News

Chris Matthews takes populist stance against another Establishment war on an Islamic country

By 55

Last night opposing the Syrian intervention, Chris Matthews was brilliant. Watch this segment, it’s dazzling television. You will see that in attacking the Syria intervention, he sets up the two establishment liberals on his show, Robin Wright of the Wilson Center and David Corn, and embarrasses them, exposing the fact that they are parroting the war rhetoric of the Obama administration, leaving them to scramble to keep up with him.

Matthews begins the show with a declaration against the intervention, because it’s yet another blow at an Islamic country, and will lead to war with Iran:

That’s precisely what we’re doing now. Going down the list. Going from country to country…  Regime change after regime change. Night after night on worldwide television, this country of ours is out there taking sides with anyone who wants to bring down an Islamic government. Regime change as I said in the Islamic world has become our national pasttime. Next stop Iran.

Matthews of course avoids neoconservatism, which is militant Zionism by another name; and attacks Dick Cheney and the “committed hawks” of the Bush administration. He allows Wright to say that the Syrians have spoiled the peace process again and again. As if the Israelis are not primarily responsible.

But Matthews goes on to stake out a populist antiwar position in direct opposition to establishment liberals:

Matthews: We take off the head of the Assad family .. Then what? What do we get out of this? Is anybody doing what I am doing right now, questioning this involvement, we’re getting into another war.

David Corn: Angus King?

Matthews: An independent senator from Maine. I don’t know where you two guys are.

Corn is compelled to respond, You raise a good question. Do we want a civil war or not? (Egad, is that any way to think, seeding civil war?) Then wising up: “This can really suck us in… This will lead to a war with Iran.” 

While Wright also comes around to Matthews’s position: “I’m with you, I think we need to have a national debate.”

Finally, Matthews brings the matter to a populist ground. Where it should have been all these years:

If we had a draft in this country, we wouldn’t even be talking about going to countries like this.

Corn: It’s cost free for the people making the case.

Precisely. Why hasn’t the left been framing this argument for the last 10, 12 years? Maybe Matthews has finally taken up that challenge. 

Related Posts

55 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

That’s great! But when is Matthews gonna take an anti-establishment but just stance on Palestine? Or maybe he’ll never shed his PEP……..

0
0

“Corn: It’s cost free for the people making the case.”

Yep, and until you make the political and special interest class ‘pay a price’ they are going to keep on doing it.
We don’t need a ‘national debate’ about Syria and Iran…we need a national debate about how to make the war mongers pay a price.

0
0
View Replies (9)

RE: “Chris Matthews takes populist stance against another Establishment war on an Islamic country [Syria] . . .”

THE DEBATE IN THE U.K.: “The Coalition gives Clegg a veto on arming Syria”, By Mary Dejevsky, The Independent, 6/12/13

[EXCERPTS] . . . The greatest vindication of Nick Clegg’s decision to take his party into government, however, may still be to come. Over the past week, there have been persistent reports that the Cabinet is split on the foreign policy question of the day: whether to arm the Syrian rebels. Two weeks ago, Cameron went to Brussels to argue for the European Union not to extend its arms embargo on Syria, a move that would open the way for the supply of weapons to those seeking to overthrow Bashar al-Assad. After a long, and by all accounts stormy meeting, Cameron emerged to claim victory. Although the decision was hedged about with caveats and many EU leaders expressed serious misgivings, the embargo was, in effect, lifted.
If Cameron had hoped to be met on his return as a conquering hero, however, he was disappointed. As The Independent reported, at least five Cabinet ministers, including Clegg, raised “serious reservations” about any move by Britain to increase its involvement in Syria. With backbenchers expressing concern as well, it is possible that Cameron will have to concede a vote in Parliament before the Syrian rebels are sent any arms.
There are ominous signs, though, that Cameron may be trying to shore up his more interventionist stance. The Foreign Secretary made a flying visit to Washington yesterday, where Syria – as well as, no doubt, intelligence matters – loomed large on his agenda. The US administration is also split about engagement in Syria, with much of the military establishment dead against. But you only have to think back to certain UK-US meetings in Washington in 2002 and 2003 to fear the potential damage from such bilateral encounters.
Which is where Nick Clegg and his party come in. . .
. . . As Deputy Prime Minister, with other party members in the Cabinet, Nick Clegg . . . can make representations as an equal at the top table and be guaranteed a hearing. If it is “sofa government”, he has a place there, too. He can be a rallying point for other reluctant interventionists. Best of all, though, he has a real weapon at his disposal: ultimately, he could take his party out of the Coalition.
Opposing armed intervention in Syria is a cause for which the Liberal Democrats should be prepared to break the Coalition. And the benefit could be twofold. Not only would they do the country a service, by pre-empting another costly act of national folly, but in so doing they would also win a chance to escape the fate of most junior coalition partners and increase the party’s vote next time around.

ENTIRE ARTICLE (limited # of articles per month w/o subscription) – http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-coalition-gives-clegg-a-veto-on-arming-syria-8655756.html

0
0
View Replies (4)

Matthews knows if he sheds his PEP he will be off air ASAP. Didn’t they do that to Phil Donahue, when his show was raking the cash on primetime? And Phil has since getting fired accused Matthews of being a prime competitive mover in getting him taken of the air: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/21/phil-donahue-chris-matthews-msnbc-firing_n_2926643.html

0
0

Chris brings up the fact our pattern is to knock off, by regime change, Arab country after Arab country, with Iran being next, after Syria. Yet he does not mention the PNAC agenda dating from the later 1990s, which found their Pearl Harbor in 9/11. And no mention of Israel otherwise either. And no mention that Israel has already bombed Syria twice since the civil war started. The two folks he’s slobbering on in the panel said nothing at all of any note. It’s hard to get one’s hands around the lame pundits they have on these Cable TV new-entertainment shows. Fox still drags out the old neocons like Bolton and Krauthammer who’ve been proven wrong time and time again, and who got us into this mess. Matthews said only one true and risky thing by stating the most obvious: that if there was a military draft we wouldn’t be entertaining all these wars of choice, a “preventive” or “preemptive”war policy we copied from Israel, who does have conscription. Nice to know Chris was reminded by someone of the Spanish Civil War and its analogy with Syria now wrt proxy battles. He’s a phony. We so hunger for ANY truthful analysis of our foreign policy in the ME that Chris gets kudos from us for his tepid dip into shallow water towards informed consent, which is suppose to be the backbone of our democracy.

0
0
View Replies (1)