Matthews depicted as inherently unprincipled those who support the Iraq war but believe administration botched it
On MSNBC's Tucker, Chris Matthews suggested that politicians who claim to support the Iraq war but criticize the Bush administration's handling of it are motivated only by political calculation. He singled out Sens. Joe Lieberman and Hillary Rodham Clinton, specifically, for retreating to a "parking lot of ambition," which Matthews explained as "where [politicians] like to put their car and say, 'It's safe here. I'll look like I'm a little anti-war -- of course, I'm a hawk.' "
On the August 8 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, MSNBC's Hardball host Chris Matthews suggested that politicians who claim to support the Iraq war but criticize the Bush administration's handling of it are motivated only by political calculation. Matthews claimed that this position, which he attributed to Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), exists only in a "parking lot of ambition," which Matthews explained as "where [politicians] like to put their car and say, 'It's safe here. I'll look like I'm a little anti-war -- of course, I'm a hawk.' " Asked by host Tucker Carlson what he thought of Lieberman's position on the Iraq war, Matthews went "into [his] analysis mode," saying that he didn't "understand the political position that you're for this war all the way; you think that was the great decision of this president; you're totally for the forward-leaning, aggressive policy in the Middle East. ... And then you say you've got problems with the way it was managed. ... [T]hat's not really a political position," adding, "except you're a hawk."
Matthews -- unprompted by Carlson -- also said that this position was like Clinton's, "who says she voted for the war, but she doesn't like the way it was run."
As Media Matters noted, Matthews recently stated that if Democratic critics recognize that President Bush made a "smart decision" to invade Iraq, then Bush "deserves to have a place in history" because "[y]ou can't say he did the right thing but he didn't quite do it right."
From the August 8 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:
CARLSON: And Chris, quickly, The New York Times page one story today indicated that Lieberman is -- appears to be changing his tune on the war in Iraq, running a two-minute ad suggesting that he doesn't agree with the war, at least the way the war has been executed. Has he become a last moment anti-war candidate? Is that your impression?
MATTHEWS: You know, I will now go into my analysis mode. I don't understand the political position that you're for this war all the way, in fact you're a champion of this war in Iraq; you believe we should have gone in; you think that was the great decision of this president; you're totally for the forward-leaning, aggressive policy in the Middle East -- one hundred percent hawk. And then you say you've got problems with the way it was managed. Well, that's not really a political position -- except you're a hawk. And so I think that maybe, like Hillary, who says she voted for the war, but she doesn't like the way it was run -- I think most voters are falling into one of two camps: the 55 percent or so who say they think it was a big blunder to go in there -- in fact, we were led in there under false pretenses -- and the minority who still support the war. I think it's only politicians that look for this parking lot of ambition where they like to put their car and say, "It's safe here. I'll look like I'm a little anti-war -- of course, I'm a hawk." And I think that the voters tonight, my hunch is, will begin to clarify and divide the flock between those who are hawks and those who are doves, and we'll know more around midnight. We're going to be on the air, of course, MSNBC will be on throughout the evening. We'll be on at one o'clock Eastern time this morning when we think we will have complete results. And I guess as a political person, I'd like to see clarity at the end of the night.
CARLSON: Yes, me, too.
MATTHEWS: So, when we get up tomorrow, we know which way the wind's blowing on this war.
CARLSON: That's right. I don't see how that's bad for the country. Chris, I'm glad you're there covering this. Thank you.
MATTHEWS: Thank you, Tucker.
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
But the problem is, is that the Resolution for the Use of Force, was never intended by most Democrats to be a "vote to go to war." Sen. Kerry and other Democrats, made it clear in their floor speeches at the time that the resolution was to be a diplomatic tool to be used as a last resort if Saddam did not allow UN weapons inspectors to do their job. Saddam ended up letting the weapons inspectors in. Bush reneged on his promise to let the weapons inspectors finish the job. If they had, we would have found out before the war that there were no WMDs in Iraq. That many on the left have adopted the shorthand "vote to go to war" meme that was used to corner the Democrats by the Republicans and the corporate media, is a testimony to the effectiveness of Republican messaging.
From Sen. Kerry's floor speech: "Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.
In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. "
Instead, Bush forced the weapons inspectors out of Iraq and started the war without seeking a further resolution from the UN. We should give Democrats a break on this, even if we think they were naive to take Bush at his word.
Lieberman is a different case. He has refused to criticize the reasons for going to war and violating the trust of Congress. He continues to support the occupation, flying in the face of the facts as we now know them. He has also criticised Democrats who questioned how and why Bush took us into war.
many of which I've firmly believed and have said so over the years--my God, it's been years. One question, what do you think is the real reason GWB pulled this crap and took us into war with Iraq?
And that is what this next election should be about. If we can retake Congress, maybe we'll be able to hold these Troglodytes accountable.
I think it's obvious why Bush told the inspector's to get out of Iraq; he was afraid they would find out there WERE no WMDs, and he would lose his excuse for going in. They were obviously determined to invade Iraq no matter what; the question is...why?
Chris Matthews is right about something. Hillary and Lieberman are both incredibly smarmy, disingenuous and annoying.
The problem isn't that Hillary and Joe just plain suck (which they do), but that conservatives are making them out to be the standard bearers of the Dem party. There's some truth to that. As a left winger, I find the Democratic Party in the US to be rather revolting, really.
Totally distract America from the fact that GWB Don’t Got:
–No Economic plan for living & breathing Americans.
–No Scruples when it comes to raping & polluting America’s natural resources.
–No compassion for America’s elderly, infirm, handicapped or disadvantaged.
–No problem robbing Americans to pay corporate America.
–No idea he’s bankrupting America’s future.
–No foreign policy about anything.
–No manners when he eats in public.
–No qualms about corrupting the Bill of Rights.
–No concept that he’s retarded democracy for decades.
–No conscience about tarnishing, degrading, humiliating or denigrating America’s goodwill in front of the entire world.
–No concern about flip-flopping while smirking.
–No cares about the manipulation or manufacture of crises to benefit a select, corporate elite over all the rest of America.
–No worries about being a neocon and not a real republican.
–No concerns about America’s tragedies unless he looks good amongst the suffering.
–No realization of Americans’ sufferings for lack of [insert here].
–No breath, just “bring-it-on” hot air.
–No honor—not because he’s not a real Texan and not because he just won’t tell you the truth about it—because during his inaugural, he hiked-up his pants to show-off that his cowboy boots had the presidential seal there…and not over his heart.
And lastly,
–No balls…cause they’re really knotted-up, no-itch gym socks.
I think that just about sums it up.
And, if you need one more reason to hate/fear Puddinhead George...
READ THIS ARTICLE:
[link to www.consortiumnews.com]
In the 3rd Grade world of MSNBC, you are either a "hawk" or a "dove."
The fact that Hillary, Kerry and others voted FOR the use-of-force resolution but were AGAINST going to war is in comprehensible to these people.
Nuance is a trait reserved for adult thinkers.
This might be off topic, but I hear all the time about this alleged boogeyman liberal MSM. If the MSM really is liberal, as suggested daily by the elite media, then why does the MSM continually attack/misrepresent/distort/misinform the public about the democratic party and the progressive viewpoint? That would leave me to believe that the liberal MSM is a self-hating bunch.