Matthews resurrected false claim that Hussein let Sunni fundamentalists "come in for ... training"
On the November 9 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, host Chris Matthews falsely claimed that, prior to his overthrow by U.S.-led forces, Saddam Hussein allowed Islamic terrorists to train for chemical warfare in northern Iraq. When guest Michael Scheuer, a former CIA officer, asserted that "Saddam Hussein was one of our best allies" in the war on terror because "[h]e was not going to permit Iraq to become a base, as it is today, for Sunni fundamentalists," Matthews asked, "Why did he let them come in for that training, that chemical training, whatever the hell they did up north?" Scheuer corrected Matthews, pointing out that "[Hussein] didn't control the area. ... [The terrorists] were in an area that was in Kurdistan."
Media Matters for America has previously debunked similar statements by conservatives who claimed Hussein allowed terrorists to train in Iraq, although these previous claims did not specifically reference chemical warfare. The claim that Hussein allowed Islamic terrorists to train in Iraq apparently originated with then-Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 5, 2003, remarks to the United Nations Security Council, in which he laid out a case for military action against Iraq. Powell alleged that Jordanian-born terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi "helped establish [a] poison and explosive training center camp ... located in northeastern Iraq."
But as the Los Angeles Times noted on June 15, 2003, the training camp, operated by Kurdish Islamic fundamentalist group Ansar al-Islam, "was in an autonomous Kurdish region not ruled by Hussein."
Although Hussein did not "let" Sunni fundamentalists "come in for ... chemical training" at the Ansar al-Islam camp as Matthews suggested, The Christian Science Monitor reported on October 16, 2003, that Ansar al-Islam did have "tenuous links to Saddam Hussein." The Monitor noted that the terrorist group was "manipulated by ... Iraq," which used "smugglers and middlemen to provide dirt-cheap weapons to Ansar." Iraq then stopped the aid and demanded concessions from the group, which was at the time "locked in stalemate with far superior Kurdish forces [the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, a group hostile to Hussein]," the Monitor reported. But Ansar al-Islam was hardly an ally of the Iraqi dictator. The New York Times reported on October 10, 2004, that Ansar al-Islam "was formed to attempt to overthrow Saddam Hussein," and the 9-11 Commission report characterized the group as "anti-Saddam Islamists."
From the November 9 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Michael, just to think outside the box, would we be better off with Saddam Hussein still running tyrannically that country of Iraq, right next door to Jordan? Would Jordan be more secure in that environment?
SCHEUER: No doubt about it, sir.
MATTHEWS: No doubt?
SCHEUER: There'd be many more dead -- many fewer dead Americans, and we would have many more resources available to annihilate Al Qaeda, which is what we have to do. Without a doubt, in the war against Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein was one of our best allies.
MATTHEWS: How so?
SCHEUER: He was not going to permit Iraq to become a base, as it is today, for Sunni fundamentalists.
MATTHEWS: Why did he let them come in for that training, that chemical training, whatever the hell they did up north?
SCHEUER: They didn't control the area, so that was in the no-fly zone. They were in an area that was in Kurdistan.
MATTHEWS: OK.
When I watch Hardball now, I'm tempted to keep score to see who will make more baseless, ignorance-derived, and/or intentionally deceptive remarks - Chris or his guests.
by draftedin68 - Friday November 11, 2005 11:31:05 AM EST
Drafted, I agree but David Schuster's reports on Hardball have been brutal lately; some of the best reporting on TV. I watch just to see those.
I think draftedin68 makes a very valid point. Accordingly, I try to keep my "Hardball" viewing to a minimum.
That said, on Thursday (11/10), Norah O'Donnell commented that other presidents have had worse approval ratings than Bush II and still recovered. But somehow she never mentioned the following: "Impeachment notwithstanding, Clinton never dropped below 56% job approval in any quarter of his second term in the Gallup polls. In other words, in his worst quarter, Clinton's approval rating was about five points higher than Bush's 2005 high water mark." (Italics mine.) [From "Bush faces challenges in rescuing 2nd term," by Craig Gilbert, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 10/30/05, p. A8, available at jsonline.com]
The same article also noted that Clinton finished his presidency with higher job approval ratings (in Gallup) than Reagan (low 60s vs. high 50s).
Did ya notice that O'Donnell didn't say which Presidents? Who the hell is she talkin' about? That nitwit matthews keeps comparin' him to reagan. What's he gonna do, have a summit with Gorbachev? End the Cold War? Is shrub gonna give the "tear down that wall.." speech, for Christ sake?
It's been done. That ship sailed a long time ago.
The entire case for the Iraq War is coming apart, and conservatives know it. But they will fight on (through pundits) because they know it's about all Bush has got (the war).
Merriam-Websters Online has, as a definition for "bogeyman" [link to www.m-w.com]...
bogeyman (noun), a monstrous figure used in threatening children; a terrifying or dreaded person or thing; see also bugbear
Regards the administration's case for war in Iraq, otherwise known as the lies, fraud, and forgeries used to invent the 200 billion dollar Operation Iraqi Freedom:
Members of the Senate Intelligence Committee (specifically the Democrats on that Committee) have recently been so frustrated in their attempts to conduct an inquiry on "pre-war intelligence" (an inquiry that began over 2 years ago, and is dragging on interminably), that those same Senate Democrats forced the Senate into secret proceedings (per Senate Rule 21) last week to discuss the oppostion to this inquiry; the opposition by the administration (and their accomplices, Senate Republicans) to an inquiry on "pre-war intelligence".
Why is the administration (and their accomplices, Senate Republicans) opposing an inquiry into "pre-war intelligence", unless that "pre-war intelligence" was nothing but...
the lies, fraud, and forgeries used to invent the 200 billion dollar Operation Iraqi Freedom
was he drooling or sputtering when he said it?
There is a difference, you know.
Ok this is another on I had to write today!
To HardBall
Mr. Matthews
I understand you must compromise your principles on many occasions to keep your show on the air. However it would be nice if you would get your facts straight. These statements are indicative of your failure to recite true accounts of what happened in Iraq prior to the pre-emptive attack led by American forces!
“
MATTHEWS: Michael, just to think outside the box, would we be better off with Saddam Hussein still running tyrannically that country of Iraq, right next door to Jordan? Would Jordan be more secure in that environment?
SCHEUER: No doubt about it, sir.
MATTHEWS: No doubt?
SCHEUER: There'd be many more dead -- many fewer dead Americans, and we would have many more resources available to annihilate Al Qaeda, which is what we have to do. Without a doubt, in the war against Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein was one of our best allies.
MATTHEWS: How so?
SCHEUER: He was not going to permit Iraq to become a base, as it is today, for Sunni fundamentalists.
MATTHEWS: Why did he let them come in for that training, that chemical training, whatever the hell they did up north?
SCHEUER: They didn't control the area, so that was in the no-fly zone. They were in an area that was in Kurdistan.
MATTHEWS: OK."
I would like you to hire an auditor to correct you misleading and false statements with the intension to bolster public opinion of your integrity.
I have nothing personal against you making a living but it’s the responsibility of all Americans to get involved in issues, which have an adverse affect on, or lives and the honor of the United States of America.
We will remember which Organizations have failed the American public in such an unpatriotic way. The talk show circuit will be held as responsible as the news(?) media for helping this corrupt administration and it’s corporate buddies deceive and mislead the public in the matters which or so important to them and the world!
If the producers of hardball had real integrity it would bring back the rules of the Fairness doctrine and format those rules to their program. And no you don’t balance your show.
Mr. Matthews please publicly except responsibility for your false and misleading statements and move on.
Thank You
Ozy
hey we all know why donahue got canned. msnbc said it in a memo. they thought his anti-war talk would turn off advertisers.
Just when I start to like Matthews like when he goes after Mehlman and shows some guts -- he goes and pulls a stunt like this and I am right back at being pissed at him.
More solid evidence illustrating how woefully misinformed Matthews is about the Bush administration's manipulations of pre-war intelligence. The claim that Saddam was allied with Ansar al-Islam is one of the biggest, most blatant and obvious lies used to justify the war. Yet here Matthews is, nearly three years later, still swallowing it and spouting it to the American people. He has totally discredited himself.
If instead of just believing the neocons' propaganda, Matthews had spent just 5 or 10 minutes doing his own independent search on google, he'd have discovered that Ansar operated outside of Saddam's control, wanted to overthrow Saddam and was most likely being funded by Iran.
Furthermore, there's no evidence that Ansar al-Islam was engaged in "chemical warfare training." This what Powell claimed in his disgraceful and discredited U.N. Presentation, yes, but there's no evidence to support it. No traces of chemical weapons were found at the site after the U.S. invasion and a media tour of Ansar conducted after Powell's propaganda presentation found no evidence of chemical weapons.
Media Tour Alleged "Poison Site" in Iraq: [link to www.mediareviewnet.com]
Mr. Matthews, meet google.com
I saw David Schuster's piece a few days ago on Hardball about BushCo's prewar lying and misleading statements...wow...that was one huge piece. I particularly loved that part when the clips of Cheney flipflopping on his assertions that Saddam had nukes. Priceless.
Off topic, but Howard Dean was great on Meet the Press today...he kept slapping Tim Russert around with FACTS...lol