Chris Matthews made a fool of himself on national television last night. What else is new? Ever since MSNBC moved left, Matthews has been trying to tag along. This is a shame. Chris Matthews is better at being Chris Matthews--straight-talking politico--than being Keith Olbermann, Jr.

On last night's Hardball, Olbermann Jr. quoted from this excellent piece by a former CIA official written in the Washington Post: "Americans should be clear on what Obama has done. In a breathtaking display of self-righteousness and intellectual arrogance, the president told Americans that his personal beliefs are more important than protecting their country, their homes and their families. The interrogation techniques in question, the president asserted, are a sign that Americans have lost their 'moral compass,'.... Mulling Obama's claim, one can wonder what could be more moral for a president than doing all that is needed to defend America and its citizens?"

Matthews testily responded, "My sense is that that guy talking in that memo is an ideologue--a hard-Right neocon." Not quite. It's unclear which error is more offensive: 1. misidentifying one of the most vocal, authoritative, and effective critics of the Bush administration's foreign policy as a "hard-Right neocon"; or 2. failing to recognize ("that guy"!) one of the most significant players in the war on terror.

Matthews's "hard-Right neocon" is a man of many names, but never, until now, has he been called "a hard-Right necon." In The 9/11 Report, he is "Mike," the CIA's Captain Ahab-like pursuer of Osama bin Laden who angrily laments the Clinton administration having blown "the chance to get [Bin Laden] three times in 36 hours." On the cover of his bestselling books, he is Anonymous--the guy who literally wrote the book on the foolishness of Bush's starry-eyed foreign policy. It's called Imperial Hubris, and I reviewed it on this site four years ago. Therein, the author tears apart the Bushies' feel-good notion that the terrorists attack us merely for who we are--"They hate our freedoms"--rather than for what we do (American bombs, missiles, or men in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, etc. in my lifetime alone). In the Washington Post on Sunday, the former chief of the CIA's Bin Laden unit and bestselling author employed his given name, Michael Scheuer. One would think the name of one who played so crucial a role in the war on terrorism would ring a bell for the host of a major public affairs program. Apparantly not. Scheuer deserved better than being slimed by the most vile names in Matthews's lexicon.

The release of legal memos on CIA interrogations of terrorists is one of the more shameful acts of the young Obama administration. One needn't be a "necon" or a Bush lackey to hold this opinion. Those who fall under those labels are few, which makes it a comforting delusion to categorize all who are appalled at Obama's sell-out of American intelligence thusly. Obama gave away the playbook to terrorists on what to expect and what not to expect should they fall into the hands of the Great Satan. He aimed to deal a cheap political blow to the previous administration at the expense of national security. He labelled the pouring of water up the noses of three terrrorists responsible for murdering Americans a "dark and painful chapter in our history." It wasn't, but the president selling out U.S. intelligence for "bravos" on the world stage truly was.

"As a people, Americans have a heritage to be proud of and one that is worth defending with their children's lives," Scheuer explains in Imperial Hubris. "It is not, however, a heritage whose experiences, heroes, wars, scandals, sacrifices, victories, mistakes, and villains can be condensed, loaded on a CD-ROM, and given to non-Americans with an expectation that they will quickly, and at little expense, become just like us." Doesn't that read as the antithesis of Bush's crusading, utopian second inaugural address?

Matthews's ideologically-inspired assumption is that the guy who wrote that is "an ideologue--a hard Right neocon." If only are enemies were always who we wished them to be. Then we would never feel compelled to argue their points, and instead just throw slimey labels upon them.

It has been terribly frustrating to me over the past whatever years to see just how incapable the neo-liberals and the rest of the Left are of attacking Bush on responsible and accurate grounds. Lord knows Bush was a miserably bad president so you would think it wouldn't be difficult.

But the saddest proof of this incapacity is Obama expanding the war in Afghanistan, and caring more about revisiting and pushing open homosexuality in the military, and amnesty for illegal foreign nationals (2 out of 3 were faves of Bush) rather than being an agent of meaningful change. I define that change as constitutional republicanism rather than more of the same old corporatism/fascism.

How is it that the left wanted to draw and quarter Scooter Libby for something he never did yet it’s A-ok for the Messiah to expose secret CIA documents and techniques? I know the answer but does the MSM always have to be so partial and obviously on board? I know the answer to that too.

Wonder if that gives Chris a tingle up his leg?

There is an ancient saying best summarized as: "Those who are kind to the cruel in the end will be cruel to the kind."

Could be the direction of a President who can identify with and who has more concern for foreign enemy combatants than he does for the people he has sworn to and should be protecting from them.

This is not a good or nice person.

I think Obama is attempting to keep his nose up the butts of other countries as much as he can and that is partially the reason for the release of the memos and soon to be pictures.
However I think they are also simply continuing what they did while Bush was in office. Attack,attack,attack every day nonstop against Bush and the Republicans. That's why we're still seeing Obama and those in his administration go out of their way to take swipes at a man who left office months ago. Their out to destroy Republicans and conservatives.
Most conservatives and Republicans are like the country was before 9/11. Someone has declared war on them,is continually attacking them and they aren't really taking it seriously.

P.O.S. Specter to switch parties? Not really surprised I suppose. Didn't seem like much of a Republican anyway.

Excellent point Opus.

Consider that from way left to center, Democrats got into lockstep with their party while Republicans from way right to center did not.

For the Democrats, it hasn’t always been but is now simple: get power and maintain it. At any cost and allowing for very few non-believers to get in the way of their leftist agenda.

The opposition is dangerous. Especially as the definition of what it means to be a Democrat has gone from some moderate elites and blue collar working guys on the street to the way left often times Marxist academic and business elites taking control and working to institute the failed liberal policies of the past.

Meanwhile, Conservatives and/or GOPers remain a fractured lot and by their inaction continue with, “thank you sir, may I have another”.

Unless the marionette posing in the White House does something really stupid and/or dangerous enough to awaken the public and the press, there won’t be any stopping these people while we watch the United State of America turn into the United States of Venezuela.

"The release of legal memos on CIA interrogations of terrorists is one of the more shameful acts of the young Obama administration."

Really, because I think you are more ashamed at what Bush did that was so terrible that we had to cover it up. That is like F*cking a fat chick and not telling your friends. You accomplished your mission (getting laid/'securing national security securely) but you aren't comfortable with describing how. That is usually indication of high moral turpitude.

I for one am proud of what he did, but I also had an anti-iraq war bumper sticker, soooo we all know it will take the rest of you a few years longer than me to come around to this truth.

"Attack,attack,attack every day nonstop against Bush and the Republicans. "

Really, because that's about all this blog has done for Obama. And what happened with Clinton? Impeachment proceedings over a BJ. Bush leads the deaths of thousands in American and foreign lives in a never justified war, and he doesn't receive a slap on the wrist. *Cough.. hypocrites.. *Cough You have no sense of justice.

"How is it that the left wanted to draw and quarter Scooter Libby for something he never did... "

Nice logic, except for that he was convicted on 4 accounts for perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements. Those 'convictions' are typically, yet inconveniently for your argument, interpreted as he DID commit those crimes.

One may ask themselves, although I am sure you never push your intellect so far, why would he interfere and commit perjury with an investigation if there was nothing to hide? And there would be no logical answers, because they all knew what they did was wrong and illegal.

I think it might be medication time for old Charlie.

I think we should be more concerned that Obama doesn't know where one of his airplanes is. Or worse yet, he does know but isn't bright enough to understand or just doesn't give a damn that the sight of a low flying jetliner over Manhattan wouldn't scare the living excrement out of most New Yorkers.

"One may ask themselves, although I am sure you never push your intellect so far, why would he interfere and commit perjury with an investigation if there was nothing to hide? And there would be no logical answers, because they all knew what they did was wrong and illegal."

Didn't Clinton commit perjury "over a BJ"? So why would he do so? What makes Clinton's perjury "just a BJ" and Libby's unequivocal evidence that he did something wrong? Can we consider that Clinton had given numerous testimonies and depositions for the numerous investigations, and that testimony is impeachable on the basis of perjury?

George Bernard Shaw's famous prostitute quote comes to mind. Shaw asked a socialite if she would sleep with a man for a million pounds. She playfully said "Of course!" Then he asked her if she would sleep with a man for 100, and she was aghast. He remarked "We've already established what you are, madam, we're just haggling over price."

The perjury charge establishes that Bill Clinton is not above perjury. His defense by the definition of "is" established what a shameless sophist he is and how little he regards the phrase "the whole truth" despite being a licensed attorney. We've established that he will, in some cases, perjure himself. We just don't know all the cases. The claim that he would only perjure himself in the case of a BJ (given by a subordinate) which was "nobody's business to know" (despite that it was given by a subordinate) is the testimony of 1) the perjurer himself, and 2) the group of people who had formerly been convinced that the BJ never happened. #2 wanted to reassert themselves as masters of probability. Loyalty is a nice trait, but doesn't compel me to make the same minimal assumptions--especially with all the legal ghosts in previous investigations.

I find this statement particularly galling coming from the Obamessiah's lips

"the president asserted, are a sign that Americans have lost their 'moral compass,'"

I'm not sure a man who thinks that babies that survive abortion should be left to die in the trash should attempt to lecture anybody about their "moral compass".

He is an enabled narcissist who's done nothing significant in his life except go to school and run for office and who is driven by ego to believe that he is the person best suited to direct other people on who they should be and what they should do.

I think it might be time for you to wake the f*ck up Thomas

"Didn't Clinton commit perjury "over a BJ"? So why would he do so? What makes Clinton's perjury "just a BJ" and Libby's unequivocal evidence that he did something wrong?..."

If Clinton committed perjury, he was acquitted by the Senate. Libby was convicted. Way to build a horrible argument out of two completely different things I was talking about. The message is that Bush has blood on his hands, not p*ssy juice. Bush is lucky he is not being prosecuted, especially after what Repubs. did to Clinton.

Yes, Clinton had reason to lie. People don't commit perjury for just any old reason... Hence what happened with Libby, there was a reason he did what he did: He took the fall so he could have his sentence commuted, and play the hero for the Admin. A scandal 10x the size of the BJ, and they got away with it.

"He is an enabled narcissist who's done nothing significant in his life except go to school and run for office and who is driven by ego to believe that he is the person best suited to direct other people on who they should be and what they should do."

You are confusing him for W. now

NY Times has this: "Some of the Democrats who had stayed so staunchly at Mr. Clinton's side throughout the impeachment saga warned that he should not see his acquittal as political vindication."

So it's an acquittal without vindication, which makes it little difference. It conveniently fell in a pocket for you, so you used it. Not that it means anything significant, it just plays right.

That's all you guys need. Nuance might call be realizing that people can be wrongly, or politically convicted. But who needs nuance when you have 3 branches of government and all the power in the world to fund your political cronies and marginalize your opponents? It was never something you guys were good at, however much you convinced yourself that you understood it.

Clinton was acquitted. Libby's guilty. Torture is what you say it is. Nobody hired Craig Livingstone!! Things are what they seem to be and liberals are masters of reality.

Well Charles, that fat chick an@logy was a smashingly intelligent one and truly shows you for what and who you are, but ultimately your facts and your priorities are way off base.

The fact that the name of a CIA desk jockey who had not been in foreign service for over five years came up as a consequence of her husband’s fishing expedition to discredit the Bush administration does not compare with a sitting President of the United States, who is sworn to protect our safety and the sovereignty of our nation, deciding for purely political purposes to expose the contents of secret official documents.

And let’s get the facts straight: Scooter Libby did not leak one iota of classified information. Richard Armitage did and Bob Novak printed it. The whole manufactured fiasco evolved into a ploy to use Libby’s knowledge of this as bait to fish for the big ones: Cheney and Bush.

“Nice logic”? You wouldn’t know logic if it bit you on the a$$. You are quite obviously a vehemently partisan left wing moonbat loon. Bumper sticker boy. So I certainly would not expect for you to separate the urgency of one event over the other.

Proof once again that liberalism is a mental disorder.

"The fact that the name of a CIA desk jockey who had not been in foreign service for over five years came up as a consequence of her husband’s fishing expedition to discredit the Bush administration does not compare with a sitting President of the United States"

I am sure it was coincidence purely that his wife's name was released after the NY Times published his 'fishing expedition' yellow cake article, which happened to be true. He did discredit Bush, but the Admin. wouldn't stand for any contraposition. It is similar to the Argentinian Dirty War regarding government sponsored suppression. Pure coincidence I'm sure...

This was our generation's Watergate, and it was swept under the rug.

"Scooter Libby did not leak one iota of classified information."

I never said he did.

"Bumper sticker boy."

Mine was right. And I still have a yellow ribbon, because I support the troops but not the war (especially in Iraq).

"left wing moonbat loon"

Right wing fascist pig. Two can play the name game, you SUV driving racist living in your gentrified community grasping to your pathetic rat-race existence in the name of self dignation hoping that the inevitable diabetes holds off for just a few more years.

"The presidency of George W. Bush began to unravel when some in high positions at the Central Intelligence Agency began waging a covert campaign against him.

It began in the summer of 2003 when officials at the CIA asked the Justice department to open a criminal investigation into who had disclosed to columnist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame, wife of controversial former diplomat Joseph Wilson, worked at the CIA.

The officials knew at the time the Intelligence Identities Protection Act did not apply to Ms. Plame, who'd been out of the field for more than five years."