A Moment of Sanity On Chris Matthew's Show

[Annie]

Wow!

http://newsbusters.org/node/10902

Shocking Media Moment: Bob Woodward Says Democrats Voted for Iraq War
Posted by Noel Sheppard on February 18, 2007 - 13:22.

A sickeningly common theme asserted by media members around the country is that Iraq is “Bush’s war,” and that Democrats who voted for the resolution in October 2002 have no responsibility because they were supposedly misled by a president from a different political party.

Well, a fascinating event transpired on Sunday’s “Chris Matthews Show” as one high-ranking media member – the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward – fervently refuted this disingenuous media myth. And, maybe more shocking, CBS’s Gloria Borger agreed with him.

The panel was discussing the recent nonbinding resolutions voted on in Congress, when Bob Woodward said something that few in the media would dare utter with cameras rolling:

One of the things that we forget as we’re caught in the heat of the current debate: this is a legal war. The Congress three to one in 2002 said, gave Bush the right to go to war. He decided to do it. So, you know what really amazes me is that Bush, and Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid don’t get together and say, “We’ve got to come up with a bipartisan strategy and consensus on this.” We’re all in to a certain extent in this war. And we owe it to the troops.​

Amazing. Matthews then asked:

“Do you think the Democrats are willing to be party to this war, or they’re trying to get disengaged from it?”
​

Woodward shockingly responded:

“They are a party to this war. They voted for it.”​

Borger then said something maybe equally astounding:

They don’t want ownership of this war, Chris. I mean, I think the Democrats are trying to have it both ways. If you definitely cut off funding, then you have ownership of what comes next.​

Moments later, the following remarkable discussion ensued:

Woodward: If everyone’s thinking about politics and not the troops on the ground. Those people are our surrogates, and we owe them everything, and we can’t even reach political consensus in this country.

Matthews: But what happens when you have a country that is so divided if you just poll regular people about this war, so much against this war, but yet the commander-in-chief is for the war. How do you reach a consensus between a majority who don’t want the war, and a president who wants one? How do you do it?

Woodward: I think that people have to rise above politics and party here. And, think, I’ve talked to these people who have come back from Iraq, and in communication with some there, and they wonder: “What the hell is going on in America? What? You know, we’re here, they sent us here. And we’re talking about cutting off funding.”​

Extraordinary, Bob. Bravo!

 

[maineman]

first... if funding for these operations is cut off, it will not mean that the soldiers in the field will have to do without ammunition or provisions or that they will have to ask their mom to send them bus fare to get home.

secondly.... let's say I built a horse stable and it cost me a lot of money... and I filled it with the best and most talented show horses in the land...and then one day, much to my horror, it turns out that the stable was built right over a giant sinkhole which, all of a sudden, opened up and swallowed up my expensive stable and all of the prize show horses.

It is sheer and utter lunacy to imagine that I would go out and procure, say 21,500 brand new prize show horses and drive them into the sink hole to their deaths in an effort to somehow validate and honor the stable-full that had already died in the disasterous sinkhole debacle.

 

[maineman]

although, given the immensity of the disaster that is the war in Iraq, I do understand that there is some hesitancy on the part of congressional democrats to, in any way, be forced to "own" what happens after we leave. It is a situation of damned if we do, damned if we don't and given the fact that this war was NOT the grand legacy-defining scheme of the democratic party, it is easy to see how they might want to make sure that, given the "damned if we do, damned if we don't" nature of the beast, that it is Bush and the republicans who do get damned whichever way we go..... we wouldn't HAVE that particularly onerous dilemma if Bush had waited for Hans Blix to finish his inspections and tell us what we now all know: that the mission of disarming Saddam had already been accomplished before a single shot was fired.

 

[Annie]

although, given the immensity of the disaster that is the war in Iraq, I do understand that there is some hesitancy on the part of congressional democrats to, in any way, be forced to "own" what happens after we leave. It is a situation of damned if we do, damned if we don't and given the fact that this war was NOT the grand legacy-defining scheme of the democratic party, it is easy to see how they might want to make sure that, given the "damned if we do, damned if we don't" nature of the beast, that it is Bush and the republicans who do get damned whichever way we go..... we wouldn't HAVE that particularly onerous dilemma if Bush had waited for Hans Blix to finish his inspections and tell us what we now all know: that the mission of disarming Saddam had already been accomplished before a single shot was fired.

As Woodward said, "they already own their part, they approved the war", it's America's war, not GW's. Those troops are ours too and we owe them and those that have given all. We owe their families.

 

[maineman]

As Woodward said, "they already own their part, they approved the war", it's America's war, not GW's. Those troops are ours too and we owe them and those that have given all. We owe their families.

It is america's war, but I will never let anyone forget that a majority of democrats in congress voted against it. I am proud of them for that.

And what to do we OWE those people? Do we owe pouring more bodies down the pit and that will somehow ennoble the ones who have gone before? I say that they all died heroes...and we ought not to have any more die.

 

[Annie]

It is america's war, but I will never let anyone forget that a majority of democrats in congress voted against it. I am proud of them for that.

And what to do we OWE those people? Do we owe pouring more bodies down the pit and that will somehow ennoble the ones who have gone before? I say that they all died heroes...and we ought not to have any more die.

Again MM, I would say that depends on which picture you see. I never saw WMD as the major reason, though certainly a compelling one. It's the location of Iraq in the ME that is in our national interests. That we were involved in a truce that Saddam was breaking daily, along with 17 UN resolutions or so, gave the opening.

 

[maineman]

we will always disagree on that. Nation building is not what we should be about. And if we ever DO decide to nation build again, I think it is critical that we do so with some degree of competence or we end up with something worse than what we had before we started building - which is the case today.

 

[Annie]

we will always disagree on that. Nation building is not what we should be about. And if we ever DO decide to nation build again, I think it is critical that we do so with some degree of competence or we end up with something worse than what we had before we started building - which is the case today.

Yep, I think we will. Funny what a piss poor job the administration has make for it though. Clinton would have sold it, if he'd had the ability to back then. But like GW now, his capital was all spent.

 

[maineman]

I wouldn't have bought it even from Clinton... the '98 ILA was as far as I think we should have gone...

 

[Annie]

I wouldn't have bought it even from Clinton... the '98 ILA was as far as I think we should have gone...

ILA? Please decode.

 

[maineman]

ILA? Please decode.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

 

[boedicca]

All I can say is: Self-Awareness is So Refreshing!

 

[Annie]

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

Looks to me that it was calling for the overthrow of Saddam. Still bolsters my arguement that if with the same circumstances given, Clinton may well have enter Iraq before 2003.

 

[Adam's Apple]

It was a moment of sanity--and revelation--on the Chris Matthews' show. Maybe a few Democrats in the press are beginning to get nervous about all the falsehoods being spun to the max and being swallowed by the public like pablum, to the great detriment of the country.

 

[maineman]

Looks to me that it was calling for the overthrow of Saddam. Still bolsters my arguement that if with the same circumstances given, Clinton may well have enter Iraq before 2003.

it called for the United States to provide non-military financial assistance to indiginous Iraqis to help THEM overthrow Saddam.

Why in the world would Bill Clinton invade Iraq when Iraq didn't have a damn thing to do with 9/11? Team Bush was in love with the PNAC agenda, the democrats weren't.

 

[Annie]

it called for the United States to provide non-military financial assistance to indiginous Iraqis to help THEM overthrow Saddam.

Why in the world would Bill Clinton invade Iraq when Iraq didn't have a damn thing to do with 9/11? Team Bush was in love with the PNAC agenda, the democrats weren't.

For the reason I stated earlier, the reason he did want the overthrow. Saddam was a regional threat, it's in our interests to have a base to work from in that very bad, oil rich area.

 

[maineman]

For the reason I stated earlier, the reason he did want the overthrow. Saddam was a regional threat, it's in our interests to have a base to work from in that very bad, oil rich area.

in a perfect world, yes.... all the downsides to having to invade, conquer, and occupy that country in order to get that base to work from have clearly negated any benefit we might have otherwise realized.

 

[Annie]

in a perfect world, yes.... all the downsides to having to invade, conquer, and occupy that country in order to get that base to work from have clearly negated any benefit we might have otherwise realized.

Not necessarily, but I can't type more than a sentence or two currently. I'll try to return to later.