ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Monday, November 21, 2005

The War and Chris Matthews...

(H/T Corner)

It is better to keep your mouth
shut and appear stupid than to
open it and remove all doubt.
-- Mark Twain

Unfortunately, it appears that Chris Matthews didn't pay attention to the above phrase. As reported in the Edmonton Sun, Chris gave one of those "we just need to understand the enemy" speeches (translation: surrender). His statements echo the fringe of the anti-war movement. He and Michael Moore obviously see eye-to-eye on a lot of things.

I quote from the article liberally:

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.
Oh goody, he gave the speech in Toronto. Just wouldn't do to give that speech in a VFW hall in Van Buren, MO. Better to give it in a foreign country.

"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 current engagement with Iraq began in March 2003, and September 11th, obviously, was in 2001. Thats almost 2 years of nothing but robust discussion of what we were doing. How many times I would say to the Saint and others, "Faster please", as the pieces were being moved around the globe for the eventual conflict. What Matthews is really saying here is that he didn't like that the Democratic party's portion of the discussion was to follow the political winds (instead of conviction) and to vote for authorization of war.

He doesn't also talk about the 10+ years we discussed "what to do about Iraq" after the first invasion. That discussion was also certainly robust, it just didnt go anywhere. This meme is just about "Bush's rush to War" which any true analysis of the actions leading up to the war would reveal it to be the bald-faced lie that it is.

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

Thanks for the indirect compliment, Mr. Matthews, because unlike some on the left I understand what drives our enemy. They want a return of the Caliphate, a religious-political order (empire if you will) of all peoples in traditionally muslim countries. There is no dissent in this regime. You are either a devout Muslim, or you are imprisoned, tortured, or killed. Political, economic, and religious debates are not allowed. This is the only outcome for which they will settle. Matthews is like Chamberlain seeking "Peace in our time" and allowing enslavement of peoples because he'd rather "leave the german speaking people to the germans".

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."

No we didn't Mr. Matthews. We had the appearance of strong international unity because thats what the other nations of the world thought was politically expedient. But when push came to shove, some nations wouldn't even provide troops for the Afghanistan campaign. So long as America seemed weak and wounded we had the sympathy of the world. I'd rather be strong than sympathetic.

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

Hmm, you mean like these reasons?
  1. Hussein's regime was in violation of United Nations demands for weapons inspections;
  2. the Hussein regime produced and possessed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and posed a grave threat;
  3. Hussein had failed to comply with 19 UN resolutions requiring a full accounting of its weapons of mass destruction and full cooperation with UN inspections.;
  4. that the Hussein regime had ties to al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations that posed a threat to international safety; and,
  5. promoting democratic self-government in the nearly-entirely autocratic Arab Middle East.

"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.

Oh jeez, the ol' canard of "Bush did it for his Daddy." Bush isn't looking for the approval of his father. George Bush (41) wasn't invited to any strategy sessions with the joint chiefs. He doesn't steer what his son is doing.

And the "oil thing," of course, it just has to be that we drive SUV's thats the reason why we went to war to steal their oil! Oh wait, we didn't steal their oil. In fact if we wanted oil, it would have been simpler and cheaper to lift the sanctions against Saddam and just buy it from him. But Matthews has to trot out these reasons or he loses his left-wing moonbat membership card. Is that it Mr. Matthews? Just Oil and some sort of weird oedipal complex of our commander in chief?

"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."

Oh.. Its the JJJJEEEEWWWWWWSSSSSSS. If those pesky jews wouldn't be around in Israel, if we just let them be driven into the sea, the entire world would like us again.

Maybe we did something big, because the situation warranted it? That the status-quo of "tracking down" al-Qaeda hadn't worked for 10 years, and wouldn't as long as their were regimes such as Iraq and Afghanistan that would harbor them?

Matthews comments should not surprise me. His show has increasingly become the backwater of leftist politics.

It does illustrate a large problem with the Democratic party, however. They just want to put their fingers in their ears and forget about all this "terrorism nonsense" so that we can go back to talking about prescription drug benefits, universal health care, and education benefits.

The enemy is watching however. And they would like nothing better for us to just surrender in the interests of "trying to figure out the other side."

Kinda goes hand in hand with this post by the Saint just a few moments earlier. Add Matthews to the list of people asking us to just "give up".

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Brian

Comments (2)
Intellectual Insurgent said...

Brian -

You wrote "They want a return of the Caliphate, a religious-political order (empire if you will) of all peoples in traditionally muslim countries. There is no dissent in this regime. You are either a devout Muslim, or you are imprisoned, tortured, or killed. Political, economic, and religious debates are not allowed."

Who is the "they" to which you refer? If it's Al Qaeda fine. But your statement that there is no dissent in this "regime" suggests that you are referring to a country. If that is the case, which one? It couldn't be Iraq under Saddam since it was a secular socialist country. It can't be Saudi Arabia since it is home to many Westerners and one of Bin Laden's complaints is that there are foreign troops in the holyland. I know plenty of non-Muslims who have lived there and found it quite hospitable. If you are referring to Afghanistan, who cares what a tiny country that has Flintstones technology wants? They can't achieve it.

Please clarify your terms so that your post makes sense.

Brian said...

I was referring to Osama and al Queda specifically. I thought that was evident by the text of the post.

Your point about my use of "regime" for Al Queda is inadequate because they are not a country illustrates the fallacy of the argument Chris Mathews is making. They are a regime. They have political and imperial goals. A return of the Caliphate and control of all muslim lands.

Iraq may have been secular today but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't have been in the future without an Allied presence.

Saudia Arabia is a ticking time bomb. It has an increasingly disaffected youth that is not part of the ruling elite. If you think that converting Saudia Arabia to Al Queda rule wasn't part of their plan, then you, like Matthews don't understand the nature of the conflict we face.

Thanks for the comment.