Matthews suggested Bush merely "went along" with the ideologues in attacking Iraq
During a discussion of former CIA director George Tenet's newly released book on the April 30 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews stated: "I wish somebody would write a book and tell me when President Bush, who's not an ideologue, why he went along with this war, with the neocons, with Tenet, with all the rest of them. I've never heard that really good account." But contrary to Matthews' suggestion that Bush simply "went along" with the neoconservatives' push to invade Iraq, reporter Daniel Eisenberg wrote in a May 5, 2002, Time magazine article: "From the moment he took office, Bush has made noises about finishing the job his father started. Sept. 11 may have diverted his attention, but Iraq has never been far from his mind."
Additionally, in a January 11, 2004, interview on CBS' 60 Minutes, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill claimed Bush's focus was on Iraq and Saddam Hussein even before the attacks of September 11: "And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations. 'From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,' says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic 'A' 10 days after the inauguration -- eight months before Sept. 11."
From the April 30 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
DAVID SHUSTER (correspondent): Well, and the language was always one of certainty. You always had Vice President Cheney saying "we know." You have Donald Rumsfeld saying "we know." You have the president saying, "The evidence is clear, we know." And there's Rumsfeld, who acknowledges that it was --
MATTHEWS: Here's what I don't know. I wish somebody would write a book and tell me when President Bush, who's not an ideologue, why he went along with this war, with the neocons, with Tenet, with all the rest of them. I've never heard that really good account, have you?
SHUSTER: No, but --
MATTHEWS: We don't know why he took us to war. We know Cheney wanted to go from day one, according to Tenet.
SHUSTER: No, but what you pick up, Chris, especially with Tenet, is you pick up that there were series of people like George Tenet who were enablers. For whatever reason the president wanted to go to war, there was George Tenet, the head of the CIA, providing information, allowing the president to make his case and saying, "You know what? I'm going to be the team player." Even though he now says he personally felt that the wrong case was being made, that the evidence didn't support what the administration was saying, he enabled the president through his silence, and that's where the criticism is coming in.
MATTHEWS: You know, I'm skeptical of ideology all the time. Anyway, thank you, David Shuster. Thank you. George Tenet will be our guest next Monday on Hardball.
Is it me or has Chris Matthews become a revisionist in recent Bush history?
Doris, to answer your question, I think it is you.
you are incorrect, 1234567890987654321... Matthews was allllllll about how 'leaderly' and 'commanding' and 'wise', etc., Bush was in trying to convince the public that we just HAD to deliver democracy (drop bombs) on Iraq...
No, no, I am sure Doris is a revisionist.
duncan12347948, you're really filibustering today !
I know. The guy just goes on and on and on. But you know my policy: if you can't say something in one sentence, why bother? Or at most two. Definitely no more than two sentences per post.
oh no, Valentinian you went over two sentences. Actually I hate to go over five words. Well I am at the two line limit and
Hanging here chugging beers with my bud Obama the next President of the United Sates.
Well, it wouldn't surprise me if he was right about this one. I've always thought Bush was just Cheney's sockpuppet. Of course, Bush may have been all for it, when they assured him it would make him harder to beat in 2004.
Just when I thought I've heard every excuse there is for Bush's Middle East bloodbath, along comes another idiot with another idiotic theory:
Bush was duped into this war.
I've made an appointment at the wall for my head.
I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, I want Bush to be held accountable, but it means I may have to abandon my characterization of him as a total moron. Tough decision.
There, there...
Would it make it any easier on you if I pointed out what a total disaster the whole plan turned out to be? Doesn't that sound more like the moron you've come to know and love?
Oh, it's possible to be both an megalomanic idealogue and a total moron at the same time:
Julius Ceasar was a moron - he failed to forsee that the SPQR would not stand for his coronation.
Napoleon, moron - He invaded Russia. In the dead of Winter!
Hitler, moron - He invaded Russia. In the dead of Winter! Again!!!
I was listening to Michael Scheuer, that CIA f**kstain, today on Glenn Beck. The guy's a total moron. I asked myself, "how did this guy get so far in the CIA?" Immediately the answer came to me: that's one of the most important prerequisites of the job!
Our nation is run by power-hungry mediocrats. I can't honestly think of an exceptional leader in this nation since FDR. And its the same in other countries. The people in power are idiots by necessity. The sort of people who gravitate toward these positions have to fit a certain mold, and this mold by its very nature encourages fervent ideologues. We will never have a "philosopher king" like Marcus Aurelius precisely because no such person would ever desire to become involved in the bureaucratic monster of the modern state.
Oh, you never know. Some of us philosophers-princes do contemplate political careers.
Well, you've got the anti-killin of furners vote all sewed up.
Not guilty by reason of mental defect? A good lawyer just might be able to make that case.
For amusement, as a war crimes judge, here are the sentences I would give...
Bush 7 years, Cheney 25 years, Rumsfeld 25 years, Rice 15 years, Powell 500 hours community service, Feith 15 years
Move over, Pete.
Although I don't really disagree with Matthews premise, as I think Bush is just sort of "going along" with life in general, to excuse a man who has accepted the office of President for starting a war as just following the crowd, well...
More embarrassing than anything else.
When we're plagued by a President who has trouble with basic, unscripted sentence structure, I guess it only makes me more prone to being facetious about this whole thing.
Even if he had Cheney and Rummy egging him on, it is my belief that Dumbya seriously thought he could put the icing on his daddy's Middle East legacy, from the very moment he was sworn in.
Matthews, like so many media lapdogs, continues to cling to the notion (at least in public, anyway) that Bush is actually a "decider" in his own administration. It has always seemed pretty obvious to me that the GOP got a lot of money together for the 2000 election, picked someone who would go along with whatever people like Cheny, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfield said, and then ran him for president. The emperor has never had any clothes; why must we keep pretending he's dressed?
It's the mob mentality excuse from Matthews...It wasn't ONE person's fault- they ALL TOGETHER did it... I'm ready for Matthews to say that 'all those neocons bum-rushed the show... there was nothing Bushie could do...'
Kind of like a group of teenagers who just "spontaneously" beat and rob a homeless person...yeah, that's it! They couldn't help themselves!
Matthews: Here's what I don't know. I wish somebody would write a book and tell me when President Bush, who's not an ideologue, why he went along with this war, with the neocons, with Tenet, with all the rest of them. I've never heard that really good account, have you?
Me: And here's what I don't know. I wish somebody would write a book and tell me when the media quit asking questions and why they went along with this war, with the neocons, with Tenet, and all the rest of them. I've never heard that really good account, have you?
If you get a chance, watch Bill Moyers' new documentary Buying the War. It deals with this subject.
Yes indeedy
I watched it online and I recommend it to everyone, even Bill O'Reilly.
In Matthews defense, it IS kind of hard to believe that boy George could put together anything more complex than "chew THEN swallow".
Maybe that's not such a good example...
The reason Bush "went along" with this war, in large part I believe, was for his Daddy........to finish the job that Bush Sr. didn't do, to prove himself to Daddy. Bush Jr. has never really been much of a success in running any business before and this was a perfect way to redeem himself, in Daddy's eyes, in getting Saddam........especially since Bush Sr. wasn't really in favor of going to war in the first place. A little "I'll show YOU!"
changed your tune a little on this, haven't you?
You're right. Certainly, he "went along" with it because he's not bright enough to figure out all this stuff by himself. But he more than just "went along" with it, he became a cheerleader for it when he saw his chance to make his mark on history without help from Daddy. Juvenile, at best.
Tommy:
Do you have any theories concerning why Clinton also went after Saddam? Was he also doing it for his "daddy"?
Now you're going to tell us again how Clinton invaded Iraq?
No but I have a theory about why you try to derail every thread and turn it into a discussion about Clinton. It involves you being a troll however your bridge is calling
Sure glad to know that president "anointed by God" isn't an ideologue.
yeah, really... he's not invoking God much anymore...
Maybe God finally had an opening in His schedule and had that heart-to-heart with Dumbya that was long overdue.
On the other hand...Matthews has a towel-slapping soft spot for Puddinhead George. Maybe he suspects that the whole house of cards is about to cave in, and he's preparing a defense for his boy. Just a thought.
Matthews is just another "towel slapping" media whore that knows which side his bread is buttered on. His job is to deflect deserved criticism fromhis rethug masters and minimize, ridicule or in any way possible belittle Dems - especially when they're winning - while projecting an image free of bias. He's very good at it and he knows that his many lies and half-truths will only be caught by wonks like us.
If this is true, it's another reason to impeach him. He was elected to lead, not follow.
Yeah... and what? Is Bush now NOT following the herd that says get out of Iraq...? Bush is...is, A FLIP-FLOPPER!!
Our president a follower? No surprise for me, I knew it all along!!
I am Soooo glad...
...that MMFA has focused on this aspect of Tweety's secret love affair with Duhhbya.
Matthews' "President Bush, who's not an ideologue" is another example of how he has repeatedly given Duhhbya a pass on the disatrous outcomes of his decisions by laying them off on those whom Duhhbya chose to advise him.
Bottom line is that Duhhbya (and Tweety) have never met a buck they wouldn't pass.
By next year, I fully expect Chrissie to be 'splainin' how it was those dirty Dems who forced Bngle to invade Iraq, and the Dems whose coverts supplied the Niger letter, wrote Powell's speech, and twisted all the Congressional debate to make Bungle the fall guy. It was even part of their plot to steal the 2000 and 2004 elections from themselves, just to blacken the name of earnest Bungle and the Repugnants. I can see it now, with the MSM insisting that if we subpoena Rove's emails, we bear the responsibility to the electorate, of publishing all the details - even those which we are forced to invent - of this dastardly plot.
The only Christopher Matthews comment that's worthwhile focusing on is, "Here's what I don't know." The man couldn't have summed up better his own limitations! I had to tune out parts of the Democratic candidates debate on MSNBC because he tried to turn his co-hosting assignment into an oafish exercise in mostly inane babbling and in interrupting his news colleagues and guests. How can information be conveyed when Matthews, who appears to have the listening skills and attention span of a kindergartner, thinks he alone is entitled to speak? How does he keep his job? NSHATT67835065
I'd like to know if, with his sudden disillusionment over the President's actions, if he'd like to recant any of those glowing and heroic things he said about his not-so-secret crush.
I mean, sure he looked so heroic with all his swagger and looking like a hero, a real "guy" ... and now, that he was "led" into the war, was he still so heroic? So real?
SHHHH Red! You're supposed to forget that stuff. That's the only way jerks like CM can "maintain their credibility."
D'Oh!
How will I ever get my "dumb average guy" merit badge if I keep remembering this stuff?
Stupid brain! I'm going to stab you with a Q-Tip!
Bush is not a fraking leader! Of course he went along. Do you think this dull child makes decisions?
matthews has buyers remorse & is looking for a excuse to justify his own poor judgement, plus he always had a man crush on george. see the doc. film "why we fight" to answer the gov./corp. reason for the invasion of iraq, then add the psychoctic g.i. george "i'm a war president" to the mix. it's the ego trip (high) of a lifetime for him (think about who was the last republican president that commanded u.s. military forces in a war).
They called Reagan the Teflon President but I'm thinking they should call Bush Telflon President II. Nothing sticks to him, and people like Chris Matthews even find excuses for Bush.
Back in 1998 or 1999 when Bush's handlers were preparing for a 2000 campaign, Mickey Herskowitz was hired as Bush's biographer/ghost writer. Herskowitz was close to the family, and apparently Bush was a little too forthcoming for his handlers' comfort. Herskowitz was unceremoniously fired, and warned to "keep his head down." Among chatty George's admissions were his definite designs on invading Iraq once he got into the White House. Herskowitz had a different slant on the reason, that couldn't have been fully appreciated at the time of the article (Russ Baker interviewed Herskowitz in 2004). The "unitary executive" theory that everyone has come to know through the Roberts and Alito confirmation hearings, and the pattern by Bush-Cheney of overreaching the Constitution's balance of powers hadn't been firmly established enough for the politically disengaged to see.
In Fiasco Tom Ricks of Washington Post says that immediately after 9/11 Bush was not interested in attacking Iraq and Wolfowitz was brushed off when he suggested at a high level meeting that Iraq should be attacked. In Cobra II Michael Gordon and his co author also say that the administration did not seem very interested in Iraq before 9/11 or immediately after. Matthews has a point. A good book with good sources explaing how and when Bush came to the idea of attacking Iraq would be very useful. It could have been earlier than 9/11 or immediately after but someone has to spell it out. Ultimately it does not matter because the decision was wrong and a disaster but it would be good to know when and why it was taken.
I agree. According to Paul O'Neill's book, Iraq was on the table from the beginning of the Bush Junta. What we don't know is the evolution of that obsession, and what facilitated it. Was it just for political capital, the oil, defense contractor profits or all of the above? One thing that seems certain...the reasons they gave publicly are at the bottom of the list of real possibilities.
It probably didn't take much convincing for Puddinhead to get on board...just look at some of his other "decisions". He picks Dick Cheney to head up the search for a Vice President, and he picks...himself. He chooses a longtime unqualified toady to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. On the decisions that Bush was most likely involved in, the results have been dismal.
I'd like to see Hardball do an hour on the Clinton administration's comments about their certainty concerning Saddam having WMD and ties to al Qaeda. Does Matthews believe Clinton and Co. were also ideologues and neocons?
http://www.retroactiveimpeachment.com/iraqthreat.html
Or maybe, on that same program, they could look into the certainty of Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell that Saddam was contained, and not a real threat?
Or, maybe you could take another shot at the Monica Lewinsky impeachment. I'm sure that lying about sex would seem even more egregious in light of what Puddinhead George has lied about.
I mean...really! Those silly Democrats are so hung up on investigating things like corruption and lying about war...let's get back to the really important stuff...lying about sex in the White House!
"Or maybe, on that same program, they could look into the certainty of Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell that Saddam was contained, and not a real threat?"
Sandy Berger said Saddam was contained AND a threat to the U.S.
"The peace process has moved forward in part because, ever since the Gulf War, the immediate military threat Saddam poses has been contained -- albeit at a substantial price. But even a contained Saddam is harmful to stability and to positive change in the region. Conversely, a constructive Iraq would help change the equation in the region." - December 7, 1998
Edward S. Walker, Jr., assistant secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs testified March 22, 2000 that Saddam was both contained and a threat:
"Iraq under Saddam Hussein remains dangerous, unreconstructed and defiant. Saddam's record makes clear that he will remain a threat to regional peace and security as long as he remains in power. He will not relinquish what remains of his WMD arsenal. He will not live in peace with his neighbors. He will not cease the repression of the Iraqi people. The regime of Saddam Hussein cannot be rehabilitated or reintegrated as a responsible member of the community of nations. Experience makes this conclusion manifest. That is why the United States is committed to containing Saddam Hussein as long as he remains in power. But at the same time, we are also committed to working to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people who are forced to live under a regime they did not choose and do not want, and to supporting Iraqis who seek a new government and a better future for Iraq."Please explained to us why Saddam was a threat in March 2000, but ceased to be one a year later.
I don't know. Maybe you should ask Powell or Rice? There's also a bit of red herring in your argument. Even if one agreed at the time that Saddam posed a "threat", the question then becomes, how much of a threat, and what to do about it. Apparently Clinton's people didn't think that Saddam was such an imminent threat that we had to invade his country and topple his government. Powell and Rice didn't seem to think so, either. It was the PNAC boys, leading Puddinhead George by the nose, who saw an opportunity in the invasion of Iraq. What their real motivation was remains to be uncovered.
Nerzog:
The Bush administration did not say Saddam was an imminent threat. The goal was to stop Saddam before he got to that point.
Richard Clarke delivered a speech in 1998 in which he said this:
"There are two lists that I want to talk about. One is the list of state sponsors of terrorism that the Secretary of State issues every year, by law. You know who is on that list. It is a public document."There is another list that the Director of Central Intelligence issues on a classified basis every year, and that is the list of states that have chemical or biological weapons. There is almost a one-for-one copy of the terrorist state sponsors list resident within the list of states that have chemical and biological weapons. What does it mean to be a state sponsor of terrorism? It means that you have trained, equipped, financed, provided sanctuary to, provided leadership for, provided intelligence to, and armed terrorist groups."Now if these state sponsors of terrorism have done all of that, do we want to bet the security of our people here at home that those state sponsors will not go the additional step of providing terrorist groups with the chemical and biological weapons that are already in the inventory of the state sponsors of terrorism? I don't want to. The president doesn't want to. And I'm glad to see that the majority of the U.S. Congress does not want to because they have been voting consistently since the president made his proposal in May for the funds that the president has asked for."
http://usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/press/whouse/archive/1998/october/wh191013.htm
Iraq was both on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism and the CIA's list of states with WMD. That was the case under the Clinton administration and the first three years of the Bush administration (Iraq was removed from the list of state sponsors of terrorism after Saddam was removed from power).
After 9/11, it became even more clear that, as Clarke said, we could not "bet the security of our people here at home that those state sponsors will not go the additional step of providing terrorist groups with the chemical and biological weapons that are already in the inventory of the state sponsors of terrorism."
Nice try, but, while Bush did not use the word "Imminent" he did use other language which means the same thing.
You keep going back to the Clinton administration as if it excuses Bush's war crimes. I read Clarke's speech, and nowhere does he say that we needed to invade Iraq. It is also noteworthy that the successes he points to all involve law enforcement, which was poo-pooed by the Conservative professional liars during the 2004 election campaign.
I'd like to discuss your Pavlovian drooling about Clinton every time the subject of Bush's monumental incompetence or near constant lying is discussed.