Matthews says he’s “been against this bullsh*t war from the very beginning”
posted at 11:45 am on September 21, 2006 by Allahpundit
It’s a slow news day so I have to pretend I’m linking this because I care what Chris Matthews thinks, not because of the cheap thrill in hearing a semi-obscure media personality use profanity on live radio.
It’s true that he opposed the war from the start. This Salon interview from the month before the invasion has him comparing Bush to Bernhard Goetz and rocking away on his favorite hobbyhorse, the alleged cooptation of U.S. foreign policy by Israeli influences. Quote:
[T]he administration tied it in to the regional dispute between Israel and its enemies, as if that’s about international terrorism. No, it’s not. That’s a particular regional issue involving people who don’t want Israel to have whatever it has, and Israel wanting to play tough with them. But now we’re against that too — as if we’re going after the Basques, and the Provisional IRA too. We’re not. We supported the contras. We’re not against all opposition to government, or all paramilitary operations.
But we started to sit on Sharon’s lap, and say, “Oh we have the exact same foreign policy as Israel.” Well, not necessarily. We support a two-state solution — that’s been our policy. Sharon’s not adopting that. I understand why — he’s under pressure. But the U.S. has married a down-the-line, right-wing policy toward Israel with an anti-Arab, anti-Muslim policy toward the region. And that’s too bad. We’ve always had a dual role in the region — friend of Israel, and honest broker. We’ve given up the honest broker role completely.
Of course, Sharon did eventually adopt a two-state solution. And he also withdrew from Gaza, another complaint leveled by Matthews in the interview. It would seem our foreign policy isn’t so much like the Likud’s as the Likud’s is like ours.
Here’s a revealing piece in the New York Observer from a few months ago urging Matthews to embrace his beliefs about Zionist influence fully and freely by inviting notorious “anti-Israeli” academics John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt on Hardball. The title of the post: “Chris Matthews Should Talk About the Israel Lobby Because It’s All He Thinks About.” Indeed.
On the plus side, the HuffPo crowd might start showing him some respect now.
Update: After Hardball gets cancelled, Matthews can run for Parliament.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
At least he’s consistent…with his BS, tho.
Kokonut on September 21, 2006 at 11:48 AM
not because of the cheap thrill in hearing a semi-obscure media personality use profanity on live radio.
How wonderful that the live radio show in question belongs to another semi-obscure media personality.
How many times did Imus mention the ranch today?
Slublog on September 21, 2006 at 11:59 AM
I should add that I love the idea of his ranch. It’s a cool thing to do for kids with cancer. But I stopped listening to his show when it was all he frickin’ talked about.
Slublog on September 21, 2006 at 12:00 PM
I wanna see a nice fat fine for potty mouth and his network.
roninacreage on September 21, 2006 at 12:03 PM
Post some vids of Cindy Sheehan and John Murtha and you’ve got yourself a hat trick. That would seal the deal that this really is a slow news day.
Jiggity on September 21, 2006 at 12:26 PM
So true Slublog. Very humanitarian, but give it a rest I-man.
MSNBC is just filled with leading edge programming. Who else would have thought putting a three-hour radio show on TV was an audience grabber? And since Abrams took over operations, they’ve gone the extra mile by airing documentaries of prison life every friggin night.
FOX has nothing to fear, MSNBC is climbing the ladder to mediocrity.
fogw on September 21, 2006 at 12:26 PM
Matthews was working for Jimmy Carter when Carter became the father of Iraq’s WMD program by sending them anthrax on 09/11/1980.
Like Murtha, their objections stem from guilt and denial. Bush is fighting the war those people made necessary.
Perchant on September 21, 2006 at 12:29 PM
Fox ratings are down–this is not opinion, this is easily available Nielsen ratings data. MCNBC is up. I wouldn’t be too quick to throw stones: how many nights does O’Reilly NOT talk about child molestation? His latest promo promises a rare treat: a “where are they now” about 50/60s tv stars. (You don’t mind so much that it’s low brow, it’s that it’s low brow and so unoriginal). But then everyone has a long way to go to top that crowning achievement of cable news: Sean Hannity’s death wathc outside Terry Schiavo’s hospice. I know I sure can’t see that balloon video clip too many times.
honora on September 21, 2006 at 12:49 PM
Fox ratings are down–this is not opinion, this is easily available Nielsen ratings data. MCNBC is up.
Sure they are. From 349,000 in 200 to 371,000 today.
Fox’s have fallen to a paltry 1,511,000 from 2,093,000.
MSNBC – it’s a juggernaught!
Slublog on September 21, 2006 at 12:53 PM
You know, I admire comprehensiveness. The RW has already established that Bush is not winning this war because of “those people”, nice to clarify that the reason he “had” to go to Iraq was also because of “those people”. Where can I find a scapegoat to blame for all my problems? RW reverting to form:
Stop your fucking whining, be a man and get it done.
honora on September 21, 2006 at 12:54 PM
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re not in business. Trust me, my sales go down 25%, this is big trouble in river city!! Ok I take the benefit of the doubt back, how can you not realize that? You haven’t heard about Ailes publicly chastising his people about this? Guess not….
honora on September 21, 2006 at 12:57 PM
So Billy Jeff boosts another phrase/word into the acceptable vernacular.
Everyone will be saying it by week’s end.
bbz123 on September 21, 2006 at 1:00 PM
I think they are climbing down that ladder. Talk about an organization that insists on attempting to force feed the American public with anti-American viewpoints. It’s no wonder they only have about 10 people watching.
Rick on September 21, 2006 at 1:03 PM
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re not in business. Trust me, my sales go down 25%, this is big trouble in river city!! Ok I take the benefit of the doubt back, how can you not realize that? You haven’t heard about Ailes publicly chastising his people about this? Guess not….
Gee. I had the benefit of the doubt for what? Three and a half seconds? Thanks. I’m honored.
Anyway, sure Ailes should be concerned with a drop in ratings. The numbers shown are for primetime, and I think the drop shows that people are growing weary of O’Reilly and Hannity and Colmes.
But they aren’t jumping to MSNBC in any great numbers, so I guess Olby isn’t pulling them in either. Maybe it means people just want news out of their news channels.
Slublog on September 21, 2006 at 1:06 PM
Sometimes people with high voices try to make up for it with high testosterone words, i.e. Bull____.
It has to be taken internally , Pixie!
He should try lowering his voice and calling the war what it is: Bill____!
entagor on September 21, 2006 at 1:14 PM
Fox ratings are down–this is not opinion, this is easily available Nielsen ratings data. MCNBC is up. I wouldn’t be too quick to throw stones: how many nights does O’Reilly NOT talk about child molestation? His latest promo promises
Ha Ha, that’s pretty funny Honora. I’ll tell you what O’Reilly doesn’t talk about every night ….. Keith Olbermann. Without O’Reilly to ridicule every night KO would go into withdrawal. After watching broadcast and cable news for too many years to count, I can’t remember anyone, any fool, who devoted so much time on the air personally attacking his competitor – who coincidentally, continues to kick his ass in the ratings war every single night.
Do us all a favor and post the actual number of viewers watching Olbermann last night as compared to O’Reilly. We need a good laugh.
fogw on September 21, 2006 at 1:16 PM
O’Reilly – 2,119,000
Olbermann – 324,000
As of July 2006.
Slublog on September 21, 2006 at 1:20 PM
In media, it’s all about trends. But I’m with you, we would all be better off getting news minus the editorial slate.
honora on September 21, 2006 at 1:37 PM
Do us all a favor and post the actual number of viewers watching Olbermann last night as compared to O’Reilly. We need a good laugh.
fogw on September 21, 2006 at 1:16 PM
Ok you’re gonna love this, sit down. O’R 2million plus, KeithO 342k. Oh and CBS, NBC, ABC–your know the liberal MSM, about 21 million. Oh stop, you’re killing me!!!
honora on September 21, 2006 at 1:39 PM
Oh and CBS, NBC, ABC–your know the liberal MSM, about 21 million. Oh stop, you’re killing me!!!
Free versus paid and the numbers are higher?
Quit foolin’.
Slublog on September 21, 2006 at 1:43 PM
Flatulence. That would be the tainted air that comes out of a hole in your body. Unfortunately, Chris passes his gas thru the wrong hole. When this happens I hold my nose and exit the room immediately…..P U
soulsirkus on September 21, 2006 at 1:45 PM
2 million plus to KO’s 342K. I knew it would be a gut buster. HA HA.
And I find it doubly hilarious that you attempt to change the debate by citing viewership for the major broadcast networks. You’re a riot. First you try to remind all of us that Fox’s ratings are declining (while they are still crushing MSNBC and CNN) and then you bring up CBS, NBC, and ABC …. who’s nightly news ratings and viewership have been in a downward spiral (declining) for years.
fogw on September 21, 2006 at 1:59 PM
Oh and CBS, NBC, ABC–your know the liberal MSM, about 21 million. Oh stop, you’re killing me!!!
Free versus paid and the numbers are higher?
Quit foolin’.
Slublog on September 21, 2006 at 1:43 PM
Your broadcast channels are free–where do you live, East Undershirt?????
honora on September 21, 2006 at 2:06 PM
Your broadcast channels are free–where do you live, East Undershirt?????
Why, yes. Broadcast network has always been free.
To quote you from earlier, “how can you not realize that?”
Slublog on September 21, 2006 at 2:20 PM
Allow me to correct my grammar.
Broadcast networks have always been free.
Slublog on September 21, 2006 at 2:20 PM
Interesting article. It appears the Iraqi terrorists have run out of suicide bombers (even the kind they can chain to the wheel) and are having to get more innovative (desperate). However, how much of a bomb can you put is someone’s car before the weight tells the driver something is wrong?
Mike O on September 21, 2006 at 2:27 PM
honora, please don’t tell me somebody tricked you into paying for local channels. If they did, blame Bush, I’m sure it’s his fault – damn fascist!!
Rick on September 21, 2006 at 3:13 PM
Stop paying your cable bill and see how free broadcast is. There are about 10 to 15% of HH that still get “free” broadcast via antenna. Analog signals will be completely phased out by the end of the decade and with them the last vestige of free broadcast. Tough times in East Undershirt.
honora on September 21, 2006 at 3:25 PM
Conduct the following experiment: call your cable provider and tell them you only want ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, PBS–the “broadcast” channels. Wait to get this for free. Good luck.
honora on September 21, 2006 at 3:27 PM
Broadcast networks are not free if you live outside of the receive radius of their broadcast tower(s). If not within range (to receive acceptable video signal) you’re stuck with cable and paying a monthly fee to get the big broadcast networks. Currently about 99% of the nation is wired for cable, with approximately 75% of homes passed subscribing to the service. If you’re watching CBS, NBC and ABC on cable, guess what, you’re paying for it.
Furthermore, the perception that over-the-air broadcast signals are free is erroneous. The food chain goes something like this:
Networks Broadcast Programs
Networks need to pay for Programming
Networks seek Advertisers
Advertisers pay Networks to sell their goods
Advertisers need to pay for TV Advertising costs
Advertisers recoup expenses in sell price of goods to consumer
Consumer pays for goods
Consumer pays for advertising
Consumer pays for cost of programming
Consumer pays to watch Broadcast TV
So in a roundabout way, you pay, so it’s not free.
Remember that the next time you buy a box of Cheerios or a six-pack of Bud. You’re paying for Katie Couric’s multimillion dollar annual salary, like it or not.
fogw on September 21, 2006 at 3:37 PM
If I put up an antenna today, I could receive NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX and PBS. All of them are available in my area, and it’s a relatively small city in Maine.
And I’m aware that nothing is actually “free,” since it’s our advertising dollars that pay for it. That’s why I avoid Bud.
Slublog on September 21, 2006 at 3:45 PM
Oh, and honora, what is with the East Undershirt business? Is this some sort of inside joke I’m not getting?
Slublog on September 21, 2006 at 3:46 PM
We are talking about directly having to pay for local channels – honora, don’t tell me that you can’t stick an antenna on a television in Pitt and pick up local channels – Pitt is not some backwater town.
Rick on September 21, 2006 at 5:00 PM
We live in New York most of the time, Pittsburgh only sometimes–my husband has some teaching obligations at the U of Pgh med school. You absolutely cannot pick up any channels with an antenna in Pgh–don’t know why–and I don’t get this “local” bit–all your CBS comes to you via your local CBS affiliate, the national networks have no access to the airwaves directly. Don’t know about New York. When we lived in Boston we lived in the Back Bay where cable was verboten–this was back in the 80′s–you got very fuzzy, very sporadic reception thru an antenna then, imagine it’s worse now.
honora on September 21, 2006 at 5:15 PM
Just a generic term for a really small out of the way town. Like Bugtussle. I know it’s stupid, but hey, I’m easily amused!! ;^)
honora on September 21, 2006 at 5:16 PM
“hey, I’m easily amused!! ;^)”
You misspelled the word “mislead.”
You’re welcome.
georgej on September 21, 2006 at 5:31 PM
And I misspelled the word “misled”
WHACK! Ooh, that smarts…
georgej on September 21, 2006 at 5:36 PM
Just a generic term for a really small out of the way town. Like Bugtussle. I know it’s stupid, but hey, I’m easily amused!! ;^)
That’s what I figured.
Darned urbanite snobs with your fancy talk.
Slublog on September 21, 2006 at 5:38 PM
That’s me baby, up to my armpits in Brie!! Ok, now to you–is it Slu blog or Slub log. I hope it’s the first…..
honora on September 21, 2006 at 5:42 PM
Either is fine with me.
Slublog on September 21, 2006 at 5:43 PM
Honora sez:
Uh….no. You’ve been hanging around East Undershirt for too long. It might be a good idea if you check your facts.
Analog signals are being phased out and replaced by digital. This does not mean the end of free broadcasting. It only means the end of an antiquated system of signals for something more efficient. If you have an analog tv that receives signals via an outdoor antenna or rabbit-ears, all you will need to continue receiving “free tv” is a TeVCA adapter box.
.
GT on September 21, 2006 at 5:48 PM
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Hairball host.
Dr. Charles G. Waugh on September 21, 2006 at 8:38 PM
The net result of analog to digital will be the demise of free tv. See link. This is a couple years old but Powell’s predictions are coming true.
http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/previous/powell/wsj_091103oped.html
honora on September 22, 2006 at 10:58 AM
Hey Crissy, nobody really gives a rats-ass
what you think, or what your opinion is.
You don’t count. You’re a zero, nada, zilch.
And please, please don’t ever change, and us the
public won’t ever change to MSNBC either!!!
byteshredder on September 22, 2006 at 5:53 PM