Posted on 04/07/2006 5:20:39 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
April 7, 2006
That didn't take long! Back in the MSM's Watergate heyday, it took a while for a steady drumbeat of revelations, stories and allegations to gather sufficient momentum. The pace has apparently quickened in the modern liberal-media world. On this morning's Today show, Matt Lauer, speaking of the allegation that President Bush authorized the disclosure of information by Scooter Libby, asked Chris Matthews: "scale of 1 to 10, [where] 10 is a deal-ender, where does this fall?"
Matthews didn't hesitate: "heading to 10."
Even Lauer seemed taken aback: "Really, that big?"
For good measure, Matthews later analogized VP Cheney to Henry II having not-so-subtly put out a hit on a dissenter in his administration.
In support of his seemingly inflated 'grading,' Mathews argued that prior to the Iraq war, "the main argument that sold the most Americans in the political center . . . most people supported the war with Iraq for one reason. The belief that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons."
He continued: "When we found there were no nuclear weaons, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson . . . said he had been sent by the Vice-President to check out this deal that Saddam Hussein was trying to buy nuclear materials in Africa. He . . . came back with a report that said there was no such deal."
Concluded Matthews: "Then according to this new tesimony of Scooter Libby, the President of the United States himself authorized the leak of information that would undercut Wilson's case."
Matthews wouldn't be mollified when Lauer suggested that there will be a game of semantics, with people arguing the president "couldn't have leaked classifed information because he has the power to declassify any information." Asked "how will that fly?", Matthews shot back:
"First of all, [former CIA Director] George Tenet knows nothing of this." And later: "What it shows is that the White House is involved in a major effort to undercut Wilson's claims that the emperor has no clothes, there was no nuclear case for war. That's why it goes possibly to a 10."
When Lauer wondered why the President didn't get out in front of this story and explain the situation to the American people, since Libby's allegations were likely to come out in the course of the trial, Matthews responded:
"They may be confident that Scooter Libby will never say 'the Vice-President never said to me 'leak the name of Valerie Plame,' which is the crime here." That's when Matthews then made his lurid historical reference: "It may well be one of those things out of Beckett where the king said 'will no one do this for me?'"
That was an allusion to Henry II having complained to four of his knights about Beckett, the stubborn advocate of the rule of law, "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" The knights eventually obliged Henry, hacking Beckett to death with their swords.
Nice analogy, Chris!
Matthews is certifiable. Something else that is probably related to what he picked up while on his safari.
Chrissy the Sissy is at it again.
If this "leak" is in the Top Ten of Serious Things...what must the non-serious department look like?
FPL is flapping his conspiracy gums again.
He completely and not suprisingly glossed over the fact that Wilson was lying, that the White House had every right to question his motives and findings. Went right from talking about a guy who discredited the "yellowcake" argument to Bush's desire to get him.
This is how infuriating it is to watch these idiot journalists and democrats gloss over facts to rewrite history in favor of their beloved liberal, anti-Bush views.
I hear all of the time now in NY how people feel that 9/11 happened because Bush became president. It's like a current going through the Dems, and also affects those who are "independent" but are completely susceptible to group-think by reading the newspaper or talking to friends who believe everything the NYT says. We have Hillary, now we'll have Spitzer...
Yeah. This is payback for Whitewater. In particular, it's payback for Monicagate. Get used to it. This is going to be the drumbeat for the next two years, especially if the Dems win back the House.
he constantly allows himself to be consumed by WISHFUL THINKING!
I don't think they will win back the House.
Get used to it. No matter what -- Iran, Iraq, NK, broken borders -- we're in for 2 years of nonstop impeach Bush/Cheney rhetoric.
This is already beyond ridiculous. I suppose the only thing to be admired about the Clinton administration was that it did have a well run rapid response team that fired back when new revelations of wrong doing was reported. They always defended the indefensible and managed to do a decent job of it.
The Bush administration can't even manage to defend the defensible! Haven't they figured it out yet? Not addressing serious charges just because they are ridiculous ISN'T WORKING! Someone in the White House needs to be forcefull, demand respect and in rapid response mode, calling into news rooms and/or appearing for interviews to squelch this crap before it gets overblown and believed by the general non-political public. This isn't rocket science! Once that accusatory snowball starts rolling downhill without someone to stop it, it's too late.
Matthews laid down on the democrat rails and the train ran over him years ago. Now that train is backing up for another pass.
BTW, out in Oak Ridge, TN we have at least 20 tons of nuclear material confiscated from Iraq after the war. Ignorance is bliss, and Chrissy is one happy camper.
Call me stupid but why did Bush say to the press he didn't know that anyone in the administration gave orders for any of this. Apparently he told Cheney things were cool.
Then he won't be around anymore after he finally explodes.
Everyone at NBC has gone off the cliff over this story.
Maybe it has something to do with Tim Russert's dirty hands. He's pretty valuable to NBC.
This isn't about impeaching the President. It's about the mid-term elections and convincing the electorate that the Bush White House is criminal. Matthews knows it's perfectly legal. This is part and parcel with the media onslught designed to sour the electorate for the elections...
True. The Bush White House generally had decided to ignore bad press coverage because they figure it isn’t worth their time. To the Bush people, bad press is like bad weather—it’s inevitable, so you may as well ignore it and suck it up. While I admire their thick skins and toughness, it gets harder for them to rally the public when they don’t bother to respond to bad press. Responding to bad press just isn’t high on their list of priorities because they figure “We’re doing the right thing, no matter what those idiots in the press say about us.” Of course I agree with that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.