Matthews falsely claimed "Hillary is for this war!"
On the March 21 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews offered his "theory" that Democrats, "who can't come up with a firm position on the war in Iraq," are avoiding the issue by focusing instead on a "fight over a subpoena for [White House senior adviser] Karl Rove." Matthews added: "The Democrats don't have a position on this war," and went on to declare about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY): "Hillary is for this war!"
In fact, as Media Matters for America previously documented, on February 16, Clinton introduced a proposal setting a goal to redeploy nearly all U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of President Bush's second term and, on March 15, she voted for the most recent Democratic Senate resolution on troop withdrawal. She also co-sponsored and --along with 38 other Democrats -- voted in favor of a June 2006 resolution by Democratic Sens. Carl Levin (MI) and Jack Reed (RI) calling on the Bush administration to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of that year.
Further, on March 19, Clinton released a statement on the fourth anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in which she expressed strong support for "bringing our troops home":
It is time to change the course in Iraq so that we can start bringing our troops home. I am fighting to cap the number of troops in Iraq in order to stop the President's escalation and have proposed a phased redeployment of our troops so we can begin bringing them home. I've introduced comprehensive legislation that, if followed, would provide a roadmap out of Iraq. I hope that George Bush ends this war. But make no mistake -- if he doesn't, as President, I will.
From the March 21 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: We're back with Philadelphia radio talk show host Michael Smerconish and Bloomberg columnist Margaret Carlson.
So, let me ask you about -- you, Michael, are you convinced that this fight over a subpoena for Karl Rove is not going to light up the seats?
SMERCONISH: I don't think it's lighting up the seats out in the heartland of the country. I think it's too complicated of a story and that there's not enough incriminating evidence so far that suggests that it's a case of Republicans saying, "Go lock up that Democrat, even if it's unjustified." When it gets to that level, people will be interested.
MATTHEWS: OK. Margaret, let me ask you about this. Is this issue an attempt by the Democrats, who can't come up with a firm position on the war in Iraq -- this is my theory. They can't agree. The Schumers of this world, the Hillarys of the world, don't like the Iraq war. They don't like it as an issue, but they love this one. They can bite into this baby.
CARLSON: Yeah.
MATTHEWS: And that's why they've shifted to this issue.
CARLSON: No, I agree with you on that. And there's a danger of going too far. And no, there's almost no solution to an insoluble problem in Iraq. So yes, they might --
MATTHEWS: I mean, I'm talking about --
CARLSON: They might want to change the subject.
MATTHEWS: I'm talking about the inability of the Democratic Party to write a platform to say where they stand on the war. The critics are right. The Democrats don't have a position on this war. Hillary is for this war!
CARLSON: They may have a position, they don't have solution. That's what's hard for --
MATTHEWS: Oh, I, no --
CARLSON: That's what's hard for congressional Democrats to come up with.
As much as I love Senator Clinton, I think Matthews has a point. I and most Americans want this war over now. I do not understand why that message can not be made clearer. I almost died last week when the Senator said she would keep some troops there if she were President.
This is an issue where I feel the Democrats are the wronged party. I do hold them accountable for their authorization, but the management of this war and the bungling of it so badly, and the mess we are in, is totally on Bush's shoulders. Bush broke it, he is responsible for fixing it......to turn it around on the Democrats and say "what is your solution" is really not fair.
They are in a tough spot here - if they cut off funding they look anti-troops - if they bring the troops home too quickly, they are then responsible for the ramifications of that decision, and who really knows what that is?
I don't blame them for supporting Bush, or flat out rejecting him......he owns this mess and the people should demand that he fixes it before he leaves office. If I were a Democratic candidate, I would say "George Bush, you fix this mess so it will not be a campaign issue in 2008.....get to work!"
while some dems did vote for the resolution (the provisions of which dumbaya ignored anyway) to try to claim that they 'authorized' it is an outright lie.
I've got to go with Tommy on this one, except about holding the democrats accountable for their vote on the use of force authorization in Iraq. I still hold the folks who did vote "yes" accountable for their vote.
Right on Tommy
Bush cannot fix it. That is what his supporters do not want to admit to. The Iraq Constitution guaranteed the civil war due to the fact that the Sunnis gets the short end of the stick under a weak central government.
The problem over there is about power and all this troop escalation isn't going to change the minds of the opposing camps which means the only outcome is a civil war and the person that is to stubborn to change course is Bush.
Matthew is totally off his rocker to think Bush has a handle on the Iraq situtation.
Hey Tweedy why don't you tell the People how Bush blew it by using up all our resources on getting Saddam and protecting the oil and leaving nothing to rebuild Iraq and securing the border or are you afraid a truth like that will have you taken of the loyal Bushie list.
By the way what does a person get for being a loyal Bushie? A t-shirt? a coffee mug? a slap in the face? What?
Whatever happened to being a loyal American?
++ By the way what does a person get for being a loyal Bushie? A t-shirt? a coffee mug? a slap in the face? What? ++
A U.S. Attorney job.
I think it would be more accurate to say that Hillary is both for and against this war depending on who she is addressing. She supported it to start. In 2,005 she was calling for us to send in MORE troops. She now says that we should have a continued military presence there, presumably indefinitely and whether we are wanted there or not. She also opposes it, but won't vote against funding it and is not pushing strongly for a deadline (just enough to seem tough, but not enough to seem anti-military). So how dare anyone say she is for or against the war. She is both, darn it!
MMFA must be working on Hillary's campaign to keep defending her hawkish foreign policy. Neither proposal that mentioned above has any teeth. The proposal to have troops out of Iraq by the end of Bush's term only has more holes than Swiss cheese. Troops can be kept in Iraq to train security forces. As long as we fail to equip the Iraqi military with real weapons, they will always be dependent on our "training". Troops can be kept to protect US personnel and infrastructue. We aren't building an embassy in Iraq, we are building a bases and a mini-city (green zone) in Iraq. This bill allows the continued occupation. Troops can peform targeted terrorists operations. That is basically what they are doing right now. Fallujah was targeted, and the city was demolished. Hillary has already stated that she won't have troops patrolling and the she can't stop the sectarian violence. Hillary's position is worse than pro-war, it is pro-occupation while watching the Iraqi's continue to die. And MMFA defends her.
Why didn't Margaret pick up on the fact that Matthews said both that Hillary (and Schumer) don't "like" this war, and just a bit later said Hillary "is for" this war? Is this doubletalking loudmouth just too fast for her?
Also, let's get some facts straight. Thanks to MM, we know that Hillary has spoken out against the Iraq War since the Fall of 2003. She, like other Dems even called for Rummy's resignation last year - hardly a sign that she's "for" the war because being "for" the war means you are behind the president's policy and the Pentagon's execution of it.
Also, people have to stop calling the situation(s) in Iraq ONE war. It is a SERIES of wars, one being a sectarian civil war involving sunnis vs. shias, another war (insurgency) against occupation forces (that's US); and foreign forces like al Qaeda and affiliates complicating both wars, while the Kurds (a majority of whom are Sunnis) have THEIR OWN terrorists who engage in ethnic cleansing and sectarian warfare in some areas up north.
So how does this relate to Hillary? Any future president who thinks they can get all US troops out of Iraq is living in fantasy land. Hillary is right that a major withdrawal of US forces will certainly slow down if not completely end the "occupation" war, which she said she will do if Bush doesn't.
But we have to have American troops help Iraqis in places like ANBAR province get rid of Al Qaeda as best we can over the next several years until the Iraqis tell us they don't need our help anymore ridding them of al Qaeda or other foreign fighters. (It shouldn't take several years though since Osama's clan only has about 5-600 fighters in Iraq)
I don't know about her domestic agenda, but one thing's for sure: Hillary has it right on how to meet the national security needs of both Iraq and the US. I'm still waiting for the other candidates (Biden aside) for their plans and ideas. til then, Hillary's got the best ideas, followed by Joe Biden.
Again, I'm not a big HRC fan, but it does tick me off that, in order to get into power and start to fix this mess, any politician has to be aware of that part of the country that still has the "Kick Ass on Iraq" bumper stickers on their cars.
They swing elections, and they ain't listening to any long complicated speeches.
Hillary has never been for this war!. She didn't even vote for the initial authorization to go to war. (Rrriiight) She's never waffled or warbled out of any sides of her mouth regarding her clear resolve to let President Bush kill as many Americans and Iraqis as it takes to help her political ambition (to become President?) Dear "Media Matters", I appreciate your site. But, to take on this defense of Hillary is ridiculous.
MMFA carrying water for Hillary
This is Hillary's war, not as much as Bush's but she is part owner nevertheless as long as she continues to refuse to admit that she was wrong, that she voted to give the President the authority in order to beef up her "hawk" credentials, that said vote has cost both the American and Iraqi people thousands of lives that need not have been lost.
Her "if I knew then what we know now" construction is a transparent dodge. What wasn't known then? That Bush was incompetent? Check. That the idea that Saddam would spend billions on WMD just to hand them over to a hostile entity not under his control - Al Qaeda - was patently absurd? Check. That the eagerness to wage war on Iraq versus Iran or North Korea implied ipso facto, that the Administration knew or at least strongly suspected, that Iraq probably did NOT have WMD? Check. That war was coming, hell or high water? Check.
I don't understand how anyone can say that Hilary is for the war.
I don't understand how anyone can say she's waffled about the war? Because she voted for authorization for it...under the pretenses that it would be used as a last possible resort? Because she gonna keep a few troops there indefinitely afterwards while the rest of 'em get to come home?
Shyt, every quote I've read from her supports her anti-war sentiments, including the one MMFA provided here. So where's the "confusion" coming from?
Last Resort? We were never close to a condition of last resort, not before the war when Hillary was spreading the same misleading statements as Bush that Saddam was a threat, not when Hillary voted to give Bush the right to start the war, and not after the war when Hillary commended Bush for starting the war. Millions of people were on the streets protesting the war, before it started because they knew Bush was lying. Bush couldn't get the UN to approve the war because world knew Bush was lying. Bush couldn't even get the UN Security Council to approve the war. It was well known that many of the sources that Bush was using, Iraqi exiles, were either paid by the US government for their information or were dubious sources (as the Germans noted). Ex-UN Inspector Scott Ritter spoke out before the war the Saddam wasn't a threat. Even Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell said in 2002 that Saddam was not a threat (the media conveniently ignores the remarks), but the video has been widely circulated.Keep a few troops? Few? We don't have a clue of how many troops Hillary is going to get in? We do know that we are spending a billion dollars building a permanent US infrastructure there.
If every quote of Hillary makes you think she is anti-war, you need to change your news source or start reading through her words. Even Bush claims he was against the war.