Redstate

Matthews was burned by MSM bias.

Matthews gets his words twisted by the MSM? Oh, sweet poetic justice.

I mean "be rough about it" has some implications Chris.  What about fairness and rights?  Are you going to through out international convention in favor of complete covert unilateralism?  My, my, seems like some unresolved inner turmoil.  Especially as we have picked apart the 'deeper shade of grey' see no evil stance.  This looks like black and white, good and evil, are actually part of the Chris plan.

Prime Minister Meir's strategy will not work on "martyrs."  This is the 21st century, and if we want to deal with terrorists, we have to kill the roots, not merely the branches.

It is ironic that, when looking for a slam-Bush story, the media would twist one of their own, though.  God help him if they ever start with "MatthewsLied."

The relaxed attitude of Chrissy's response seems to make it not a big deal for him to have his words spun in the opposite direction he threw them.

All in a day's work for Chrissy. He does the same thing.

BurbankErnie

The word needs to be put out in advance (about 30 days should be sufficient) that when a suicide bomber is identified their family home will be destroyed with a half hour notice.

The notice is being nice.

I suppose it is possible that Mr. Matthews was misquoted, but ...

"The period between 9/11 and Iraq was not a good time for America. There wasn't a robust discussion of what we were doing," Matthews said.

"If we stop trying to figure out the other side, we've given up. The person on the other side is not evil -- they just have a different perspective."[Emphasis added]

I don't know why the reporter chose to ignore my clear statement ...

One of these does not match the other...

that Mr. Matthews was saying that the person(s) on the other side are not the terrorists, but here in the US politically (Dem/Rep, Con/Lib, etc)

I'm glad to hear him express such views, but it occurs to me that he's referring to those who were immediately involved in the execution of 9/11, not thse who are our opponants in the Global War on Terror.  Does he justify this comment: "The person on the other side is not evil. They just have a different perspective"?  Is there a context in which you say that, you say that the President's pretext for war in Iraq was empty and fraudulent, and you say you're tough on terrorism?  If so, I would be very interested to hear it.

Hey, it's a good thing that somebody like Chris Matthews thought enough of RS to send a response/clarification.  Let's not stoop to the level of the Kossacks by attacking him personally ("Chrissy," "poetic justice" and other such schadenfreude).

then that's fine. I certainly don't consider Reid, Kerry, Pelosi, et al to be 'evil', just borderline treasonous.

All I can do is plead that I am clearly not the only person who did not take that as the context --- evidence his 'explanation.'

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/055117.php

Confirmed: Matthews said something very similar almost a year ago:

MATTHEWS: Well let me ask you about this. If this were on the other side, and we were watching an enemy soldier-- a rival, I mean, they're not bad guys especially, they're just people who disagree with you; they are in fact the insurgents figthing us in their country -- if we saw one of them do what we saw our guy did to that guy [the playing-dead terrorist], would that be worthy of a war-crime charge?

I can see your line of thought ConservativeD, but I'm still not so sure that Matthews was referring to the US political climate in that quote.  In his response email he complains that the reporter "chose to skip to my strong belief that we need to get behind this massive hatred we're facing in the Muslim world"--i.e. understand their perspective.  That says to me that he made a strong statement about the pursuit of terror, but that he does not see a connection between those that wage terror and those in the Muslim world who massively hate us.

An okay idea, I guess.  The IDF do that, but to really stop it takes more political will than can be mustered.  

After all it is the governments of the world through their give-aways to various organizations that support terrorism and suicide bombers.  The EU and the US both funded the PLO.  I am not a linguist nor an accountant, but I am reasonably sure that the OPEC governments have plenty of charities that make life easy for the beloved of the Martyrs of Islam(tm).

Ball-bearing filled jackets with exploding seams don't come at big discounts from Wal-Mart, and neither do the pensions and jobs given to the families of the martyrs.

of violating posting rules, this is the full text of the article from The Edmonton Sun. In view of the controversy it appears to me to be appropriate but if the editors disagree and decide to remove it then I certainly understand

TORONTO -- Years after 9-11 and the "crazy Zeitgeist" that permeated the United States, Americans have still not learned to know their enemies instead of just hating them, said American political journalist Chris Matthews yesterday.

In a speech to political science students at the University of Toronto, the host of the CNBC current affairs show Hardball had plenty of harsh words for U.S. President George W. Bush, as well as the political climate that has characterized his country for the last few years.

"The period between 9-11 and (invading) Iraq was not a good time for America. There wasn't a robust discussion of what we were doing," Matthews said."If we stop trying to figure out the other side, we've given up. The person on the other side is not evil. They just have a different perspective.

"The smartest people understand the enemy's point of view, because they understand what's driving them."

He said Bush squandered an opportunity to unite the world against terrorism and instead made decisions that built up worldwide animosity for his administration.

"We had a strong international unity coming out of 9-11. The world was never so united against terrorism and we lost that," Matthews said. "That is the great tragedy of the Bush era."

When asked what caused the U.S. to invade Iraq, he said it was a combination of factors.

"I think the father-son relationship with the Bushes is part of it. I think the oil thing is part of it," Matthews said of the current president and his father, George Bush Sr., who was president during the Gulf War more than a decade ago.

"Our friendship with Israel (is part of it) and 9-11 created a kind of crazy Zeitgeist in the country. Bush wanted to do something big. It couldn't just be tracking down al-Qaida. He wanted a big bang. I think it's a mixture of these things."

Matthews said the current president is guilty of not knowing enough about the world and not keeping up with current events, as was evident in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina and the slow reaction to the crisis in New Orleans.

--- © 2005 the Edmonton Sun

Perhaps the he context does leave it open to some interpretation, but it doesn't sound like it to me. Further, some of his previous comments over the past years don't aid his argument.

------------

If the quoted response from Matthews is verbatim, I am really surprised.  I tend to enjoy his commentary, though I often disagree with it.  I always thought he was articulate.

But that second sentence makes no sense whatsoever.  It is missing something . . . a conjunction or another subject.  It makes him appear less than fully literate.  Did he send this in writing, by email, or verbally?

but I like rug burn also.

With that said, If Mr Matthews is reading this, perhaps a statement like this in public would do wonders for this country.  With his former boss saying how rotten we are this will provide some counterpoint.

One poster was also quite right, being "rough", easily means with cruel and inhuman means (which I am all for).  That is torture, isn't it?  

The Munich cowards were 11 tho, werent they?  That is a little bit easier.  And should we kill ALL the terrorists who kill Americans?  I postulate yes, I don't think any Dems would agree however.  Ask Mike Dukakis if I'm wrong.

I really intensely dislike John Kerry, to pick one example from your list, but he's done more than enough to prove his loyalty and to deserve insulation from half-witted comments like this. All the guys on that list have.

Comments like this are why people don't take on-line stuff seriously.

I don't know either. I see both in his statement

Try googling for something like 'John Kerry Winter Soldier'.  Or read what the Swift Vet guys have to say about his post-war activities.

Of all of those previously mentioned, John Kerry is probably the closest to the aforementioned borderline.

In that in his words the US Administration "squandered" the goodwill we had as a victim of 9/11, when the world was "united" in wanting to "work against" terrorism.

Carter made it a point of pride that his Administration had no "bombs or bullets" on foreign countries and that "peace" was the answer to terrorism and all conflict.

Matthews worked for Carter so it's no suprise he's as stupid and foolish as Carter is wrt International Affairs. [Ironically, LA Times had an op-ed today by the President of the ICG praising "peace missions" and carefully omitting Darfur's debacle].

Chris Hitchens demolished in Slate "the give peace a chance" position because if you look at Darfur it failed completely. All "negotiations" and Carter-Matthews-ICG like "peace" did was give a free hand for the regime in Sudan (who Clinton felt was playing footsie with Saddam and Osama BOTH at the same time, with some strong evidence to back up that conclusion). Sudan used "peace" to kill about a million or so people that they didn't like.

Carter left us the noxious Iranian regime intent on wiping out both Israel AND THE US. Instead of destroying that monster in it's crib. Carter let the image of the US being a paper tiger that could be attacked repeatedly with impunity be let world-wide; with disastrous results on 9/11. Conceptually his failure to respond to the act of war that the Embassy take-over represented led directly to unceasing escalation of terrorist attacks culminating in 9/11.

It's no surprise that MAtthews shares his bosses failing in comprehending the world beyond the US; both are terminally naive and foolish in projecting internal US politics onto psychopaths such as Zarqawi, bin LAden, Saddam, and Zawahari.

Borderline treasonous.

Yuu are entitled to you opinion as am I. Disregarding his recent statements, his Winter Soldier statements alone qualify him.

that is the point you are missing here.  Any Chris Matthews fan can tell you that because Jimmy Carter, John Murtha, or any other liberal hero has taken the moral high ground in his past actions, that he should be praised and considered successful regardless of the results and repercussions.

Google it and you will see my point.

taking the moral high ground?  Isn't the moral high ground something we want our leaders to take?  

at the expense of common sense.

... Kerry's "we'll capture and kill the terrorists wherever they live" argument.

It's a statement that the war on terror need only be a police action.  

It's a statement that we're fighting a small handful of bad guys and not a larger pathology.

Is this statement a clarification that makes anyone here think that all well with Nr. Matthews' world view?

And what do the terms "moral high ground" and "moral low ground" mean?  Is saying that the moral low ground is ever acceptable nothing but moral relativism?  What about right and wrong?  Saying that the moral low ground is ever acceptable seems like just a version of the ends justify the means.  Heaven help us if we stoop to that standard.

that being associated with the moral high ground is a positive attribute.  The implication that liberals have cornered the market on the moral high ground seems to be a compliment to liberals.

because in his words, it is the moral high ground that makes John Murtha's cut and run strategy superior to Cheney's stay the course.  Is it not self explanatory that Cheney giving a speech in his brand new tuxedo is the height of moral depravity when compared to the words of a tearful veteran?  If the definition of the moral high and low ground is "if it feels good do it because it must be right" and the "ends justifying the means" then I am the latter and looking for a ground floor apartment.

blame them

After Meir had all the Olympic terrorists killed, there was a complete eradication of terrorism in the world as we know it...RIGHT!

Oh, wait a sec...

Killing terrorists without mercy seems pretty morally high to me. Appeasing them with the WISH that they won't try to kill us is pretty morally reprehensible...but that's just me.

Remember, the Dems think that high taxes and a welfare state that keeps people in poverty constitutes compassion and high moral values...

Can I come up out of the basement yet?

You will stay down there until you can act just as unrealistic as me and my panelists!

What does this mean: "we need to get behind this massive hatred we're facing in the Muslim world."

Is Matthews positing that by understanding why they want to kill us will in some way make them stop wanting to kill us?  These fanatics envision a restored Caliphate ruled by extreme Islamists.  They don't care what we think; the only question to them is whether or not we submit willingly or must be destroyed.

They didn't hate Clinton less than Bush.  They hate Carter, too, and he has devoted his ex-Presidency to sucking up the Arabs.  

It isn't an issue where "understanding" the other guy will help at all.  We might as well build a campfire on the beach and invite Osama to come sing "Kumbaya" with us.

He was burned by fringe folks on blogs who have an axe to grind and jumped on one part of his speech and took it out of context.

he is fully treasonous and a coward to boot.

As I read Matthews' response, he does not actually refute the core of his original statement - that we do not understand the terrorists perspective, that they aren't really evil. He merely states that we should deal more forcefully (roughly) with them after the fact.

I refuse to give him a pass on his original statements, because he still stands by them.

What notice?  No one gave a notice on 9/11,the Israeli's didn't give notices.  The hard part is ID'ing the bombers,not impossible and in any case there are other,shall we say, venues.But where the homes are leveled, and of course the families forced to watch, the next step should be "protective custody".  In the best of all possible worlds various accidents could be arranged in selective locations in Syria and Iran, something about fighting fire with fire.  I know we are to civilized for that but one can dream.  It is worth remembering that in fighting a counter insurgency war adoption of the enemy's tactics usually pays dividends.  You don't want to be too nice.

I forgot this little jewel:

I don't know why the reporter chose to ignore my clear statement was the appropriate response to terorism, why he chose to skip to my strong belief that we need to get behind this massive hatred we're facing in the Muslim world.

Gee Chris - do you think it might be because it does not fit the media's pre-determined story line? Welcome to conservo-world.

HAAAAAAH!

at coward.

Just how would he propose to hunt down and kill Atta?

As I recall the Iraeli plan did not work to well, it was condemened by the rest of the world, and Hollywood is going to make a movie about it. And guess on how that will protray the Isralis?

I'm curious.

Is there any actual strategy, in your estimation, that would completely eradicate the world of terrorism?

he volunteered to go to vietnam.  whatever his motivations, whether he wanted to use his stint in vietnam as political fodder, whatever.  He volunteered to go to a war zone, to work on a type of boat the encountered heavy casualties.

What must one person do to prove that he is not a coward to you?  

But I will answer nevertheless.

It is my view that the worst possible outcome would be terrorists nuking an American city or two.

THAT would start America on a horrible, measured, and bloody campaign to kill all possible enemies until they were very, very dead. See: Hamburg, Dresden, Berlin, Tokyo, firebombing of; Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It is also my belief that such an attack would come from one of: Iran, Pakistan, or North Korea selling/giving terrorists nukes. Further such acts CAN be deterred.

Deterrence of such acts won't happen with "peace love and understanding," apologies to Elvis Costello. But rather a great fear that doing so would lead to them being put on trial like Saddam and humiliated before hanging. In other words, both WILL and CAPACITY to use conventional armies to unseat hostile regimes unilaterally BEFORE they give terrorists nukes to set off in American cities.

Given the nature of Iran's regime (the new President is removing the "moderates" who confined themselves to blowing up innocent Argentinian Jews in Buenos Aires or Khobar Towers) and Pakistan's shaky structure (what, five assasination attempts on Musharref?) this to me makes sense.

The problem with a merely nuclear deterrence is that the barrier to unilateral use is too high before we are struck; and the idea is to deter an attack in the first place not allow Iran, a coup-led Pakistan or North Korea present a fait accompli and then bank on international pressure on the US NOT to respond. Ability and will to use conventional military force to remove these regimes is key IMHO to stopping such attacks by removing the ability of Al Qaeda to obtain nukes.

Matthews thinks that killing the terrorists creates more terrorists, and therefore he wants to send terrorists the message, "we just want to get along." I, on the other hand, don't want to get along. I think it's the surrendering to terrorists that creates more terrorists--more active eager terrorists--and the message I want sent (to the terrorists) is, "Don't worry. You won't be lonely when we send you off to Hell, where you belong. Your terrorist friends will show up too, soon."

Fighting terror is difficult, but surrender is even more difficult in the end.

Interesting ideas. Definitely some things to think about. But a few questions:

1. You state the US should demonstrate both the "WILL and CAPACITY to use conventional armies to unseat hostile regimes unilaterally BEFORE they give terrorists nukes to set off in American cities."

If our strategy is to unseat hostile regimes BEFORE they give terrorists nukes, then why have we not already rolled into North Korea and unseated Kim Jong Il? North Korea has nukes. They are hostile. Why haven't we done that already? And our deterrence therefore moot?

By your standard, have we not waited too long already? Could North Korea not already sold/given nukes to terrorists?

2. You reference specifically Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan as likely hostile regimes. I would agree with that.

But you indicate that we should be prepared to use conventional forces to unseat these regimes. All of that makes sense in theory.

Yet, in practice, given our current commitments to Iraq. And given our military's experience in Iraq - not from the standpoint of winning the war, but winning the peace - how realistic do you think it is that the US could unilaterally roll into Iran, a country several times the size of Iraq and with a far more potent military, while at the same time maintaining enough of a force in Iraq to maintain security there?

And, given our continued challenge with the local insurgency and flow of foreign terrorists, how would the US secure Iran after overthrowing the regime from much of the same type of insurgency and flow of terrrorists?

Likewise, with North Korea. The North Koreans already have nukes. My understanding is that the result of a unilateral US incursion of North Korea would be a near simultaneous destruction of South Korea via North Korean nuclear and conventional weapons.

So, bottom line, while I think your strategy of using our willingness and capacity for conventional invasion works in theory, how realistic is it really in practice given our current commitment and, more importantly, surprising challenge with the insurgency in Iraq?

to Matthews as he was to Zell Miller.  He is not owed a thing in terms of courtesy or respect.  He lowers rudeness to a level beyond any broad understanding of even a modicum of civility and is crude enough to think an interruption of an answer to a question he just asked is a sign of intelligence, one of the marks of a consumate vulgarian.  If respect is something one feels a need to show I suggest you offer it to some panhandling wino teetering in the gutter, the benefit of the doubt being such that we may take for granted that somewhere at sometime the urine stained wino did something both useful and good with and in his life.  But not Chris Matthews!

but I am not buying it.  I am most pleased by the fact that RS caught his attention enough somehow to make him bother trying to defend himself here.

Even if his defense in the letter to the Editors is wholly true, notice he didn't deny his quoted statements...regardless of what else he may have said.

We reacted negatively to his assertion that we need to look at our enemy as not evil, just having a different perspective.  Many of us on the right don't share that opinion.  He still slammed the Administration, still used his position to go to a foreign country and denigrate a large part of what we're doing in the GWOT, and still took the opportunity to get a little coin at the expense of our Government and our Soldiers.

And to the idea that he is a victim of the media for once...I love it.

Does anyone really believe Matthews would support hunting down terrorists and executing them? This is just such a BS throwaway line that it is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who reads it.

Does Matthews support rendition? Does he support the CIAs prisons? Of course not. So how can any sentient being believe he would be in favor of kicking in doors or killing them on the sidewalk? How can someone against imprisoning people in secret be in favor of extrajudicial executions? You can't.

But let's suppose for a moment, through the willing suspension of disbelief, that Matthews actually adheres to what he says he adheres to. That he actually supported Golda Meir unleashing Mossad on the PFLP/PLO/Black September, where does he stand on  the Lillehammer Affair? Would he take a "crap happens" attitude if Delta Force offed some waiter in Munich in a case of mistaken identity? Nice try. He'd be demanding punishment.

RS caught his attention enough somehow to make him bother trying to defend himself here

Same explanation at PowerLine.

 

Along those lines I feel compelled to point out that Matthews can't even spell the word terrorism correctly in his email.  I know this is catty and we all make typos, but that seems a Freudian slip to me.

Maybe if he stopped lying all the time would help some; or just spend a few Christmas holidays in Cambodia.

to be a coward. Three scratches, at least one self-inflicted, and the first flight home. And, I won't "tone it down" about that treasonous scumball.

According to the book "Unfit for Command", Kerry was a traitor, a coward, and a liar. They recount an incident where five Swift Boats were patrolling together on a river, and one boat hits an underwater mine and loses control. Three other boats come to the aid of the stricken crew, while Kerry's boat flees, then comes back after most of the rescue has been completed, and pulls one man out of the water. Then Kerry writes a glowing report about himself to his superiors and gets a Bronze Star.

John Kerry does everything he does for the glory of John Kerry. He exaggerated his war service to make himself look like a hero. Then he came back to the States and lied to the Senate about bogus "atrocities" he claims were committed by American soldiers, although no one who served with him ever saw anyone commit war crimes. His fake anti-war "testimony" before the Senate was his claim to fame to get himself elected to the House, and later to the Senate. Whether you're for victory or surrender, John Kerry is your hero, or so he would like you to believe.

Thank God for 118,000 wise voters in Ohio, or this very dangerous man could have been our President!!!

since there's a book about that must mean it's true.

Funny how people will accept anything about their opponents but will discard the same sort of attacks about people on their side.

I don't care much for John Kerry but this revisionist history about the war is pretty sickening.   People who had a clear agenda shouldn't be taken as gospel.

It is important to "understand" the enemy -- how he thinks, how he reasons, his emotional equipping, etc. -- in order to be better able to oppose and defeat the enemy. Part of Patton's military genius, as I understand it, was his ability to understand the German military mind.

Thus if Chris Matthews had stopped with saying: "The smartest people understand the enemy's point of view, because they understand what's driving them," we'd probably be welcoming him with open arms.

The fatal problem is that Mr. Matthews then goes utterly off the rails when he goes on to define what his agenda behind understanding -- the unquestioned assumption that "the person on the other side is not evil. They just have a different perspective."

Train wreck time! Mr Matthews has run his train into the swamp of nonjudgmentalism.

Yes, we need to study and understand our enemy. And there's absolutely no reason why we can't "understand" exactly how and why our enemy is truly evil. Indeed, it's critically important to recognize evil as opposed to merely "misguided" because our response will be different.

Unfortunately, for Mr. Matthews, it appears that his universe has no place for recognizing the existence of evil, rather he dwells in a postmodern universe of competing "different perspectives" -- with our job being to "understand" their perspective, thereby excusing the inexcusable and creating moral equivalences where none exist.

Are mass murder and suicide bombing and the restoration of the Caliphate merely "different perspectives" or are they evil? This is where the divide is between Mr. Matthews and right thinking Americans.

C.S. Lewis rather presciently saw the trajectory of our liberal culture when he spoke of the desire for a marriage between heaven and hell, that is, the desire for moral equivalence and nonjudgmentalism -- that attempt to deny the existence of true evil that ultimately cannot coexist with good, but which must be opposed, denied, and ultimately cast out. "Different perspectives" is just one of the bastard children of that fatally flawed error.

Our enemies, at least, clearly see this conflict as a struggle between good and evil -- and I thus am confident that their greatest disdain is for those who would seek to "understand" them as merely having a "different perspective".

I would wish that you were hot or cold, but since you are lukewarm, I will spew you out of my mouth

and cowardice are not the same thing.

I think that Kerry is a dishonest, and in many respects a dishonorable man. I think he has a penchant for dishonesty, but I don't think cowardice fits. All I'm saying is let's hang him for what he said and did; there's plenty there without resorting to spurious charges. One man's opinion.

Bennedict Arnold did more to help this country than John Kerry ever did, yet his name is synomous with treason.

did commit treason.  It's hard to wiggle out of taking a commission in the Army of the country you are fighting a war with.

I too am glad Kerry did not become President, but I do not support nor believe we advance our side of the argument by calling him a coward, traitor, or liar.  I am disgusted by those who call Bush a liar, and I would expect our side to not further debase the political discourse in this country by refraining from those type of ad hominem attacks as well.  

I too was (and still am) disturbed by Kerry's use of his military service to benefit his political career.  It nauseated me that, after finishing his tour, Kerry returned to the United States to actively campaign against the war, basically repudiating his service there.  Then, thirty years later, when it is politically advantageous to possess military experience, Kerry extols and uses the same service he repudiated as a reason to vote for him.  How revolting.    

Still, call me old-fashioned, but in spite of Kerry's disingenuousness, I find it difficult to criticize his actual service to this country.  Yes, the preponderance of evidence the Swift Boat vets offered created serious doubts in my mind, but I cannot justify criticizing any individual's military duty when, by simply being in a warzone, that person risks his or her life on a daily basis.  Now, as I stated, how he or she uses that military service afterward is, in my opinion, a completely different ballgame, open to criticism.  

It does indicate conservative blogging is having a significant effect on the political conversation. Ten years ago, nay, a mere five years ago, it would not have even warranted a mass-mailed "explanation" with an "I was misquoted" defense.

The defense that is constantly raised by those who provide aid and comfort to the enemy from their safe perches in the Senate and House is they have earlier "served" in the military. During the Revolutionary War, Benedict Arnold served far more valiantly than a questionably wounded John Kerry did in Vietnam. That doesn't inocculate Arnold from the treasonous actions he undertook in the War of 1812. Neither should it innoculate those who would betray their country today, all while claiming to be patriotic. Arnold probably thought he was best serving "the real interests" of his countrymen by working for the British Army, just like the naysayers now claim they are. They don't deserve any better treatment than Arnold got.

Targeting the family wouldn't faze a real fanatic.

Targeting the perp's Imam would prevent more recruiting.

a substantive discussion.

First I suggest you read up a little on Benedict Arnold.  Benedict Arnold was long since dead in 1812.  He died in 1801 and committed his treason during the Revolutionary War.  In 1780 Arnold offered to give West Point to Major Andres for a brigadiership in the British Army.  Not sure how someone could be MORE treasonous than that.  

Arnold did NOT think he was acting in the best interests of his countrymen.  He was being vindictive and thought that he had been snubbed by the Continental Army once too many times.  Oh, and let's not forget that he also wanted cash from the British to pay off his debts.

If you won't bother to know what you're talking about I'm sure why anyone should think you're serious.

since there's a book about that must mean it's true.

And since you cavalierly dismiss it, it must be false?

C'mon.  You can do better than that.

You're dismissing the eye-witness testimony of dozens of people just because it doesn't fit your political view.  Sounds to me you're doing the exact same thing you're accusing others of doing.

"Conceptually his failure to respond to the act of war that the Embassy take-over represented led directly to unceasing escalation of terrorist attacks culminating in 9/11."

In hindsight, it's an entirely apt comment.  Our political leaders at the time should have realized with foresight that it would become true.

it's impossible to interpret these words as anything but a personal attack on both Presidents Bush, and an apologia for the Muslim extremists who want to kill us.  Even his explanation doesn't refute my statement.

The cheetah doesn't care about the antelope's world view, and the antelope doesn't waste any time trying to see the world from the cheetah's point of view.  Neither do the terrorists, and neither should we.

Matthews is handicapped by his own liberal world view.

Liberals claim the moral high ground, and accept it as their right.  Because they claim it, conservatives by definition can't occupy it.  Because the claime it, whatever they say must be the compassionate and sensible course of action.

I believe the BBKitty misspoke.  The aforementioned have never actually taken the moral high ground before, they and their willing accomplices in the MSM simply tell us they've done it, and we're supposed to believe them.

to "prove his loyalty" to this country.  Being elected as a US Senator from Massachusetts does not qualify.  

For starters, there are his Winter Soldier activities.  Then there is his trip to Paris to "talk" with the NV while still a reserve Naval officer.  He should (and will not) ever be forgiven for his accusation that US soldiers were committing war crimes on the orders of their commanders in Vietnam.

With respect to his "service" in Vietnam, he gamed three purple hearts, a bronze and silver star and worked and early out.  I would suggest that you won't find an officer who was and is less respected by the men with whom the officer served than Kerry.

In his "service" as a US Senator, there is his signature on the "Dear Commandante" letter to Daniel Ortega.  We shouldn't forget that he voted against virtually every new weapons system that has been proposed for the military.  Oh, then we can address his inability to articulate one position when it comes to the point of having our men in harms way.  He waffled in 1991.  He waffled throughout the Clinton years.  He has been the poster waffle in our current conflict in Iraq.

The only thing Kerry has "earned" is the derision and disrespect of his colleagues in the Navy and the broader military.  John Kerry is not an honorable man, he is an untried traitor.

because there are conflicting reports from OTHER witnesses that conflict with their claims.  There are factual inconsistencies with their claim.  

Before the debate even begins, don't bother.  I'm not trying to dredge up this debate again.  My point is simply that their claims are not undisputed and there are not proof.  Add to that the fact that they willfully engaged in politicking and any reasonable observer must question the legitmacy of their claims.

that those who would accuse the adminstration of lying are the lowest scum of the earth didn't faze me.  I knew a university dean who tried to take over a community youth group with lies and deception, and failing that retaliated against the child (in his department) of a board member as well as two professors.  What did the provost say in the face of written documentation of this guy's antics? "The dean wouldn't lie."

Speaking of higher ground, politicians (on both sides) are not known for occupying it, so I am willing to suspend judgment for the time being.

Just because Benedict Arnold died prior to the war of 1812 doesn't mean he couldn't have been a traitor during that war.

Depending on the rate of decomposition of his corpse he could clearly have contaminated the groundwater of U.S. troops and sickened them, thus an obvious additional act to his traitorhood...

:)

I switched back and forth from being serious to facetious.  It was funny when I was writing, now going back I can see it probably was just confusing because I spoke as both BBK and Chris Matthews.  Joke telling was never a strong point for me, but my internal dialogue is hilarious (I'm not a very tough audience).

"Saying that the moral low ground is ever acceptable seems like just a version of the ends justify the means.  Heaven help us if we stoop to that standard."

Since this discussion is somewhat relativistic, I'll just say that in war, you would never take a chance on losing it all just because of an ideal of never taking the "moral low ground."

You would do anything to defeat a Hitler, when it comes to the point of defeating him or losing it all.  The same with Hirohito, Stalin, and now Osama bin Laden.

To hold back and lose because of an artificially imposed set of Marquise of Queensbury rules would be unconscionable.

You just want to drag their name through the muck and not have to defend your statements.

I'm calling you on it.  "Any reasonable observer", ha.

I'd also like to see an explanation from you as to how they could have gotten their viewpoint of John Kerry before the people without "willfully engag[ing] in politicking", as you put it.