"I was wrong about the war," Matthews said in a booming voice, immediately gaining the attention of 600 people at the Omni New Haven Hotel at Yale.
Matthews, who described himself as a liberal, said he thought the Iraqi people would fight American troops, there would be a worldwide Arab uprising, and terrorist groups such as al-Qaida would see "massive" recruitment.
"I thought there would be an Arab revolt, a tremendous uproar," he said. "Nothing happened. I hate being wrong, but I'm glad."
Matthews praised President Bush's handling of the war against terrorism. "He is simple — good simple," Matthews said. "We've had a lot of Democratic candidates who have been really complicated — and disasters.
"Bush is in bed by 9:30 p.m. with Laura — how's that for a switch?"
Matthews said Democrats are making a mistake trying to shift the focus of the next presidential campaign to the economy.
"The Democrats will have to debate national security to get into this election," he said. "They have to start talking about the same things Bush is talking about."
The Democrats need to realize that two things have changed, he said — the nation has shifted sharply to the right, and the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks changed the nation's priorities.
He also spoke to his concerns....but I think this took a BIG man to say what he did.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
[ edited by Linda_K on Apr 24, 2003 03:50 PM ]
posted on April 24, 2003 06:04:43 PM new BTW, Chris Matthews became popular during the Clinton simpeachment sage when his show became the clubhouse for Clinton haters.
"Some liberals still won't watch "Hardball," remembering the excesses of Matthews' impeachment shtick. In his new book, "What Liberal Media?" Nation press critic Eric Alterman insists Matthews is no better than Fox's O'Reilly, calling him "a showman rather than a journalist," though Matthews was a Washington correspondent for the San Francisco Examiner and then the Chronicle for 15 years. Like O'Reilly, Alterman notes, Matthews is never more apoplectic than when going after elitist liberals, especially Hillary Clinton, whom Matthews nicknamed "Evita." He once bragged to Ad Week, "You're never going to see Hillary Clinton on my show," because, he predicted, she wasn't man enough to face his hardball questions"
BTW...he changed his mind about Hillary, according to this article.
"In the wide-ranging conversation conducted earlier this week, on the day that ratings-challenged MSNBC announced it had added ultra-right attack dog Michael Savage to its lineup, Matthews assailed neo-conservative Iraq hawks, slapped Bush for sitting "on Sharon's lap" (but explained why he likes him anyway), laid out what's wrong and right with Fox News, and worried about whether his antiwar stand is hurting his ratings."
It doesn't surprise me that he changed his mind about the war.
posted on May 2, 2003 01:08:27 PM newSenate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said Bush deserved "great credit" for his leadership during the war and praised the work of the military. Days before the war began, Daschle had blamed Bush's failed diplomacy for making the fighting necessary and was criticized for his remarks.
"In 21 days, we eliminated somebody who for 20 years has repressed and tortured his own people and posed a serious security risk," Daschle said.
posted on May 2, 2003 02:28:57 PM new
What he said was true Linda... so far, but the war isn't over yet. Bombing was the easy part. It's rebuilding and insuring a democracy that will be the most truely liberating for Iraq.
posted on May 2, 2003 02:35:49 PM new
Hi KD - Yep...you're right...it will be. But I expect it to go well in the long run. It's all the naysayers that have been proven wrong, time and time again in their dire predictions. Just goes to show their previous worries were un-necessary.
I'll be keeping my fingers crossed they do go well....and I acknowledge it's not going to be easy. But easy or not one doesn't just quit...you keep trying always.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on May 2, 2003 02:47:44 PM new
I think the nay-sayers were/are protesting against going to war because of the WOMD that Iraq was going to use against the U.S., and that Iraq harboured al Qaeda terrorists. None of which has been proven yet, so none of them are "wrong" Linda.
posted on May 2, 2003 03:56:13 PM new
KD - You must not be reading and hearing the same things I am. There have been reported connections made with the a few of the A-Q leaders and Iraq. The naysayers just don't want to acknowledge it....they're brushing it off. Their choice.
And since the naysayers were asking for the UN to have however long it took to find the WOMD, I think it's only fair the US be given more time to see what they find or where they might have been transfered to.
But with 75% of Americans supporting the way President Bush is handling this, I don't think there's any reason for worry at this point.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on May 2, 2003 04:14:04 PM new
Sometimes you need to worry if you are in the majority. Now, there are allegations that weapons of mass destruction were found - but in order to have the sanctions lifted by the UN (so that the oil can flow) these weapons are not being reported.
posted on May 2, 2003 04:21:49 PM new
Linda, winning the war in Iraq was a sure thing. Add in little resistance and it was over in 3 weeks. It took a war, but yes, you're right - the Iraqi's are rid of Hussein, thank goodness. And this is not meant to demean Bush, but any President would have had the same results. The problem I have, is the pretense of war was based on WOMD being in Iraq. Finding those weapons will exonerate Bush from those who believe he went to war for ulterior reasons.
posted on May 2, 2003 04:33:11 PM new
Was a sure thing??? I'd don't think so KD. The naysayers here had predictions of deaths of American soldiers ranging in the thousands. They were then screaming how Rumsfeld hasn't sent enough troops in to deal with what would need to be dealt with... Oh how quickly you appear to forget all the negative things going to war was going to bring on. I really don't think they would have been that upset is they'd [then] believed it was going to be a sure thing.
And this is not meant to demean Bush, but any President would have had the same results. You couldn't be more wrong here, KD. It took guts for President Bush to go against the 'tide' of public opinion and do what he felt was necessary. Not all presidents have guts....they make their decisions on what that days polls are saying....like Clinton did. Most politicians don't have those guts...they more wishy-washy...first they were for the war then they weren't. [two of the current dem candidates for nomination].
You can't demean President Bush even if you wanted to....he's earned his 'do' and his political capital is very high at this time. No wishing it away is going to make it any different.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on May 2, 2003 06:03:28 PM new"Was a sure thing??? I'd don't think so KD. The naysayers here had predictions of deaths of American soldiers ranging in the thousands. They were then screaming how Rumsfeld hasn't sent enough troops in to deal with what would need to be dealt with... Oh how quickly you appear to forget all the negative things going to war was going to bring on. I really don't think they would have been that upset is they'd [then] believed it was going to be a sure thing."
Linda, I think if the U.S. chose to go to war with ANY country, they'd win.
Of course people were screaming! If Iraq had've used their WOMD, thousands would have died. Nobody wanted to see U.S. soldiers or the Iraqi people take that risk.
posted on May 2, 2003 06:28:31 PM new
the VERY SAD fact of the matter is even if they Found Osama himself sitting on a pile o chemical warheads with Sadam by his side that wouldn't be enough for the anti "bush (war) " people. And the same holds true for the "pro war (anti -democrat)" side. The real problem is the Die hard republican and Die hard Democratic lines people seem to insist on taking. Damn the issue whatever my party says is right and that is the only way it should be. The other side is wrong and there is no compromise. I have NEVER voted all democrat or all republican and never will. The reason for all the economic and world unrest is due greatly to party tags. I happen to have been for this war but that does not mean I agree with Mr Bush on all issues , same said for Clinton when he was president. It's simple to identify the problem but difficult or impossible with todays political morals to correct. and before any one pulls out the ole lame "commie tag" yes I due support the multi party system but people need to vote the issues and not the parties
[ edited by tomyou on May 2, 2003 06:44 PM ]
posted on May 2, 2003 08:06:21 PM newpopping in for just a minute..
Thanks for that link, Linda. I'm a BIG fan of Chris Matthews, although I wasn't always. He certainly has grown on me. I used to think he was a Republican...then I thought he leaned to the left. I could never quite *place* him. But I think he is just *independant*. I do know he is fond of John McCain. Anyway, I do remember that he was dead set against the Iraq war, and he publicly said during more than one show, that if it turned out he was wrong, he would apologize and admit it on the show. And he did during the fall of Baghdad. What was neat was that he didn't have "sour grapes" about it. You could see that he was visibly moved and was glad that he was wrong. And I admire him for speaking out publicly.
The only thing I hate is that his show was pre-empted during the war coverage, and now that he's back on, he doesn't have the same time slot. I think it's an hour later, which is when we're always eating dinner.
Okay..now I'm gone. It's been ages since I checked in here. Unfortunately the same old same old. See ya!
posted on May 3, 2003 11:52:33 AM new
katyD - Glad you did pop-in if only for a couple of seconds. Wish you'd do so more often. Hope all is well with you and yours. Come back soon
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on May 3, 2003 12:42:55 PM newOn Sunday [a week ago tomorrow], the London Telegraph reported that documents had been discovered in Baghdad linking Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden. Hussein and bin Laden had a working relationship as far back as 1998, based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia.
Of course liberal news like the New York Times' probably still haven't mention these items being discovered.
posted on May 3, 2003 05:23:56 PM new
pinheads????
British soldiers are the one's who discover these documents in the Iraqi administrators office. The London Telegraph were given copies which they had translated. They referred to meetings that happened. Why would the Iraqi administrator bother to write down these meetings that happened in 1998 ....just to have something to do?
posted on May 5, 2003 04:30:28 PM newLinda_K said KD - You must not be reading and hearing the same things I am. There have been reported connections made with the a few of the A-Q leaders and Iraq.
Sure on Page One of newspapers, and splashed all over FOXNews and MSNBC. However, the retractions and amitted falsehoods are on page 23, lower right corner, a sentence or two and in the ticker line at the bottom of the screen running faster than the rest of the news, in hopes nobody notices... But those of us who are LITERATE read these things....
By the way.....HAVE THEY FOUND WOMD's YET? They have checked nearly 100% of the sites they claimed to the WORLD definately contained WOMD's...and have found NOTHING, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA. Not even trace elements or hints of components.
Thought so...Bush and Gang are still liars to the world...
And the Bushbots cling on and on to the lie. To accept the truth would mean their God, Bush, is not perfect.
And Chris Matthews...a liberal....What color is the sky in YOUR world???? You must live in the Bizarro world discovered by Superman.
A politician will call you intelligent to keep you ignorant. I tell you that you are ignorant so that you may want to be intelligent - Eugene Debs
posted on May 5, 2003 05:37:36 PM new
msincognito and mlecher - Chris Matthews refers to himself as liberal...it's not my 'tag' on him. But, of course you two would know better than he what his political affiliation is. Because he doesn't meet your definition of a liberal, then in your minds he's not. There are varying degrees of those on the left, just as there are of those on the right. If he says he's a liberal....I'll believe him.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on May 5, 2003 05:45:24 PM new
mlecher - Bush and Gang are still liars to the world.
No, only to a very few who believe Saddam wasn't the type of leader or person to ever have had, or still have any WOMD. Just because he wouldn't inform the UN as to how they had been destroyed, IF he didn't still have them....means something to many Americans....that's why the support our President in such large numbers.
Practice patience....you're most likely one of those screaming to give the inspectors as long as they needed. Do the same for your own government.
All of the past three presidents, including Clinton, believe he had these weapons and also were in agreement he needed to be removed. BUSH is the one with the courage to get the job done.
Anyway, I do remember that he was dead set against the Iraq war, and he publicly said during more than one show, that if it turned out he was wrong, he would apologize and admit it on the show. And he did during the fall of Baghdad. What was neat was that he didn't have "sour grapes" about it. You could see that he was visibly moved and was glad that he was wrong. And I admire him for speaking out publicly. 