Matthews advocated moving U.N. to World Trade Center site so that another terrorist attack would "force these guys to choose sides"
SUMMARY: Chris Matthews suggested moving the United Nations into the new buildings being constructed at the site of the World Trade Center, so that if "if anything happens again, they [terrorists] decide to try it again, the whole world is captive to it." Matthews added that he "would love that" because "then you'd be blowing up the whole world, not just us. And you'd force these guys to choose sides, the U.N."
During an interview with Rep. Peter King (R-NY) on the May 3 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews suggested moving the United Nations into the new buildings being constructed at the site of New York's World Trade Center, so that "if anything happens again, they [terrorists] decide to try it again, the whole world is captive to it." Matthews added that he "would love that" because "then you'd be blowing up the whole world, not just us. And you'd force these guys to choose sides, the U.N." King agreed, stating: "It would be a good idea to give them [the U.N.] a wake-up call, to let them know what we have to live with day in and day out, while they are up there on 42nd Street," the site of the current U.N. headquarters in New York, which King said was "basically out of the line of fire."
When King agreed with Matthews's suggestion, Matthews praised him as "a man of great dignity and great prudence."
From the 7 p.m. ET hour of the May 3 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Can I make a suggestion to you?
KING: Yes, sir.
MATTHEWS: 'Cause we're friends.
KING: Yes.
MATTHEWS: Why don't they get U.N. -- now that you have got plans now. [Developer] Larry Silverstein has got plans to build the new World Trade Center. It was approved, it was in the paper today. They are going to actually have a new World Trade Center. They are going to fill up all of those spaces and have big, tall buildings. Why don't they make the United Nations go down there and be there? So that if anything happens again, they decide to try it again, the whole world's captive to it? I would love that.
KING: Actually, it is, you know, again --
MATTHEWS: Wouldn't it be good? Because then you'd be blowing up the whole world, not just us. And you'd force these guys to choose sides, the U.N.
KING: And it would make the U.N. really focus. It would not just be an academic debate anymore. This would be for real.
MATTHEWS: Terrorism's for real, guys.
KING: It would really be life and death. It would not just be New Yorkers or Americans, yes.
MATTHEWS: And I could put you down for putting the U.N. at the new World Trade Center.
KING: I think it would be, again -- yeah. It would be a good idea to give them a wake-up call, to let them know what we have to live with day in and day out, while they're up there on 42nd Street and basically out of the line of fire.
MATTHEWS: You are a man of great dignity and great prudence, sir. Thank you, Peter King, the United States congressman from New York.
Is he drinking again?
He's just a jerk. Is he suggesting that the WTC will again be attacked? Does he know something the rest of us don't know?
He wants the UN to "choose sides"? How freaking stupid can you be that you don't understand that the whole point of the UN is that it's a forum for global cooperation. It has no power or decision-making capabilities of its own; it derives everything from the support of its member nations.
If brain-damaged conservatives really hate the UN, they should be telling Bush and Congress to withdraw from it, not whining about how they don't like the decisions of other UN members. Without the support of the US, the UN would lose most of its power.
Hundreds of the victims who died at the WTC on 9/11 were not Americans but were citizens of other countries, so Matthews' bloody fantasy has already come to pass. Included among the victims were undocumented workers from the famous Windows On The World restaurant, the same sort of people the right wing want you now to hate and despise so as to change the subject from their bloody war in Iraq.
As Matthews and the rest of the establishment wants us to conveniently forget, the whole world was outraged and shocked, and the US received condolences, sympathies and pledges of solidarity from people all around the world, including Iranian civilians who have maybe weeks to live, given that they've been marked for death - sorry, I meant to say liberation - by this Administration and its enablers in the media - you know, people like Chris Matthews who lust after the vision of foreigners dying a fiery death.
Did they forget to file their paperwork with the IRS or something? Oh! you meant illegal immigrants, gotcha.
Regardless of your attempt to pull a Fox News and subvert popular language, it's pretty obvious that Matthews is being disingenuous.
It's called the World Trade Center after all. Wikipedia defines that as: " A world trade center puts together under one roof all the services associated with global commerce, a kind of supermarket or shopping mall providing networking access between corporations and governments. "
So in otherwords, they hit a recognized symbol that should have touched just about all the major world players interests. Someone hand Matthews a clue please.
They're workers, and they have no documents, and every time an initiative comes up that would provide them with documentation, people like you are opposed because heaven forbid any of the states were to issue ID cards or driver's licenses to these people. After all, you wouldn't want to give them something that reduces their vulnerability to exploitation now, would you.
The true subversion of language is in the deliberate ploy of dehumanizing them and casting them as dangerous individuals by calling them "illegal aliens" or "illegal immigrants". If you doubt this is the agenda behind these labels, just listen to people who call in to right wing talk radio. Many of them are honest enough to cut to the chase and employ terms borrowed from the original German.
It is also interesting that the right harps on their their technical "illegality" - a form of illegality by the way, that is less of a threat to the general public than that posed by speeding motorists who put other people's lives at risk. No one would even consider slapping them with the label of "illegal persons" would we.
I'm all for securing the borders. I am against this experiment that is underway to try to nudge public opinion in this country towards establishing a machinery designed to round up millions of individuals and put them on boxcars to be "processed". The fact that Michelle Malkin, a woman who attempted and failed at getting public opinion behind the idea of rounding up Muslim civilians into camps, has now moved on to this issue speaks volumes to me about what these brownshirts are really after.
Don't try to sugar coat that they aren't supposed to be in the country. Regardless of how you like to justify it, it is still subverting popular language. Personally I am for looking into expanded ways for them to move to legal immigrant status and not deportation, but I still take issue with your partisan spin.
Before we deviate too far off topic: Yes, they are human beings, but the point Matthews was trying to make is that the UN would have to "take action" because it would be "in their face" so to speak.. Even if he was intentionally ignoring the fact that there were illegals working there who also died, he missed out on the more obvious fact that it was a World Trade Center, so his entire scenario was pointless.
I like how he conveniently seems to forget how we had a good amount of UN support to take action against the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11.
Even if Matthews' demented thought came to fruition, I'm sure the world would unite against the perpetrators... NOT AGAINST A COUNTRY THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT LIKE WE ARE DOING IN IRAQ!!!
Matthews is such an idiot. Also a faening prick who never misses the chance to kiss GOP ass.
the un is becoming an irrelevant and useless force for anything substantive on the world stage, just look how they botched the increasing threat of saddam. their um-teen resolutions did nothing. their influence is slowly going away. to move them to the world trade center maybe a little hyperbole, but matthews' broader point makes sense.
You mean the increasing threat from the WMD's that didn't exist? Yes, we really dodged a nonexistent bullet there.
even though the war is now a mess and from most accounts a big mistake, everyone from albright to clinton to bush and the un thought saddam was an increasing threat. turned out they all may have been wrong. why do you think they passed one resolution after another against him? turned out they were empty threats, saddam knew it. slam the current administration all you want on this, i am with you most likely. but to deny the un's ineptitude anymore is naive.
send weapon inspectors who found nothing but were pushed out (as were their findings) by Bush who started the war by proclaiming that Saddam did not cooporate, which at that time he actually did.
Further, the UN is indeed without much teeth, as we saw in Bosnia in which a peace force was not allowed to intervene in local activities, including mass murder. The reason why the UN is with only little teeth is because it is heavy and seeking a compromise takes a long time. Most of the time the compromise is not force. However, the UN took sides in Iraq: against the US (!) mainly based on the results reported by the UN weapon inspectors.
You say Matthews' broader point is valid, then undermine your own argument. The only point he seems to be making is that the U.N. needs to "pick sides." You say the U.N. is inept and increasingly irrelevant. If the U.N. is inept and irrelevant, why does it matter whether they pick sides or not?
you're not seeing the bigger point here. the un, with all it's scandals, i.e. oil for food, tsunami relief, etc. is becoming less and less effective and even more corrupt with time. they obfuscate. they vascillate. that is the point i am making. who really cares what they do anymore?
You said "Matthews' broader point makes sense." Matthews' point was that the U.N. needs to pick sides. His point implies that the U.N. is important - so important that it needs to pick sides. Then you say your own "bigger point" (it's hard to follow the point when you keep changing its size and moving it around) is that the U.N. is irrelevant. Which doesn't square with Matthews' point at all.
last time here. if the un needs to pick sides, as matthews says, it is because they never seem to do so with any authority. that is his point which we would be refreshing and might make them more relevant. as i said, they vascillate and talk in theory. this is what is making them less relevant on the world stage, if they had to choose sides for once maybe they would be a more positive force for good.
Is that the UN refuses to act as an arm of US foriegn policy.
Irrelevant on the ‘world stage’ you say. You mean irrelevant to the US correct? The UN is still a much respected body on the world stage.
You know there is a certain faction in the US that has deemed the UN irrelevant it’s the faction that has a you're either with us or against us mentality and they are angry that the UN won't rubber stamp every US policy especially the crazy neocon policy devised but the current nuts that have hijacked my government. Moreover if there is indeed widespread corruption as you say, (I don't doubt that there has been some corruption – some human beings are corrupt) the corruption should be rooted out but the UN has historically served an important function and it should be maintained. BTW there is widespread corruption in the congress but we shouldn’t abolish that institution should we. We should just get rid of the crooks.
the un is becoming an irrelevant and useless force for anything substantive on the world stage, just look how they botched the increasing threat of saddam.
Saddam was a decreasing threat, not an increasing threat.
You look at the history, and it's a straight decline in power from the time Iraq launched its ill-fated war against Iran in the 80's to when it was thrashed by the US in the early 90's and to the twelve years of sanctions following. This is why Baghdad fell like a rotten fruit in 2003 and why they had no WMD.
The worst part is, the Administration knew Saddam had no weapons. The proof? The fact that they invaded. Look at North Korea for an example of how they deal with countries that have actual WMD programs. They look the other way.
only in republican eyes. Republicans have wanted to do away with the UN from the moment it was born. Republicans make it irrelevant. It's like walking into a meeting and announcing "I'm here, but I have no intention of listening. Do it my way or I'm leaving". It's no surprise that the UN looks irrelevant to you.
They DISARMED Iraq of WMDs. He didnt pursue more because of the inspectors and sanctions. The UN doesnt have an enforcement arm. It was set UP to rely on the great powers for enforcement. That way THEY could still get away with the sort of actions they could attack smaller countries for like our terrorism against Nicaragua. I love the way the rightwing supported NOT giving them any enforcement arm then attacks them for not being able to do anything.
...because none of them haveever had a terrorist attack on their own soil!
Somebody ought to point out to Tweety that while we were comfortably ensconced in our illusions, Europe was dealing with terrorists on a daily basis. IRA, Baader Meinhof, Red Brigade--not to mention Tamil Tigers and Aum Shinrikyo--
American exceptionalism strikes again! We're the only one who have ever suffered! They just have no idea!
Just wanted to add one to the list :)
Even domestic terrorism in the US isn't new: everyone seems to have forgotten about the serious and well-publicized threat posed by (mostly white) fringe militia and survivalist groups in the '90s. Anyone remember Ruby Ridge, the Unabomber, or the Okhlahoma City bombing? Let's face it: the reason many people in this country are so afraid of radical Islamic terrorists while all but forgetting radical Christian terrorists is sheer racism: the former have darker skin, therefore must be more dangerous.
he should be arrested and tried for treason!
You can tell Chris Matthews hasn't the faintest grasp of how terrorism works or paid any attention to it before 2001. Not only is that a completely reprehensible remark, it's a logical absurdity. Why would terrorists attack the UN just because it's moved to a site they already hit? Everyone knows where the UN is; they could try hitting it there if they wanted. Moving it to the old WTC site would probably make the UN safer, since the a terrorist organisation will vary their strategies and targets and not follow any sort of predictable pattern that an enemy can then countermand. You *don't* strike the same place twice; you worry your opponents by making them *think* you might. In this, American pundits are making that job very, very easy indeed.
Given a uniform and sent as a grunt to Iraq so the HE could pick a side on the bring the troops home issue
So 'Chrissie' states that he has license to compare the International mediation reponsibilities incumbent upon the UN with that of the proclamation we are all privy to: "Either your with US or against US". He further continues his less than honorable dialogue and in a sophomoric attempt at metaphorical allegory snidley purports to equate the location of the 9-11 attacks as the designated new site for a realigned United Nations.
What a bunch of nonsense!!!!! He knowingly dishonors the memory of those whose lives were snuffed out on that fateful day by mockingly using the tragedy to make a point of maligning the very institution chartered to prevent such nation states or rebellious minions from acting in a fit of revenge.
It's cowboy justice, now folks. The whole world is our frontier and let's just get real ornery with anyone who is not on our side.
Matthews is a consummate disgrace to his profession. A real wimpy wise guy who should turn in his press credentials for a profession more in tune with his character. Used car salesman or maybe a realtor willing to sell US ocean frontage in Nevada.
...he actually believes that, in the event of another terrorist attack on American soil, IT WILL HAPPEN AT THE SAME PLACE!!
WTF?!?!?!
So, Tweety, they will attack WHATEVER is on that piece of ground, regardless of what it is, simply because it occupies THAT piece of ground?
Saddam was agreed, BY THE UN, to be disarmed and contained.
Saddam WAS disarmed and contained.
The UN was effective and successful.
Bush attacked anyway, citing WMDs and ties to Al Qaeda. Both were LIES. So now, the Bush Sycophants are attacking the UN?
Ah, but the NeoCons HATE the UN, and always have. The UN represents diplomacy and compromise. They pursue peaceful solutions. The NeoCons are all about conquering armies and American hegeonomy, and the UN is a burr under the saddle of imperialism. Now, the NeoCons and their sycophants are about destroying anything that stands in the way of Bush's unilateral warmaking. Good God, y'all!
Reading this is like reading bad science fiction written by Josef Stalin
I feel sorry for the poor cockroach who woke up one morning only to find he had metamorphosed into Tweety.
SQUEEEEEEEEEZE all better
Seems some people have forgottent that the vast majority of the world (including the U.N.) were on our side in the beginning, when we invaded Afghanastan...but then Iraq happend.