Matthews let slide Gillespie's denial that McCain criticized "the president" for overly optimistic rhetoric on Iraq
SUMMARY: Chris Matthews failed to challenge former RNC chairman Ed Gillespie's false suggestion that Sen. John McCain had not recently criticized "the president" for his overly optimistic rhetoric on the war in Iraq, but rather had stated that "the people thought it was going to be easier than it was." In fact, the four comments McCain specifically quoted as having "led" the American people "to believe that this [the Iraq conflict] would be some kind of a day at the beach" all came from high-ranking members of the Bush administration, including one statement from President Bush himself.
On the August 24 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews failed to challenge former Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie when he suggested falsely that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), in remarks made at a fundraiser for Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH), was not criticizing "the president" for his overly optimistic rhetoric on the war in Iraq, but rather was stating that "the people thought it was going to be easier than it was." In fact, the four comments McCain specifically quoted as having "led" the American people "to believe that this [the Iraq conflict] would be some kind of a day at the beach" all came from high-ranking members of the Bush administration, including one statement from President Bush himself: "Mission Accomplished," which was on a banner that appeared behind Bush aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln during his May 1, 2003, speech celebrating the end of major combat operations in Iraq and was later repeated by the president; Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's reaction that "stuff happens" in reference to reports of looting in Baghdad following the invasion; Rumsfeld's description of the insurgents on June 18, 2003, as nothing more than "pockets of dead-enders," and Vice President Dick Cheney's statement on June 20, 2005, that the insurgency was in its "last throes."
From McCain's remarks at the August 22 fundraiser:
McCAIN: I think one of the biggest mistakes we made was underestimating the size of the task and the sacrifice that would be required. "Stuff happens." "Mission Accomplished." "Last throes." A few "dead-enders." I'm as -- more familiar with those statements than anyone else because it grieves me so much that we have not told the American people how tough and difficult this task would be. And it has contributed enormously to the frustration that Americans feel today, because they were led to believe that this would be some kind of a day at the beach, which many of us fully understood from the beginning would be a very, very difficult undertaking.
From the August 24 edition of MSNBC's Hardball:
MATTHEWS: Why did he [McCain] come out this week and say the president failed by not giving us a good, earnest look at how tough it was going to be?
GILLESPIE: Well, I don't know that he said "the president." I think he said the people thought it was going to be easier than it was. People did think it was going to be easier than it was. I thought it was going to be easier than it was.
MATTHEWS: Who are these people that told you it was going to be easy?
GILLESPIE: Well, at the time, there was analysis from generals and --
MATTHEWS: The Iraqi National Congress -- I mean, who was telling you this? The emigres -- the emigre community. Who was saying -- it seems to me, you know -- you know history. You studied history. What country is easily occupied? All countries resist outsiders.
GILLESPIE: Sure, of course they do, but I think there was a sense that the Iraqi people would more quickly and readily embrace, you know, a Iraqi, free government.
MATTHEWS: Looking back do you think that was smart, to think that?
GILLESPIE: Looking back, I would say that we went back and changed some of our intelligence-gathering mechanisms and information-sharing so that we will be more accurate in the future in our -- in such assessments.
GILLESPIE: Looking back, I would say that we went back and changed some of our intelligence-gathering mechanisms and information-sharing so that we will be more accurate in the future in our -- in such assessments.
What they really did was to get rid of all the career intelligence professionals who wouldn't tow the Bush/Cheney party line. The Republicans have guaranteed that in the future intelligence will be more politicised, cherry-picked, stove-piped and hence more unreliable than ever.
First this headline from yesterday MMFA - "Media figures touted McCain's recent "straight talk" on Iraq, ignored his repeated inconsistency"
Then this today - "Matthews let slide Gillespie's denial that McCain criticized "the president" for overly optimistic rhetoric on Iraq"
********************
Odd, first McCain gets criticized for his inconsistencies and flip flop on supporting the War. Then today, McCain is propped up for criticizing the War and the RNC chairman gets called on for denying it.
two seperate stories one about how McCain is treated by the media. The other about someone else (not John, you did catch that didn't you? we have learned to expect so little from you) denying recorded statements BY John and how a correction of that was not forthcomming. Now how do you tie those two together and slamm MMFA?
Critizing either man is allowable if their position in regard to reality -- the actual one, not the NeoCon twisted one -- is bent. To say McCain has taken several positions on the war is true -- and he could be critized for it, the Right did so to Kerry -- however, one could look at it as an evolving position given the data available. I think you could argue this is McCain and Kerry's situtations, however, you could argue they were wafflers. As the left and the right have respectively done.
However, to say McCain has not critized the President is an out and out lie. There is Gillespie.
So both can be critized. And so can you for this poorly constructed argument.
I was not putting forth any argument. I simply found it interesting and curious. You, obviously, did not.
So be it.
was not a comment? good ol tommy. i didn't say what i said.
I like the item, and the first thing it makes me think of is how "unbalanced" this hack "media" is.
I mean, if they're going to give air-time to the chair of the RNC, shouldn't they give equal time to the chair of the Democratic Party?
And I don't mean at some later (or even earlier) time, but right there, at the same time, so that they can dispute and rebut each other's rhetoric or whatever you'd call it, right there to one another's face and in real-time.
Why must all these lies and misinformation and rhetoric be given such a shelf-life, when they should be rebutted as they're said?
The TV "media": What is it good for, other than making as confused and misinformative as possible, our public discourse on national policy.
The other point I wish to make is more serious than that though...
All of this talk about the "mis-management" of the Iraq invasion and occupation, which includes talk about estimating the "the size of the task and the sacrifice that would be required" (mccain's words) or the "ease" of the mission (gillespie's word, "easy")...
All this talk seems to assume that the "mission" is in any way sensibly related to the National Security of the United States...
It is not.
It wouldn't matter whether the "analysis from generals" (gillespie's words) was dead-on accurate or off-the-wall wrong; what difference does it make, if the invasion and occupation of Iraq does not serve any sensible National Security interest to the U.S.?
I would say to either mccain or gillespie (or anyone else that gets caught in this trap), that rather than outline the successes and failures of the "management" of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, to instead go over again just how this invasion sensibly serves the National Security interests of the U.S.
Because you know what? They can't make that argument.
And you know what again? Without that argument, without a sensible argument demonstrating how an invasion and occupation of Iraq serves the National Security interests of the U.S., then all talk of "management" becomes nothing but a foolish distraction.
Should the U.S. have continued to occupy "South" Vietnam, if they had only managed things better?
Do you see what I mean?
The "mission" is made no better, no matter how well it could have been "managed".
It would still not serve the National Security interests of the U.S. in any sensible way.