Matthews on Bush's speech: "[T]his is the second-to-the-last chance for the president"
Prior to the January 10 prime-time address in which President Bush announced his decision to send 20,000 more U.S. troops to Iraq, MSNBC host Chris Matthews declared, "I think this is the second-to-the-last chance for the president," referring to Bush's efforts to rally the American people behind the war. "He has one more chance," Matthews said. Later in MSNBC's pre-speech coverage, Matthews repeated this prediction, clarifying that this purported "next go-round" will come "six months from now or a year from now." He said, "You'll see the president come back to the American people and say, 'Give me one last shot at this.' "
From the January 10, 7 p.m. ET, edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
DAVID GREGORY (NBC News chief White House correspondent): You know, the American people are gone. And he knows -- the president knows his neck is out on this one. And the American people have basically left him already in terms of supporting him generally and are not supportive of this kind of increase in troops. You know, Iraqis themselves have to demonstrate some progress.
MATTHEWS: Yeah, I think this might be the second-to-the-last chance for the president. He has one more chance -- and that can't be to ask for more troops six months from now. It's gonna be, "Hang in there with me. I think it still might work." But I think this is the second-to-the-last chance for the president.
From the January 10 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
KEITH OLBERMANN (host): The polls showing at least 61 percent of the American public opposing more troops. What on Earth would be a win for the president tonight? What could he possibly, realistically hope for -- be hoping for tonight?
MATTHEWS: Well, I don't think it's his last stand. I think it's his second-to-the-last stand. I think asking for more troops suggests hope that if we try a little harder it will work. I think the next go-round -- six months from now or a year from now, perhaps -- you'll see the president come back to the American people and say, "Give me one last shot at this." I think he has one more chance after this. It's not the end of the game. This is the second-to-the-last battle, I believe, of this war, politically.
But I do believe his numbers will continue to go down. I think we'll see casualties in the streets of Iraq -- Baghdad -- it's going to be a bloody campaign. And I don't think it's going to yield stability.
Sure, this is a really dumb thing to say, because the vast majority of the country gave him his last chance a long time ago. It may be his last chance with the 20-odd percent of people who still think he's doing a bang up job in Iraq, but how many of them will be around to offer up Matthews' imagined last chance 6-months to a year from now?
That said, I watched Matthews' pre- and post- speech coverage and I thought apart from a few really out-of-left-field statements that he did a good job overall.
With you on this one. Matthews did have a few weird comments, but for the most part, he and the other guys did a good job going back over things, doing analysis, interviewing others after the speech, talking to Obama, and all of that other good stuff.
2nd to last chance though? Meh, I don't think so. There are some who think he's still doing the right thing, but that percentage is ever dwindling and spiraling downward as we speak. 6 months to a year from now, I'd be surprised to see support for the war in Iraq in the double digits, as I don't have much faith that his "new way forward" is really going to change anything, or work for that matter. I honestly and sincerly hope that it does work out, and things improve, but I'm not holding my breath on this one.
However, I don't think there is one person who frequents this site that doesn't want things to be better or improve.
The 'right-wingers', however, like to make the issue black or white (i.e. you're for the war = victory...or, you're against the war = failure). The troops have been successful. They've accomplished everything they've been sent to do (topple Saddams' regime, found no WMD). Our leadership has failed tremendously. This neocon fantasy has not and will not come to fruition (no matter how many people hope and dream). The troops, in my mind, need a 'chance' to recuperate and be used for more important and pressing matters. The only route for things 'to work out' is to end this absurd charade.
Again, my opinion...but, I believe Bush's failures (all of them) have shown he cannot be a good leader. As Dennis Kucinich recently stated, Bush needs to be rescued from this bad situation. Say what you will about Kucinich (I know there are haters out there...) But, he's right. How many times must we be shown that Bush is not a competent leader?
To begin with, not all "right wingers" view this war in such black and white terms - I for one, do not. It has been a flawed strategy from the beginning whether you agree we should have invaded Iraq or not. As for winning this war, that is also, at this point, nearly undefinable and probably lost.
In any event, the reasons I feel that this latest surge is more than problematic is because who can trust the Iraqis on anything - they are unreliable and their military is corrupt. When Bush says our troops will be embedded with their forces, that is one scary thought. Who know what will happen to our military? They could easily be killed or kidnapped.
And these factions within Iraq, the Shi'as and the Sunnis will never be able to coexist in any peaceful way. The have decades of built up hatred against each other that this President wildly underestimated. The best we could do here is try and separate them politically in hopes they will stop killing each other, but who knows?
A mess? Indeed. Black and white answers to any of it? None that I can see. Bush's latest plan? Sadly and very troubling for America, not a recipe for success.
...and, let me say, my use of the term 'right-winger' may have been a bad choice. I would put you in the 'conservative' or, as you say, 'libertarian' realm. I'm mincing words, obviously. Maybe I should've just said "Bush supporter".
Anyway. Your assessment is sound. We agree. All of what you said points to the fact that our leadership has made a string of poor choices which have led to a dead-end... Such a run of un-success that I wonder what the true motive here really is? Sadly, the perpetual waste of human life for greedy oil interests is as good a bet as any. That's a harsh reality we all must face if any 'good' is to come of this occupation from this point forward. Bush deserves no second chance.
Funny how people who voted for Dumbya not once but twice, cheerleaded for this war (which was unwinnable from inception), claimed there were WMDs long after it was known this was a lie, and dragged "liberals" through the mud for the past several years because they had the good sense to oppose the war from the beginning, are now distancing themselves from their ignorant leader, as if no one voted for this fool.
Good thing Media Matters has an archive of conservative misinformation. These slippery devils are the true flip flop artists.
and their lust to be dominated will control them in the future as they vote for the next sleazy, manipulative Republican that promises to 'protect' them.
Your comment suggests that America does not in fact need any protection from foreign enemies. It is also a tacit admission that most Americans do not think the Democratic Party is likely to protect them from anything, or by your logic, the 'sleazy Republicans' could gain no traction with the national security issue.
The absurdity of your logic is clear in the light of 9-11. There are some SERIOUS foreign enemies. They flourished, gaining strength, during the years of the Clinton Administration, which did virtually nothing about them, until they were ble to launch the most devastating surprise attack in history upon the United States.
Are you so delusional as to seriously believe it is possible to negotiate with any of these Islamic fundamentalists?
If we held everyone infinitely responsible for their mistakes, we'd all still be suffering from that childhood broken window or stolen doll.
As long as we agree, I don't care how they arrived there! In fact, an optimist would say that they have learned from their mistakes and will think twice before doing it again. ....Hey, it could happen.
...try centuries. The Shia/Sunni split began with the death of Mohammed in the year 632. We know Bush never cracked a history book before invading, but I wonder how many of the neo-con architects of this war really knew the history of the people they were so intent on attacking.
Bush invades New York City in the belief he can unify Rosie and The Donald.
And in three and half years he sends in Star Jones and Barbara Walters in a last surge attempt. They will be embedded with Rosie and Donald until this is settled.
WMDs discovered in Trumps comb over.
Pictures at 11.
...Star Jones and Barbara Walters...will be embedded with Rosie and Donald...
ewwwwwwww
where've you been? I've had to cover the bad jokes all by myself lately.
Hey man, sorry to leave you holding down the fort. I was celebrating the birthday of our lord Jesus H. Christ, then celebrating the new year in or about the Big Apple. Was blessedly without internet access the whole time!
could have used a hand fighting this war against Christmas :)
I peppered my conversations with "happy holidays" because I just hate Christmas SO MUCH!!!!!
Christ, I thought I had that on my Outlook reminders.Damn SP's outlawing Xmas, I didn't hear anything about it.
I gotta run down to Walgreens for some frankincense.
...a year from now it would be hard to get anyone to admit they were for this invasion of Iraq from the start or were ever for the war.
Trust me.
You won't be able to hardly find a soul to admit to it.
You can't even find a person who admits to having voted for Dumbya now, except for some isolated Yahoos.
Suddenly they're all "independents." Nobody voted for Bush - it just... happened. As that other great republican said, "mistakes were made."
because John Kerry was so stiff and French.
Funny thing happened to my wife's mother the other day, she of the vote for Bush crowd. She announced that she is an independent! Voila, done, finished, nobody voted for Bush, I can't figure out how we got in this fix. Some Americans hypocrisy gags me...
What Matthews is saying is that this current "SURGE" plan is bound to FAIL.
I believe what Bush is now doing is trying to get stripped of his power to wage war by Congress, so he can then BLAME THEM for the failure in Iraq. He's acting to counter to every expressed opinion that sending more troops is a BAD idea, that he's taunting Congress -- Dems and GOPers alike -- to finally reign him in.
Once his war escalaltion has been stopped, THEN he will be saying HE wanted to "win", but we were prevented from winning by a weak Congress.
That's the game.
Chances? He'll just continue to stall and make nonsensical statements (as he's always done). Unless Congress deliberately puts up a major roadblock to stop Bush, he will 'stay the course'. That's my opinion.
Was "Stay the Course" in a shiny new PR wrapper. Except now we'll have more "targets" on the ground in Iraq than before.
Couldn't agree more, Bush's speech was "stay the course", just the newest version.
Matthews was wrong in thinking Bush has any more chances left. Even this latest crock Bush is trying to sell is dead on arrival.
Congress should subpoena every voter who put this idiot in office to ask them under oath: what made you think a person who can't even string a subject-verb together to complete a sentence should be given the power to run a superpower?
When did you get your first clue that he is utterly incompetent and why did it take you so damned long until, unfortunately for all of us, it was way too late?
Maybe you didn't know better after he stole the first election and you defended the theft but by the second term??? What does it take for you people to see the truth?
You talking to me heru?
Well you've obviously read none or very few of my posts here over the past 2 years.
Let me bring you up to speed...
I'm NOT a Bush supporter ...was barely lukewarm about him even BEFORE Iraq. Just to clue you in, it's possible to be a Republican, Democrat, Liberal or Conservative and NOT support the President. I know Democrats & Liberals that weren't thrilled about Clinton.
I have been against the Iraq invasion from the get go AND have written so like a 1000 times here.
But I'm not shocked you lump ALL Conservatives together. You are by far the MOST narrow-minded poster at MMFA.
However I am pleasantly surprised you didn't manage to interject race into your post. With you it's normally always Whitey this & Whitey that no matter what the topic is.
Bush says for this new plan to work we must to have the full commitment of the Iraqi's, well we don't and we never did. The Iraqi’s primary goal seems limited to exacting revenge on one another, and they're going to do that whether we stay or leave. It's a cliché to say that Bush has unleashed a Hornets nest, but that's what he did. The Middle East is more dangerous than ever, that is directly due to Bush's military fanaticism. Right wing ideologues and their fanatical support structure (right wing think tanks, right wing radio-TV commentators, and columnists) are responsible for the mess in Iraq. They also are responsible for us ending up with this fanatical administration. I am written off by some here as exaggerating the effect that these commentators-columnists have on the country. I guess I should ignore the past 6 years and the Iraqi fiasco as if it never happened, they actively and willingly participated in efforts to assist Bush and shield him from honest questioning, to do so was unpatriotic and those of us who did were just Bush haters. We have been ruled at the executive level and the legislative level by extremists and the extremists that disseminated lies to the public to get us to buy in to their nonsense. They most certainly mislead and duped the American public, and it’s an absolute shame. It’s been heartbreaking to watch events unfold over these past 6 years. I’m still mystified and still trying to figure out how this happened, why were extremist and fanatics given license to just run rough shot over everything. I listened to Bush’s speech last night and by the end of it I had tears in my eyes. It’s like a nightmare that won’t come to an end.
Oh Yeah and these are Bush's Iraqi Partners for the record:
[link to www.nytimes.com]
Lynn I agree with you 100%. I don't think its extreme to see the relationship between the neo-cons and their network of media and think tanks, and its effects on the current situation we are now engaged in. Do some research on the Heritage Foundation sometime, or even better the Council for Conservative Citizens (formally known as the Council for White Citizens). It will make you either cry, vomit or move to Canada. Maybe all three.
Your link was also very informative.
I was too angry and upset to cry. I wanted to throw something at my tv but it's too expensive.
While you'll never hear it from Tweety or any other of his admirers, Duhhbya's been acting more and more like an addict and Tweety is, and has always been, one of his enablers.
"Second-to-the-last", will turn into "One-and-three-quarters-to-the-last", "One-and-a-half-to-the-last"....
Been there, done that.
Bush has had a number of 'second-chances' already. Time is up.
...while I disagree that there are many people willing to give the president anything close to the benefit of the doubt on this, he has been calling their agenda what it is: neo-conservative. Not "conservative", not "american", but "neo-conservative". Actually using those words to say "this is a weird philosophy that really isn't in line with the way most people in this country think."
I thought, overall, Keith and Chris did a really good job last night on MSNBC, and that (perhaps because of the success of Mr. Olbermann) MSNBC has held this administration's feet to the fire the best.
What Matthews has always done is shift the blame from Duhhbya to the neocons, etc., mirroring one of Duhhbya's worst qualities.
King George shows this in his actions (or inaction) time and time again. He's even so arrogant as to make a "comedy" video about WMD. Remember?
George W. Bush has never met a buck he couldn't pass.
How many more? chances.. How many more? lives.. How much more money?... Bush has no answers to any of this, anymore than Johnson did in Vietnam, time to leave.....
you run out of chances. After six years at a job and doing almost everything exactly wrong, it's not unfair to expect somebody to step aside.
And it's not unfair to not want to clean the slate and let this failure continue to play commander-in-chief as if he's shown any sort of competence so far.
When people start dying all bets are off... no multiple chances. No more "'okay, let's try this instead." Even giving Bush the benefit of the doubt about his sincerity and integrity, he has at least proven to be a total incompetent in the handling of foreign affairs. This is no time for further amateur experiments.
..what these pundits think should happen after the last chance. I mean, other than one more chance, yea unto the ninth generation, world without end amen.
If there is really a place for withdrawal anywhere in these people's minds, then they are intellectual bigots for condemning others for coming to the same conclusion they did, only sooner.
If they really don't believe we should ever withdraw, no matter what, then they are fools and mountebanks, and deserve no serious attention.
Sorry if this is poorly written; the steam pouring out my ears is fogging my glasses up...
...this was his last, last chance.
Will Matthews ever stop giving George Bush a break?
Will pigs learn to fly?
keep on and on with one more "last chance" until congress stops him. I believe his new plan is to force them to stop him, then blame them for the victory they snatched from him, because "this last attempt was going to work for certain."
Bush should use the same exit strategy he did for Vietnam, refuse to go to war.
Anyone else hear the song "Give me just one more last chance" going through their head when Matthews said that?
One more chance. Did I hear Chris Mathews say he feels the president has one more chance six months from now? Why does Chris come out and say I support the presidents escalation of this war with _____________ (fill in the blank)?
How snakish can you get? We all know Mathews has been a cheerleader for Bush in the past. What a hypocrite. This is the same man who seems to cop a fit when his guest become less then straight with him. Now he has to come out with this assumption of "one more time," thus, giving him a pass that amounts to support for the escalation.
I repeat something when I feel someone is trying to pull the wink over by eyes. This one of those times and my previous statement draws testament to outrage.
Joseph