PDA

View Full Version : Chris Matthews's Obsession



megimoo
01-31-2011, 09:02 AM
Sometimes you get the feeling that liberal pundits are all going around the bend together, in a grand carnival of craziness. Take Chris Matthews, who began his report on the riots in Egypt with this rant:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/

Here is the transcript, for those who just can't stand to watch Matthews:

Good evening. I`m Chris Matthews in Washington.

Leading off tonight: Unrest in Egypt. Proving the Iraq war wasn`t needed, these protests in Egypt, as well as in Yemen and Tunisia, are all aimed at dictators supported by the U.S. The demonstrations have not yet turned anti-American, but they could. These are the events the Bush administration hoped to encourage by lying about weapons of mass destruction and invading Iraq.

Matthews takes obsession to the brink of insanity. What possible reason is there to begin one's coverage of events in Egypt with partisan references to George Bush and Iraq? How on earth do riots in Egypt and Tunisia "prov[e] the Iraq war wasn't needed?" Two weeks ago Egypt and Tunisia were quiet; was that evidence that the Iraq war was needed? Libya is quiet still; is that evidence that the Iraq war was necessary? This is all a bizarre non sequitur.

Matthews says that the current unrest is "aimed at dictators supported by the U.S." But how does that relate to George W. Bush or the Iraq war? The U.S. has supported the Egyptian government for decades, a policy that has been continued by Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress. Again, what is the point? In 2009 there were violent demonstrations in Iran, against a dictatorship that is not supported by the U.S. Did that prove that the Iraq war was a good idea? Or was that also evidence that the Iraq war was unnecessary? If so, why are we talking about which governments are supported by the U.S.? Does Matthews have any idea what he is talking about?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/

Novaheart
01-31-2011, 09:45 AM
Matthews says that the current unrest is "aimed at dictators supported by the U.S." But how does that relate to George W. Bush or the Iraq war? The U.S. has supported the Egyptian government for decades, a policy that has been continued by Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress.

I confess that I don't specialize in knowing all the evil that the wicked atheist government of the United States does, so I have to ask: When he says "dictators supported by the US" does he mean like the fact that we recognize and work with the government of China? Or is this more of a puppet-dictatorship, someone who answers directly to the C Street gang or some cigar smoking silhouette in an unremarkable office in Tyson's Corner?

noonwitch
01-31-2011, 11:41 AM
Matthews says that the current unrest is "aimed at dictators supported by the U.S." But how does that relate to George W. Bush or the Iraq war? The U.S. has supported the Egyptian government for decades, a policy that has been continued by Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress.

I confess that I don't specialize in knowing all the evil that the wicked atheist government of the United States does, so I have to ask: When he says "dictators supported by the US" does he mean like the fact that we recognize and work with the government of China? Or is this more of a puppet-dictatorship, someone who answers directly to the C Street gang or some cigar smoking silhouette in an unremarkable office in Tyson's Corner?


Who knows what Matthews is ever really saying.


Here's the problem, as I see it. Mubarak has been in power for 30 years, he replaced Sadat after radical muslims assassinated him for signing the Camp David Accords and recognizing Israel as a nation. Mubarak has been a reliable ally to the US and the west in general, but has been somewhat iron-fisted at home.

The problem is that the demonstrators are allegedly pro-democracy, but they are not necessarily pro-USA and are very likely anti-Israel. That puts the world's largest democracy in a bind-do we support our long term friend, who is kind of a prick to his own people? Do we support the protestors, even though we know that they will probably destroy the peace agreement with Israel, and destablize the entire region further if they get power?


I think that the US is going to end up supporting the egyptian military, give Mubarak an exit, and will push for elections to be held this fall as scheduled.

Novaheart
01-31-2011, 12:19 PM
Who knows what Matthews is ever really saying.


Here's the problem, as I see it. Mubarak has been in power for 30 years, he replaced Sadat after radical muslims assassinated him for signing the Camp David Accords and recognizing Israel as a nation. Mubarak has been a reliable ally to the US and the west in general, but has been somewhat iron-fisted at home.

The problem is that the demonstrators are allegedly pro-democracy, but they are not necessarily pro-USA and are very likely anti-Israel. That puts the world's largest democracy in a bind-do we support our long term friend, who is kind of a prick to his own people? Do we support the protestors, even though we know that they will probably destroy the peace agreement with Israel, and destablize the entire region further if they get power?


I think that the US is going to end up supporting the egyptian military, give Mubarak an exit, and will push for elections to be held this fall as scheduled.

That appears to be the only way you can run an Islamic country. People who believe that they only answer to God, individually, tend not to give constitutions and laws the respect we would like to see.

hampshirebrit
01-31-2011, 01:31 PM
That puts the world's largest democracy in a bind.

Now I'm confused. What does this have to do with India? :confused:

Rebel Yell
01-31-2011, 01:37 PM
I wonder if Matthews tingly leg has gotten sticky yet.

fettpett
01-31-2011, 01:47 PM
Now I'm confused. What does this have to do with India? :confused:

think she mean's most powerful ;)

even if it's run by a weenie spined libtard

Rockntractor
01-31-2011, 01:55 PM
Mathews also mentioned that the panama canal in Egypt could be closed, he is obviously just another schizophrenic nut job!.

http://hillbuzz.org/2011/01/30/now-vs-then-chris-matthews-thinks-panama-canals-in-egypt-had-previously-ridiculed-sarah-palins-and-michele-bachmanns-intelligence/

Odysseus
01-31-2011, 02:11 PM
Here is the transcript, for those who just can't stand to watch Matthews:

Good evening. I`m Chris Matthews in Washington.

You lost me at "Good evening. I`m Chris Matthews."

Arroyo_Doble
01-31-2011, 02:26 PM
Mathews also mentioned that the panama canal in Egypt could be closed, he is obviously just another schizophrenic nut job!.

As long as they don't shut down the Suez Canal in Panama, we should be OK.

Odysseus
01-31-2011, 02:46 PM
As long as they don't shut down the Suez Canal in Panama, we should be OK.

Let me see if I understand this... They had the chance to fire Matthews when they ditched Olbermann, and they kept him?

Rockntractor
01-31-2011, 02:54 PM
As long as they don't shut down the Suez Canal in Panama, we should be OK.
That would be Suezcidal!

Arroyo_Doble
01-31-2011, 02:56 PM
Let me see if I understand this... They had the chance to fire Matthews when they ditched Olbermann, and they kept him?

He entertains a niche and makes a return on invested capital for the management of his company. When he stops doing that, he will be sent packing.

His show is kind of like that dude with big red button who talked about the stock market and shouted alot. To be honest, Tweety's show is about the only porn I watch any more and even then it is rare and short lived (after about five minutes, I remember why I plan to cut the cable). With places like this, I can skip the cable if I want to know what the latest douchebaggery is.

Arroyo_Doble
01-31-2011, 02:56 PM
That would be Suezcidal!

You suck!

AmPat
01-31-2011, 02:58 PM
You suck!

He's a clever little oinker.

megimoo
01-31-2011, 03:05 PM
You suck!What a shame.And he's so 'clean looking '!

megimoo
01-31-2011, 03:07 PM
Let me see if I understand this... They had the chance to fire Matthews when they ditched Olbermann, and they kept him?It was a close thing .They decided on tweety for the leg thrill factor !

Odysseus
01-31-2011, 03:22 PM
He entertains a niche and makes a return on invested capital for the management of his company. When he stops doing that, he will be sent packing.

His show is kind of like that dude with big red button who talked about the stock market and shouted alot. To be honest, Tweety's show is about the only porn I watch any more and even then it is rare and short lived (after about five minutes, I remember why I plan to cut the cable). With places like this, I can skip the cable if I want to know what the latest douchebaggery is.


You suck!

Sounds like you're deep in De Nile...

Arroyo_Doble
01-31-2011, 05:54 PM
Sounds like you're deep in De Nile...

Dammit all!


Sorry. I have pun tourettes; every time I hear one, I swear uncontrollably.

Odysseus
01-31-2011, 06:18 PM
Dammit all!

Sorry. I have pun tourettes; every time I hear one, I swear uncontrollably.

Oh, well. Back on topic.

The situation in Egypt remains MUBAR (Messed Up Beyond All Recognition, Ak!), as the corrupt economy is one vast pyramid scheme. Chris Matthews remains enamored of the protesters (Jihad him at "Allah Akbar").

megimoo
01-31-2011, 06:23 PM
Oh, well. Back on topic.

The situation in Egypt remains MUBAR (Messed Up Beyond All Recognition, Ak!), as the corrupt economy is one vast pyramid scheme. Chris Matthews remains enamored of the protesters (Jihad him at "Allah Akbar").
Mathews would make a good high yellow Harem Eunuch .He's already without cajones .