I agree with Chris Mathews for once.....

[kentuck]

He said that when Bush was hanging the medals on the three stooges, it was like he was awarding them to himself - attemping to justify the fiasco in Iraq? That was my thought also.

[TheFarseer]

1. Exactly

Christ, why doesn't he give Ken Lay and his entire immidiate family medals while he's at it along with Rush and Sean Hanitty?

[anitar1]

2. The 3 Medals

Amen to that !! How sickening to see this. It is as if there is no honor anywhere in our country.

[scarface2004]

13. medals???

we don t need no stinkin medals!!

[eternalburn]

3. Georgey-boy probably hates the fact that.....

...he can't knight them.

[rabid_nerd]

4. I'm open to Chris Matthews for Senate in PA

He's in the scuttlebutt...

[Miami Liberal]

5. Amen brother

[Eric J in MN]

6. That was my reaction, too. Bush was essentially giving himself medals.

to congratulate himself for getting us into a quagmire and causing thousands of deaths and wasting billions of our tax dollars.

[stopbush]

7. He was buying their silence. The awards were for their "service" in the

Iraq debacle. Exactly how can they now speak an ill word about * without it tarnishing their medals?

[Eric J in MN]

11. Good point. Especially in the case of George Tenet, it's a bribe (NT)

NT

[grasswire]

8. someone...

...on MSNBC tonight said that the medals were probably given to keep these men from writing bad things about Bush now that they have book deals. A little bribe -- like hush money.

[Solly Mack]

9. I buy that

[BrklynLiberal]

10. It was so Orwellian! Like..if he gives them medals no one will know that

the war is a disaster!!!!! What a crock!!

[kentuck]

12. He will keep on keeping on trying to justify his illegal invasion...

and the murder of tens of thousands of Iraqis, in his quest for the "terrorists" that attacked our country on 9/11 and made him look like the little incompetent fellow he really is...He was asleep at the wheel and he must blame someone for tickling his nose with a feather.

[Sugarbleus]

14. Someone said almost the same thing on radio a few minutes ago..

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back *Twig!!

[Shadowen]

15. Say what you like about Matthews...

...he may sometimes whore himself out. But he never pulls his punches. Ever.

[VOX]

16. Wow. Second time that I agree with Tweety. The first time was in 2002...

In his final column for the SF Chronicle in August 2002, he laid out the scenario in Iraq pretty accurately. Matthews the print journalist clearly was a different animal than Tweety the MSNBC twit, bouncing up and down on his ass in front of a camera.

Sorry, no link -- I just archived this column to see how it would pass the test of time...

On edit: Mods, apologies for the long post, but felt it necessary for content.

Sunday, August 25, 2002 (SF Chronicle)
To Iraq and Ruin
Chris Matthews

Washington -- The American people are not committed to a U.S. invasion of Iraq. Cheney's staff is. Rumsfeld's deputies are. The White House speech-writing office is. The guys they're working under are.

But what about the families of those who will do the fighting? What about the country that will have to suffer the casualties that are the
wreckage of every war?

A Washington Post/ABC poll found 57 percent of us back a ground attack on Baghdad but that's if there are no significant casualties. Faced with that prospect, 51 percent oppose it.

Is this a strong base from which to launch a pre-emptive attack on a country on the other side of the world? To send several hundred thousand U.S. service people on a mission to take over a country, remove its political leadership from power and install one of our choosing?

It's time to recall the Powell doctrine of the 1980s and recall the names that gave it resonance: Vietnam and Beirut.
<snip>
War should be a last resort, undertaken only with precise political and military goals and clear support from the American public and the Congress. There must be a clear exit strategy, and a will to deploy overwhelming force.
<snip>
So we drop tens of thousands of airborne troops into Baghdad. We look for Saddam Hussein. We wear gas masks to protect us from whatever chemical and biological weapons the Iraqi leader has stockpiled for just this occasion. A threatened Israel mobilizes for war. All this against the backdrop of an Arab and Islamic world in riot.
<snip>
Then comes the messy part. Our troops in Baghdad morph into a nervous constabulary force. Their mission: guard streets, shoot snipers, arrest the suspicious, keep order, find the Hussein loyalists, round up the members of his ruling party, root out plots, battle the terrorists.

For how long? How long were we in Beirut before that "peacekeeping" mission ended with a barracks being blown sky-high by a suicide bomber? How long were we in Saigon?

This invasion of Iraq, if it goes off, will join the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Desert One, Beirut and Somalia in the history of military
catastrophe.

What will set it apart, distinguishing it for all time, is the immense - and transparent - political stupidity. A mission to attack one isolated enemy will end up isolating us. A mission justified by the fight with terrorism will give birth to millions of terrorist-supporting haters. In every cafe from Manila to Casablanca, just whom do you think they will be rooting for? Just whom will their kids be killing themselves for?

-----------------------------
Copyright 2002 SF Chronicle

[Lugnut]

17. I hate it when that happens but

I did too. What a three stooges gag-fest moment!

[DeepModem Mom]

18. Kick!

[Disturbed]

19. Rewarded

Tommy Franks for following Rumsfailed's orders.

Tenet for backing the WMD lies then taking the fall for them.

Bremmer for leaving colonizarion laws on Iraq.

The Hand-Over That Wasn't: Illegal Orders give the US a Lock on Iraq's Economy
by Antonia Juhasz

Officially, the U.S. occupation of Iraq ended on June 28, 2004. But in reality, the United States is still in charge: Not only do 138,000 troops remain to control the streets, but the "100 Orders" of L. Paul Bremer III remain to control the economy.

These little noticed orders enacted by Bremer, the now-departed head of the now-defunct Coalition Provisional Authority, go to the heart of Bush administration plans in Iraq. They lock in sweeping advantages to American firms, ensuring long-term U.S. economic advantage while guaranteeing few, if any, benefits to the Iraqi people.

The Bremer orders control every aspect of Iraqi life - from the use of car horns to the privatization of state-owned enterprises. Order No. 39 alone does no less than "transition from a … centrally planned economy to a market economy" virtually overnight and by U.S. fiat.

Although many thought that the "end" of the occupation would also mean the end of the orders, on his last day in Iraq Bremer simply transferred authority for the orders to Prime Minister Iyad Allawi - a 30-year exile with close ties to the CIA and British intelligence.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0805-07.htm