Video: Guest to Chris Matthews: “So you’re fact based now?”
posted at 7:51 pm on May 22, 2007 by Ian
Share on Facebook | regular view
Chris Matthews went on one of his anti-Republican diatribes today. This time he went after Rudy Giuliani for saying the Clinton administration’s policy (The Iraq Liberation Act) called for regime change in Iraq and in part, President Bush was acting that out in the current war. Matthews said this was wrong and called Giuliani a “liar.” However, a quick Wikipedia search says, and I quote, “The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.”
Yet, that isn’t what was so interesting about this segment. Matthews began to harass his guests, who couldn’t care less, to answer for Giuiani. The Washington Post’s Ann Kornblut finally got fed up and asked Matthews: “So you’re fact based now?” Ouch. Chris did not take kindly.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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
Comment pages:
(heh)
db on May 22, 2007 at 7:57 PM
Matthews won’t allow the truth to get in the way of his argument. Just the facts, ma’am, especially the wrong ones.
stonemeister on May 22, 2007 at 7:58 PM
One day, a guest on his show is going to show up with a fresh 10lb flounder hidden under his jacket. Then, when Matthews spews his nonsense, the guest just slaps the snot out of him with that flounder… That’s when I’ll start watching Hard Boiled again…
Zorro on May 22, 2007 at 7:59 PM
To quote Dirty Harry: “Well, are you punk?”
BacaDog on May 22, 2007 at 8:02 PM
hey Matthews DUMBAZZ Clinton DID BOMB Iraq when he was president several times. All because Saddam had WMDs and was stopping inspections.
Apparently he still isnt using facts.
William Amos on May 22, 2007 at 8:03 PM
And when Stephen Colbert does it the right-wing blogoshepere implodes.
But don’t kid yourself, Matthews has been practically campaigning for Rudy to be elected since he announced.
Nonfactor on May 22, 2007 at 8:11 PM
the spin they have on this is the Regime Change in Iraq act, doesn’t specifically mention military/war engagement.
5 years and a terrorist attack after we make Regime change official US policy, Bush goes into Iraq
jp on May 22, 2007 at 8:14 PM
Note that she said, “So you’re fact based now – you’ve been reading Al Gore’s book, Chris?”
I think that was intended to be a plug for The Assault on Reason, and less of a swipe at Matthews, who has never carried any water for the Bush Administration.
Laura on May 22, 2007 at 8:31 PM
Please follow up on this if language in the bill proves Matthews to be a big fat liar.
Valiant on May 22, 2007 at 8:40 PM
Fact based arguments just aren’t your thing Chrissy.
http://clinton6.nara.gov/1999/02/1999-02-04-presidential-determination-on-iraq-liberation-act.html
Letter from Clinton authorizing the financial backing of resistance groups inside Iraq to try and help overthrow Saddam.
Benaiah on May 22, 2007 at 8:42 PM
HAHAHAHA… LMAOING MAO! Great catch, Ian… love to see Matthews pwn3d! heh.
MsUnderestimated on May 22, 2007 at 8:55 PM
BRRAAHHHAAAHHH!
And he screams out “It’s BOGUS” Chris gets faced yet again!
Topsecretk9 on May 22, 2007 at 8:59 PM
Idiot. ’nuff said.
Kevin M on May 22, 2007 at 8:59 PM
BTW, by Chris’s own definition, he basically confirmed Clinton’s failure. Fine by me.
Topsecretk9 on May 22, 2007 at 9:01 PM
Which doesn’t matter because Rudy just said the Clinton administration’s policy was regime change. He didn’t specify by what means. So he was telling the truth.
Benaiah on May 22, 2007 at 9:02 PM
Chrissy, I’m too tired right now. Call yourself a dumba$$.
AteMyFoot on May 22, 2007 at 9:14 PM
Here, I fixed the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 so Matthews doesn’t look like a dope when he says the Act had nothing to do with overthrowing Saddam.
4(a)(2)(A)
MilitaryDiplomatic Assistance — The President is authorized to direct the drawdown ofdefensestate articles from the stocks of the Department ofDefenseState,defensestate services of the Department ofDefenseState, andmilitarydiplomatic and political education and training for such organizations.(B) The aggregate value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of assistance provided under this paragraph may not exceed $97,000,000.
Looks like Matthews has thrown his hat in the ring against Carter for the 2007 Increasingly Irrelevant Ribbon.
Dusty on May 22, 2007 at 9:17 PM
Chris Matthews has been real cranky since his Republican debate debacle.
ctmom on May 22, 2007 at 9:21 PM
Chris Matthews was born cranky.
Bob's Kid on May 22, 2007 at 9:43 PM
As George Costanza once said, “Remember Jerry, it’s not a lie if you believe it.”
Chris Matthews can keep telling himself whatever he wants, but it’s a fact that “regime change” was the policy of the US Government.
CP on May 22, 2007 at 9:44 PM
he’s got…lifeless eyes, black eyes, like a doll’s eyes.
mesablue on May 22, 2007 at 9:46 PM
Chris Matthews lost what little bit of a mind he had left while he was still working for Jimmy Carter.
calnevari on May 22, 2007 at 10:04 PM
Chris Matthews, like Andrew Sullivan, used to have interesting things to say before they contracted full fledged Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Hilts on May 22, 2007 at 10:05 PM
mesa, heh.
Y’know, Matthews is a motormouth. Slow down jackass!
Bad Candy on May 22, 2007 at 10:14 PM
Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish Chrissies
Farewell and adieu to you Chrissies of Spain
;)
Benaiah on May 22, 2007 at 10:15 PM
Wow, that was great!!!!
Did you see the look on Chris’s face when he realized what she said to him….
Mastercard said it best…PRICELESS
HarryStar on May 22, 2007 at 10:16 PM
Yeah. That sounds about right.
BDS strikes again.
Ironic how BDS make so-called liberals throw any principles they had out the window just so they can disagree with Bush.
Bush: Our goal is Democracy in Iraq
Democrats: We need to install a theocratic dictatorship in the middle east.
Bush: We need to Help the Iraqis help themselves
Democrats: We’ve done enough let’em fend for themselves.
Bush: … Okay, I guess that if the Democrats are pissed off about using force, we should stay out of Darfur and conserve our troops…
Democrats: WE need to INVADE Darfur and install a democracy.
Bush: We Don’t need a Surge of troops.
Democrats: WE NEED A SURGE OF TROOPS!
Bush: Hmmm, General Petraeus says we need a Surge… Well guess I was wrong and you Democrats were right. Okay, we’ll have a surge of troops.
Democrats: NO! We don’t want a surge if you want a surge!
—-
Oh my god.
I figured it out.
The Rovian thinking behind Bush’s support of the Immigration bill.
Rove must expect BDS to kick in, and result in every Democratic Rep and Senator voting against the Immigration bill.
Jones Zemkophill on May 22, 2007 at 10:20 PM
What a whiny little fat woman-like person.
Where’s his red hair?
benrand on May 22, 2007 at 10:29 PM
Here’s a hint Chris, read and understand before you open that idiot hole below your nose.
Chris… Rosie one in the same maybe? They both sound exactly alike. But of course, only the Republicans have everything they say written for them. Maybe someone should do that for Chris so he will have a clue.
Soooooooooooooo glad I never watch his nonsense.
jdsmith0021 on May 22, 2007 at 10:34 PM
The Truth? You want the Truth? I can’t handle the Truth!
/Matthews
- The Cat
MirCat on May 22, 2007 at 10:38 PM
Exactly, Laura. I’m missing how this leftist WaPo Truther was supposed to be insulting Chrissy. The fact that he was insulted only speaks to his own misplaced vanity.
Jaibones on May 22, 2007 at 11:12 PM
What a great shot! As in bullseye!
Altura Ct. on May 22, 2007 at 11:16 PM
Matthews is being ridiculous to deny that Clinton’s policy of regime change in Saddam’s Iraq would mean the use of military force. How in the world could there have been a regime change in Saddam’s Iraq without military force being used?
Phil Byler on May 22, 2007 at 11:26 PM
Nice little smackdown.
Rewrite history any way you can Matthews.
We’re not as dumb as you think we are.
Jackass.
Kini on May 22, 2007 at 11:46 PM
That was a great shot. Facts, sheesh, what channel do the think this is?…
Fox???
Mojave Mark on May 22, 2007 at 11:51 PM
Matthews acknowledgment that he was wrong in 1000…999…998…997…zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
BacaDog on May 23, 2007 at 12:12 AM
I wish I could believe that, but I’ve received no action alerts from Zombie Reagan in that regard
Barntender on May 23, 2007 at 12:20 AM
I was thinking maybe the fact based might be a dig at Matthew’s erections over ALL of David Schuster’s patently BS reporting.
Topsecretk9 on May 23, 2007 at 12:31 AM
Mathews it much too hyper and too agenda driven for my taste.
He is too much to listen to.
I’d rather fall of a 100 story building while my pants are on fire. Even that would be more relaxing than hearing him stumble over his own words, trying to speak at Warp Factor 12.
Yikes!
Can someone get him some Quaaludes?
Matthews,
Please,
Enroll in, and practice, yoga, pranayama techniques, Aikido, run, take long walks, camp out in nature for a few days.
Do something!
You are waaaaayyyyy too hyper active.
Please, slow down, stop, and take a breath once in a while.
Oh, regarding Guiliani’s comments, he was right, Matthews, and you are wrong.
William
William2006 on May 23, 2007 at 12:32 AM
Diplomacy, of course. Many meetings, conferences, discussions, round-tables, summits, and so on. Eventually Sadaam would have died of old age, Uday would have taken over, and Voila! Regime change.
NellE on May 23, 2007 at 12:41 AM
As he obviously did in that clip. Matthews is such a hawk on this War on Terror business.
Rick on May 23, 2007 at 12:58 AM
All anyone has to do to enrage Chris Matthews is to remind him that his brother is a Republican. He HATES that.
JG2K6 on May 23, 2007 at 1:02 AM
What a friggen arsehole. He immeadiatley says Rudy was wrong, THE AUDIANCE SHOULDN’T HAVE CLAPED (! I mean WTF is that? Only Leftoids can be applauded. Allright–Matthews says “No clapping!” like Shultz)
And both of those reporter *were* DBM weren’t they?
Ian, as a trip donw memory lane, you should have ran the one for comparison that he did with former HLS director when Chis was either drunk or maybe just on a serious hypo-glyciemic episode. That would have looked really great against this tirade. Bwhahahahahahahaha.
auspatriotman on May 23, 2007 at 1:09 AM
Where’s The View’s audience when you need them?
Rick on May 23, 2007 at 1:13 AM
I look forward to the day when one of his guests brings a Louisville Slugger to the show and play HARDBALL with his mush-filled head. That’d be worth the price of cable for a year!
georgej on May 23, 2007 at 4:01 AM
“how dare you criticize my Billy Clinton!!!! he lies he’s wrong nooooooooooooooooooo!”
Black Adam on May 23, 2007 at 4:11 AM
Ouch, let’s not drop to that level. =/
That lady had a grin on the entire time like she just knew exactly what she was going to say. Haha, way awesome.
emmaline1138 on May 23, 2007 at 4:31 AM
So you are willing to pay less than a thousand dollars to see a person injured or killed simply because you don’t like them?
I know I know… “just a joke about a leftie. Not at all like those tasteless clowns at DU”….
{sigh}
Bradky on May 23, 2007 at 6:57 AM
Does anyone with half a brain actually watch No Balls Matthews? This nitwit has always made it up as he went along. Why is anyone surprised that he still is?
lynnv on May 23, 2007 at 8:16 AM
BillyJeff fawning, Bush-deranged, fact-challenged, unstable. Hey Chris, is that you commenting here under the nick Bradky?
Freelancer on May 23, 2007 at 8:18 AM
Poor Chrissy! He doesn’t even realize when he’s contradicting himself. Case in point:
So, in a country like Saddam’s Iraq, just how would the oppostion get control? Through democratic elections? (and I don’t mean Chicago-style Democrat) Parliamentary procedure? The only way Saddam’s opposition could ever wrest control would be if Saddam was…overthrown. Sheesh!
BigOrangeAxe on May 23, 2007 at 8:28 AM
H.R.4655 IRAQ LIBERATION ACT OF 1998
Passed House by Yea-Nay Vote: 360 – 38
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
SEC. 7. ASSISTANCE FOR IRAQ UPON REPLACEMENT OF SADDAM HUSSEIN REGIME.
It is the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq’s transition to democracy by providing immediate and substantial humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, and by convening Iraq’s foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to Iraq’s foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein’s regime.
franksalterego on May 23, 2007 at 9:34 AM
Hey Chris, your a jackass! Hmmmm, I think I hear people applauding. And they are RIGHT! And you are WRONG!
soulsirkus on May 23, 2007 at 9:37 AM
Back in April, I sent an e-mail to Kathy McMorris Rogers, reminding her of this section of the resolution…This is the response I got:
Dear Mr. XXXXX
I am writing in response to your email to Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers of April 4 regarding Public Law 105-338, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. I apologize for the delay; our office receives between 1500 and 2500 pieces of mail (including email) per week, and it can become a lengthy process to address each one.
Your point is very well taken, illustrating the hypocrisy of those who wished Saddam out of power then, and also, in my opinion, the shortsightedness of those who wanted to go to war but aren’t willing to accept the consequences.
“Weapons of Mass Destruction” were among the premises for the argument to oust Saddam in 1998-what intelligence was that based on?-but his invasion of Kuwait and treatment of his own people, in addition to his defiance of the international community seemed to be sufficient in and of themselves.
I have not yet analyzed which present members of Congress supported the bill yet now are calling for the immediate withdrawal from Iraq and adding strings and conditions to the funding for our troops’ equipment and operations. That certainly would be a strong argument.
I do wish that the argument could progress past how we came to be at war and focus on how we should win the war. Unfortunately, there is not even agreement on the other side as to whether we should win!
Thanks for the email and the information. Please contact me via phone or email with additional comments or questions.
Sincerely,
Dan
Dan Beutler
Military Legislative Assistant
Office of Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers
franksalterego on May 23, 2007 at 9:56 AM
I am still boycotting that idiot. Now-a-days, I say…Chris who?
oldelpasoan on May 23, 2007 at 12:29 PM
There you have it, Rudy was lying. And, as Nonfactor (in all his/her wisdom) previously stated, Matthews is Rudy’s biggest cheerleader.
Rick on May 23, 2007 at 12:31 PM
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.4655.ENR:
. . .
The Monster on May 23, 2007 at 1:17 PM
Well, Matthews was right about the Iraq Liberation Act, but he was wrong about how he was representing what Giuliani was saying. Giuliani was simply stating the fact that regime change was the stated goal of the Clinton administration. It was. The only difference between Bush and Clinton is that under Bush, the Pentagon and the CIA finally came to the conclusion that to remove Saddam, they’d have to invade.
Giuliani was right, and Matthews was wrong and right, because he’s a moron.
Seixon on May 23, 2007 at 3:05 PM
Matthews biggest flaw is that he drinks his own wiskey! NBC has been getting rid of dead wood lately, Stone, John Seigenthaller and just wait a bit and you might see ole Chris’s head roll down the same trench. This saliva spitting little twerp is on borrowed time.
NEMETI IN SYRACUSE on May 23, 2007 at 8:25 PM
Comment pages: