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:
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?