if you don't.
We are a nation that holds ourselves up to the world as a beacon of freedom and hope. We set an example for the rest of the world. We usually strive for a higher standard than our enemies. Although in the past our enemies have tortured our prisoners, we do not reciprocate. If our troops did, in the past, there were serious consequences for their crimes.
Forcing prisoners to stand naked and masturbate for the camera is torture. Beating prisoners until they pass out and then die is torture. Our troops were responsible for those acts. These are un-refutable FACTS!
You can spout your nonsense from now until doomsday, but that is all it will ever be, NONSENSE. You are a disgrace to this country and to every person who has ever served in our nation's military.
No one has ever been able to show or prove that any torture happened there. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Apparantly the news on Planet Wingnut is different than on Planet Earth
The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience," Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told reporters after Rumsfeld testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Rumsfeld told Congress the unrevealed photos and videos contain acts "that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman."
[link to www.cnn.com]
Then the incredibly stupid claim that Americans were killed not because of the rape and murder which would be hard enough to prove (as if the insurrgents arent already killing as many as they can) but because the rape and murder was TALKED about as if those tortured didnt KNOW they had been tortured. What a moron. Do they arrest bank robbers on your planet or just the reporters that REPORT the bank robberies?
Do you EVER know what you are talking about? Or is it just record whatever rightwing screech monkey you are listening to today then reguritate to whoever is dumb enough to take you seriously? You can show yourself out in disgrace.
Of this is already known from the 80's with Reagan's voodoo economics which created the biggest defecits in our nations history until Bush tried his version of trickle down economics and took the crown for creating the biggest defecits ever in our history. It doesn't work all it does is give more money to the rich it doesn't stimulate the economy this tax cut fallacy is a complete lie.
"It doesn't work all it does is give more money to the rich it doesn't stimulate the economy this tax cut fallacy is a complete lie."
Yes it gives more money to the rich which they invest, save, or spend all of which stimulates the economy. Tax cuts are a fallacy? Would you mind explaining how giving people more of what they earn a negative thing?
How is creating the biggest defecits in our nations history a positive thing?
Reagan had to restore a military decimated by Carter which did cause a deficit, but remember the miserable attemp by our military in freeing the Iranian hostages?
Maybe you can explain to all of us exactly what Clinton did to boost the economy in the 90's?
...do not repeat GOP/right wing radio talking points as facts. This isn't about Clinton who left us a SURPLUS this is about trickle down/voodoo economics which leaves us huge DEFECITS. How is it I knew that Bush's tax cuts to the rich were going to create a defecit? I know history that's why and my memory goes back to at least the 1980's when Reagan's tax cuts to the rich did the same thing.
Do you not understand the difference?
Do you think the earth is flat?
Are you sane?
"I knew that Bush's tax cuts to the rich were going to create a defecit?"
How? Explain in economic terms how a tax cut causes a deficit.
Reagan had to restore a military decimated by Carter
Carter (who, unlike Reagan, was an actual military man) did not decimate the military; that was just a convenient lie that Reagan told enough times that he--and people with equally sharp intellects--eventually believed it.
which did cause a deficit, but remember the miserable attemp by our military in freeing the Iranian hostages?
Yes, I remember, and apparently better than you do. There was an accident caused by a sandstorm. You want to blame that on Carter? Go ahead, but increased military spending wouldn't have altered the weather to any great extent. George H.W. Bush, among others, refused to condemn Carter for the attempt. And by the way, they were not "Iranian hostages," they were "American hostages." There is a significant difference.
Maybe you can explain to all of us exactly what Clinton did to boost the economy in the 90's?
Whatever he did, it obviously worked, and we need to do it again.
What seems painfully obvious, Finallyinsf, is that your partisanship is blinding you to the facts of history. Clinton was a very good president, Reagan and G.H.W. Bush were mediocre presidents, and G.W. Bush is a very poor president. This will be the judgment of history, and your blinders can't change it.
"Whatever he did, it obviously worked, and we need to do it again."
Whatever he did? See that? You don't have a clue! If you are giving Clinton credit for a vibrant economy in a debate don't you think you should be able to explain how? I experienced that vibrant economy. I saw my wealth grow. It had nothing to do with Clinton but everything to do with the tech stocks I and millions others owned. Remember he retained Greenspan. So his policies in that regard were George H. W. Bush's!
"What seems painfully obvious, Finallyinsf, is that your partisanship is blinding you to the facts of history. Clinton was a very good president, Reagan and G.H.W. Bush were mediocre presidents, and G.W. Bush is a very poor president. This will be the judgment of history, and your blinders can't change it."
So, Clinton was a good president? Why? Historians don't rate him very high. The last poll I saw rated Reagan quite high so I don't know where you get your info from.
First off, that same military that "Clinton decimated," is the one BUS used to invade Afghanistan and kick the ass of the Taliban, rightly so.
The same Taliban that REPUBLICAN congressman Dana Rorabacher of CA (who still is in office,) said were "not extremists," but rather "devout traditionalists." [link to www.ocweekly.com]
It wasn't Clinton who "decimated" the military. It the Coward-In-Chief, and his corrupt cronies.
Now get your nose out of the Limbaugh letter, turn off Michael Savage and Fox (har har) "news," and you just might actually learn something.
"Whatever he did, it obviously worked, and we need to do it again."
Whatever he did? See that? You don't have a clue! If you are giving Clinton credit for a vibrant economy in a debate don't you think you should be able to explain how? I experienced that vibrant economy. I saw my wealth grow. It had nothing to do with Clinton but everything to do with the tech stocks I and millions others owned. Remember he retained Greenspan. So his policies in that regard were George H. W. Bush's!
My answer was just a short, glib one, not unlike that often ascribed to Lincoln when apprised of Grant's drinking: "Well, find out what he drinks, and give some to my other generals."
Of course I can go into specifics--not that you'll ever interact with them. But here goes: in the early months of his presidency, Clinton pushed through congress the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act (and remember, this had nothing to do with G.H.W. Bush or Alan Greenspan, your little red herring notwithstanding). It passed through the House by a vote of 218-217, and finished in a tie in the Senate, because every single Republican voted against it. Vice President Gore cast the tie-breaking vote.
The Republicans and their media shills gave dire warnings about the consequences of the Act, about how the economy was going to go down the tubes, and all that. Even you admitted that didn't happen. One prominent Republican lawmaker (Delay, I think) vowed to switch parties if the Act had a positive effect. He broke his promise, but hey, the Republicans gave up their claim to the moral high ground ages ago.
Now, as to the specifics of the Act, look it up for yourself. I'm not going to do your homework for you.
A second answer is that Clinton didn't cut taxes on the wealthy. A third answer is that Clinton didn't give enormous subsidies to corporations. A fourth answer is that Clinton didn't start a totally unnecessary war, with subsequent enormous costs. In sum, Clinton did things that helped the economy, and didn't do things that hurt the economy.
Now, Finallyinsf, I think I've demonstrated which one of us is clueless. Will you be man enough to apologize? No, I didn't think so.
Huh? The 1993 Deficit Reduction Act raised taxes on the top 1% of the wealthiest Americans. Are you really dumb enough to believe that these very wealthy Americans absorbed these tax increases? This act also reduced the tax rates for a very large percentage of Americans. Yes, reduced their taxes! Imagine that? I was VERY heavily invested in the stock market during the 90's and I can tell you my profits had NOTHING to do with Clinton's Deficit Reduction Act. I became wealthy for one reason only. Tech stocks! We were in the middle of the Dot Com Boom! Whether what was going on behind this incredible growth was healthy or not didn't matter. Myself and millions of other Americans were making LOTS of money Thanks to the stock market. It had nothing to do with any act Clinton passed.
"A second answer is that Clinton didn't cut taxes on the wealthy"
As I said above, are you really that naive to believe the wealthy actually paid this 1% increase?
"A third answer is that Clinton didn't give enormous subsidies to corporations"
Typical left wing socialist corporate bashing.
"A fourth answer is that Clinton didn't start a totally unnecessary war"
This could be a topic for a separate thread but I'm sorry to inform you that this war was long overdue. Prior to 9/11 about 3,000 Americans were killed by muslim extemists in the last 30 years. There was a time America would have gone to war if 1 American was killed. Because of weak spineless liberals like yourself, those days are long gone.
"Will you be man enough to apologize? No, I didn't think so."
Apologize for what?
""Now, Finallyinsf, I think I've demonstrated which one of us is clueless. "
Yes, you sure have!
I remember Reagan's miserable attempts at punishing Libya for the Lockerbie bombing. Good thing Reagan ran up trillions in debt so that we could have that resounding response, as opposed to Carter's failed rescue of the prisoners in Iran. You remember them, the ones that Reagan negotiated to have held in captivity until after the elections?
They trust Dems more. I sure do. Clinton saved my life in '95 by foiling the "Bojinka" plot by Al Qeda against US planes crossing the Pacific.
Your can read all about Clinton's success' and bush counter-terrorism failures in books by Richard Clarke, S Hersch, Risen and, heck, even the 9/11 Commission report. Maybe you can suggest a book by someone supporting bush's counter-terroistism effort. I'd love to read one, but it seems bush's effort wont stand up to the scrutinity of a book. Increasingly, bush sound bites don't even do the trick.
What prisoner abuse? Abu Ghraib? Torture, forced sodomy, beating prisoners to death? THAT prisoner abuse. Even for a wingnut that was a quick trip to the memory hole. The warrantless wiretapping is a perfect example why Americans dont trust rightwingers to protect their freedom. What we WANT is for the President to realize he is bound by the law just like everyone else. If all he really wants to do is what you said track phone calls of those who wish to kill us he can darn sure get a warrant. Cowardly wingnuts who beg the president to take their fourth amendment, please mr President. Keep me safe from the scary wolves or terrorists or whoever you are telling me to be afraid of today dont deserve freedom like Franklin said, those who would give up essential freedom for temporary security deserve neither, thats you, you deserve neither. So are you telling us that the wealthy arent already spending whatever they want? We tried trickle down economics under 12 years of Raygun and Bush the smarter, and for 12 years our economy sucked. So Bush the dimmer decided to try it again we have had 5 years of the worst job growth of any President since the great depression and wingnuts like you parroting the propaganda without shame. Since no actual thinking is involved only recording and regurgitating whatever Limbaugh and Hannity are saying today, I wouldnt expect a wingnut to understand ANYTHING
"What prisoner abuse? Abu Ghraib? Torture, forced sodomy, beating prisoners to death?"
Ok, enough of the accusations, I say all the photos from Abu Ghraib and they showed NO torture. I challenge you to produce one photo that actually shows torture taking place.
"The warrantless wiretapping is a perfect example why Americans dont trust rightwingers to protect their freedom."
The majority of Americans would rightfully be greatly disappointed in our President if he DIDN'T take advantage of everything in our arsenal to intercept calls by terrorists. We know that liberals have so much compassion for your freedom fighters but we don't!
"What we WANT is for the President to realize he is bound by the law just like everyone else"
Yes we do and once again we want him to do, in secret, whatever it takes to round these people up. If that means warrantless wiretaps, so what!
"Cowardly wingnuts who beg the president to take their fourth amendment"
No we don't beg the President to do anything. We expect him to do what is necessary in this post 9/11 world. I would consider anyone who expected otherwise and made it difficult to protect us from another attack, a coward!
"the wealthy arent already spending whatever they want?"
It's none of your or my business what the wealthy are spending. It's their money and they should spend it as they please. The bottom line is their spending will stimulate growth.
"We tried trickle down economics under 12 years of Raygun and Bush the smarter, and for 12 years our economy sucked"
Were you living in this country back in the 80's? If you were you would have seen that trickle down reduced unemployment which was above 10%. It reduced interest rates and it created one of the biggest booms this country has ever seen!
I already produced Lindsey Graham saying he SAW such photos. This is such a neat game you wingnuts play. Snivelling that we have to keep the photos from the public then saying I never saw any such photos? Are you claiming that the REPUBLICAN Senator from South Carolina is LYING? And you would know this HOW? From your basement pounding a keyboard you just dont have the credibility to claim he is lying. Is Rumsfeld LYING when he said they depict acts blatantly sadistic cruel and inhuman? And WHY would he lie about that? He wouldnt you know it YOU are lying. Was the Taguba report LYING when he reported sodomizing the prisoners with chemical lights? If you have missed this even AFTER I reproduced the links to see these claims its because you are desperate to repeat the LIES. I understand let me translate from wingnutese. WWAAAAHHHH how dare you expose my lies. Dont you know we wingnuts HAVE to lie? How can we sell our depraved program of torture rape and murder without lying. We HAVE to lie to the American people they arent smart enough to know WE know best about things like torture murder and rape.
The president doesnt get to to ANYTHING HE thinks he should do to keep us safe unless those things are confined to the law. YOU wingnuts who despise freedom want to give th president the right to ignore the law and our protections which were plenty to keep us safe during the Cold War a much larger threat than these terrorists but you are such cowards ANY possiblity of a threat is followed by you snivelling WAAAAAAHHH, please take my freedoms, anything tokeep me safe from whatever you are telling me I need to be afraid of today. WAAAAH. dont turn off the lights take away my Bill of Rights. Personally I would rather die in freedom than cower in fear like you are doing.
"Were you living in this country back in the 80's? If you were you would have seen that trickle down reduced unemployment which was above 10%. It reduced interest rates and it created one of the biggest booms this country has ever seen!"
Unemployment never went above 7.5% under Carter and never below 5.7 % under Reagan/Bush. Interest rates went down during the first term of Reagan's and then right back up during his second term, there was this big deficit that was causing him problems. Finally, if you worked in the defense industry there was a boom and I do not mean an explosion.
We expect him to do what is necessary in this post 9/11 world.
...wouldn't that include paying a little bit of attention to the 9/11 commission report?
The biggest problem with that "what is necessary" philosophy is that the decision about "what is necessary" has apparently not been made in conjunction with the other two branches of government, or even his own branch's experts. When the results of what a few people in the White House think "is necessary" are so scary and precedent-breaking, people with a wide spectrum of political beliefs start questioning both how and why these decisions have been made, what they mean for the U.S. now and in the future, and who exactly is making these decisions.
---"What prisoner abuse?"---
The abuse the price of which "we've been paying for ... for a long period of time."
THAT abuse.
And I'll ask again, what prisoner abuse? Show me pictures of abuse.
--"Show me pictures of abuse."--
Sorry, but I'm not a butler.
....you know this guy is a troll. There were no photographs of witch burnings or of the barbaric torture committed during the inquisition, did it not happen? According to this troll unless you can show him a photo of someone inserting a penis, pipe, or other object into someone's anus none of that happened at Abu Garib. There are photos that exist and many politicians and reputable journalists have seen the photos and read the witness accounts of the horrendous torture that happened there. And we all know that the trickle down theory is just that a theory; much like the theory of the forced democratization of the middle east. It looks very good on paper, but in real time it doesn’t work.
I think it is you who needs to brush up on economics. For instance, find a real economist who will say with a straight face that Supply-Side Economics works. I will find ten who will say that it is a pipe dream designed to bankrupt the federal economy so that the government won't be in the business of social programs anymore. "Starving the beast" is how conservatives who know what they are talking about describe it. You seem to be of the ilk who knows jack about economics but believes the conservative talking points about Supply-side anyway.
however, conservatives are under the mistaken impression that T is ridiculously low. It's not. When Republicans do their inevitable tax cutting thing, tax revenues drop and (because they can't resist shovelling money to their corporate constituents) deficits soar.
remember, he's laughing at you, too.
[link to daoureportgrit.blogspot.com]
The only connection Bush has with Lincoln comes from the fact that he has a few pennies rolling around in his pocket. How idiotic is Chris Matthews to find any comparison between one of the worst Presidents in the history of the U.S. to one of the best? I see a future at Fox for Chris.
--"The only connection Bush has with Lincoln comes from the fact that he has a few pennies rolling around in his pocket."--
That, or if he sits in one.
"one of the worst Presidents in the history of the U.S. "
You must be referring to Bill Clinton?
Reading your comments here you sound about as sane as Ann Coulter.
Which means you should be in a psychiatric institution now.
"Reading your comments here you sound about as sane as Ann Coulter.
You have no idea how much you flatter me! Ann Coulter is my favorite!
last time it was Savage. LOL
Ann Coultergiest is your favorite she is only marginally dumber and lies only a little bit more than YOU do.
. . .He was talking about Bush Jr.
he does not write any letters ( and the ones that are sent to grieving familes are all form letters) or really do any dammed thing at all.
Seems like Chris has a little bit of Booth in him...
Lincoln's letter Washington, Nov. 21, 1864.
Dear Madam,--
I have been shown in the files of the War Department a statement of the Adjutant General of Massachusetts that you are the mother of five sons who have died gloriously on the field of battle.
I feel how weak and fruitless must be any word of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save.
I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.
Yours, very sincerely and respectfully,
A. Lincoln Just wanted to juxtapose a letter from a great president
...is that they both fired McClellan..
Good catch!
Lincoln got at least one suit from Brooks Brothers and Bush has probably shopped there himself.
Look closely at President Bush almost at the very end of the video right after he finishes his Oscar worthy performance as Blair says the following specific words:
"...and some of the things we didn't expect to be challenges at all proved to be immense."
It happens around the 51st minute in the 54 minute video.
[link to www.whitehouse.gov]
Bush can't even wait until after the conference to brag about it. He has every right to brag. Looking down, giving a stutter, then looking up. Completely fooled his base including Chris Matthews.
[link to daoureportgrit.blogspot.com]
That is the exact incident that I'm talking about. It's in the White House video. Clear as crystal. There is even a little nod with the smile.
Some real jewels of Tweetydom:
"... that amazing moment of reflection ..."
"... little bit of Lincoln there ..."
"... Bush elevated himself ..."
"... something that a great leader should express ..."
Where in the world does Matthews get his sense of reality?
It sounds like it's from those "radio talk shows" of Ingraham, Limbaugh and Smerconish that he most often mentions.
Once America scrapes the boil of Duhhbyadom from its ass, Matthews' bubble will burst, the truth will smack him in the head and he's gonna need some serious meds.
And some serious therapy.
Lincoln fired numerous inept generals, including McCellan early in the war who was beloved by his troops. I believe Sewell the Secretary of war dept was later replaced as well. Lincoln gave historical speeches, Gettysburg for one, and wrote letters to newspapers that defined the goals of the war and rallied the north. Bush has his meaningless freedom is on the march and GWOT or is it the Long War. Bush is the antithesis of Lincoln.
Take a cursory look at the Reagan legacy and how it is now percieved. Regardless of your personal/political inclinations, I think any reasonable person would find it hard to characterize him as a saint without flaw. However, tune into a talking head who leans right who happens to be discussing him and you are quickly educated that regardless of what objective reason may indicate, he alone and single handedly saved our country while at the same time morphed it into the great society we now enjoy.
I find it laughable that a single one of these guys will be saying anything even remotely different tomorrow, next year or a decade from now. If anything, they will let time and American laziness fuzzy up the details so that they can be repainted in a far more favorabl...er, I mean "accurate and truthful" manner.
Matthews absurd comparison is such fertile comedic material. Maybe Stewart or Colbert will pick up on this.
Lincoln freed the slaves.
Bush enslaves the free.
Lincoln struggled mightily with his beliefs and his morality.
Bush admittedly never questions his own beliefs, decisions or moral compass and then sells this "attribute" to the distracted American public as strength. Im the decider!
Why have I never heard the word decider before?
"Bush enslaves the free"
Is this a prime example of your liberal rhetoric or can you back it up with a fact or two?
Bush's policies have created a class of people so poor that their only hope of higher education and some resemblence of survival is to join the military because there are no jobs that pay enough to support them--PERIOD ! If that's not enslavery, I don't know what is. If you believe this idiot is a great President, say bhaaaah and go join his war, or send your children or grandchildren to die.
If you, your children or grandchildren have good means of support, then you (or they) won't have to join. By taking away the working public's chance to afford a decent life (such as what was available during the last "real" President--Bill Clinton) and making the rich richer, this fool has created a slavery state. He likes it that way.
Furthermore, he couldn't care less about the lives that are lost in Iraq. After all, they're just poor people. And, some of them will have the chance of a better life if they live through Iraq. Sounds like it's working out pretty good for them, doesn't it?
And by the way, this retarded twit has nothing in common with Abe Lincoln. He's not even close to Abe since he gave us his 2 cents during that speech.
These "admissions of mistakes" are a joke. This is Tony Snow telling Bush that he has to be ready with something when the inevitable question is asked.
Errors in tone pale in comparison to 9/11 happening on his watch, illegal detention and torture of prisoners, invading a sovereign nation that was a limited threat to us, wiretapping US citizens without court warrants, etc.
Any comparison of this dolt to Lincoln sickens me.
"9/11 happening on his watch, illegal detention and torture of prisoners, invading a sovereign nation that was a limited threat to us, wiretapping US citizens without court warrants, etc."
Yes 9/11 happened on his watch. If only Clinton/Gore had done something in response to the many times we were attacked by terrorists on their watch. Maybe, just maybe a show of leadership by those 2 dopes would have prevented 9/11?. Illegal detention and torture? Women's panties on a terrorist's head is torture? Let's let them all go so that they can rejoin their fellow freedom fighters and kill more Americans! As I've stated in an earlier post, this is why Americans can't trust liberals when it comes to our security. You're totally incompetent!
Man, where have you been all these years. You know damn well that the Bush administration cut in national security before 9/11 and were not able to connect the dots despite all the noise that attacks were planned with planes as missiles. You also seem to forget that Clinton was accused by the republicans of being obsessed with Osama. Now Bush on the other hand said: 'as a matter of fact, I don't think very often about Bin Laden'.
You are one kind of a troll without any knowledge of the recent histroy, but probably you do not need that because your only mission is to attack people on the left side of the political spectrum. Continue and I'll flag you.
ARE A STONE FOOL!
You conservatives always go back to the Clinton administration for everything that has gone wrong during the Bush fiasco. Then, you credit the little ignorant fool for everything that goes right--which hasn't been much.
Didn't you like 8 solid years of steady growth and prosperity. Obviously not. Let's all give some more money to the ones who DON'T need it !!!!!!!!!!
he is just a 'conservative'. He is here to do other things than represent the conservative point of view.
He or she or it is here to dispense what sounds like GOP/Limbaugh talking points as if they are facts.
The equivalent of a flat earth believer.
But he got my blood boiling, and I shouldn't bite, but I did. I think I'll take a break and listen to Al Franken for a while.
And I'm as guilty or even more so than most. This person has been pulling threads off target for the past few weeks. I've wasted too much time arguing with this person. Everything will be flagged eventually anyway. He makes some of the other trolls seem like world class debaters. He is possibly the most addled of all the posters to this site. Click on his name at the bottom of the posts and you'll be taken to Ann Coulter's website. Maybe this is Crazy Annie himself?
On MSNBC’s analysis of the Bush/Blair press conference yesterday Chris Matthews incomprehensiblyand repeatedly characterized the President as being "Lincoln-esque", and expressed breathless emotional reverence for the "reflectiveness" he perceived in Bush’s response to the old "what mistakes have you made" question. In fact, all Bush actually did in this vein was to lament the Abu Ghraib scandal exclusively and explicitly on the basis of the negative public relations effect it has had on his operations, and to claim that people had "misinterpreted" some of his most notorious scripted sound-bites. Only Bush could claim that the brutally direct "Bring’em on" and "dead or alive" are imbued with enough complexity and nuance to be misinterpreted in any significant way by anyone.
However, this is totally beside the point. It must be recognized that this question at this point in the Bush administration’s downward spiral is totally moot. The president has never displayed any capacity for self-analysis (or any other kind of analysis, really) and to waste the public’s precious information media in parsing his grunts and wheezes is an exercise in Wonderland futility. Our society should be capable of focusing on the empirical evidence of the administration’s multitude of crimes, errors, and negligence rather than on the thespian form displayed by the president in his grotesque state kabuki performances.
But this sort of relevance is impossible when our Fourth Estate operates as a medium for irrationally optimistic love-letters to the President from smitten goons like Matthews.
Ken Duerksen
Oxford, Ohio
Chris Mattews: great media horse or greatest media horse ever?
How many press conferences of Lincoln's has Matthews seen?
About as many as Ann Coulter has.
Chris Matthews is a major league Bush suck up. I can understand his desire to put a positive spin on as many things as he can, but not at the expense of truth and a result of misleading the American people. I think Chris should put on a jump suit, swagger across an aircraft carrier, and fly a jet plane into the sea. Mission accomplished.
I got a good laugh out of that one.
If Bush had been President when shots were fired at Fort Sumter, he would have ordered Union troops to attack California.
when he said "bring it on" was his big mistake. Really? it reminds me of one of Goebels big lies, not Lincoln. The truth is the Iraq war born of Bush's lies. Citing anything else as a mistake is simply an attempt to divert attention from Bush's crimes.
his bring it on actually refered to the fight for the independence of Texas where Texans said "come and get it!".
It has more or less the same meaning and Bush or his writers (or Rove) are certainly familiar with that part of history.
"..*slurp*..mmmph...*smack*...uh-huh...yeah, you're olike Linoln, bay-bee...*slurp*...*smack*...yeah, georgie...*drool*"
I can't laugh that much.
--""Bring it on." ... "Wanted dead or alive," that kind of talk. It -- I think, in certain parts of the world, it was misinterpreted."--
I see. So it was their fault, not Bush's. Those people just "misinterpreted".
Does history say that Lincoln avoided responsibility?
"O'Donnell stated that for Bush "to be so open" in acknowledging his own mistakes suggests that he is "willing perhaps to change" and "again seek reconciliation," adding that Bush is "looking towards his legacy."
Where were people like O'Donnell when Bush was adament in *ignoring* his mistakes?
Six years into his Presidency, 2,400 dead and now finally "he's willing to change"?
Clinton was lambasted by the RW when he was suspected of "looking towards his legacy".
The smirk on his face tells me that if you looked behind his back you would see that his fingers are crossed.
There was a lot of George before it and some Rockwell after it, too.
I take my hat off to you! So do the trolls, but only to scratch their heads and ask, "Whazzat mean?"
George Lincoln Rockwell the founder of the american Nazi Party.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
Answer-- "I'm not certain that Lincoln ever became so stoned drunk that he couldn't grasp the English language then delivered a speech, but if he did, W would have to improve to be so good."
-----------------------------
Answer; "Yes, he sounded like a guy with a hole in his head."
-----------------------------
Answer; "yes, about 29%. Same as his approval rating."
I got a million of 'em. . .
Lincoln had a back-w00ds upbringing...Bush had a back-room upbringing.
Lincoln was an avid reader...Bush watches Fox.
Lincoln borrowed the best books he could and developed great skill with the English language...Bush had the best education money could buy, and still struggles with English.
Lincoln wrote of his military service that there wasn't "any such success in life which gave him so much satisfaction"... Bush can't remember much of his military service.
Abraham "Rail Splitter" Lincoln was a master with an axe... Bush requires instruction on proper technique with a hammer.
Lincoln was shot in the head...Bush acts like he was shot in the head.
Lincoln was murdered by Booth...Bush murdered the booth (election).
Lincoln believed that "no man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar"...Bush believes that no man has a good enough memory to catch a liar.
Lincoln believed in making cheap federal lands available for home owners...Bush belives in making cheap federal lands available for corporate owners.
Here's a pat on the back for you {pat pat pat}
The only Lincoln W. resembles is also named "George": George Lincoln Rockwell.
Yikes! He really compared Bush to Lincoln? I only hope that President Bush does not compare himself to Lincoln because he is not...
Hon. Horace Greeley: Dear Sir. I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
Major General Grant My dear General
I do not remember that you and I ever met personally. I write this now as a grateful acknowledgment for the almost inestimable service you have done the country. I wish to say a word further. When you first reached the vicinity of Vicksburg, I thought you should do, what you finally did -- march the troups across the neck, run the batteries with the transports, and thus go below; and I never had any faith, except a general hope that you knew better than I, that the Yazoo Pass expedition, and the like, could succeed. When you got below, and took Port-Gibson, Grand Gulf, and vicinity, I thought you should go down the river and join Gen. Banks; and when you turned Northward East of the Big Black, I feared it was a mistake. I now wish to make the personal acknowledgment that you were right, and I was wrong.
Yours very truly A. Lincoln
"I am rather inclined to silence, and whether that be wise or not, it is at least more unusual nowadays to find a man who can hold his tongue than to find one who cannot." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Remarks at the Monogahela House" (February 14, 1861
"Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Lincoln-Douglas debate at Ottawa" (August 21, 1858
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." -- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
that matthews and O'Donnell were gushing over Bush. I remember watching one day because Howard Dean was suppose to be on and Nora O'Donnell was subbing. I saw her talking to Dean like she was too good to be interviewing the likes of Dean. Nose in air, sneering and snikering at his comments. As for Matthews. If he is not looking for gossip about Hilary Clinton then, he is gushing over the republicans. And Bush, well, he thinks he is a combo of top gun and the best president ever. He swoons every time. To compare this crooked, sneaky, lying, incompetent excuse for a president with one of the great people of history is nothing short of insulting and disgusting. Lincoln was intellgent, compassionate and dignified. a man who knew and respected the law. In short, everything George Bush is not.
Bush to Lincoln and Bush compares himself to Harry Truman. Next it will be Washington. But, the only politician I compare Bush to is Hitler.
That's not Bush elevating himself. It just looks that way because you're in your favorite position again.
... and saw what Duhhbya's done to this country and to the world, he'd never stop throwing up.
he probably knows what Bush had for breakfast.
But I do think that there's some Bush in Tweety.
Unfortunately, it's pressing against his tonsils.
Bush is not Lincoln, or Atticus Finch, or anyone else but himself . . . and that is an incompetant individual who has lied his way into an illegal war, ran roughshod over the U.S. Constitution, turned a record surplus into record deficits, and has generally shown a blatant disregard for anyone and anything other than himself.
In short, he is a spoiled rich kid. That is a dangerous personality to have in the White House.
His approval ratings have borne these facts out, and no amount of comparison by you to any other historical or literary figures will change this.
Please, Tweety . . . this obvious man-crush you have on G.W. Bush is fine for you if you keep it in the closet, but is quite annoying and slightly sickening when you broadcast it over the public airways. Please stop.
Thank you.
Clearly overt conservative Joe Scarborough didn't see what Matthews saw...in the same session that Matthews talked about "Linconesque", Scarborough talked about how badly Bush's oratory came off next to Tony Blair's.
And then, I still think I was dreaming, he started talking about how much better Clinton would have sounded! He made it clear he was talking about oratory and speeches, not politics, but he expounded a little about how Clinton could have produced the appropriate gravitas and was better at projecting the serious voice necessary for diplomacy.
ROTFFLMFAO! How can anyone other tjhan an utter moron compare Bush to any legit leader......but then we are talking about Chris Matthews aren't we. Well nevermind! WE all know CM is an utter moron! (typical GOP mouthpiece)