Matthews Says 'Gung Ho' 'Neo-Cons' Wanted To Invade Iraq, Middle East

[sabra]

http://exposetheleft.com/2006/02/01/chrismatthewsworse/

Matthews Says “Gung Ho” “Neo-Cons” Wanted To Invade Iraq, Middle East (VIDEO)



Congressman, I want to point to you a worse scenario, even than the one we’re in right now. Right after we went into Iraq, and I know that you know what happened there, the real gung ho hawks and I mean by that, the neo-conservatives intellectuals, said “oh great, now we can go into Syria, now we can go into Iran”, and they were hoping we were going to make quick work of Iraq, and move on to these other target countries. Do you think they’ve learned their lesson or are they still hawkish about our ability to just go into any Arab country we want to, knock down the leadership, hold elections, and have people on our side?

Seems like the freepers can't handle Tweety either :-)

[SammyBlue]

1. Analysis of Tweety's mouths

On one side, he's a partisan right wing political hack and hatchet man.

On the other side, he's just a scumbag dickhead asshole!

[ixion]

2. gee, tweety, and who acted as cheerleader/enabler/echo chamber

for those neocon 'intellectuals'(sic)? Hmmmmmmm?

I remember very clearly all the major broadcast news networks, not only cheerleading, but chastising any dissent.

See, unlike the people who actually believe what you say, I try to stick to the facts, not BS. :grr:

[JHB]

3. I'm flabbergasted and gobsmacked!

Tweety got it right! That's exactly what the PNAC game plan was... it was the main reason for attacking Iraq "on the cheap": Hit one, go on to the next, and don't get bogged down in "nation building".

What did Murtha have to say?

[ixion]

5. yeah, tweety gets it 'right'... three years after the fact.

Rapier wit on tweety, eh? :dunce:

[JHB]

6. It beats having him spout the usual talking points.

I never claimed he was "quick". In fact, I indicated some surprise.

Let's just see if keep it up for the rest of the week.

[JHB]

7. Murtha said:

MURTHA: Chris, what I say to them, you sit back here in your air-conditioned offices and you want to send those troops out there to the desert, to a place that hardly a very small proportion of this country is fighting this war. The American soldier, the American Marine, the American serviceperson, plus the families—they‘re the only ones making this sacrifice.

We‘re giving big tax cuts. We‘re doing everything else. We‘re sacrificing actually in this country, cutting back on all kinds of things in order to fund the war in Iraq which is a civil war which we‘re caught in. So this is much more serious than most people realize, and at some point, these folks are going to come to that conclusion, and they‘re going to agree with me.

In the end, there‘s only two solutions. One is, you either stick with the president—which is not a policy, it‘s open-ended—or you take my policy which is redeploy and reduce the expenditures there and start spending on that war against terrorism.

Didn't answer the exact question, but he didn't have to. There are "two solutions", and one is nuts.

[marmar]

4. And he was right there with them...

:nopity:

[jsamuel]

8. yep

[gratuitous]

9. Condemning with one mouth

While the other mouth is resolutely silent on his own complicity in beating the war drums. Conveniently selective memory you've got there, Mr. Matthews. But that gosh-darn likeable President Twist will get you back on track in no time, I have no doubt, and you'll be back extolling the Noble Cause so fast it will give folks whiplash.