Despite previous smears, Matthews hosted guest Mark Williams, who -- again -- smeared Democrats
On the August 16 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, radio host Mark Williams asserted that "every military advance we have made" in Iraq "has been ruined, one way or another, by some fat-mouthed congressman, usually a Democrat, opening his mouth on Capitol Hill." Williams also asserted: "I hope what we get is the truth from General [David] Petraeus about every step forward on the ground being made by the military since we started this being ruined, and two steps backwards being taken on Capitol Hill by the Democrats playing politics on this and plucking the pennies off the eyelids of the newly dead."
Later, presumably referring to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Williams said, " 'Nancy Botox' is out there saying, you know, "We're leaving! We're running! We're gonna go away!" Matthews responded, "You know, Mark, that doesn't help me any."
Notwithstanding Matthews' assertion -- "that doesn't help me any" -- this was not the first time that Williams has attacked Democrats on MSNBC. As Media Matters for America has noted, on the September 26, 2006, edition of MSNBC's Tucker, Williams asserted that "people have made up their minds ... that if we vote Democrat, that just hastens the day we disappear in a nuclear holocaust."
Williams has also asserted, on the October 16, 2006, edition of Tucker, that immigrants "by and large, the illegal immigrants mainly" are "just here to rip off a piece and to get back to where they come from," adding that they are "drug runners, human traffickers" and "people who engage in slavery and prostitution." Host Tucker Carlson said, "I agree with that." Williams later appeared to claim that U.S. possession of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) would force Spanish-speaking immigrants to learn English, declaring: "As long as we have the ICBMs, they can learn English." During an appearance on the August 22, 2005, edition of Hardball, Williams cited the "300,000 victims of Saddam's chemical weapons" to suggest that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction at the time of the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. On that show, Williams also referred to his fellow Hardball guest, former FBI whistleblower and Minnesota Democratic congressional candidate Colleen Rowley as a "pathetic creature" and asked what she had done besides "flapping her jowls on MSNBC."
From the August 16 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: I don't agree with you, but let's hear what Mark Williams says. I think that we've been promised by the president over and over and over again a report, a clean report from the general. He has basically been told, "Don't believe me, believe the general." Now we're told it's all going to go through a White House filter. Mark Williams, your assessment. Are we going to get a Petraeus report or a Bush report?
WILLIAMS: I hope what we get is the truth from General Petraeus about every step forward on the ground being made by the military since we started this being ruined, and two steps backwards being taken on Capitol Hill, by the Democrats playing politics with this and plucking the pennies off the eyelids of the newly dead.
Where do we get off having an open hearing on military details of a war we happened to be involved in at the moment? You don't discuss those things in front of the terrorists. You let General Petraeus tell the appropriate committee chairmen, if they need to be told, what's going on, on the ground. They have the fight behind the scenes. They get all bloodied and battled in the backroom, in the Cloak Room, then come out kissy-face with a united front.
You don't sit the guy in front of the Congress, in front of a congressional panel, and look for congressional or campaign brownie points that you can use in the coming election.
But he does need to tell us one thing very truthfully. And that is something the troops told me when I was over there, that they tell me when they come back now and that I have heard from guys, even guys with stars on their neck, that every military advance we have made over there has been ruined, one way or another, by some fat-mouthed congressman, usually a Democrat, opening his mouth on Capitol Hill.
MATTHEWS: How is that? How has the Democratic Party hurt the war effort?
WILLIAMS: By convincing, or trying to convince us, that we have lost this, that we`re going to leave.
Chris, you know, you're -- you're -- you're from the same place I`m from, Boston. You -- you have a neighborhood problem. In a certain neighborhood, you go to the guy on the corner who takes care of the problem. Why? Because the cops aren't going to be there to protect you if you go to them.
The same thing is happening in Baghdad. The same thing is happening in Iraq. The people of that -- that community, the people of that city, have been going to the people who will help them, who will bring them a generator without reams of requisition forms. That happens to be the local friendly neighborhood Al Qaeda.
But they have gotten so savage now, actually literally ripping people's faces off with piano wire, murdering entire families, that the Iraqis are dropping dimes on them, because our military men are saying to the Iraqis, don't worry. We will be here when you're in trouble and when you need us.
Meanwhile, "Nancy Botox" is out there saying, you know, "We're leaving! We're running! We're gonna go away!"
MATTHEWS: This doesn't help me any.
[crosstalk]
MATTHEWS: You know, Mark, that doesn't help me any.
Matthews wants Williams to help him?! He's going to have to hit rock bottom before he seeks the type of help he really needs.
His hairpiece is in a different position this time.
---
I don't see how this guy stands out any different from the rest of them. Black beside black is all black. As every hour of FUXnews and MoreSame'NotherBlackChannel is all black, and Matthews is black himself, what's to see? There isn't a brightness button big enough to help to get a picture. News is ink on paper, black on white; the cable hole sucks so much the gain's the same as having it turned off. Except one difference in gain -- the extra fifty bucks a month in purse, having it turned off.
Reality sucks when it is not on your side, eh Williams?
"...every military advance we have made over there has been ruined, one way or another, by some fat-mouthed congressman, usually a Democrat, opening his mouth on Capitol Hill."
What an idiot.
And what's with the disrepectful way he refers to Polosi as "Nancy Botox"? Where's Bill O'Reilly on that?
More selectivity from MMFA. Along with Mark Williams was Paul Hackett, an anti-war Iraq veteran that MMFA conveniently leaves out of this thread. It was a lively discussion with different points of view, that's what these shows offer.
I am sorry if not every guest falls within the guidelines that only serve to compliment Democrats, and slam Bush - but that's life in cable talk.
"More selectivity from MMFA"
in keeping with the selectivity stipulated in their own mission statement.
Another stunning revelation from the fightin' 1st Obvious Division of the WITH Patrol.
You're right, selectivity was too soft a term, I should have said misleading - which is what this is, clearly, as one could easily assume that this was the only guest Matthews had on during this segment.
Why not put the entire segment up for balance then, because that's what it was? But if MMFA did that, what would be the point of the thread after all?
"Fair and Balanced" isn't in the heading of this website Tommy. That's why WE'RE HERE, REMEMBER?
;-)
Darn that fair and balanced mantra, it's only scolded when not practiced on Fox, but around here, those of us who try and slip it in are the mean ones.
Makes sense.
Any outlet that proudly and frequently makes claims of fairness and balance as part of their marketing should rightly abide by its own mantra.
MMFA makes no such claim, they are therefore not bound by it and not obligated to deliver fairness and balance to anyone.
And since we all love to remind each other of our 1st Amendment rights, you're free to ridicule MMFA for not living up to claims that it does not make.
I'm glad we're all on the same page.
Fair and balanced does not mean truth and lies be given the same weight. It does not mean being informative and spinning are the same thing. Too often we try to balance these two as some kind of balance when the truth outweighs BS every time and should be presented to the public that way.
I believe Bill Moyers calls that "False Balance"..
Bruce and Tommy, The fact that MMFA allows you guys to speak your minds here unrestrained within accepted civil limits of course proves to me that MMFA is truly Fair and Balanced. If they weren't your mics would have been cut ages ago especially your's Tommy, and if this were Freeperville you would have been exiled in a New York minute. I've never actually counted the number of your anti-MMFA postings but they are quite substantial. In fact it seems that you've made it your personal mission to critique every thread that MMFA puts up by the standards you set. I think you out to preface everything you post with that disclaimer along with a little note thanking MMFA for their commitment to the promotion of free ideas since they allow you to do a daily (sometimes it seems hourly) MMFA dis on their site.
Every guest SHOULD be there to be informative and factual. I would rather see an intellegent person who is an expert on the subject (if they agree with me or not) then some idiot guest who lies and distorts and spins the truth to promote themselves. I guess Tommy just expects too little from the press.
Tommy here we have a conservative talk show host who says that he has been to Iraq and “something the troops told him” was every military advance we have made over there has been ruined, one way or another, by some fat-mouthed congressman, usually a Democrat, opening his mouth on Capitol Hill.
That’s a flat out lie. He is saying that all of the mistakes made in this "war" was caused by Dems. It’s not a matter of a “compliment” how about the truth! I am not expecting him to compliment the Dems but he should be able to present his case for the "war" without flat out lying. How is pointing this out selective? Did Paul Hackett tell similar lies?
Please watch this in its entirety. It shows why it is important for MMFA to point out the insane lengths that have to be travelled by war mongers to explain why the war is nothing but an oil-man's dream. Williams made no sense, and even Matthews was tired of it.
Williams had to resort to name-calling because he had nothing else, and never answered the question. Lively shows that host a ranting buffoon need to be mentioned by MMFA, no matter how much some people think it is only part of some lively debate.
Thank you for making my point that putting these words and selective pieces of these segments up here, out of context, is misleading at best.
If watched the entire segment and the whole show, you have a very different picture than the one MMFA paints.
MMFA clearly and prominently provides a link to the entire transcript in the first sentence of the item.
It is on this transcript page that the reader can find a link to the video of the entire segment under "Latest Hardball Video" > "Who is writing the Patreaus Report?"
Ain't the internet swell?
I know that. Anyone can find the transcript, that isn't the point. The intent was to show Matthew's, arguably MMFA's biggest villian, as once again, being decidedly one-sided and biased against Democrats. This segment was anything but.
No, if you actually READ the article here, it talks about him appearing on other shows on MSNBC like Tucker. It is clearly about HIM not Mattthews. The question is why do you keep bringing back this guy who clearly has no substance and is just all hot air?
No, the point of this thread is to ponder how this idiot keeps getting invited on MSNBC and other networks to spew his ill-informed lies.
Maybe he will be named worst person in the world for lying on tonights Countdown?
Maybe someone pays you a dime for everytime you add that comment in a thread? Nice sack full of dimes you have there!
Sometimes you can argue a point, and othertimes your posts, like the one above, add NOTHING to the debate. Do you agree with any of the points the subject made on any of his apperances? If so, which?
Of course I do not agree, the man is a liar which is why I want him named Worst Person in the World. Take a chill pill buddy.
Anyone can find the transcript, that isn't the point.
That was precisely your point. You accused MMfA of taking things out of context when they themselves provided a link to the entire segment. It is impossible for an entire segment to be taken out of the context of the entire segment.
Once again, why don't you start your own site where you can do what you want, and people who know the truth can read it, and post comments like "Who put this drivel here?" And the only difference between them on your site and you here will be that they have a valid point.
You don't.
I know that. Anyone can find the transcript, that isn't the point. The intent was to show Matthew's, arguably MMFA's biggest villian, as once again, being decidedly one-sided and biased against Democrats.
I thought this segment was anything what you say. What I saw was conservative radio, one of this administrations biggest supporter re-writing history. I saw conservative radio putting “words” in the mouths of “our” troops to show a “supposed support” for this administration and a disdain for Dems. Matthews was just the host.
Hey Tommy, I did watch it and I have no idea what you are talking about. Hackett said he thought the report would be fine even if first run through this administration. He did not "Bush bash" or make stupid and incidiary comments like this yahoo did. Tell me, how is letting this jackhole talk about the "democrats plucking the pennies off of the eyes" crap or the "Nancy Botox" nonsense actaully helping the discussion?
The sinple fact is it didn't. It was just more right wing screaming and chest thumping when the others there were actually trying to talk about the issue.
I am saying that the segment featured more than just this guy, who I agree with you came out looking rather hysterical......where Hackett was far more reasoned and tempered.
To highlight this guy's rhetoric only makes him look ridiculous. It's hardly a stain on any Democrat, especially when viewed in context of the entire segment. But MMFA doesn't like the opinions, and that's why it's here.
Opinions? Him saying that "Nancy Botox" is screaming "We're leaving! We're running away!" is an opinion? Dude, get a grip!
How does the make up of the other guests on the program change what this guy is saying? MM is taking issue with this guy being tapped to lie on TV.
You still seem to be very, very confused about this, so, once again: Insults and lies are not opinions.
Who is this guy? His take can only promote a book or to become a regular on talk shows. Besides this latest comic book rant, let's look at his past assertions. He brings out the old "mushroom cloud" rouse. I suggest he has eaten "cloudy mushrooms" once too often. And to my favorite point, Saddam HAD WMD's (an old term) when we invaded Iraq. If that is the case, Mr. Williams, how does the Commander-in-Chief of our country send in the infantry? Don't you think this madman would protect his country by using these WMD's? And if Saddam would have used his WMD's what would our response have been? Use ours? Please, not even the nutty Neo-Cons aren't that stupid, I hope. Therefore, they were sure that Saddam did not have WMD's.
And why do all of these military people,even the star-necked ones talk to this guy.
P.S. Pres. Bush has on many occasions discussed our missions in Iraq. Wasn't he the guy who told the bad guys that the surge would be directed in Baghdad?
A Conservative radio talk show host attacked Democrats for playing politics.
Gee stop the presses. How could this happen? It's just not natural.
Mr. Williams should be banned from speaking his mind publically ever again.
Yawn
Or maybe next time he could actually talk about the subject he was asked to speak on rather that using it as a pulpit to scream "Dems are eeeeevil" over and over agan.
Would you really rather Matthews not have this partisan hack on, but instead a sensible and intelligent proponent and backer of Bush's policies?
Seems to me this is red meat for Democrats when somebody from the other side looks foolish.
Yes, yes I would rather have someone who made articulate points for the other side. I would love it if true conservatives took the republican party back so I might be able to vote for one of their candidates again. I would love to see a person like Ron Paul listened to and debated with rather than booed and made fun of. I think our counrty is much stronger when both sides debate. Sorry if you disagree.
Tommy says "Would you really rather Matthews not have this partisan hack on, but instead a sensible and intelligent proponent and backer of Bush's policies?"
Yes, please. If you can find one, please let me know. Is it so hard for you to understand that we on the left WELCOME a discussion about the issues and ideas instead of cheap political points? When it comes down to the issues and ideas, Democrats will win everytime which is why Republicans in general, take it to the basement.
The point is this was a balanced segment on Matthews' show with different viewpoints. That should be enough, or that is enough for most people, especially on these endless cable opinion shows.
But just because MMFA didn't like what this guest had to say, they put it up here under the guise of media bias against Democrats so the posters could unleash their insults towards him and arch nemesis Matthews. That's the bottom line. That's why it's here. Retaliation.
No Tommy. That is not why MMFA has it here. READ the article. This guy has done this same BS on other shows and yet they keep bringing him back. He did not "represent the otehr side of the debate." Hackett said he thought the report would be fine no matter who in the administration "helped" the general with it. This guy just came on to scream "Dems are evil!" He had nothing to say about the actual subject. He added nothing. Not One Thing.
Matthews is free to have anyone on he wants too. And you are free to cry foul and rail against him all you want too. And I am free to say why I think this item is really here since the segment featured different views. And you are free to disagree. And everybody is free to do what they want.
Freedoms are wonderful. Just because you don't agree with airing this guy's freedom of speech or his opinions and want some other guest who isn't so mean to Democrats, doesn't make it so.
But feel free to disagree.
Wow, I had no idea you were so touchy feely Tommy. Everyone is so freeeeee!
Hey Tommy, guess what? This isn;t about freedom, it is about that thing that comes with it ACCOUNTABILITY. I know it is an ugly word, (and really long too). Matthews wants to have this kind of guest on, he has to take the heat for it. Imus wanted to used racial slurs and bash women, his right, but he gets to pay for it. This guy wants to be a raving idiot on national TV, great but now he should be booted off never to return. Add something to the discussion or get out. Again I have no problem if this guy made at least ONE POINT that involved the topic, but he couldnt. He chose to use his time to
(kdis cut me off in the middle there)
He chose to use his time to add noithing and say things like "Nancy Botox" and "pluck the pennies off of dead soldiers" or whatever nonsense he could think of. You had your freedom, now go peddle it elsewhere becuase rational people would like have a discussion now.
So perhaps you can point me to the brilliant points he made on Hardball that you find yourself in agreement with?
Did I say I agree with anything he said? Why did you go there? If you want to change the argument now, that must mean your original one is out of gas, or something?
You have changed yours as well Tommy. First it was that he was not alone and somehow if you wathced it with Hackett there it would not look the same. Then it was that he was somehow blanced by Hackett, dispite the fact that Hacket did not argue against letting the adminstration in on making the report. Now it is all about Freedom. How long until the new one runs out of gas, I wonder?
Because you seem to be defending him and his statements. Since you don't agree he is being informative, why are you against having a civil debate with real people with reality based opinions? I and most on this board don't want to see only the people who agree with us on tv, contrary to the right-wing boogeyman stories, we just want both sides to debate the very real issues with some civility and fact based opinions. Is that too much to ask?
Enough with people like the chucklehead and the Coulters of the world. Stop giving them a platform to obfuscate and stop pretending like they are helping this country.
Yes, god forbid someone should change the argument back to the substance of the article instead of arguing within your phony frame. To point out the painfully obvious for the umpteenth time in this thread, the article obviously isn't about whether or not Matthews presented a balanced segment. Once agian, you've either missed the point entirely or you're being willfully dumb in order to pollute the discussion with meta-nonsense.
What I would rather have is Matthews scolding this buffoon for being disrespectful to one of our elected officials. This childish on-air name calling lowers the level of discourse far more than a blogger does.
Exactly. Matthews (or any other pundit) ought to verbally reject the fifth-grade-level "Nancy Botox" name-calling. Either that, or don't invite the guest back again. Williams has his own show, after all, and a listener base that evidently adores that type of Democratic Party-bashing discourse and tunes-in to hear it.
"Playing politics"...forgive me, I thought this Iraq thing had to do with dead and destruction. Maybe, just maybe, he was trying to paint the Democratic Party as being responsible for the failures in Iraq. Just a little maybe..or is that Con politics?
No a conservative radio host deflects a question and turns it into a rant against dems an in accurate one at that.
Why wouldn't MMFA post on this?
MMFA is basically wondering how Matthews could have this guy on his program because he's said bad stuff about Dems in the past.
So this thread appears to be about MMFA questioning Matthews judgment rather than Williams rant.
Guess that's because Matthews is one of this sites favorite villains.
Be that as it may, Matthews can invite anyone on his show that he wants...without MMFA's approval.
He sure can. And MMFA can point out every time why he should not be a guest on any show. He brings nothing to a political discussion. Why anyone would bring a guy like this back after an appearance like this is beyond me.
M.H.,
This guy Williams is a buffoon, that we can agree about. But in Matthews defense, it is very rare that he invites guest of that type onto his program. But it's his call not some partisan website.
MMFA can argue he shouldn't be a guest I suppose, but to me they sound either a tad dictatorial or maybe just whiney.
To me it seems the called a spade a spade....again. This is not the first time this guy has done this on MSNBC so they can't calim ignorance. MMFA is pointing out (rightfully) that this guy is a one trick poney. Don't tell me they can't find one conservative who won't stoop to this name calling idiocy. I think that is more of what MMFA is getting at.
MMFA can argue he shouldn't be a guest I suppose, but to me they sound either a tad dictatorial or maybe just whiney .Jeter
Jeter by the same token both you and Tommy sound a bit dictatorial or maybe just whiny with your complaints about the fact that MMFA chose to run this story.
Williams: ""every military advance we have made" in Iraq "has been ruined"
Wow. All I've been hearing from Bush & Cheney the past four years is "progress, progress, progress", "last throes, just six months more, progress!". Turns out that's not the case--- it's all "ruined", and none of it is the fault of Bush, Rumsfeld or Cheney.
You know I was thinking about that quote. Is he saying our military has failed?
Is he saying our military has failed?
He says any progress we've made in Iraq has been "ruined". Therefore, we've made zero progress. (That's not what we've been hearing from Bush & his apologists, but anyway...)
Then he says they (the troops, not Williams, of course... tho he agrees, naturally) are the ones blaming congressional Democrats for "ruining" all progress. In other words, he's cloaking his own obvious personal hatred of Democrats by, in effect, by attributing it to the troops.
What Williams probably wants is one-party rule ---no opposition-- where George Bush & the Republicans rule over everything and everyone, with no checks and balances. A country where the only "big mouth" allowed to speak is the mouth of George Bush.
Summary of item and comments, ones we can all agree upon:
MMFA shows video of a war monger who cannot answer the question, and even Matthews is annoyed.
MMFA quotes seem to be completely accurate, and they link to the entire segment. In fact, there are so many links that it is amazing how anyone could think MMFA is attempting to misquote or pick & choose.
Williams resorts to name-calling after not answering the question. Rambles, accuses without proof (or possibility of proof as we all know.)
Some comment that MMFA is showing only one side, but links show otherwise.
Oddly, some comment that it would be better with a war-mongering rambler, because it is easier to shoot down. And here is were we can all agree that MMFA is doing their job because we want honest, common sense debates among intelligent debaters who have time for more than sound bites and name-calling.
Thank you MMFA, for the tremendous links and references so the public can be more aware of comments that only derail the conversation.
With apologies to Tommy, instead of "Why is this here", I'm going to regularly post "Why is this guy on TV?"
What credibility does he have? After saying this: "every military advance we have made over there has been ruined, one way or another, by some fat-mouthed congressman, usually a Democrat, opening his mouth on Capitol Hill." he has none.
That's right, Mark. The failed war policy is the Dem's fault. If you say that three times and click your heels you may get to go home.
Maybe this is the new "talking point" - shift the blame for the lack of meaningful progress in the "war on terra" on the Democrats. That way the administration doesn't get held accountable for their poor planning and execution of a "war" (more like an occupation) that was dropped on us under dubious circumstances.
It would be interesting to see if other administration advocates make the rounds on the news talk shows with a similar theme.
Blaming the Democrats for the failure would be ridiculous if it were argued honestly. Before the 2006 elections, the Democrats had zero power. To say that their objections means that the troops said to themselves, "Gee, every single person isn't behind me in this mission back home That makes me so depressed I don't feel like fighting effectively!" or the insurgents say, "Well, Allah himself has admittedly blessed our Jihad, but Nancy Pelosi! Wow that REALLY is something! Makes me want to kill myself TWICE!"
The government was laughing at the democrats, the soldiers are dedicated professionals, and the opponents are suicidal religious fanatics.
How on earth does Democratic criticism affect any of these people?
No, what Williams is gnasfhing about is what the criticism HAS damaged--domestic Republican popularity. That's whar he's angry about. He's bleating over the people turning away from HIM, not the war.
And even the criticism pales before the fact that George Bush is losing his pet war--his war of choice--his war in which he was given everything he wanted.
And how does the American public know we're losing the war? Because we haven't won it. If we were winning, it would have already been over. Achmed Chalabi would be waving from his presidential motorcade, and gas would be $1.50 a gallon.
How do you know when a guy is losing a poker game? His sitting there, wanting to conttinue, arguing wiith everybody who folds, putting his watch and the keys to his car on the table, saying, "We can't quit now! It's just gettin' good!"
America doesn't need the democrats to know the war is lost.
This Williams idiot has no clue that he made a complete fool of himself. I don't think he has two brain cells to rub together.
Frankly, I'd like to see him become a regular - he's cheap entertainment.
I noticed everyone heaping abuse on this radio guy, but he has a point.
Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, Obama, Edwards, Clinton, Kennedy, Durbin, and PBG above are defeatists. Plain and simple. Their public anti-war, anti-Bush rants give encouragement to the enemy. By their public pronouncments they have done just about everything they can to help the U.S. be defeated in Iraq. The Democrats are invested in defeat.
In an interview with the Washington Post, James Clyburn, D-S.C., and the House Democratic whip, was asked what his party would do if Gen. David Patraeus reports in September that the surge strategy is working very, very well.
"Well, that would be a real big problem for us, no question about that," said Clyburn.
AA, you should call Hardball. I am sure they can work you in next week.
"[Democrats'] ... give encouragement to the enemy".
Yeah, you'd never hear a Republican (let's say, Bush, for example) encourage the enemy by saying something like "Bring 'em on". Because that'd be just plain stupid.
Dave,
Bush said that is one of his biggest regrets. Shall we see the same from the Democrats?
"Shall we see the same (regrets) from the Democrats?"
I sure hope so, because "the Democrats" seem to think that they are allowed to speak up in opposition, and that's just un-American. We all need to acquiesce to the supreme rule of George W. Bush -and perhaps General Petraeus, who has been granted special Decider Powers. Silence your voices until allowed to speak.
"Bush said that is one of his biggest regrets."
Must have been difficult to pick only one.
But then again his job-- as he informs us --is "hard work".
lets ignore those defeatist and continue with the great battle of Stalingrad. I am sure if we can silence the critics the fatherland will gain victory over the communists. never retreat.
AA he had no point and I'm sorry but don't either. If you can find where this war was going so well before the Dems started complaining I will apologize but I know you can't. You may be willing to kill more Americans to make Republicans look good but I don't want any part of it. I NEVER wanted to be there in the first place and as for what happens when we leave, that STILL not my fault or the Dems. Junior and Dick started this war, ran a lousy after the war and continue to run a lousy "civil war". Everything that happens is and will be their fault,
YOU, Bush, Darth Cheney and the lot just want to get as many Americans killed as possible its as simple as that. You lust for the blood of our troops. Its that simple.
Hilarious. You've taken a page from The Rush Limbaugh handbook on how to cherry pick comments and take them completely out of context. Did you actually read the article.
As el-rush bo might say...nice try.
AA, How sad. You do know that you have taken this out of context to make your point....He was talking about getting a majority to get us out of the mess we are in. It was that simple...How sad you have become.
"Despite previous smears, Matthews hosted guest Mark Williams, who -- again -- smeared Democrats"
And of course that can never happen in the liberal media.
So you would rather have people smearing each other on TV instead of real and informative debate over important issues of substance? Maybe you want the debate dumbed down, but not me. These issues are too important.
It sure can't because there IS no liberal media. All of your baseless assertions wont change that canard into reality. Repeat it all you want, wishing wont make it so.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
MATTHEWS: You know, Mark, that doesn't help me any.
I suppose it's too difficult to push the "Big Lie" and behave with civility at the same time, oh well!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Dan,
I'll have happy thoughts all weekend. I hope you have a good one too!
WELL HE IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ABOUT THE HEARINGS. YOU KNOW SOMEONE MIGHT EVEN DISCLOSE THE IDENTITY OF A CIA FRONT COMPANY IN THE PROCESS. DONT THESE DAMN DEMOCRATS UNDERSTAND HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO KEEP THOSE SORT OF THINGS FROM THE PRESS.
How anyone - Republican, Democrat, man, woman, child, or other - could not just be repulsed by the triviality and base vulgarity of that horrid, screaming phony is beyond me. A person behaving in that vulgar manner, especially about such a deadly serious subject, on national television should be utterly and irreperably shamed, and never to be seen or heard from again in or on a public forum.
It sounds like this guy Williams advocates you go for the guy that will just protect you...like in Boston..and to hell with the cops!
Did I hear that right? Is that why Matthews is rolling his eyes?
I'll watch it a third time.
It’s no surprise that Mathews has slid over a bit from his far left, anti-war, anti-Bush position. After all, he’s a media guy and the crap that the left wing (which is most of the) media has been dolling out ever since Bush took office is no longer selling as they thought it would. My God, we might have some success in Iraq after all.
The same is true for a lot of congressional and DNC Democrats as well. There’s confusion in the Democrat party as well as in the ranks of their supporters in the media (for example the most recent Iraq news in the NYT). While some are still going all out to bash the September report from Patreus even before it’s delivered, others are trying to put the brakes on the poor-mouthing of the Iraq campaign (while others, such as Pelosi and Reid are lying low to see how the wind blows come the next congressional session).
The grownups in the party as well as their buds in the media apparently understand that, carefully crafted polling to the contrary, the American people don’t really want to lose this war or even suffer a setback in Iraq. Moreover, the vast majority of the people are damned sick and tired of the constant bashing of the troops who are dedicated to the mission.
So, where will the spokesmen for the Democrat party end up by, say, the end of the year: “Iraq may go well after all” OR “Iraq is a losing cause”? Any odds?
Oldjarhead, hopefully they'll end up telling the truth, and not some multiple choice government slogan.
I'm countin' on that (the truth, that is). It'll be interesting to see how the congressional Democrats handle the testimony. As noted, I think they're in a state of confusion and running just a tad bit scared.
BTW, any odds on my two proposed outcomes?
... and how's the surf over there?
Delusional as always Oldguy. Calling Matthews far left itself takes a firm committment to koolaid induced fantasy. I love the way Matthews bashed Bush by saying he shone with a sort of sunny nobility and comparing him to Atticus Finch. The American people want out of this way. Drink all the koolaid you want, deny all the reality you want its a plain fact your delusions will not change and there is no such thing as a Democrat party, there is a DemocratIC party and there is a ReNAMBLAcan party.
SOLON,
Okay. That could be. But if it’s I that’s delusional (and not you), then you should be giving me favorable odds that the Democrats in congress (and their buds in the media) will continue going all out to get us pulled out of this “disgraceful” war in Iraq.
I’ve never had any illusions of convincing you or, for that matter, most others who contribute to this forum that Bush and his supporters are right about the strategy in Iraq. Instead, I’ve given you my opinion on where the movers and shakers in the Democrat party and their supporters in the media are now headed. My observation is that it’s a new direction from where they all seemed to be headed a month ago.
Maybe I’m delusional. On the other hand, maybe my take on this will prove to be correct. Too bad we can’t arrange for both you and me to put our money where our mouth is (or is there a way we can arrange a money bet legally on line?). I know your feelings on this but I’m curious to hear you, or anyone else, declare how you think it will turn out - and then BACK IT UP!
You are most definitly delusional. And there STILL isnt any such thing as a Democrat Party there is a DemocratIC Party and a ReNAMBLAcan Party. You are conflating two things, common among those afflicted with simplistic thinking. The war IS a disgrace and the people most definitly want us out. Neither of those two things is directly connected to what Dems in Congress do so your constant and frankly inane talk about a bet is just stupid. I am not a Democrat, I have no confidence they will worry less about what they think is in their political best interest and more about what they OUGHT to do so stuff your bet, its irrelevant.
“The war IS a disgrace and the people most definitely want us out. Neither of those things is directly connected to what Dems in Congress do, so …”
Well, SOLON, I don’t know if I’m delusional but I sure am confused. I thought that the Democrats would deliver on the will of the voters. Are you saying you don’t think that’s what they’ll do? Then, are you agreeing with me that they’ve kind of chickened out on getting us out of Iraq?
I’m really getting the feeling that I’ve somehow pissed you off here, old boy. Sorry about that. Have a good week!
Democrat party, eh...you do Frank Luntz proud.
Uh, sorry, MARY, I don't get it: the reference to Democrat party instead of Democratic party? Well, it seems to make sense: Republican in the Republican party. Democrat in the Democrat party. (Sorry, I don't know who Frank Luntz is).
Oldmare, why it's not logical to say the re in republican because re is redundant. The Publican Party sounds so much better.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200608160005
No it doesnt you ReNAMBLAcans are just not bright enough to master the English language, dont pretend we dont ALL know what is going on here.
Truthfully, I’m not sure what IS going on here. I made the assertion that the Democrats and their buds in the media, at least a prominent number of them, seemed to be doing a one-eighty on Iraq.
Also, I call the party the “Democrat Party”. My rationale: “Socialist in the Socialist party, Libertarian in the Libertarian party, Communist in the Communist party…” You get my drift. Illogical?
illogical. That is not how it works in the English language. So if you are a moron, would I call you a moron person? No I would call you a moronIC person. If I thought you were an idiot, would I call you idiot jerk? No I would call you an idiotIC jerk. If I thuoght you were a republican supporter, you would stil be a republican supporter becuase certain nouns don't change when becoming adjectives. Democrat is not one of those words, it becomes democratic. Now that this has been explained to you (althougth why you didn't get this lesson in 3rd grade, I have no idea) I am sure you will use the correct form next time.
If you, Oldmarine, are referring to this New York Times article published today, I don't read any "confusion" what so ever in the article. But then, you aren't even able to correctly call the Democratic party by it's actual name so I can see how you might be confused when you read something that is not at all confusing.
"In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, “We need security, not free food.”
In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal."
-- Buddhika Jayamaha is an Army specialist. Wesley D. Smith is a sergeant. Jeremy Roebuck is a sergeant. Omar Mora is a sergeant. Edward Sandmeier is a sergeant. Yance T. Gray is a staff sergeant. Jeremy A. Murphy is a staff sergeant.
http://tinyurl.com/2nht5a
Why do you righties always give Bush a pass for invading the wrong country, not sending enough troops, not restoring power, wasting billions on rebuilding, loosing other billions, making Iraq a haven for terrorists, causing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths, tens of thousands of horribly maimed American youth, destroying the readiness of our military, squandering the surplus, destroying our international reputation, destroying an undercover CIA agent, destroying the justice department, destroying the idea of bi-partisanship, destroying the good will we felt after 9-11, and smirking all the while? We don't bash Bush, we just recount his achievements, and they are disastrous. We don't need to use the hateful language of Mark Williams to bolster our case, the facts speak for themselves. Democrats cause our failure in Iraq? Blame us for expressing an opinion like good citizens; if we'd just shut up everything would be hunky dory.
"BTW, any odds on my two proposed outcomes?"- oldmarine
Death and destruction and heartache is just a game to you, oldmarine?