US News
Chris Matthews on 'criminal' Bush administration
By Karyn Chenoweth Oct 5, 2007, 13:59 GMT
05/08/2007 - Chris Matthews - 2007 Time Magazine\'s 100 Most Influential People Gala - Arrivals - Time Warner Center - New York City, NY © Janet Mayer / Photorazzi
MSNBC's Chris Matthews had barely finished praising his colleagues at the 10th anniversary party for his “Hardball” show Thursday night in Washington, D.C. when his remarks turned political and pointed, even suggesting that the Bush administration had "finally been caught in their criminality."
In front of an audience that included such notables as Alan Greenspan, Rep. Patrick Kennedy and Sen. Ted Kennedy, Matthews began his remarks by declaring that he wanted to "make some news" and he certainly didn't disappoint. After praising the drafters of the First Amendment for allowing him to make a living, he outlined what he said was the fundamental difference between the Bush and Clinton administrations.
The Clinton camp, he said, never put pressure on his bosses to silence him.
“Not so this crowd,” he added, explaining that Bush White House officials -- especially those from Vice President Cheney's office -- called MSNBC brass to complain about the content of his show and attempted to influence its editorial content. "They will not silence me!" Matthews declared.
"They've finally been caught in their criminality," Matthews continued, although he did not specify the exact criminal behavior to which he referred. He then drew an obvious Bush-Nixon parallel by saying,
“Spiro Agnew was not an American hero."
Matthews left the throng of Washington A-listers with a parting shot at Cheney: “God help us if we had Cheney during the Cuban missile crisis. We’d all be under a parking lot.”
Following his remarks, a few network insiders and party goers wondered what kind of effect Matthews' sharp criticism of the White House would have on Tuesday's Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan, which
Matthews co-moderates alongside CNBC's Maria Bartiromo.
"I find it hard to believe that Republican candidates will feel as if they're being given a fair shot at
Tuesday's debate given the partisan pot-shots lobbed by Matthews this evening," said one attendee.
When reached, the White House declined to comment and NBC refused requests to release video of the event.
The event included such NBC/MSNBC brass as NBC Senior Vice President Phil Griffin (the former "Hardball" executive producer called "Hardball" the "best show on cable television"), "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert, "Today" show executive producer Jim Bell, NBC News Specials Executive Producer Phil Alongi,
"Meet the Press" Executive Producer Betsy Fischer, NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell, MSNBC Vice President Tammy Haddad, "Hardball" correspondent David Shuster and Vice President for MSNBC Prime-Time Programming Bill Wolff.
Matthews was overheard discussing his Tuesday appearance on "The Daily Show," which featured an unusual heated exchange with host Jon Stewart.
COMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in US
- 1. Mitt Romney Addresses Tea Party Summit Pictures
- 2. Seven injured as US Navy plane crashes into apartments
- 3. At least three injured in US Navy plane crash
- 4. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, others to face death penalty trial
- 5. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, four others to face death penalty trial
Older Talkback
page: 1
The neoKonKrony Krazy Klowns, aka the new KKK, will not be content until they have destroyed the republican party, and possibly the entire United States. With their evil inclination for pandering to so called christian fundamentalists who want to create Armageddon so they can supposedly go to heaven, to their intent to have goverment by baffoons, idiots, rummys and gonzos, to their mis-focused war, and assorted criminal activities, they are well on their way to succeeding. This will be their only way of
'winning' because they are a bunch of losers who can not admit they have selected losing stategies for all of their other goals.
Here's a summary of your positions as reflected in your posts on M&C.
1) You believe it to be Good that the Senate got involved and condemned the MoveOn ad ...
2) You believe it to be Wrong that the Senate got involved and made a public statement against Rush's comment.
What do you think about Cheney's thugs calling MSNC brass to alter the content of Hardball?
Presidents and their minions have been calling editors of newpapers since this republic was founded, as to content, etc.
Yes, I object to move-on's characterization of General Petraeus. It was wrong, when you consider the context. The Senate was correct to do it.
No, I do not object to Rush's comments, because he was right, when you consider the context. The Senate was wrong to do it.
Mathews is as biased as you can get and Cheney called him on it. Good for Dick. After Dan Rather's little concocted mess, I'd call every day!
You're living in a new media environment. These old libnazi apparatachicks monopoly is coming to an end.
If only he'd attend that quail hunting trip in Texas....
Wow! Can the mainstream media be waking up to the true menace to America? They can help destroy Fascism?Nazism in the good ole USA. The traditionbal Republican Party is dead--slain by those who pretended to be Conservative, but who are really Fascist's who have engineered the Largest Robbery in History of Taxpayer Dollars. Yes, your children and grandchildren will have to pay for the Fascist's 57% increase in the National debt. So, what are you doing?
Bush and his partner in crime have been winged, left winged. Nice shot Chris.
re: your comment ... 'Presidents and their minions have been calling editors of newpapers since this republic was founded, as to content, etc.'
Give me an example of where Bill Clinton did that WHILE IN OFFICE ... gimme one!
(And SP4, don't go regurgitating your rants about 'The path to 9-11' ... Clinton objected to that because it 'blatantly contradicted known facts' in the 9-11 Commision report ... IT WAS A FABRICATION OF EVENTS ... and that his objections were AFTER he was out of office, speaking on his personal behalf, no longer a standing elected official on belhalf of the American people ... as Cheney did here)
My views on the two Senate examples:
Re: MoveOn ... it's a privately funded organization, with rights to free speech ... the Senate had no place is getting involved in that ... they have better things to do.
Re: Rush's big mouth problem ... same thing ... he can say Stupid hateful things all he wants ... the Senate had better things to do.
What's next for the Senate? ... A formal proclamation saying Ronald McDonalds hair is too red?
Clinton had a press that licked his ass so much, why would HE need to debate with them?
I don't know if you are aware of this, but the mainstream liberal press slobbered like an intern over Clinton for eight years. We even used to call CNBC the Clinton National Broadcasting Corporation.
They pimped Clintonites to the public at every turn. They gave Stepanopolis a job, after they found out about his cruising for chicks in Georgetown with a spoon in his nose in a presidential limo.
They propped up Dee Dee Myers after Bill porked her. The goal was to leave these folks at the republicans backs for eight years.
Hell yes he should call them! I'd call them every f--king day! The half truths, outright lies, and fluff interivews for dems, the hammer interviews for the republicans, the constant biased reporting...I'd call them up constantly!
SP4- some advice for you.
If you want something to complain about why don't you complain about
not accomplishing the mission regarding killing or capturing the perpetrators of 9/11? Why don't you complain about the massive stategic blundering done in Iraq? Why don't you complain about the failure to win anything there, and the losses of our maimed and killed soldiers? Why don't you complain about how we are making more enemy than we had after 9/11 by our senseless actions in Iraq. Why don't you complain about us
not showing any respect to Iraq the country by creating a killing field there for 'enemy' so we don't have to kill them in Times Square, USA.
Why don't you complain about all of our resources squandered on a failed mis-adventure motivated by a mis-placed sense of revenge, and managed by
neocon idiots who have selected 'winning' stategy that guarantees that we will lose our war on terror? Why don't you complain about the massive
emptying of the taxpayers wallets on a failed mission? There is a lot to complain to the politicians about. If you want to complain at least do it in real time terms, rather than dwelling on the past.
We have not failed in capturing perps of 9/11: we are still doing it after Clinton let them GO!
It is not a wasted effort
There were no lies, only from those liberals who voted for this war and then pretend to be against it.
We don't make enemies, they DECIDE to be one. Before WWII w were ardent pacifists. We were attacked.
Our resources have not been squandered. America has a terrific economy.
we are finally fighting a war on terror(ists)that we were losing beforehand. 9/11 is living proof of the last administrations failures. They had Osami on a PLATTER and Clinton let him walk! He, not Bush, is PERSONALLY responsible for Bin ladens freedom.
Bush has, generated record employment, low inflation and record tax receipts while fighting this war. Our economy is generating record results. It is, purely, the result of Bush-driven tax cuts. It is so successful, even liberals are now talking cuts!
He has gotten Libya to de-nuclearize, gotten N. Korea to deal, deposed saddam, and put he world on notice that freedom is coming to a town near you. He has gotten out his sh-t shovel and handled the worlds dung for them. He has done all of this while being lied about and pilloried for being nothing more than a republican the party of Lincoln.
So, no, I have my own complaints.
After all, Monks in mynammar are NOT marching for 'stability'.
There he goes again.Incapable of understanding his own paranoia and contradictions SP4 is falling back on whatever he finds to throw at 'libnazis,etcnetc.What do the monks of Burma have to do with this ?Did they vote for BUsh ?
THose who defend Bush and Cheney are grasping at straws ,as the political superstructure is decaying and shaming a once proud nation and making it a mockery in the rest of the world .THe latest ridiculous feature from the Bush administration concerning the Blackwater scandal raises the absurdity to new levels ;a government security staff member will now supervise the mercenary of Backwater on his day to day mission .Wouldn't it strike a normal person as perhaps more easy to replace the Blackwater mercenary with official security staff ?Not to the Bush croneys protecting corporate interests .Soon you'll fing another Blackwater mercenary protecying the government security persoel overseeing the first Blackwater mercenary .Is Franz Kafka perhaps shareholder at Blackwater ?
SP4-
If your brother were a mass murderer wouldn't it make sense to question
you and your family members? Then you can explain why Bush let saudi
airplanes fly out of the USA, during the 'no fly' time right after 9/11, carrying lots of Osama Bin Laden's family members, before they were asked any questions? Clinton did not do it, Bush did, perhaps because the Bush
family is friends with the Bin Ladens? But you must know the correct answer since you are such a man of 'knowledge'. Can you help us link this action to Clinton?
Bush said that we would go after the 9/11 terrorists, and the countries that financed and harbored them. Perhaps you can explain why we have not attacked the feudal fundamentalist islamic theocracy ruling Saudi Arabia, the country that created al quada? How about Pakistan, a military dictatorship, which created the Taliban, stills aids al quada, hides Osama Bin Laden, and gave nuclear bomb technology to North Korea?
You want to blame someone for not preventing 9/11. I want to hold
accountable those people who promised that we would do something to those directly responsible for 9/11.
SP4-
By the way, your version of an 'ardent pacifist' USA before WW11 is a bunch of nonsense devoid of any historical reality. After WW1, and before WW11, we made military incursions into Russia, China, Guatemala, Panama, Honduras, and Nicaragua, to name some nations. The reason we were so late getting into WW11 was because there were so many nazi symphathizers in our country, like Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh,
influence peddling their nazi perspectives that we were more asleep at the wheel than we were 'ardent pacifist' when WW11 started.
...and I suppose no one remembers calling others neo-cons...
The fact remains, and remains, and remains, that Clinton HAD Bin Laden, the perp of 9/11 ON A PLATTER! He let him walk and that is not a point of debate!
Fox finsihed a poll stating 1 in 5 democrats polled WANTED the U.S. TO FAIL IN Iraq.
This is the kind of backing our president gets.
Tonny, when your country diintegrates, le me know and I'll vouch for you...in China.
SP4 why dint you just answer the questions about the Bush-Bin Laden connection for a change .Please ?
I might see where someone other than a true pacifist, might construe such actions before WWII as war, but true pacifists would not, as they are not, completely, against defending themselves.
We had very strict laws preventing the buildup of large armies in the USA before Dec 7th, 1941. We had a congress who would NOT declare war, and we had some activities but we were as pacifist as this nation could ever get. True, we had a Navy, but it's use was severely hampered. Our 'incursions' as you call them could be construed as war, but not in the proper perspective of the era.
Roosevelt and his predecessors capitulated in the far east for 30 years. They relied on an ocean to protect them. Experts like Gen. Joseph Stilwell, considered to be the reigning expert on China in the 1930's, consistantly warned the government of impending war with Japan. Roosevelt would not go to the american public and make the case for a buildup, for political reasons.
Re: your comment 'We have not failed in capturing perps of 9/11'
Gee SP4, I must've missed the news on Osama's capture ... When did that happen?
Oh that's right. Bush 'doesn't really think about him' (Bush's own words) ... and Osama is still thumbing his nose at Bush ... more than 6yrs later!!!
ALL of Bush's attempts to get Osama have failed ... otherwise we'd have him by now.
Let me spell it slowly for ya ... Success = capture ... Failure = Not captured ...
Osama's status = Not captured ... that, SP4 = failure
Gauwd you make yourself look stupid with your obvious nonsense SP4.
---------
Re: your comment 'America has a terrific economy'
Laughable!
Record devaluation of the dollar against foreign currency.
Record Deficits (9,000 Billion and growing)
Declining purchasing power (real income).
And a real biggie ... Our gov'mnt would have to shut down today, if they couldn't borrow huge amounts of money from other nations.
SP4, you've made yourself a total joke with your nonsensical posts.
And yes, that makes you wrong.
SP4-
Like they say- Everything changed after 9/11.
Let's be concerned about our reaction to 9/11,
and how we go after the perpetrators of that terrorist act.
The fact is that Saudia Arabia and Pakistan had a lot more involvement with 9/11 than Iraq. Iraq basically had nothing to do with 9/11.
wow I'm reading a guy callin himself true concervitive and I'm totally with him. SP4 Liberals are the opposite to nazis. Nazis are extreme rightwing thinkers who demand that everybody do as they wish.
Sounds more like your poster-boys dick and george.
Liberty and liberal come from the same word and facist nazis are people who would prevent liberty and liberal thaught.
Go back to school and stop watching fox noise which you have quoted from today and 2 weeksago told me you never watch.
The US was able to defeat and remove the Nazis in Europe, in less time than it's taken Bush to secure the road to the Airport in Baghdad. (which is still not secure)
Think about that reality SP4.
We can do that in one hour now.
Are you advocating that course of action? I have friends who think dropping a fatboy on Iraq is a viable solution. Their rationale is that no one would resist after that. Hard to argue that point, eh?
Now, you're experiencing a vastly different war. The combatants don't really belong to any nation, but are propped up by certain ones.
A defined group of folks in the world see this as a legitimate fight for freedom, justice, or whatever sick silly reasons they have for their actions. They have little to lose, and lots to gain. Their victories are esoteric, to say the least.
They hate you. They would kill you to make a point. They don't really want to do anything but dominate you. When they dominate you, they will then enslave you. This is not new. Men have done this for centuries, but used other means.
And they are dominating you. They have govenments all over the world spending time and energy dealing with them. We are crappy at it. The reason is politicians ignore it until lots of folks start dying.
We have laws to protect terrorists because we refuse to pass laws to deal with them. International treaties protect them. The UN will not speak out against terror. They will actually calll them freedom fighters, while they ignore the monks in Mynammar. Telling, huh? It seems to me that's endorsing violent overthrow, but that's just me.
This is, arguably, Bush's biggest error: Not getting a Constitutional Amendment to deal with the new legal landscape. Of course, no one else did, either, in the last 30 years.
Bush, badly, but correctly, has confronted this, and is the first president to do so. No matter who is president next, they will HAVE to deal with terror. It is now a permenant political football, like the cold war. He'll never get a medal for it, but it will benefit everyone, even the dem f--ks who WANT us to lose!
SP4 you should not talk about it in the future tense you have already lost and will just lose some more until some one or every one gets pissed off and puts your present american administration behind bars for their criminal acts.
re: your comment ... 'We can do that in one hour now. Are you advocating that course of action? I have friends who think dropping a fatboy on Iraq is a viable solution.'
Uh SP4 ... we didn't use a 'fatboy' to defeat the Nazis.
Remember?
Gauwd you sure like to mix up the facts.
re: your comment ... 'even the dem f--ks who WANT us to lose'
That's a YOUR lie and distortion ...
Name one Dem who says they 'Want to Lose' ... Name one Dem who says we shouldn't go after the 'real' terrorists. (Use their actual words ... not yours, or Rush's 'make-believe' ass-umptions)
Hello SP4???You've been asked about the Bush-Saudi connection by some people here .You dragged in everything but the kitchen sink trying to avoid the question .I'll try to explain to you a few facts about the Bush-Bin Laden-Saudi connection .Ever heard about the Carlysle investment group ?Never ?Well let me tell you it is one of cornerstones of understanding why Bush,Cheney and the neocon waspnet you so defend are not too keen on pointing the finger to the Saudi's ,you see it is not ALL about defending the oil lobby !There is more to it .Cheney's friends and the Saudi's are co-investors in this venture .As Carlysle invests in armamant they even gain from the aftermath of 9/11 .How convenient and patriotic .
Matthews is Great. Sometimes the truth needs to be told. He is right about Cheney. What a detriment to our nation that guy has been. Embarrassing, really. Can't wait to get some fresh faces in the Oval Office
Forget sparring with SP4 - he has appointed himself the wise one - knowledgable on every and any subject. Personally, I think he is an elderly, retired teacher who has waaay too much time on his hands!
You know the nicest consequences for the USA and the rest of the world with a new,more intelligent administration ?Less paranoia,closer ties with the rest of the world,a more efficient approach to terrorism,less ennemies,better health care,more empathy,less looting from the state coffers,less torture,eventually less terrorism ,but of course that remains to be seen.The kind of people SP4 stands for are either dismissive or paranoid to everything that they don't understand .
SP4-
I hope that you will bear with me thru some comments comparing the
making of objective assessments based upon facts, with making subjective
assessments based upon seeing things thru a prism of partisan politics.
Consider if you can, that when we were attacked on 9/11, the demonrats
were at the helm of government. Consider that instead of going after the real enemy relentlessly, the demonrats chose to attack elsewhere and create
a new enemy that had nothing to do with 9/11, because of incompetence, and a mis-directed sense of revenge. A WW11 parallel would be for the USA to have attacked China, after Pearl Harbor, instead of Japan, with our leaders chosing their own scapegoat, claiming China was not a democracy, etc., rather than directly taking on our real enemy. What would you think of that? Would you appaud such action just because you belonged to the same political party that was in charge?
Suppose that the demonrats started digging a big hole in the desert in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, and pouring everything we've got into it, instead of sticking to the task of going after the real enemy. Suppose they claimed that this tactic was a winning strategy, but it would take a hell of a long time to win this way, or dig to China, so be patient and shut up.
I suppose in your mind, you would only choose to support this if you were a fellow demonrat, but you would not support this stategy if you were of a different political breed. Suppose in reality, this type of stategy actually
benefited the original enemy, and it became part of the enemy stategy to bog us down digging a hole, rather than concentrating on the real enemy?
Would you expect to be supportive of all this just because you were a demonrat? This would be seeing reality thru a partisan prism.
I can honestly tell you that I would not support such activities regardless
of whatever political party the persons who made such bad decisions did belong. I would expect any, and all objective minded citizens to see the craziness of such leadership. Is this what you would expect, or would you
expect some people to blindly support the bad decisions just because they
belonged to the same policial party as the persons who made the decisions?
This is one of the paragigms your generation is going to have to deal with: Who, exactly, are you refering to?
The official government?
The fanatic crazies?
The religious government?
other...tribal, etc.?
When you say 'Saudis' who are you refering to? Can you put a finger on it?
Take Iran's 'government'
President alphabet soup
Radical paramilitary hizbo's, rev. guard...hell...more than one!
Religous authority
Tribal, Kurds, ethnic
who would you say, is in charge..of exactly... what?
Nancy Pelosi goes to Syria: See's Assad... who, exactly, is he and what, exactly is his role? I would say he's the day-to-day authority, but the hizbo's are the paramilitary crazies. Then there's the religous dickheads AND the tribal authorities!
Each has it's power base. When you are talking foreign policy with Assad, what, exactly are the ramifications? WHO, exactly, are you dealing with?
You're living in a different world than you think. Iranian paramilitary takes Brit hostages...the President HAS to back their play! Otheriwse he's exposed i.e. he's not 'the real power'.
Abbas walks around trying to convince everyone HE's the power in Gaza.
Anyone actually believe this?
Condi Rice and others prop this point of view up.
When you decide to ask me again about the Saudis' be specific. That way we have a common reference to discuss it.
The 'normal' American people are sick of both sides, at this point.
The GOP are saddled with Craig playing poster boy for hypocrisy refusing to give up his seat, when another Republican would be sure to replace him.
This endless war goes on, and neither Party is capable of doing anything to end it. Bush is permanently deluded and immovable, and his own party is running away from him personally, while at the same time Giuliani and his '9/11 Tourette's Syndrome' cannot move beyond 9/11 in every speech, and Romney tries to 'out-tough' him, as that's the red-meat crap that the fundraisers for the GOP and troglodytes like SP4 want to hear.
All that matters is finding a solution to unburden the people of the mounting costs, and to get their family members home. The recent Iraqi government corruption testimony only proves that we're wasting our time trying to prop them up.
news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/news/article_1362579.php
The real shame is that SP4 and others fear will come in some form, whether we're in Iraq for 10 months or 10 years. We should be protecting our own borders, and strengthening our own intel agencies, and working with other nations to deter terrorist plots. That would require 'real ID' and other technologies, and a firm immigration policy, and the public appears unready to pay that price. As usual, we're our own worst enemies.
(This link vividly describes how the Sunni insurgents who've been responsible for many U.S. deaths are now being paid off to go after al Qaeda - we did the same thing in Afghanistan, and look how THAT ended up)
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article2414588.ece
FOUR months ago the scene would have been unthinkable. Captain Henry Moltz of the 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment led a small group of men up the deserted street to a single-storey municipal building of mellow ochre brick that had been cracked by mortar blasts during months of ruinous fighting with Sunni insurgents.
At the entrance he was greeted with a kiss by Sheikh Sabah al-Janabi, a leading member of the tribe that had spearheaded many of the pitiless Sunni attacks on American forces in and around the little town of Jurf as Sakhr, 25 miles south of Baghdad.
As Moltz, 28, ducked out of the sun into the sparsely furnished interior last Thursday, a second sheikh was waiting for him with another kiss and a look of eager expectation. Moltz swiftly put him at his ease. “Sheikh, we have the first payment,” he declared. An aide pulled from his knapsack a thick, heavy wad of used notes tied with rubber bands, and placed it on a table. Then came another, and another, until the table was piled high with 19 bundles of 2.5m dinars each – worth $38,000 (£19,000) in all.
Moltz looked the second sheikh, Taleb al-Janabi, in the eye. “If you keep to your contract and keep fighting the enemy, we owe you the balance,” he said. The balance is $189,000 (£93,000), to be paid over three months if the sheikh sticks to his side of the bargain and drives out the largely foreign fighters of Al-Qaeda in Iraq who have set up camp in date palm groves along the banks of the Euphrates in Ruwiya, to the west.
SP4-
I just read your latest post. Help me understand just what in hell are you ranting about. Are you drunk, stoned, insane, or all of the above?
He's a frustrated, wanna be writer, so he uses this site to get his fix.
Was he on a different story or does he have voices in his head asking him questions with nonsensical answers.
Ride on Chris, be careful though there are those who will accuse you of renouncing your citizenship out there.
The right wing neo-con nut-jobs out there (and on this board they know who they are) hate to admit to any errors in judgement, then cannot come up with a real plan to fix anything---nothing can be fixed if one does not believe there is a problem.
...have one thing in common: everything is a conspiricy.
Keep reading the posts, my insight will come to you. Also, try some brevity.
page: 1
SP4: You mean Like Rush and Harry Reid???Oct 5th, 2007 - 14:09:49
What universe do these people live in? The Church-of-the-Divine-Liberal feels fine about calling Rush's syndicators but objects to Cheney calling their libnazi mouthpiece.
Report this comment