Matthews: "4,000 people are dead now because of decisions made by politicians like the Clintons"
SUMMARY: On Morning Joe, Chris Matthews asserted: "We're stuck in Iraq; 4,000 people are dead now because of decisions made by politicians like the Clintons." Matthews did not explain how "politicians like the Clintons" were responsible for the deaths of "4,000 people" in Iraq, nor did he mention President Bush, who actually made the decision to send U.S. troops to invade Iraq.
On the March 24 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews asserted: "We're stuck in Iraq; 4,000 people are dead now because of decisions made by politicians like the Clintons." Matthews did not explain how "politicians like the Clintons" were responsible for the deaths of "4,000 people" in Iraq, nor did he mention President Bush, who actually made the decision to invade Iraq. Sen. Hillary Clinton herself has accused Bush of "misus[ing]" the authority given him by Congress.
Matthews was discussing New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson's endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama for president when he asserted, "It's not important what the politics of the Clinton family is now; it's what [sic] important to the country. And I really think we got to stop talking about this as if this were a sitcom. We had eight years of this sitcom: What are the Clintons up to? How do they relate to each other? What do they feel today?" He added: "[I]t's a sitcom, and it's gotta end. We gotta focus on America. We're stuck in Iraq; 4,000 people are dead now because of decisions made by politicians like the Clintons."
As The Washington Post reported, the deaths of four U.S. soldiers in a roadside bombing on March 23 in southern Baghdad pushed "the overall U.S. death toll in the five-year Iraq war to at least 4,000."
From the March 24 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
MIKA BRZEZINSKI (co-host): I want to bring in Chris Matthews and the timing of this. Also, [Clinton campaign adviser] Mark Penn had some comments, Chris, on this, saying, "The time that he could have been effective has long since passed" -- this is about Governor Richardson, who we're interviewing -- "I don't think it's a significant endorsement in this environment." So some members, Chris, of the Clinton campaign trying to downplay this.
MATTHEWS: Well, I think we make a big mistake trying to see things through the eyes of the Clintons, in a kind of a Clinton-centric world. I mean, there's a larger globe out there of people -- 300 million Americans and billions of people around the world. I think we should look upon these decisions by people like Bill Richardson as important to people like us, instead of how it affects the sensibilities of the Clintons. I think that's a big mistake we've been making for about 20 years.
Let me read you something from The Washington Times today. It's about a woman who was over in Alexandria [Virginia] watching television when you, Governor, made your announcement for Senator Obama.
"I was at the McDonald's on Henry Street at 1 o'clock -- or 1 p.m. with three little children. And it was exactly the time that Bill -- the New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson was making his announcement endorsing Barack Obama for president." Quote, "It was dead quiet. Two African-American men were standing around the televisions mounted on the walls, and two Hispanic families seated around me also watched intently. As soon as Richardson endorsed Obama, an African-American woman next to me called her husband and told him what had happened." Quote, "Then, one of the two men watching the TV shouted out loud in a tone of wonder and amazement, 'It's going to happen! Obama is going to be the next president,' " close quote. "It was the only moving moment that I have ever experienced with politics."
That is where we should be putting our focus, not on the feelings of the Clintons, about what people owe them and their sense of entitlement. The American experience that's going on right now in McDonald's and in living rooms around the country, the feeling people have when they see you standing next to Barack Obama with your different backgrounds, I tell you, it's a stunning picture.
It's not important what the politics of the Clinton family is now; it's what [sic] important to the country. And I really think we got to stop talking about this as if this were a sitcom. We had eight years of this sitcom: What are the Clintons up to? How do they relate to each other? What do they feel today? Mika, it's a sitcom --
BRZEZINSKI: Yeah?
MATTHEWS -- and it's gotta end. We gotta focus on America. We're stuck in Iraq; 4,000 people are dead now because of decisions made by politicians like the Clintons --
BRZEZINSKI: OK.
MATTHEWS: We've gotta focus on what matters and stop this sitcom approach to politics. It doesn't matter what happened on the phone between Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson. What matters is what Bill Richardson has to say about the future of the country. Bill -- Governor, why is it important to have Barack Obama our next president? That's a question.
Someone should hit Chris in the nose with a rolled up newspaper.
Preferable the Washington Times.
See guys, this is where inveterate, irrational hatred of the Clintons will lead you: insanity and stupidity.
Operation Chaos as Rush puts it, is all about Republicans switching Parties in the primary to vote for the candidate they view as most beatable.
Guess who they're voting for?
The State of Texas is investigating their primary elections because of the dual-voting. Apparently, many Republicans, who wanted to weigh in on their own party candidate selection, didn't understand the rules of Chaos and went from their ballot over to the Democrats and voted again. Depending on what they find out, criminal charges could be brought against the people who voted in both. I hope Rush plans to bail out everyone who followed his instructions.
Sadly, Obama fights like a Republican, but the media tries to make it a Clinton strategy because the Repubicans were so successful putting this tag on them in the 90's.
So much weird thinking going on with Matthews in this tirade.
CM: “Well, I think we make a big mistake trying to see things through the eyes of the Clintons, in a kind of a Clinton-centric world.”
REALITY: Hillary Clinton may well be our next president, and is currently locked in a nomination process. For that reason, the MEDIA is reporting every syllable uttered by the Clinton camp, every imaginable question is being asked, and responses are sought immediately upon any developments in the political world. Is THIS an attempt to “see things through the eyes of the Clintons”? Is covering them, reporting on them, and repeating their responses a “BIG MISTAKE” in Matthews’ judgment? Amazing. He thinks it’s about time the MEDIA just ignored the Clintons, and covered OTHER things instead. For a “news” man, this is an incredible admission.
CM: “I mean, there's a larger globe out there of people -- 300 million Americans and billions of people around the world.”
REALITY: Look for MSNBC to start covering everyone else in the world as if they were front-running presidential candidates. Holy crap, Matthews has lost his mind.
CM: “I think we should look upon these decisions by people like Bill Richardson as important to people like us, instead of how it affects the sensibilities of the Clintons. I think that's a big mistake we've been making for about 20 years.”
REALITY: Richardson’s “decisions” … as a FAILED candidate … are “important” to people like Matthews, while current SUCCESSFUL candidates are not nearly as “important”. A stunning bit of priority-setting.
CM, states that an anecdotal account from a McDonald’s “is where we should be putting our focus, not on the feelings of the Clintons, about what people owe them and their sense of entitlement.” One of the observations by the “regular folk” in the McDonald’s, which Matthews thinks should be “THE FOCUS”? That “it’s going to happen, Obama will be President.”
CM goes global, speaking for EVERY AMERICAN, their “feelings”, and where all the reporting should be coming from: “The American experience that's going on right now in McDonald's and in living rooms around the country, the feeling people have when they see you standing next to Barack Obama with your different backgrounds, I tell you, it's a stunning picture.”
REALITY: Yes, it IS “stunning” to have a commentator like Matthews extrapolate from an anecdote into a statement about what IS important, and should be at the EXCLUSION of all else. I.E., Matthews believes that, now, Hillary needs to be ignored, and Obama anointed. There can be no other conclusion.
CM: “It's not important what the politics of the Clinton family is now; it's what [sic] important to the country. And I really think we got to stop talking about this as if this were a sitcom.”
REALITY: A “situation comedy”? That’s what THE MEDIA has been giving us, with their coverage of the Clintons? First off, whose fault would that BE? The Clintons, or the way the Media chooses to COVER them? And secondly, what is the “COMEDY” in this situation? Is it comedy that is supposed to be somehow HELPING the Clintons while ignoring reality? Again, whose fault would THIS be? And what’s FUNNY? Maybe Matthews will elaborate about how coverage of the Clintons could be compared to a sitcom. Chico and the Man? Newhart? All in the Family? WHAT, Chris? Tell us how your mind is working here …
CM: “We had eight years of this sitcom: What are the Clintons up to? How do they relate to each other? What do they feel today? Mika, it's a sitcom –“
REALITY: We’ve had eight years of BUSH in the White House. That coverage was NOT a “sitcom”? What’s the criteria? A LAUGHTRACK, perhaps? A focus on personality, instead of issues? Matthews tries to draw a distinction (Clintons as empty entertainment, bereft of substance), but he gives us no indication of HOW, and if he could show THAT, then HOW that would be the Clinton’s FAULT? He’s talking about COVERAGE here. Sheesh.
It seem Matthews wishes to launch his OWN sitcom, “In The Tank With Barack” would be a good title.
Oh yeah, those 4000 deaths? It was caused by people EXACTLY LIKE Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.
Whatever else they might be, the Clintons are NOT "like" those people (nor is Obama).
Note to Matthews: Clinton was NOT the President who invaded and occupied Iraq. That was BUSH. Those 4000 deaths and 30,000 injured? Entirely on BUSH. What a stunning attempt at history revisionism, blame-passing, and utter disregard for FACTS. Matthews has gone nuts.
"What a stunning attempt at history revisionism, blame-passing, and utter disregard for FACTS."
Tex, explain a couple FACTS for me; Did Hilary make any speaches agreeing to the known dangers of Saddam and his possesion of WMD's between '98 and '03? Simple yes or no would suffice.
Did Hilary sign the resolution authorizing use of military force in '03? Yes or no.
Ok, from the FACTS it sounds like Hilary supports the same things you blame on Bush/co. If Hilary signed that resolution for another reason then she is a liar and can't be trusted (just like Bush?), if she did not lie and signed it because she agreed with it, then you all are liars and can't be trusted. Which FACT is factual here??
Yeah....... a Clinton responsible for the deaths of 4000 soldiers......
Well..... according to the right-wing crackpots..... Bill Clinton is to blame for all the economic ills we face today..... even though Bush and the Repubs were in charge from 2001-2007......
Matthews should be KO's Worst Person in the World for this one...... that and Matthews is an idiot!
captfoster2 said:
"Matthews should be KO's Worst Person in the World for this one...... that and Matthews is an idiot!"
Anyone who reads my posts knows I am a conserative, but this will never happen. CM should not have said what he did. He was wrong and should be called out on it, but KO will NEVERRRR call out Chris on this, because he will not attack someone on his network. He does not have the guts or the courage to call him out on this. Had it been on FOX news he would have been all over it, but he will not go after CM or MSNBC.
POINTOFVIEW,
I know that....... my bad for not pointing out my intended sarcasm
Then again..... KO has called himself a Worse Person when he's made a blunder...... it could be done in such...... oh nevermind
What's wierd about all this is how come no one ever contests Matthews about these kind of nutty things.
Oh yeah, they're all on the payroll.
"He does not have the guts or the courage to call him out on this."
It is not Olbermann's call. His producers won't let him put up other talking heads from the same network in WPITW. MSNBC is a brand, and to hold the brand in a negative light hurts the company. Its really that simple.
On the other hand, I think it reflects a general trend toward not holding Bush and Cheney accountable for what may be the biggest foreign policy blunder of the modern era. Invading Iraq was incredibly STUPID. Although a few brave Republicans are now admitting that, there seems to be no stomach for doing one damned thing about it. Too bad. Bush and Cheney have committed a heinous crime against our nation and our Constitution, not to mention the people of Iraq and the surrounding region, which is now FUBAR. They should at least be forced to forfeit part of their vast fortunes to help pay for cleaning up their G.D. mess.
I agree with Nerzog, the context of the clip makes no mention of Bush
It talks about the people of our country that are traditionally disenfranchised seeing for the first time that maybe the glass ceiling, under the correct conditions, can be shattered after all
Matthews uses the Clintons because they are a name linked to politics but also because Hillary is running against Obama
Matthews is saying who cares what careers politicians think, the Obama wave is about people believing for the first time in a long while, this wave should not be hindered by the ego and aspirations of just one family
NB: I would have liked a Bush mention at the end, Clinton voted yes and 4000 Americans died because of it, but Bush was the linchpin and provacateur
I think you may need a refresher in basic US Govt
She could have voted no, they knew Bush was a nut then just as they do now
It would have been unpopular political tightrope walking, but it would have been the right thing to do
Bush told the lies and Congress inked the deal, there is blood on her hands as well
"Bush did provide false information to Congress, and hence, their vote to authorize use of force in Iraq."
Bush wasn't in power when Hilary and EVERY other demoncat made speeches on the dangers of Hussein and his WMD's. They continued to make the same speeches after Bush took office. The intel came from William Clinton's administration. Bush's biggest (not only) mistake was to believe intel gathered by a democratic administration. Everyone knows democrats will lie through their collective teeth in order to gain voter advantage at every turn. Hilary is proving this over and over again during this election cycle, why should the past be any different?
I think you may need a refresher in basic US Govt
I understand gov't pretty well.
She could have voted no, they knew Bush was a nut then just as they do now
She should have voted no to a resolution that handed her constitutionally mandated power to declare war to Bush. Bush being a nut case is beside the point.
Bush told the lies and Congress inked the deal, there is blood on her hands as well
Bush made the decision to invade; it wasn't Clinton.
LOL Not an inch eh?
Not much of a peacenik?
Me, I'm a war as last case scenario kinda cat and I knew Bush was nuts from his days in Texas, Hell, I wouldn't have trusted that man with a F'n nail gun
The few, the brave, I give you...the 23
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)
THE 23 THAT KNEW BETTER ON IRAQ, and it makes all the difference
Different category, but they are also among the brave
Hillary was not among them either
Partly, sure
She would have been painted a far left loon, which is exactly why she and Kerry did not stand with the 23, but she would have proven her leadership, Hell, she could have even challenged Kerry on it
No, the resolution was to use force after all other means had been exhausted. It was not a war resolution. They were fooled.
But why has Obama voted for all the Iraq funding bills? You know why-- cause he's all talk.
Um Hill voted for all of them too Concern CARLtroll
The fact is 23 people had the grapes in the Senate to cry Bullspit, she was not among them, not that you really care but that is what the big kids were talking about
Perhaps if Sen. Clinton had read the NIE like Sen. Bob Graham did http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/14/bob-graham-iraq-war-vote_n_91524.html she would have made a better judgment call. Certainly her vote could not be considered politically expedient so she could appear tough on defense for her presidential run in the future. Maybe she was having some PTSD issues from dodging that sniper fire in Bosnia on the day of the vote and her judgement was clouded. Every person who voted to give Bush that authority has some blame at their doorstep. It was political suicide to vote no at that time, I guess we know which Democrats put their careers before their country.
CARL,
I believe that Sen. Obama clearly explained why he has voted for the funding of this war in one of the previous debates in which he alluded to getting the bus out of the ditch after Bush with the help of most in congress did the driving and got us in to the mess. Anyone with a sense of morality regarding our troops would not dare withhold funding when they are directly in harms way. Your "all talk" argument holds no water. I would call it political grandstanding, Hillary would be proud.
"the resolution was to use force after all other means had been exhausted. It was not a war resolution. They were fooled."
These are Senators you're talking about. Not elementary kids. They weren't fooled. How can the dumbest (liberal POV) president in all of history fool democratic
......leaders into the kind of mistake many claim this is??
THE 23 THAT KNEW BETTER ON IRAQ, and it makes all the difference
Ed, I've said I support Obama but I believe that Hillary should not take the blame for the war vote alone. EACH and EVERY Democrat who allowed fear to rule common sense, who decided that THEIR own political survival was more important, should take the blame. We cannot single out Hillary, she was not alone.
While I won't place all the blame on Hillary for the vote I WILL blame her for not having the b*lls to admit a mistake. When something you agreed to has been proven to be a mistake, a mistake that has cost 4,000 lives, pony up and admit an error in judgement. We have spent the last 7 years with a "commander in chief" who couldn't admit a mistake and I don't want to spend the next 4 years with another one. Stop the freaking song and dance about "if you could have the vote back", I MADE A MISTAKE! The country does not expect perfection just a little humanity.
To all of those who have said publicly that they made a mistake, you are giant and better people than those who's political career is more important that the job they were elected to do.
We don't disagree
But Hillary talks a lot about experience and judgement...I was just providing 23 better resumes than hers
I'm an Obama man myself too
Peral,
Your sentiments are in the right place but in this case "admitting" a mistake does nothing but tell the families of the 4,000 dead that their loved ones lives were wasted in vain. Every Senator and Congressperson who voted to support the war had the option to delve into intelligence and make an informed decision on their own. How on one hand we (collective) can call Bush an idiot and a numbnuts and then on the other hand believe he was smart enough to snooker the majority of our elected officials is to slap down our own credibility.
Hindsight is indeed 20-20 and each politician who voted on the war is free to look back and assess their position at the time. We sanctimoniously look on them and declare they were either right or wrong, not really knowing what they knew when they voted, and without regard for the impact of our words on those who had the courage to stand up and fight. Hillary may indeed believe she made a mistake but prehaps her respect for the dead soldiers outweighs her desire to be seen right or wrong.
I believe the true cowards are the ones who voted for the war resolution and now look back and claim they were wrong. They were either too lazy to find out the information required to make an informed vote or too accommodating in hopes of gaining favor among fellow politicians. Being right on events of the past does nothing to change where we are now.
Your sentiments are in the right place but in this case "admitting" a mistake does nothing but tell the families of the 4,000 dead that their loved ones lives were wasted in vain.
Dem, the soldiers and their families already have questions about the war, the need for war, the need for invading Iraq. I’ve read letters from soldiers who question each and every day why are they there, what is this about and when will it end. I’ve read stories from young men who love their country, are willing to give their lives for their country but are not allowed to question to judgment of the people who sent them off to war. Yeah Bush pulled the trigger but he had help.
I remember the mood in the country when the war vote came. I spent an entire day e-mailing every Democrat begging them to not give Bush the authorization, you see I remember the Vietnam war well. I got back standard e-mail responses saying thank you for your interest. The one time the Democrats should have stood up and said, wait, they choose their own political security. They choose their safety over the countless American lives that would be placed in jeopardy. I’m sorry but that is unforgivable. IMO it’s like pushing someone in front of the bullet and saving your own a**. Admitting you mistake, IMO, holds you accountable for you error in judgment. It allows those who have been hurt the most, soldiers and their families to have a target for their anger. You are right it changes nothing but don’t you owe the people you have wronged something? Are politicians so fragile that they can’t stand a little criticism? As compared to dying, it’s seems a small price to pay for an error in judgment.
Hindsight is indeed 20-20 and each politician who voted on the war is free to look back and assess their position at the time. We sanctimoniously look on them and declare they were either right or wrong, not really knowing what they knew when they voted, and without regard for the impact of our words on those who had the courage to stand up and fight. Hillary may indeed believe she made a mistake but prehaps her respect for the dead soldiers outweighs her desire to be seen right or wrong.
I’m sorry but I don't think Hillary’s respect for the dead had anything to do with admitting a mistake. It was more of a cover you’re a** for Hillary. After all how many excuses has she given for her war vote? There have been at least 4 so far and respect for the dead wasn't one of them.
I believe the true cowards are the ones who voted for the war resolution and now look back and claim they were wrong. They were either too lazy to find out the information required to make an informed vote or too accommodating in hopes of gaining favor among fellow politicians. Being right on events of the past does nothing to change where we are now.
I appreciate someone who realizes their mistake and has enough character to admit it. It means something to me to have a politician say I was wrong. I don’t think politicians are special nor do they have physic powers, they are human and bound to make mistakes like everyone else. What I don’t appreciate is those who instead of admitting their mistake weasel around to try to pretend they are physic and are never wrong. THAT is unacceptable.
I've read letters from soldiers who put their lives in the hands of politicians, only asking them to use sound judgement. That seems like a small thing to ask considering they are willing to give their lives.
No, thank you Snoop for being cool, lately a lot of posters just fly off the handle if you disagree, even just a little, cheers
I miss a clip here and there too, so much Right wing lunacy, so little time
Perhaps you can explain to me why Matthews said "Clintons", plural. To the best of my knowledge, Bill C. has never been a member of the Senate...especially not in the last seven years.
Or are there other Clintons in the Senate than Hillary?
Not sure I catch your meaning ?
are you arguing the point or that is was unjustly pluralized ?
"Not sure I catch your meaning ?
are you arguing the point or that is was unjustly pluralized ?" - Edenscape
It's not that difficult a meaning. Why was Matthews tarring both Clintons in this? Bill somehow had a hand in the 4000 deaths?
Since you didn't answer that (though you are still welcome to), I'd say you have gone off on the wrong tangent.
In the World of Matthews, it is not at all that Senate Democrats are at fault (though I personally wish they were as smart about all this as I was all along), it is that he has an all-consuming hatred of Bill. At most, Hillary is just collateral damage. For example, at a recent public speaking engagement (a friend of mine went), he blamed Bill for Gore's failure to get elected--this was a deflection when a question was asked of him of how he would compare the in office faults of Bill and George W. He prefaced his blaming Bill for Gore's non-election by saying he wasn't going to "play the game" of comparing Bill and George. Oh, and he entirely dropped any further mention of Bush.
Or put it this way. Why didn't Matthews say "4000 people are dead now because of decisions by politicians like Bush", or even "the Bushs"? You can say that didn't fit into what he was talking about, yet he *did* shift the whole thing into a blame of Iraq on Bill (and Hillary). He talks about what he wants to talk about.
What's very disheartening is to see a few people who habituate this forum, largely a very politically savvy bunch of people, start to pin it on Hillary. For the record, she should have voted 'no'--but recall it was not a vote to go to war, it was a vote authorizing war if all else failed. (Sadly, members of the Senate didn't understand that nothing other than an invasion was being comtemplated by the Bush gang.)
TWENTY THREE senators did know and voted NO
Hell even a Republican, Chafee voted No
I agree that Matthews hates the Clintons, no doubt about that
But rewatch that clip and find me a place to inject the Bush bit in that dialogue, it just wasn't the topic of the segment, though I conceded it should be mentioned every time Iraq is
"But rewatch that clip and find me a place to inject the Bush bit in that dialogue, it just wasn't the topic of the segment, though I conceded it should be mentioned every time Iraq is" - Edenscape
You just don't get it, do you.
Iraq was not at all the subject either. That was something Matthews gratuitously brought in as one more punch at "the Clintons". Hell, neither Iraq nor Bill was in the discussion except for Matthews injecting them into it. And you tell me Bush was not "the topic of the segment"? Matthews owned that segment. He put the topics he wanted to in it, he left out what he felt like leaving out. This is simple stuff. It seems like he not only owned that conversation, he has now taken you under his wing and owns you.
Conversation over.
Wow, you are like talking to a 3 year old
If this is all too much for you, feel free to move on
I heard our VP say today that no one has paid a higher price for this war than young George W.
The interviewer also asked our Dark Lord about the 4,000 American lives lost and he explained that they volunteered.
So?
Just giving a standard Cheney response.
Now now MAGNOLIA......
Its not every day that we have a politician that cares enough about the citizenry of the country that he represents to not really give a damn about the citizenry that he represents!
So............. what?
"I heard our VP say today that no one has paid a higher price for this war than young George W.
The interviewer also asked our Dark Lord about the 4,000 American lives lost and he explained that they volunteered." - Worrierking
I get it, if you volunteer you pay no price. Interesting concept.
Now before someone says, "Hey, what about the chimpster, didn't he volunteer for the presidency? How come he gets to pay the highest price?" Well, allow me to remind you, he was puppeted into the role.
Yep, beers on me when that old son of a snake croaks, that dark heart can't pump forever and then its down where the goblins go...
below, below, below
Still fresh in observing the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, and now with 4.000 U.S. Troops having been sacrificed there, what chris matthews said about it has to be as inappropriate and disgusting a "memorial observation" as can be made by anyone who claims to be human.
The MSNBC "media" hack named chris matthews, officially observes the 4,000th sacrifice of a U.S. Soldier in Iraq, by saying...
4,000 people are dead now because of decisions made by politicians like the Clintons --
Sickening. Disgusting. Insane. Surreal.
Where a serious reflection is called for, on the invasion and on it's great (and continued) sacrifices, chris matthews blames "the Clintons".
If this guy chris matthews was a horse, somebody would have shot him by now, for being so lame and broken down.
4000 American soldiers are now dead.
What about the wounded? People who lost limbs, eyes, other body appendages.
What about the dead Iraqis? Some say well above 100,000 have died because of this war, with a far greater number being displaced.
What about British soldiers? They had a fair few killed as well?
What about the smattering of other coalition forces? Other countries lost sons and daughters to this battle as well.
The human cost is huge for such a stupid thing, and it's only going to grow year by year, life by life. We, as Americans, are pretty isolated from this whole disaster for the most part. We don't see bombs going off on the streets every day. We don't see our countrymen getting killed and dumped in the streets on a daily basis. We do hear about American soldiers killed, funny how they never talk about Iraqi civilian casualties as well.
And Matthews wants to somehow maybe possibly blame this on the Clintons, or politicians like them? Umm, there is only one person to blame Chris. George. W. Bush. Sure, others voted for the authority to use force in Iraq, but ultimately, it was George's decision, and his alone.
Many more than 4,000 American soldiers have died from injuries sustained in Iraq.
The Government only counts the soldiers who actually die in Iraq. If a soldier is wounded in Iraq, flown out of the country and dies elsewhere, they are not counted in the list of those who were killed in Iraq.
On any given Sunday I would agree, watch the clip again, there was nowhere to fit a Bush jab...the whole conversation regarded the Clintons
Her vote had consequences, that is the burden of leadership
NB: She did not vote alone
We agree a lot, here we part ways
While Hillary was going along to get along during a very jingoistic time in US History, Obama was out speaking against the decision and risking his political career by doing so
Votes matter, we talk here all the time about the dumb nonsense Republicans vote for, her vote on Iran shows she learns nothing fast
I do agree, to a certain extent. I admire folks like Russ Feingold for example, who voted against it, and angrily, and loudly denounced going to war in Iraq. I think Senator Clinton voted wrong. She, and others in the Senate and House, gave Bush the means to invade another country for apparently no reason, but it was still HIS decision to do it. He pushed the agenda. He lied to Congress with the intelligence. He made a lot of folks in Congress, and this country, believe that we were going to wake up one morning and LA was going to be gone in a "mushroom cloud" as they kept saying. It was fear mongering at its best, and they got what they wanted. War in Iraq.
I don't dismiss Senator Clinton's vote for the war, not at all. I don't support her in this primary season either. But we've got place blame where it really belongs. On Bush.
Well said Mags
Dangnabbit
I guess we do agree, big suprise
I was moreso WITHing the item, Matthews couldn't really throw Bush into the diatribe as he hadn't been mentioned in the entire segment, I finally find a legit WITH and Tommy is nowhere to be seen : )
I agree that Bush is the fault bearer, I just find it hard to forgive the Dems that were blind when others could see quite clearly and voted accordingly
Hillary Clinton cast this vote 5 and a half years ago and people act like her one vote meant the difference in shock and awe
Even though I don't fault her for what went on and what's going on in Iraq, how could anyone in Congress vote for a resolution that passed their constitutionally mandated power to another branch of government?
WHAT?
Liberal state or not Obama was speaking very unpoplar words in a country that supported our troops in Iraq by re-electing the bastich that sent them there and by buying yellow ribbon stickers for a buck and affixing them to their gas guzzling SUVs
Hyberbole, would that there were more willing to speak the unsung truth back then more would be alive today
I don't see how you fail to see that, seer
It still says everything you know about Matthews that rather than citing any other Democrat who voted for the war, he cited Bill Clinton who didn't vote. And he didn't cite Obama who voted for war funding multiple times.
And besides Hillary, to this day only those who were wrong about Iraq get any street cred from the media.
Double true
Matthews is a clock that loses a tenth of a second an hour.
He's almost never right.
MATTHEWS SHOULD PUT HIS NAME WITH THE REST OF THE MEDIA ACCEPT FOR THAT ONE NEWSPAPER WHO TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT WHAT WAS REALLY GOING ON IN IRAQ FOR THOSE 4,000 PEOPLE BEING DEAD. JUST LIKE THEY ARE NOT DOING THERE JOB IN GETTING THE TRUTH OUT ABOUT MCCAIN THEY DID THE SAME THING ABOUT IRAQ.
Remember yesterday - walking hand in hand
Love letters in the sand - I remember you
Through the sleepless nights and every endless day
Id wanna hear you say - I remember you
To crib Skid Row
er, this was to go under the names of the brave twenty three that voted no on Iraq while Clinton and Kerry went along to get along the nomination
I remember how they walked hand in hand into the sand, I just wish people remembered the 23 that knew better
The BigApple is the message-----
Boom boom,
Down down,
Roar roar,
War war…….Let's not forget the % of Americans who were also on the bus that Bush was driving over the cliff. If one was a newsman without an American flag pin on his lapel then they were unamerican. Hindsight brings back a touch of McCarthyism if one was not gungho for the war. There is STILL 30% of the Amerian public that back Bush and the war. When is the Supreme Court going to say, "Sorry"?. When is Ohio going to say,"Sorry"?
I would love to know what the Clinton's did to Chris Matthews to make him loathe them so.
Really. He's averaging at least 3 Clinton Bashing Comments (or CBC's as I call 'em) a week.
I don't know, but if it involved an insult or rebuff at his having become half a Republican after working so long for Democrats, he deserved it. Russert, Mathews, and Stephanopoulos have a lot of making up to do for their ingratitude, for their enabling of the GOP over the years.
4,000 people are dead now because of decisions made by politicians like the Clintons.—Chris Mathews
Those politicians, our representatives, acted in response to the blood lust of the American people.
" And I really think we got to stop talking about this as if this were a sitcom. We had eight years of this sitcom: What are the Clintons up to? How do they relate to each other? What do they feel today?" He added: "[I]t's a sitcom, and it's gotta end. "
he conveniently forgets to note that he and his ilk are largely responsible for that "sitcom". but, like the man said, "never let facts get in the way of a really stupid rant." or something to that effect.
gen. powell's address before the UN is what sealed the deal for many, many people, myself reluctantly included. he was the only member of the bush administration i trusted. i hope he got more than the mandatory 30 pieces of silver for selling his soul to bush. he managed, in one short presentation, to destroy the reputation gained with so much blood, sweat and tears over his entire life. frankly, i'm kind of surprised he hasn't committed ritual honor suicide yet.
sen. clinton has stated, on many occasions, starting in early 2004, that if she knew then what she knows now, she'd never have voted for the AUMF.
i suspect she's not alone.
cpinva - gen. powell's address before the UN is what sealed the deal for many, many people, myself reluctantly included. he was the only member of the bush administration i trusted.
I've heard this a lot and am amazed every time. Powell was perfect for this job cause of everything he did all those years ago covering up My Lai. This is not an honourable man IMHO.
The really galling thing about this is that Matthews was a major cheerleader of the war, at least at the beginning. Remember his bit about "women like this war," and they "like having a president with a swagger," following the Mission Accomplished fiasco? Would Matthews have come out and said "We were victorious in Iraq because of decisions made by politicians like the Clintons"?
Of course not. And now that the war has taken five years and 4000 American lives for a cause few people believe in anymore, he shifts the blame off the Republicans entirely.
The only reason this man has any more credibility than Savage is that his language is cleaner.
I watched Frontline last night, and even though I knew the lies about the lead up to the war, it still made he ill.
With all the money flushed down the crapper in Iraq, we could have bought a brand new electric car for every eligible driver in the U.S. and showed a collective middle finger to OPEC.
Or, with that same money we could have comprehensive health care, easing the burden on corporations and the middle/lower classes while making us more competitive in the global marketplace.
Or, with the same money, we could have granted free college education to every child.
Instead, it's gone into the pockets of the contractors and the Pentagon. What a waste.
With all the money flushed down the crapper in Iraq, we could have bought a brand new electric car for every eligible driver in the U.S. and showed a collective middle finger to OPEC.
But you KNOW we'd never do anything like that as long as oil-men/swindlers Bush and Cheney are in positions of power.
4000 soldiers/Clintons
....Huh????......What????
Chris, do apples & oranges actually differ....
"We're stuck in Iraq; 4,000 people are dead now because of decisions made by politicians like the Clintons"
Didn't there used to be a sign on the president's desk, "The buck stops here?"
I guess with the RW, the buck stops with the previous administration...
I applaud Media Matters and donated to them. But I think it's without question that any Senator that authorized Bush to pursue any means in Iraq are responsible for the fiasco. It's very clear to any thinking person that Clinton was afraid of being tarred as too weak to be commander in chief.
I think if she is elected (and I will vote for her over any Republican) she may feel compelled again to show how "manly" she is in the use of force.
You don't have to be a Clinton lover to acknowlege that she made some bad votes on the lead up to the Iraq War. As was pointed out in an earlier thread, more than 20 other senators made the right call. So her judgment should be called into question.
Blame it on the Clintons...what else is new?
Karl Rove and the neocon attack machine .... If Obama gets the democratic nomination.....they will at least have someone else to focus on.
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
Winston Churchill