MSNBC's Chris Matthews hammered Vets For Freedom representative Pete Hegseth over Iraq PM Nouri al-Maliki's call for a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq. Echoing comments that In 2004 McCain said that he would leave Iraq if the Iraqis asked the Americans to leave. Watch Hegseth hemm and haw over the issue today:
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Here is the answer. If the Iraqis asked us to leave we have to leave. If the German government asked us to leave we have to leave. If the South Koreans asked us to leave we have to leave.
The French asked us to leave and we left. That is why the United States has no bases in France to this day.
i actually agree....i
They seem to be making an awfully big deal over a simple "transcription error":
http://afp
Dang. After years of despising Matthews, I actually have to give the guy credit. He didn't let either of them dodge the questions, although Pete wriggled like a fish out of water. I do wish he would have asked Pete what we should do if Iraq "formally" (seems to be Pete's favorite word) asked us to leave tomorrow.
Chris Matthews at his best
Much to do about nothing.
Just another failed war brought on by the war mongers that run our country.
So, why did so many of our American soldiers (plus soldiers from our allies) die in Iraq? What was gained? And now, Iraq dosen't want any US bases there.
My opinion is its all about the Iraq OIL FIELDS. Iraq wants full control of their oil fields and the US will never control them. The US will never get repaid for the billion spent in Iraq.
This stupid war was WRONG, WRONG WRONG.
A vote for McCain is a vote for more war, and more fear.
I'm sick of the war mongering and fear mongering, and hate mongering.
Vote Smart - VOTE OBAMA '08!
Hegseth was doing the usual repub line of downplaying any statement that doesn't agree with what they want to hear. So Maliki's statement about the US leaving or, at minimum setting up a timetable, was just political grandstanding, just to make points with the Iraqi people, he really doesn't mean it. Classic republican spinning and disbelief that anyone could ever disagree with their policy. From what all I've been able to gather from news sources, it sounds like he really does mean it!
The US MSM never did really carry the news about the 'agreement' the state department was wanting - a large number of bases -- under US control, full immunity for all US troops and contractors, etc.. It seemed this really ticked the Iraqis off and is very contrary to any DOS statement of wanting Iraq to have a free standing government, unless it was a puppet government under US control.
U.S. troop casualties are down... how about Iraqi casualties?
Also, the fact that shiites and sunnis are now living in their own closed off communities is not peace. It's segregation!
We wrote their new constitution and we established most of their governmental officials. All those references to Iraqis getting out and voting is just amusing to me. In fact, most Iraqi's voted for the old baathist leaders because at least under the old regime they had food, water, a decent educational system (think something around an >80% literacy rate for the country), and work provided by the government. An entire generation of students, workers, businessmen, etc. has been lost.
Most so called "terrorist" groups in Iraq are made up of men and women who are sitting at home starving and have no other choice but to lash out at the only factor they can isolate as the reason for their circumstances; U.S. troops and foreign business. check the current unemployment numbers. We opened the country up to 100% foreign investment (200 state owned companies before the invasion that are now in foreign hands thanks to the fire sale that was part of the "surge" of U.S. investment) and allowed for 100% of profits made in Iraq to be removed from Iraq. Sealing the deal with 40 year contracts that will surely restrict whatever flexibility the upcoming government of Iraq will have with it's people. Democracy? Freedom?
We have done enough damage to ourselves.
When Matthews' mouth doesn't get ahead of his brain, he's damned good. Remember the "appeasement" guy? Have you seen him anywhere lately?
Poor Pistol Pete. Thirty or forty years from now he will be in the same situation as many Vietnam veterans are today when they ask themselves what the hell went on back then.
BEST...VID
I can't stand that guy from Vote Vets - Pete Hegseth. He's always disgusting when he's on - talking over the other guy, laughing at what the other guy says, then getting all self-righteous. In other words, a typical republican spokesperson.
Hegseth is from Vets for Freedom. Soltz is from VoteVets.o
GOP mouth pieces can only interrupt with laughter or stuttering.
And don't forget continually repeating his talking points instead of answering questions.
you mean Vets for "freedom" John Soltz is from Votevets.o
cm is a jekyll-hyde. You never know which side of the field he's playing on.
CM is ruthless. The guy on top has a promising career as GOP press secretary
Loading comments…
Huffington Post
First Posted: 07- 8-08 10:52 PM | Updated: 07-16-08 05:12 AM