He doesn't really get going until maybe 4:30 into the clip, but Chris Matthews really hands Iran war advocate Josh Muravchik his ass in this YouTube segment:
Matthews' other guest, MIT's Jim Walsh, was making a ton of sense as well.
« Yo Ho Ho | Main | Clinton on Terrorism »
"I Don't Mind if We Bomb Next Month or the Month After"
23 Oct 2007 11:32 am
Comments (32)
Great clip. The AEI people cannot distinguish between "security" and "hegemony." One spawns legitimate wars of defense; the other wars of aggression. Keep in mind that the Romans believed that they NEVER fought anything but a defensive war. Muravchik's intellectual ancesters was probably blovating the same line in the Senate. ("Carthago delenda est.")
At some point in a future timeline, many other governments may possess knowledge of nuclear processes. It is urgent that we bomb them all now. Or maybe a month from now.
"Not letting them speak?"
The AEI man obviously had no response to Matthew's (pretty basic) questions, and was literally repeating the same few phrases over and over. His panicked stammering is all the evidence anyone should need to assess the depth of his Iranian position.
The man wants to bomb Iran. Why, or for what reason, seem to be questions he hasn't bothered to wrestle with. This should concern people who buy into the AEI bullshit.
That was some damn good journalisming by Chris freakin' Matthews of all people. The technique of actually forcing people to spell out the logic behind their positions turns out to be a productive one. Who knew?
In a saner world, Muravchik would be posting his opinions on a fringe blog, not enjoying an AEI sinecure. That he will still have his sinecure after this public appearance -- and will presumably return to his past practice of writing for wingnut publications and advising Dick Cheney -- isn't particularly heartening.
Until 'let's beat an AEI resident "scholar" with sticks as a metaphor for the violence he demands' enters prime-time broadcasting, this is just ever so much bullshit.
Dave, you clearly did not watch the same clip I did. Like Chesser said, Matthews asked straightforward questions and got no intelligible answers. The long stretches of silence between question and answer should be evidence enough that the AEI "expert" had no idea what to say.
Hilarious!
Who knew Chris Matthews had it in him? He really is a conundrum in that he can be surprisingly effective at times but is ridiculously off-base and condescending at others.
Most nauseating line (paraphrased):
"These people consider themselves at war with us."
I wonder what the fuck led them to that idea. What did we ever do to poor little Iran??
The hegemony talk is such a crock of shit. As if the Shiite Iranians have any chance at all of dominating the rest of the Sunni Muslim Middle East. I can't believe these people pass themselves off as experts.
Diplomacy has failed, huh? Well I guess Muravchik has a point... you can't suceed at something you have never really undertaken in the first place.
Dave, were you watching the same clip? The AEI guy was given a free pass to drone on and on making dumb arguments. Then he got challenged. Totally fair.
Muravchik isn't really that smart-- he was arguing that we need to attack Iran to avert the risk that the country might be regarded as prestigious. And then Muravchik can't come up with an answer about why we should attack Iran in the near future. This is a question that should have been asked about Iraq, as well. To date, no one has ever been able to explain to me why we needed to invade in spring 2003 as opposed to 2004, 2005, or now.
One thing that Matthews did get right: the neocon whining for More Bombs has an expiration date of January 2009, when Cheney is dragged out of his bunker.
Muravchik must be feeling unloved: his 'Bomb Iran' op-ed in the LA Times is nearly a year old, and Iran remains unbombed. Poow wittle neocon.
Tomas is quite correct: the White House's bullshit posture of 'give us all we want, and then we'll negotiate' is just designed to enable fanatics like Muravchik to argue, falsely, that diplomacy has failed.
Ummmm . . . is the craziest part of this clip not that in the last 15 seconds neither Matthews NOR the AEI dude can *correctly name the leader of North Korea*?? Lordie!
It's nice to see Matthews earning his pay. But I have to partially agree with Dave above that it's somewhat frustrating to watch Matthews as he doesn't let his guests finish their sentences. I know he's trying to get straight, clear answers to his questions (and prevent the regular bull that "experts" throw out), but some answers do require complicated responses.
I almost want to say that maybe Matthews has trouble dissecting, in real-time, someone's longer answers, so he interrupts the guest whenever he gets confused.
Anyways, good for Matthews.
"this video is no longer available"
sounds like I missed a good one.
mitch,
I think there is a fine line between doing what you are saying, which is done all the time by most TV talking heads and what Matthews is doing here, which is cutting off the guests attempt to fillibuster since he can't answer the question, another common TV thing, he is trying to run out the clock on the interview and Matthews is calling him on it.
nevermind, video is back on. That is too rich. I'm surprised no one mentioned Libya.
My favorite part is at the end, when Mathews pesters Walsh as to which is more dangerous as a national leader, a drunk (Kim Jong Il) or a religious fanatic (Ahmadinejad).
Of course, here in the US, we have a national leader who's a drunk and a religious fanatic. Woo-hoo! We win!
What is worrying is all these people sitting there, smug, arguing why others need to be attacked. To physically attack someone else, unprovoked, is a crime. They shouldn't sit there and smile about it.
Walsh is absolutely right - it would be foolish to think that Iran wouldn't respond in some way to being bombed. Not to mention the fact that such an attack could further inflame the region in such a way that Al Qaeda and other radical Muslim groups gain more support, strength, and numbers from it.
In light of this, and in light of the fact that our military is stretched almost to the breaking point in Iraq and Afghanistan as it is, would Muravchik be in favor of reinstating the draft? It seems to me that bombing Iran would further expand a war that is already stretching our military to the limit.
Has Muravchik even thought through the consequences of bombing Iran, or is he just "going with his gut"?
tworivers, I think it's a rather weak argument to not hit someone because they might hit back. I mean, it's functional, but that is no way to do morality. You shouldn't be hitting other people first, in the first place.
Prepare a defense. Hit back at those who hit you. Don't hit first. Otherwise we can't live together (or rather, we can, but then with some form of tyrant on top).
Sometimes guests say things that are so ridiculous that Matthews sort of snaps and turns into a relevant journalist who won't let crazy people leave their insanity musk on his show. I'm reminded of Michelle Malkin claiming that Kerry shot himself in Nam to get a Purple Heart.
Of course, other times - most of the time - he's the one marking the show with insanity musk.
Walsh is absolutely right - it would be foolish to think that Iran wouldn't respond in some way to being bombed.
The smart response from Iran to any US bombardment would be... no response at all. At least, no military response. Why respond to provocation when you can watch bricks being thrown at US embassies around the world?
Hit back at those who hit you.
And be accurate about who you hit back on. "Islamofascism" is not accurate. The only way that word could mean anything is if it means "Muslim tyranny." But Saudi Arabia is a Muslim tyranny, and an ally...
Bengt Larsson:
I completely agree that it's immoral to preemptively attack someone. I was against the Iraq war from the get-go, marched against it in early 2003, and am amazed and saddened to this day that this immoral, unnecessary, and incredibly misguided war is still ongoing.
I guess what i was trying to point out (with an eye to the few people who might be on the fence about this sort of thing) is, even if one were to somehow see any wisdom in bombing Iran, would any reasonable person want to trust it to the same bunch of incompetent buffoons that brought us the Iraq War? Muravchik's statements on Tweety's show certainly do not indicate that he has given much consideration to the aftermath of an attack on Iran. He doesn't seem to be giving any thought to the effect it will have on the region or the US military. It is this same lack of foresight that helped make Iraq the disaster it is today.
It's a secondary argument to the moral argument, no question. The US should not go around preemptively attacking countries they see as potential threats.
but that said, I think there is some value in pointing to the track record of the people agitating for military action against Iran, and in demonstrating how their statements in favor of bombing Iran display the same lack of foresight they showed in the lead-up to Iraq.
Annoying as I sometimes find Matthews (which is still less annoying than I usually find Dobbs or Cavuto), the one thing I quite appreciate is his tendency to ask something entirely unexpected, but completely relevant, and proceed to beat the questionee to death with it. It quickly sorts out those who know what they're talking about from those who don't.
What is worrying is all these people sitting there, smug, arguing why others need to be attacked.
What is worrying is that the most radical Hawks like Lieberman or Kristol probably have never been in a fight (certainly not a war) and, therefore, don't understand the collateral effects of violent actions, regardless of justification or injustification. Understanding the dynamics of global power structures while having complete ignorance of the dynamics of force makes the first bit of knowledge irrelevant as it pertains to military activism. I'm sure someone, somewhere's been making this point ad nauseum for decades.
Mmm. First I want to say, tworivers, I agree with you.
I think there is a use in forcing the neocons to be more explicit about their agenda, instead of this bullshit they are trying to sell. What they want is American Empire. But it's not possible to have a Roman-style Empire without using mass-murder as a tool of the state.
The neocons desperately don't want Iran to get the bomb because Iran getting the bomb would do two things:
1) It would force the United States to deal with the country - you know, negotiate for things. And the neocons don't want that. They want Iran under their boot.
2) It would prove that a country declared certifiably nutso by Ledeen, Muravchik and co. was not, in fact, certifiably nutso - i.e., would not turn around and nuke Israel because Iran would know to do so would invite destruction by the U.S.
So the Iranian bomb would have a chastening effect on the Iranians and on the Neocons, which almost makes me wish the country had a nuke right now.
In any case, the limits of American power show that, sooner or later, a country designated as "nutso" by the neocons is going to get the bomb and we're going to have to deal with it.
While it was fun to see the AEI nitwit get pounded into the ground, it still amazes me that anybody can consider this sort of back-and-forth as "analysis."
I remember watching the McNeil-Lehrer News Hour back in 1991. They would have various people on discussing Iraq.
It was nothing like Chris Matthews...
And they spent half an hour or so on the issue instead of, what was this, ten minutes?
It's pathetic that this is the sort of thing the US population is basing its opinions on.
All that said, what's I'd like to see is Matt going on Chris Matthews show and being asked the following questions which he has steadfastly refused to answer here:
1) Do you believe Iran has a nuclear weapons program?
2) Do you believe military action against Iran is justified if they DO have a nuclear weapons program?
Walsh more or less tried to answer the latter question, somewhat, by saying he thought Iran could be rolled back without war.
Matt has utterly refused to commit himself here on either question.
I've begged, I've threatened, I've rolled over, put my paws in the air, and pissed all over myself in desperate efforts to ingratiate - Matt still won't answer my questions.
Not that he HAS to, you understand, but what's the problem?
Richard didn't ask me his question, but FWIW my answers are:
1) Perhaps
2) No.
With the addition that, even if they did have a nuclear weapons program, and even if military action was justified, why would it be the US's job to take it?
These guys are always a hoot..."we gotta go over and bomb...strafe....kick ass....bayonet...etc" Well, if "we" gotta do it tell him to get his pudgy aging yuppie rump into a cockpit and help do it...not just run his mouth........
Matthews isn’t trying to “hand him his ass”, he’s just trying to understand. Basically, he’s trying to understand his own caption at the bottom of the screen. Muravchik’s claim that the U.S. has tried diplomacy is laugh-out-loud ridiculous; it has avoided diplomacy. Matthews laughs at the end when he thanks his “experts” because he demonstrated that one of them couldn’t answer the simplest questions. But shouldn't he do some research himself in advance, instead of doing his homework in class like this? If this "confrontation" is remarkable by TV standards then TV is in even worse shape than I imagined.
Comments closed November 06, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Nothing like stepping on every sentence your guest makes and assuring he can't complete a single sentence. Is that what you consider handing someone their ass? Not letting them speak?
Posted by Dave | October 23, 2007 11:44 AM