Advertise here: Contact FM.

Media Speaks Out
September 21, 2006 7:36 AM Subscribe

Chris Matthews: ‘I Have Been…Against This Bullshit War From The Beginning’
posted by four panels (86 comments total)

Bush was against it, too
posted by matteo at 7:40 AM on September 21, 2006

Not a Chris Matthews fan, but wow.
posted by trey at 7:42 AM on September 21, 2006

This Chris Matthews?
posted by eustacescrubb at 7:43 AM on September 21, 2006

The exact quote is:

I have been a voice out there against this bullshit war from the beginning

No need to chop that to make it seem more severe. I think the original un-summarized quote works just fine.
posted by mathowie at 7:43 AM on September 21, 2006

Too bad he said it on a show no one watches or listens to.
posted by wfc123 at 7:44 AM on September 21, 2006

Nice to discover that Chris has always been against the war. I find his drooling and shouting over his guest speakers' voices obnoxious so no longer tune in to him. These anti-war revelations are appropriately made on the Imus show, the cowboy-hat wearing guy whose remarks when understood seem less than helpful. Only the implied ads for his brother's merchandising seem articulated with clarity.
posted by Postroad at 7:44 AM on September 21, 2006

Oh, sure, and Confederate flag-loving George Allen is really a Jew from California.

Wait, what?
posted by orthogonality at 7:46 AM on September 21, 2006 [2 favorites]

Too bad he never expressed that forcefully on his show. He's another liberal reporter who goes out of his way to attack liberal voices to establish his own 'seriousness' and 'fairfness', even when he agrees with them.

And when he says he was against the war from the beginning, he ain't lying:

Like Bob Hope and Bing Crosby, a pair of rightist factions in the Bush administration are hoping to take the United States on the road to Baghdad. Unlike the beloved Hope-Crosby "road" pictures, however, the adventure in Iraq is not going to be funny.

It will take 200,000 U.S. troops to invade Saddam Hussein's capital and effect the "regime change" demanded by neo-conservative policy wonks and backed by oil-patchers George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. The question America needs to answer now, while there's still time to stop this road trip, is whether a war justified by ideology and energy economics is truly in this country's interests.

A U.S.-Iraqi war has advanced well beyond the "contingency" phase. The last barrier of restraint, Secretary of State Colin Powell, has been broken by the will of a Bush administration partnership of ideology and oil that is now set on war. I wonder if anything can prevent this military move against Baghdad on which so many who hold power have set their hearts.

From March 2002
posted by empath at 7:47 AM on September 21, 2006

He's lying. He was a giant supporter for a long time on his show, especially during the "Mission Accomplished"/flightsuit days. Media Matters has tons on it.

He voted Bush twice, and admitted so on the air as well.
posted by amberglow at 7:49 AM on September 21, 2006

I hope to Christ he starts using his show to oppose the upcoming Iran war before it's too late.
posted by empath at 7:50 AM on September 21, 2006

And Chris Matthews matters because... ?
posted by GuyZero at 7:51 AM on September 21, 2006

I have been a voice out there against this bullshit war from the beginning

That's just complete horseshit. Chris Matthews a voice against invading Iraq in early 2003? Uh, yeah, right. You have to wonder who he's trying to convince here.
posted by mediareport at 7:51 AM on September 21, 2006

The overwhelming majority of the American public was against the Iraq war, too. Fat lot of good that did us.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 7:54 AM on September 21, 2006

Chris Matthews is the Henson Creature Workshop's greatest achievment. Pity they couldn't get the voice right. It's just a little too muppety.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 7:55 AM on September 21, 2006 [1 favorite]

Doesn't Matthews realize that he's just enabling the islamo-fascists?! How dare he spread his truths around! He's certainly not a patriot!
posted by crunchland at 7:57 AM on September 21, 2006

Why is Thinkprogress always down when I try to look at it? Is their website working for other people?
posted by washburn at 8:00 AM on September 21, 2006

I'm glad that ThinkProgress' media watchers are working. This is interesting news, perhaps we'll start covering this war a little more closely (I'd like to see C-Span start covering the Iraqi Parliament like they do the British)
posted by parmanparman at 8:04 AM on September 21, 2006

Anyone in the mainstream American media who claims to have been a vocal opponent of the Iraq War from the beginning is either lying or embarassingly ineffectual.
posted by clevershark at 8:05 AM on September 21, 2006

(It's working for me, washburn.)

empath, I guess if I read the Chronicle regularly (or any other paper that carries his column), I might have seen the many columns he says he wrote against the invasion, but I watched a lot of talking head TV in the immediate run-up to the war, and I'm pretty sure I'd have noticed if Chris Matthews had been a consistently skeptical voice. I'd really like to see on-air examples, because the studies I've seen of pundit selection and the like usually include him, and they all show a serious pro-war tilt in guest selection, viewpoints, etc.
posted by mediareport at 8:09 AM on September 21, 2006

Matthew back then-- Do you think this role, and I want to talk politically [...], the president deserves everything he's doing tonight in terms of his leadership. He won the war. He was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics. Do you think he is defining the office of the presidency, at least for this time, as basically that of commander in chief? That [...] if you're going to run against him, you'd better be ready to take [that] away from him.

and more--2005 : Chris Matthews: 2005's Misinformer of the Year
posted by amberglow at 8:10 AM on September 21, 2006

I've watched the Chris Matthews Show (the Sunday morning one) for about two years and he's always been very critical of the war and the administration. I like the show a lot, I guess I'm in the minority here. I think he's pretty smart and interesting. I'm surprised to read here that he voted for Bush, I guess at least on that day he was pretty stupid.
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 8:12 AM on September 21, 2006

I have been against this bullshit "newsman" from the beginning.

Matthews is one of the most offensively dumb, lying gasbags on TV. I find it interesting that he has joined the parade of rightwing jerks fleeing the sinking ship that is the GOP. But I don't think he has any conscience to discover.

Go away Chris. You're about to become fully irrelevant.
posted by fourcheesemac at 8:14 AM on September 21, 2006

the overwhelming majority of the American public was against the Iraq war

The way I remember it went down was:

1/3 against any military action
1/3 Ok with UN approval
1/3 was 'let's roll!'

After we went in (esssentially) unilaterally, more than half of the fence-sitters said they approved, so in the first weeks of the war the approval polling was in the 60%s.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 8:15 AM on September 21, 2006

For reference, see him kiss Tom Delay's ass. (YouTube link) He loves power, that's all. And he sees where the power will now flow.
posted by fourcheesemac at 8:16 AM on September 21, 2006

more: Matthews depicted as inherently unprincipled those who support the Iraq war but believe administration botched it
posted by amberglow at 8:20 AM on September 21, 2006

He's another liberal reporter who goes out of his way to attack liberal voices to establish his own 'seriousness' and 'fairfness', even when he agrees with them.

i often see this sort of behavior on metafilter, and i've never understood it.

i think matthews genuinely believes he was a voice against the invasion from the beginning -- or, at least, a voice that was less loudly for it than some others. i'd be willing to give him a small amount of credit for the latter, although there's not much he could do with such a credit.
posted by lord_wolf at 8:24 AM on September 21, 2006

Chris Matthews has no interest in seeming "fair." Only in boosting his own career and kissing power's ass, as he has done thoughout his career in public service and the media. There are few bigger phonies in the public sphere today.
posted by fourcheesemac at 8:40 AM on September 21, 2006

atrios:
Tweety wants to have it both ways. He has a nightly television show on which the occasional negative word about the war is heard, though that's overwhelmed by criticisms of the war's critics.
... Of course, he hasn't written a regular column since... 2002. ...

posted by amberglow at 8:40 AM on September 21, 2006

Appropriate that Matthews delivered this BS on "horrid human being" Imus' sound-and-fury dog-and-pony show.
posted by Beefheart at 8:46 AM on September 21, 2006

After listening to repeated calls for a more critical media some guy decides to step in, abeit with a fabricated history, to do at least in small portions what people have been asking for. So in typical left wing political fashion we must castigate and shun him for not having the requisite level of ideological or historical purity.

GWB: "You're either with us or against us"

Political Left " You either are and were exactly with us or we're against you. Forever."

This reminds me of childhood clubs where we would exclude one person until they begged to get let in and they we would let them and then all quit the club and form a new one that they couldn't be part of. Great fun. When you're ten.

You do realize you need people to change sides to win don't you? If someone wants to support your cause you shouldn't kick them in the balls for not being there sooner. You will, because that is the noble self-immolating tradition of left-wing politics but you really shouldn't. There are bigger fish to fry and frankly help is needed to do it. Bush is rightly attacked for not building a coalition or a consensus regarding Iraq yet on a smaller scale liberal politics does the same thing. Spraying insecticide on the seeds of doubt in the right is an excellent way to keep the garden manicured with you over here and them over there (unfortunately they have much richer soil). Consensus acheived by pruning down to a monoculture isn't a healthy consensus.

I, for one, would rather associate myself with people who are capable of changing their minds. Flip-flops are far more comfortable than ideological straight-jackets.
posted by srboisvert at 8:53 AM on September 21, 2006 [3 favorites]

If they've lost Matthews, they've lost... um... the spittle-flecked vote?
posted by schoolgirl report at 8:58 AM on September 21, 2006 [1 favorite]

Given the unfair abuse that war opponents took from mainstream media for years, I think you can forgive them for wanting an apology when somebody comes around to their side of the issue.
posted by empath at 9:00 AM on September 21, 2006

Changing your mind is fine. Lying about it deserves a kick in the balls before we let you in the club.
posted by briank at 9:02 AM on September 21, 2006

Pssh. I was a former Republican before it was cool.
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:05 AM on September 21, 2006

I'm glad he finally let us know.
posted by Brian B. at 9:22 AM on September 21, 2006

I haven't taken him seriously since even before I knew his blogosphere nickname was Tweety. That discovery just cinched the deal.
posted by NorthernLite at 9:23 AM on September 21, 2006 [1 favorite]

It's gratifying to see the castle of shit and lies the Bush administration has inhabited these last 5 or 6 years begin to crumble, bit by bit. Seems like every day and every week someone else of credibility and importance (Colin Powell last week) defects from the Bush/Cheney/Rove thought control experiment.

But damn Chris Matthews, why didn't you speak up sooner? I wonder What's going to happen when the Bush admin is left with no one to believe and support them except for the racists at LGF and the GOP Brownshirts. What horrible horrible unamerican thing will Cheney and Addington and Rove and Rumsfeld cook up to stay in control? Christ I hope the Dems win big in November and criminal proceedings can begin.
posted by Skygazer at 9:36 AM on September 21, 2006

So in typical left wing political fashion we must castigate and shun him for not having the requisite level of ~~ideological or historical purity~~...courage.
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 9:44 AM on September 21, 2006

Surely this will be the thing that...

....helps Chris Matthews' ratings and image. Ahem.

It's a hell of a note that I'm an Amurcun who has to rely on Deutsche Welle, BBC and The Daily Show for news and informed commentary. I think blow dryers cause brain damage, or something.

Oh, and... "Tweety"? Thufferin' thuccotash!
posted by pax digita at 9:50 AM on September 21, 2006

Matthews: The Iraq war has gotten boring for the American people.

Imus: It probably has something to do with the tainted spinach.

Exactly, Imus. Tainted leafy greens will do that to a society.
posted by redsnare at 9:58 AM on September 21, 2006

You'll be seeing a lot of this in the coming years.
Just like it's hard to find anyone to the left of G. Gordon Liddy that will admit they supported the Vietnam debacle and cursed those dirty hippies who protested it.
The rats have begun to jump ship.
posted by 2sheets at 10:06 AM on September 21, 2006

Now I'm getting all paranoid. Why would it be that only *I* can't get Thinkprogress? Do they ban some IP addresses? Might it be my service provider that bans *them*?

Why am I the only one who can't load webpages from Thinkprogress?
posted by washburn at 10:08 AM on September 21, 2006

2sheets writes "You'll be seeing a lot of this in the coming years."

A lot of people saying that they were for it because they were against it? :-)

As for the idea that it's good to change one's mind, it has support from unexpected quarters!
posted by clevershark at 10:29 AM on September 21, 2006

You know, srboisvert, you make a decent point. A little story (that I'll keep brief to avoid boring the sh*t out of you... too late, right. Nevertheless...)

My parents in their dotage have turned into Fox News junkies. My mother will call me specifically to regale me with Bill O'Reilly's latest pearl of "widsom." She may as well drink the Kool-Aid out of a beer bong.

The other night she lets slip to me that she's beginning to think maybe we never should have gone into Iraq in the first place, that maybe this war is unwinnable - and always was going to be.

Revelation time. Wonderful - now maybe she and I are on the same side in trying to get us the hell out of there.

But.

Now Iran comes on the radar screen. Now the Cheney Administration is using its face time on Fox News to stump for their next war. Well, the question is, does my mother - do those like her - see through the bullshit rhetoric THIS time around, or do they continue to go enthusiastically along with the program, thereby ennabling yet another quagmire?

The same might be said of Matthews. You were against the Iraq war, Chris? Great. But what about the coming war with Iran? Where are you on that? And when those on your show cough up the same bullsh*t they did the first time around - do you absolutely call them on it?
posted by kgasmart at 10:31 AM on September 21, 2006

You do realize you need people to change sides to win don't you?

FLIP FLOPPER!!!!!!!!!!
posted by inigo2 at 10:45 AM on September 21, 2006

How dare Chris Matthews not state his disapproval of the war on his show where he asks the opinions of other people and play devil's advocate regardless of the ideology of the person being interviewed!
posted by spaltavian at 10:53 AM on September 21, 2006

Matthews is one of the most offensively dumb, lying gasbags on TV.

Well, considering the large number of offensively dumb, lying gasbags on TV that's almost a compliment.
posted by three blind mice at 11:03 AM on September 21, 2006

How dare Chris Matthews not state his disapproval of the war on his show where he asks the opinions of other people and play devil's advocate regardless of the ideology of the person being interviewed!
go look at Media Matters--he doesn't do that regardless of ideology at all.
posted by amberglow at 11:11 AM on September 21, 2006

The fact that talentless hacks like Chris Matthews and Tim Russert are even a factor in American Politics is the exact reason why this country is in such a mess. They are corporate hacks installed by executives who want to control their news divisions. Tell me something - if Russert of Matthews told their executives to fuck off one day where would they end up? Who would hire them for the amount of money they are making now? No one. If either of these guys wrote blogs on Daily Kos they would never even make the recommended list because they do absolutely no reporting. All they do it dutifully repeat talking points faxed to them by the Republican party each morning and ask Democrats to respond. That's what doubles for journalism these days.
posted by any major dude at 11:15 AM on September 21, 2006

Critical media...in America? You've got to be kidding.

Meanwhile, here's what the media in Iraq are saying.

No One Dares to Help
The wounded die alone on Baghdad's streets.

...I've lived in my neighborhood for 25 years. My daughters went to kindergarten and elementary school here. I'm a Christian. My neighbors are mostly Sunni Arabs. We had always lived in harmony. Before the U.S.-led invasion, we would visit for tea and a chat. On summer afternoons, we would meet on the corner to joke and talk politics.
American troops, who patrol the neighborhood in Humvees, have also become edgy. Get too close, and they'll shoot. A colleague — an interpreter and physician — was shot and killed by soldiers last year on his way home from a shopping trip. He hadn't noticed the Humvees parked on the street.

...we stayed up all night, listening as they battled for the mosque. It made me feel unsafe. If a Muslim would shoot another Muslim, what would they do to a Christian?

...fear dictates everything we do.

...if you had asked me a year ago whether I would consider leaving Iraq, I would have said maybe, but without enthusiasm. Now it's a definite yes. Things are going from bad to worse, and I can't see any light at the end of the tunnel.

posted by fold_and_mutilate at 11:25 AM on September 21, 2006

At least he's against it now. That's more then we can say for, seemingly, the rest of the media.
posted by cell divide at 11:25 AM on September 21, 2006

.if you had asked me a year ago whether I would consider leaving Iraq, I would have said maybe, but without enthusiasm. Now it's a definite yes.

I read a quote somewhere recently -- was it 800,000? the Iraqis who fled the country (and the civil war) in the last year? that's a lot of people if I remember correctly
posted by matteo at 11:28 AM on September 21, 2006

and funny how foldy's LATimes story appeared in the same paper just a day before this one:

President Bush's approval rating has reached its highest level since January, helping to boost the Republican Party's image across a range of domestic and national security issues just seven weeks before this year's midterm election, a new Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

The survey spotlights a continuing array of Republican vulnerabilities, but it also offers the first evidence in months that the GOP may be gaining momentum before November's battle for control of Congress.

posted by matteo at 11:32 AM on September 21, 2006

I think it's quaint when the media blames the media for anything.

Tools.
posted by SteveInMaine at 11:52 AM on September 21, 2006

the first evidence in months that the GOP may be gaining momentum before November's battle for control of Congress

Will The Republican Uptick Hold? -- October traditionally is the month when voters' views begin to solidify.
posted by ericb at 12:01 PM on September 21, 2006

"President Bush's approval rating has reached its highest level since January"

Where does anyone find ANYTHING that would even come close to justifying that change in opinion? America has seriously jumped the shark...
posted by clevershark at 12:14 PM on September 21, 2006

Where does anyone find ANYTHING that would even come close to justifying that change in opinion?

There hasn't been a change in public opinion, clevershark. But the story will be that there has been. They're serious about this. Just paranoia? God, I wish it were.
posted by saulgoodman at 12:31 PM on September 21, 2006

I don't watch Chris Matthews but it does seem that the point of the FPP and most comments is that he's lying. This seems like an easy think to check, could someone post a quote or clip that proves that?
posted by justkevin at 12:35 PM on September 21, 2006

Matthews is a shill and a moron. Whether he's changed his mind, or he's telling the truth now doesn't matter. No one should ever want this gas bag on his or her side:

We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like [former President Bill] Clinton or even like [former Democratic presidential candidates Michael] Dukakis or [Walter] Mondale, all those guys, [George] McGovern. They want a guy who's president. Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It's simple. We're not like the Brits. We don't want an indoor prime minister type, or the Danes or the Dutch or the Italians, or a [Russian Federation President Vladimir] Putin. Can you imagine Putin getting elected here? We want a guy as president.

He's nothing but a buffoon.
posted by psmealey at 12:44 PM on September 21, 2006

From the remarks psmealey cites: I think we like having a hero as our president.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

A guy who squirmed out of military service during Vietnam (despite being a hawk) and who failed at everything he ever touched in spite of having overwhelming advantages is now transformed into a hero! Reminds me of this passage from the bible (2Cr 11:14) for some reason.
posted by saulgoodman at 12:51 PM on September 21, 2006

Am I the only one who notices a touch of homoeroticism whenever Matthews talks about the President? Not that there's anything wrong with that, but clearly he's more cheerleading than insightful.
posted by clevershark at 12:55 PM on September 21, 2006

A touch? More like a fondle.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:56 PM on September 21, 2006

empath: Is that the same chris mathews? It seems like it's a completely different person who happens to have the same name.
posted by delmoi at 1:29 PM on September 21, 2006

Also poorly covered in the media: US military contractors' use of human trafficking in the Iraq rebuilding effort.

(Disclosure: that link is to a campaign site started by the nonprofit I work for. Announced on MeFi Projects here. Links to media coverage of the issue here.)
posted by jacob at 1:31 PM on September 21, 2006

President Bush's approval rating has reached its highest level since January, helping to boost the Republican Party's image across a range of domestic and national security issues just seven weeks before this year's midterm election, a new Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

It's within the margin of error. The press keeps reporting this poll noise like it means anything. It's really bizarre.
posted by delmoi at 1:34 PM on September 21, 2006

My pop-psych take on this guy, whom I can't stand, is that politics is some sort of playground, just giggling good fun. It's never occurred to him that a group of values could consistently apply--that would be the ultimate come-down. His show seems to be a platform to talk about movies. He loved King Kong, sheesh.
posted by toma at 1:34 PM on September 21, 2006

It's within the margin of error. The press keeps reporting this poll noise like it means anything. It's really bizarre.

Who needs to actually win an election fair and square if you can just convince most people that it's plausible you won it--then nobody takes to the streets, riots don't break out, etc.--even though you used rigged voting machines to get there.
posted by saulgoodman at 2:08 PM on September 21, 2006

The press keeps reporting this poll noise like it means anything. It's really bizarre.

It's a fact that people are band-wagon jumpers. It benefits the GOP for people to think "Bush is Back"
posted by cell divide at 2:21 PM on September 21, 2006

fourcheesemac writes: He loves power, that's all. And he sees where the power will now flow.

Exactly. Deserves repeating.

As for Hardball, I'll admit I watch it on occasion. But it's purely for entertainment reasons. I'm not sure what he's trying to game here -- does he sense that American public opinion is going to go even more negative on Iraq, and wants to position himself as the vanguard of the Bush critics? I don't know. Methinks it's just him wanting to reassure his golfing buddies that he's so cool for media that he *gasp* will drop a BS-bomb once in a while.

Man, he's so Edward R. Murrow. Not.
posted by bardic at 2:33 PM on September 21, 2006

I think Matthews is taking more crap here than he really deserves. He obviously wasn't the vocal early opponent of the war that he claims to be, and he's definitely guilty of fawning over some people in power, but he's also shown some backbone on issues like Plamegate, wiretapping, lack of WMDs, etc. He clearly strives to take a neutral stance on Hardball, so that's not a good place to try to evaluate his ideology; you never really know what he thinks unless you hear him interviewed on some other show.

And this:

We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like [former President Bill] Clinton or even like [former Democratic presidential candidates Michael] Dukakis or [Walter] Mondale, all those guys, [George] McGovern. They want a guy who's president. Women like a guy who's president.

is probably more factual than some of you would like to believe. The fact that Matthews is capable of making this observation about the American people does not make him a shill.
posted by Galvatron at 2:40 PM on September 21, 2006

No, it makes him Captain Obvious. But given the very low standards of the MSM, he's some kind of Svengali in comparison to other talking heads.
posted by bardic at 2:50 PM on September 21, 2006

That Americans might love having a "guy" as president, a "physical" guy, and someone with a little swagger, could be true, but Matthews's failing there was not pointing out the George W. Bush is and has none of those things. He's a pretend tough guy, a preppie wimp raised in the most blue blooded of Connecticut families, prepped at Philips Andover and Yale, where he lettered in, of all things, cheerleading, summered at Kennebunkport on daddy's yacht and didn't work a day in his life until he was 40 (and even then). Worse, he's a man who despicably sends men (and innocent people) to die in a suspect (generously) war, when he did everything he could to avoid combat himself.

I'll buy Matthew's observation of and buy itself, but that he applies it to the man, knowing full well his background, and doesn't bother to point out any inconsistencies or ironies in it, makes him a shill.
posted by psmealey at 3:14 PM on September 21, 2006

but he's also shown some backbone on issues like Plamegate, wiretapping, lack of WMDs, etc.
um--no. Plame Story Too Complicated to Cover Now

And he rarely takes a neutral stance--when the conversation isn't going the way he wants, he either brings up Hillary (his most-often used tactic) or changes it to be about why the Democrats aren't any good anyway.
posted by amberglow at 3:40 PM on September 21, 2006

Chris Matthews, on how he knowingly lets his guests lie on the air
posted by amberglow at 3:46 PM on September 21, 2006

I'll grant Matthews this -- he doesn't suffer from the delusion that he's on an Al-Qaida death-list.
posted by bardic at 4:14 PM on September 21, 2006

This version of the racial draft isn't as funny.
posted by 31d1 at 4:37 PM on September 21, 2006

Political Left " You either are and were exactly with us or we're against you. Forever."

O RLY?

Critics of War Spare Senator in Close Race -- NYT, 9/19

I can't escape the fact that I supported the war (not here, anyway). But I'm not going to fucking lie about it so I can sleep at night.

Matthews still "amazed" Bush is unpopular

Summary: Discussing a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showing that just 39 percent of respondents expressed "positive" feelings toward President Bush, compared with 50 percent who expressed "negative" feelings, Chris Mathews stated: "I'm amazed when 50 percent of the people don't like him -- just don't like this guy."

This, when even Republicans like Scarborough were starting to get the point.

The man's a clueless shill who fellates those in power. He's not against the "bullshit war" now because he's had a change of heart, he's just against it because it's no longer popular.
posted by dhartung at 8:00 PM on September 21, 2006

um--no. Plame Story Too Complicated to Cover Now

There was a period of a few months earlier this year where Hardball was practically obsessed with covering the Plame affair. They've more than paid their dues on a story that, frankly, doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

(I know, I know, we were all promised "frog marching." But it's time to move on.)
posted by Galvatron at 8:23 PM on September 21, 2006

And Republicans never turn on their own, no sir. Just ask John McCain.

(And I love the headline -- "Conservatives Criticize McCain." As if McCain doesn't have one of the most right-wing voting records in the Senate.)
posted by bardic at 9:28 PM on September 21, 2006

They've more than paid their dues on a story that, frankly, doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

The press not covering it anymore is a large part of the reason the story frankly, doesn't seem to be going anywhere, don't you think? They never bring it up, even when the guests were directly involved in the crimes.
posted by amberglow at 10:25 PM on September 21, 2006

The press not covering it anymore is a large part of the reason the story frankly, doesn't seem to be going anywhere, don't you think?

I guess we disagree on this point; I think the story's not going anywhere because there's simply nothing new to talk about. Fitzgerald is seemingly satisfied that the only crimes committed were by Libby when he tried to cover things up. The White House obviously engaged in a (reckless and highly unethical) smear campaign, but we've known that for months and apparently it doesn't bother the average American all that much. What else is there to talk about, aside from the bizarre lack of outrage on the part of American citizens?
posted by Galvatron at 11:07 PM on September 21, 2006

dhartung, you were for the war, so... now?
posted by cell divide at 11:43 PM on September 21, 2006

cell divide, I supported the war primarily because of the WMD issue, and as you may recall I worked hard to justify that using bipartisan sources. The non-discovery of WMD obviously was a bitter pill to swallow, but for a time I relied on what became known later as the "neoliberal dodge" (right war, wrong people).

I was "turned" by Abu Ghraib -- the day I knew for sure we were going to lose.

Although I was and remain a Democrat anyway, I wore out shoe leather for John Kerry, and I have done penance in other ways.
posted by dhartung at 4:45 PM on September 22, 2006

Galvatron, there's tons to talk about--starting with why all the people involved still have their jobs and security clearances (except for Libby, i'm hoping). Why all the people involved on the press's side still haven't completely come clean about who called them when and saying what. The lasting and continuing impact of this revelation on the CIA, on the march to war, on Iraq, on Iran, and how to stop it from ever happening again. The blatant lies of the president about firing anyone caught leaking. The continuing and everchanging lies from Robert Novak and others involved. The fact that Armitage was on the record all along. ...

There's tons and tons--all with implications and impacts much much greater than just the events themselves.
posted by amberglow at 10:20 PM on September 22, 2006

Those are all great questions, amberglow. I'd like to hear the answers myself. But I'm also a pragmatist, and I respect that there's only so much a mainstream journalist can do when the American people simply don't care about the story.

To get back on topic: I stand by my statement that Hardball paid its dues on Plamegate. If you want to criticize Matthews, the proper targets for your ire should be his weird man-crush on Bush, his nauseating softball interview with DeLay, and his general tendency to swing with public opinion.
posted by Galvatron at 1:02 PM on September 23, 2006

« Older The United Celtic Kingdom.... | Polkarama... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

Media Speaks Out September 21, 2006 7:36 AM Subscribe

Media Speaks Out
September 21, 2006 7:36 AM Subscribe