Matthews suggested Democrats who voted for the war but now criticize it favor "cut and run"
SUMMARY: Chris Matthews accused Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of having employed a "bob and weave" with her position on the Iraq war, contrasting her with Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who Matthews said "hasn't cut and run."
During a roundtable discussion about the August 8 Democratic senatorial primary in Connecticut, MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews accused Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) of having employed a "bob and weave" with her position on the Iraq war, contrasting her with Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT), who Matthews said "hasn't cut and run." Matthews made his comments on the August 7 edition of Hardball, which featured Human Events editor Terence P. Jeffrey and Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne Jr.
During the program, Dionne noted that in recent days, Lieberman, facing a fight to win the primary against challenger Ned Lamont, a Connecticut businessman who has criticized Lieberman's support for the Iraq war, had issued "as much of an apology as he could possibly do" for his vote to authorize the war. In response, Matthews characterized Lieberman's position as "limited, modified hangout," adding, "he's giving you Hillary. Hillary, Hillary, Hillary, Hillary."
Later, discussing Lieberman's position on the Iraq war, Jeffrey described Lieberman as having been "morally and logically consistent and statesman-like" by remaining a supporter of that war," to which Matthews responded, "So he hasn't cut and run? He hasn't cut and run?" echoing Republican criticism of Democrats who support withdrawing troops from Iraq.
After Dionne asked, "Has anybody heard about new information? That you know, I mean, the more this war goes on, the more you say, wait a minute, this is no good for the country," Jeffrey described Democrats who changed their mind about the war as having performed a "bob and weave," to which Matthews responded, "I like ... the bob and weave, because I hear Hillary."
As Media Matters For America previously noted, Matthews stated during the July 31 edition of Hardball 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 7 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: OK, let's try our in-house roundtable here. E.J. Dionne, who do you think's going to win tomorrow?
DIONNE: Every smart person I know except for [panelist and Hartford Courant Washington bureau chief] David [Lightman] says Lamont's going to win. David's even smarter because he refuses to make a prediction.
MATTHEWS: What about the polling coming in that shows a shift toward Joe?
DIONNE: And I think -- here's the only way Lieberman survives. It is on, as you put it, the Uncle Tonoose* vote. A lot of people like him, and he did what amounted to as much of an apology as he could possibly do last night. I thought --
MATTHEWS: He gave us a Hillary.
DIONNE: Right, well, he gave a speech that said --
MATTHEWS: Limited, modified hangout --
DIONNE: Right.
MATTHEWS: -- which was --what did he actually say?
DIONNE: What he actually said was he withdrew that statement, really, where he said, you know, Bush is going to be president for three more years and we criticize him at our peril. He said instead," I welcome dissenters," and he listed, right at the beginning of the speech, eight different things he had opposed Bush on. And I think those voters --
MATTHEWS: Except going to war in Iraq.
DIONNE: In Iraq, right, but even there he said, "Well, I've opposed this aspect of Bush's policy" --
MATTHEWS: Right, but he's giving you Hillary. Hillary, Hillary, Hillary, Hillary.
DIONNE: What I think he's doing is trying to take all those voters David was talking to, who kind of want to vote for him, really agree with Lamont on the war but are looking for an excuse tomorrow morning to say, "Let's give him one more shot."
[...]
MATTHEWS: You know where he's winning? Among people under 30K a year. What do you say, Terry?
JEFFREY: Well, let me put a different angle on your analysis, Chris. Obviously, politicians should vote their conscience, and voters should vote their conscience. But if Joe Lieberman loses tomorrow, and you have a bunch of Democratic senators who voted for the war in Iraq just like he did, and they go out and support Lamont, who took the opposite position, just because Lamont has a D next to the name, are they fighting for their conscience, or are they putting their party above conscience? The truth is that 29 Senate Democrats voted exactly like Joe Lieberman did on the Iraq war, and whereas you can look at Joe Lieberman and say, OK, this guy has been morally and logically consistent and statesman-like, following up on that vote responsibly since -- have other Democrats been as responsible and statesman-like as he has been?
MATTHEWS: So he hasn't cut and run? He hasn't cut and run?
DIONNE: Has anybody heard about new information? That you know, I mean, the more this war goes on, the more you say, wait a minute, this is no good for the country.
JEFFREY: I can see that to you, E.J. --
DIONNE: New information is important.
JEFFREY: Someone could come out and say, "I voted against the war, it's wrong, I think the best thing for our country, all interests considered, is for us to get out of there now." But most of those Senate Democrats aren't saying -- they're bobbing and weaving, trying to finesse the issue.
MATTHEWS: I've gotta go back, I like that. I like the bob -- we'll pick up on the bob and weave, because I hear Hillary. We'll be right back with Terry Jeffrey, E.J. Dionne and David Lightman. You're watching Hardball, only on MSNBC.
* Uncle Tonoose was a character on the 1950s TV show Make Room for Daddy. Earlier in the show, after Lightman suggested that Lieberman might get votes for being a "good guy," Matthews said: "You mean it's going to be a sentimental, sort of an Uncle Tonoose, he's been with the family for years, he shows up for Thanksgiving even though we don't agree with him on the most important issue of our times, we're going to use our vote as a sentimental, gee whiz, you're OK with us, Joe?"
Lets get as many Americans killed as posible policy
"stay and die".
" The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." Benjamin Franklin
So, Matthews in one of his moronic diatribes against anyone calling into question the conduct of the current administration's Iraq War policy now seems duly compelled to label any and all as 'cut and runners' when the facts as they exist both as to the fallacious reasons for the war and NOW.......... WHEN existing conditions are readily deteriorating on a consistent and daily basis PROVE without question that a prudent and wise member of the body politic would perhaps in a moment of honesty and candor alter his stance regardless whether they voted for this descent into Mesopotamian HELL.
The last time American Congressmen followed that advice the result was 58,000 American dead. The architects of this DISASTER are directly responsible for the destruction of a sovereign state, the estimated 100,000 Iraqi civilians dead, and creating a 'War for Spoils' that would have aroused the envy of Ghengis Khan.
In a recent interview with Retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who led the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq, Matthews was quite taken back when the General, one of 9 Retired Flag Rank Officers called for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld. Batiste, unleashed a tirade of critiques against the civilian NeoCon elites bunkered down in the Pentagon WHO unashamedly sent US Troops in harm's way without and I repeat 'WITHOUT' any measure of understanding as to what it would take to secure the peace after hostilities ended. He further stated emphatically and with what reminded me of the conviction of a cornered mongoose THAT Rumsfeld is for all practical purposes a disgrace and a consummate liar.
The General further alluded to the unalterable fact that there was a very small window of opportunity by which US Forces had at least a chance of securing the peace BUT WERE still inadequate in the numbers of Boots on the ground that such a nission would require in order to win over the Iraqi civilian population.
The mayhem that WE are experiencing NOW began with the firing of General Jay Garner who wanted to expedite the reconstruction process AND have immediate elections within 90 days of the fall of Baghdad. Rumsfeld called Garner and told him to start packing AND L.Paul Bremer, the Bushian viceroy began the looting, desecration and annihilation of an ancient culture WHICH just happened to consist of the world's second greatest concentration of OIL: RESERVES.
Matthews would have US all believe that the distinguished and honorable General Batiste is a " Cut and Runner". Sorry Tweety, He is simply revealing the depths of hubris, and despair by which a cabal of armchair CHICKENHAWK Warriors have led US astray much to the detriment of our young lads and lasses who continue to pay the ultimate price!!!!!!!!!!!!
Have you read Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq by Thomas Ricks? I just finished it this past weekend. I still am trying to deal with how angry it made me. Since the beginning many of us have talked in laymen terms about what we believe they are doing wrong and how it should be fixed. The incompetence we suspected of this administration. But Ricks lays it out in black and white. He provides proof that these were not unforeseen problems, that there was people who tried to stop this train wreck at every step and misstep. One of the more disturbing that I think few of us were aware of was the fact there was a long term project the work of Gen. Zinni, paid for with tax payer money, called Desert Crossing. This was a war game on what the aftermath of overthrowing Saddam would look like—what problems it would present, and how the US government might respond. It was continually refined through the years. It brought out all the problems that have surfaced now. Ricks clearly and carefully lays out the proof that they never planned for what is called stage IV…what happens the day after we toppled Saddam. They knew they needed this plan and they inexcusably didn’t develop one. They ignored those that tried to assist them with developing a plan or address the fact that they didn’t have one. To highlight how shoddy the work was in this administration Rick’s cites Zinni who after a hearing in front of the foreign relations committee (yes the one where he accurately predicted what resources were needed for this invasion but was ridiculed by this administration) asked someone at Centcom what they thought of Desert Crossing. He asked what did they think of it and was it useful in planning, and how have they changed it. This senior officer looked at Zinni blankley: Desert what? He had never heard of it. Years of in-depth planning had been discarded. They weren’t just incompetent they were criminally negligent. They knew the risks and they ignored them. They were repeatedly warned and they ignored it. I recommend that any American, no matter your political affiliation, needs to read this book. I don’t think any rational person after reading it can argue the immediate need for a change in strategy.
Lostlogic,
I haven't read the book you so describe but it mirrors exactly what General Batiste revealed in his interview with Matthews.
He stated that all the previously laid war plans commissioned by Senior Planners who were quite cognizant of what would transpire in the aftermath of Saddam's Baa'thist Regime being removed WERE SUMMARILY ignored. disavowed and replaced with such innocuous thinking. as ...... We will be treated as Liberators..VP Cheney, WE will be showered with flowers and Chocolates.... Wolfowitz.
When future historians study and dissect the ineptitude, callousness and outright buffoonery by which this WAR was conducted, It will prove to be exactly as former Army Officer Lt. General William Odom stated: "The invasion of Iraq was the “greatest strategic disaster in United States history,”
Actually the Mongols did slaughter Baghdad, the way they did other cities. Hundreds of thousands just butchered by blade in a matter of weeks, men, women, and children.
War isn't just hell....it's sickness.
Democrats check which way the winds blowing aka polls when determining their position on the war, which explains why it can change from week to week, month to month, year to year.
They are a party of no core values or convictions.
Do you really believe that Republicans have some kind of "core value" system -- beyond arrogance and hubris, chauvinism and jingoism, that is?
Don't you think that people need to change their minds from time to time, particularly when it's time that someone realize that things aren't working out the way they were supposed to, and maybe we should be trying something a little different? "... waist deep in the Big Muddy/And the big fool says to push on".
All politicians use polls. Not just Democrats. And poll after poll indicate that a majority of Americans are no longer in favor of the war in Iraq. Are you suggesting that our elected representatives go against the will of the people.
No, my friend, the simple truth is that it is the Republicans who wet their finger and nervously test the wind each morning to be certain that thet they are in lockstep compliance with party ideology. What you are witnessing within the Democratic Party is the painful re-evaluation of a war that was ill-conceived and ill-planned and which has cost this country immeasurable prestige and credibility.
George W. Bush was perhaps the least qualified (in terms of intelligence, temperament, experience and maturity) to be elected President in at least my lifetime... and we are now paying for it as a result of his Iraq misadventure. The problems Mr. Bush has created do not have simplistic, bumper sticker slogan solutions that the Republican Party is so fond of.
Solutions aren't easily formulated. What you are witnessesing, though, is the painful realization by the entire country that George W. Bush's administration has reached disturbing levels of incompetence. While there may be disagreement in ideas about reaching a solution please do not assume that Democrats are proceeding for political gain and with a lack of conscience. People are worried about what George W. Bush has done to this country.
Gee, Taz, Your statement reveals an uncanny insight............
You sure your name isn't JOE??????????????
A Day in the Life of Joe Republican
Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised. All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry. In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor. Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune. It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression. Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that his in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university. Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads. He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification. He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to. Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."
Don'cha just hate those liberals?
[link to www.michaelhanscom.com]
"Joe's" attitude towards Liberals and liberal policies can be attributed to the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. Much of what is discussed on this site is a result of it's repeal as well. [link to en.wikipedia.org]
taking yet another poke at Senator Clinton. Buzzflash reports that, with 34% of precincts reporting, Ned Lamont has a 54% to 46% lead over Lieberman. Ask not for whom the bell tolls, Joe, it tolls for thee. The Cons are going down, and the MSM's rhetoric betrays their fear.
I hope, I hope that when the Repubs are gone in the future that CM will use them as examples of the obscuring of politicians. I won't hold my breath.
were, "you're watching Hardball, only on MSNBC." Thank God. If nobody watches are any words heard.
[link to www.consortiumnews.com]
Tinfoil hat conspiracy theory? Maybe. It certainly explains a lot, and, if true, demonstrates why Bush and Cheney should be impeached ASAP.
Solon, I've been visiting this site for a couple 3 years now and I always look forward to reading your posts. Would you please run for congress or the senate? Your one of the best I've ever seen at debunking and dissecting misinformation. I actually wish a few of you geniuses here would run for public office.
Confidence in our politicians is essential to have a healthy democracy and I for one have no confidence in our current politicians.
I appreciate the support. I think I am too liberal to win any office here in Arizona and I love my job. Maybe after I retire