Has Chris Matthews Learned Anything Since He Worked for Tip O'Neill?

Anyone who thought that they would obtain incisive coverage from Chris Matthews of all the torture news that is breaking was in for a disappointment Wednesday. Matthews does not know anything, so he shows old film clips, takes offense and yells.

The first segment featured the usual; a Republican, Senator John Ensign and a Democrat, Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. Matthews questioning of Ensign was infuriating because Matthews apparently does not know what anyone who read The Dark Side by Jane Mayer knows, which is that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were caused by the importation of Gitmo interrogators and contractors to teach so-called interrogation techniques at Abu Ghraib.

Thus, Matthews let Ensign continually distinguish between "abuses" at Abu Ghraib and interrogation. As Joan Walsh pointed out later in the show, this is abject nonsense. The interrogators, as unqualified as they were, brought these "techniques" to Abu Ghraib and taught them to the so-called rogue soldiers.

Matthews could not dispute Ensign's nonsense because he does not know the most basic facts. Instead he spent the time being offended that Ensign accused Matthews of being "inflammatory" for reading from the Senate committee report that confirmed Mayer's reporting.

Turns out it is not difficult to tell Matthews something he does not know!

(Updated below with transcript)

And while we are at it:

- Did Wasserman-Schultz and Ensign appear separately because Ensign insisted on it? Just asking.

- Why did Matthews let Ensign get away with calling the report a "Democrat" report when the adjective is Democratic. This is some kind of Republican stunt to imply that the Democratic Party is not democratic. Ensign said it about ten times and Matthews never mentioned it and even adopted the word. He was to busy faking offense at being called inflammatory, which of course is all that he is.

And that is just the first segment.

UPDATE: here is the transcript

I have shortened the interview below, but I don't think I have left out anything other than repetition. Matthews simply does not know anything except that there is a report. if an attorney cross-examined this way, he would lose every case. You have to prepare, not preen.

SEN. JOHN ENSIGN (R-NV), HOMELAND SECURITY COMMITTEE: Well, Chris, I think that you're making some pretty inflammatory statements.

MATTHEWS: Which one? . . .

MATTHEWS: No, don't call me inflammatory.

ENSIGN: No, no, Chris...

MATTHEWS: I'm quoting from the committee report of Carl Levin. If he's inflammatory...

ENSIGN: That's a Democrat committee report.

MATTHEWS: ... say that.

ENSIGN: That is a Democrat committee report. That is a partisan committee report, and you're reading--as a matter of fact, he uses the words abuse.

Chris, let's state the facts. . . .

MATTHEWS: OK...

ENSIGN: ... Abu Ghraib. And Abu Ghraib--and you lump that in together, Chris, and I have to point this out. You lump in Abu Ghraib together. Abu Ghraib was an abuse.

MATTHEWS: OK...

ENSIGN: OK, that wasn't--that wasn't to get...

MATTHEWS: OK...

ENSIGN: ... information out of prisoners, that was to make fun of them. That was just to abuse prisoners...

MATTHEWS: OK...

ENSIGN: ... and that was not the same thing as our intelligence people were doing.

MATTHEWS: OK, let me show you on camera what I'm looking at. This is the Senate Armed Services Committee inquiry into the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. Now, let me read to you what you said I was being inflammatory. Let me read to you directly from this report, which--the primary document here.

"The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of"--quote--"a few bad apples acting on their own." This is the report of the committee, the full committee. "The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality and authorized their use against detainees. Those efforts damaged our ability to collect accurate information, intelligence, that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies and compromised our moral authority."

Well, I don't know how you can accuse me of being inflammatory when I'm reading directly . . .

ENSIGN: And that's why I'm saying it's a Democrat partisan report.

MATTHEWS: OK, let's go through what you don't like. Do you believe that it was a few bad apples at Abu Ghraib, that that was not a bunch of enlisted people operating under some general guidelines for softening up prisoners? You disagree with that. You say it was just a few bad apples.

ENSIGN: Oh, I think that there was general abuse going on at Abu Ghraib. I think that's been condemned by the highest levels, and people were held accountable for that. That's completely different than what was going on. And that's why I think it's wrong to kind of, you know, mix what we're talking about here.

MATTHEWS: I'm reading from the report. Senator, I am...

ENSIGN: Well, I know, but I'm talking about...

MATTHEWS: ... not an expert. I am a generalist reading from the committee report making the very points you call inflammatory. One, they make particular reference to the Abu Ghraib situation, a "few bad apples" and your argument. They make particular reference to the fact that they developed these intelligence-gathering techniques from the Chinese communists, used to prepare our soldiers at that time, now being reused, replanted, if you will, to be used by our interrogators.

I'm simply reciting the record, sir, and you're calling it inflammatory. Maybe the record itself is inflammatory.

ENSIGN: No, Chris. What I want to separate here is what we were doing as far as the Intelligence Committee is--or the intelligence community was concerned. The memos that were released earlier talked about the techniques, the advanced interrogation techniques...

MATTHEWS: Right.

ENSIGN: ... that were used to get information from people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Those kinds of techniques, which I believe are not torture, that was not what was going on at Abu Ghraib. That's why I'm saying lumping them together I think is wrong. . . .

What went on at Abu Ghraib was not for intelligence gathering. It was to humiliate prisoners. It was people basically getting their jollies and it was absolutely wrong and it was an embarrassment for this country. And I was very strong in condemning that at the time.

However, what we're talking about here is something totally different.

This is what our intelligence community was using to get information...

MATTHEWS: OK...

ENSIGN: ... to keep the American homeland safe, and they were using techniques that were not torture. The United States did not engage in torture.

MATTHEWS: So you disagree with this committee report that assigns blames for the higher-ups for that behavior, that abuse by the enlisted people are Abu Ghraib. You disagree with that report.

ENSIGN: Oh, I think that there were some higher-ups. How high up as far as Abu Ghraib is concerned, I don't think that, you know, it probably went any higher than field commanders or the general that was implicated at the time. However, it is separate than. . . .

MATTHEWS: ... and you disagree with the summation statement by the chairman of the committee. That's all I'm asking.

ENSIGN: I will try to answer it again, Chris. Separate out what you're talking about, what the intelligence community was using for people like--who were captured from al Qaeda, who we were trying to get information from, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who we got information to prevent terrorist attacks in the United States.

MATTHEWS: Right.

ENSIGN: That's different than what was going on at Abu Ghraib. Whoever was responsible for the type of behavior that went on at Abu Ghraib should be held accountable. I've said that a long time. That was an abuse. That wasn't for intelligence-gathering. That was just abuse, you know, of prisoners, you know, by, you know, people, and however high up that went, that, you know, should be investigated, and I think it has been investigated. Those were abuses.

There were not abuses, what we're talking about, the people who were at Guantanamo Bay and other places around the world, where our intelligence community was using enhanced interrogation techniques to get information that kept the American homeland safe. That's what I'm trying to say is, don't put these things together. Keep them separate, and then I think it's a fair discussion.

MATTHEWS: Again, Senator, with all respect, I didn't put them together. Carl Levin, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, did so in a report which took three months to clear through the Defense Department community. It's been vetted. It's in the report released yesterday. I quoted to you from the report, which do bring together the higher-up guidelines, the framework, it said here--the framework for dealing with these prisoners that led to the abuse of those prisoners at the lower level. You have a disagreement with that committee, sir. Thank you very much, Senator John Ensign.

ENSIGN: Thank you.

MATTHEWS: Thank you for coming.

Comments

[kirotahoe]

i think it's quite obvious that the very few people who own the mainstream media are colluding to prop up the republican party. they have sent directives to their networks to pump up the republican side because they realize that we need a two party system and they see that in danger. howie kurtz wrote in the post about the nice little tete a tete between a few elite journalists and folks like patreus, rove, plouff, and just recently the president's chief of staff. these exclusive dinners are off the record. everyone should read this article and see why stephanoupolus, david gregory, et.al. are rubbing elbows and sucking up to the powerful and mighty. that's why certain people appear on meet the press and field nothing but softballs. watching political coverage is like watching professional wrestling. full of action and completely scripted.

[ebanks84]

Chris sometimes don't really walk the walk or talk the talk. Sometimes he's wishy washy and tows both lines.

But I still like him because he has a good heart. Now he might not do his homework as he should, but basically he's a good guy.

[hepwa]

Some thoughts on Chris Matthews:

I think he has done a lot of soul searching in the past couple years and is slowly coming to the realization that there's more to political discourse than left v right.

It probably started the night of his Daily Show appearance when Jon Stewart really gave it to him. I really wonder if anyone has ever spoken to him that way before. My guess is, as much as he resented it, he gave it some serious thought.

Matthews has always spoken before he thinks (or at least speaks what he is currently thinking without figuring whether it's cogent or worthwhile).

Having him co-anchor with Olbermann during the campaign might have been an eye-opener, too. Despite the obvious tension between them, I think Matthews' eyes were opening to facts and principles rather than ideology.

He still has a long way to go, but I do commend him for taking Darrel Issa to task over "Democrat Party" recently and even though he didn't do it with Ensign, he probably calculated that it would move even further from the issue at hand.

Matthews is sick to death of the conservative movement and I think it's fascinating to watch.

His audience isn't big enough to have a serious impact on political opinion country-wide except when something exceptional happens that goes viral.

As a political commentator I'd give him a B- and as a sociological experiment, I give him an A+

[Mekarri]

I've seen him with Rachel Maddow for a few minutes. I wanted to see more. Matthews tried to say that the rich guys in congress are different than the CEOs and Rachel told him that was just BS. I don't think he will be able to go head to head with Keith or Rachel.

[ebanks84]

You're right because Chris lives in a world of his own making. He believes his facts on every war is his mantra. He hasn't had the opportunity to see behind the "shadow governments" we have had over the centuries. His ideas on wars are very niave and unknowing of the true facts.

[ebanks84]

Very astute awareness of Chris.

[Ohsherri]

I guess "torture" is political.
And all the news-heads treat it like so.

Do you see how Bush got away with so much?
Anything opposing him and his administration was "political" and "unpatriotic".
And the news-heads­...especia­lly C NN...said "yup yup".

[littlepuffycloud]

Does anyone still waste time with Mathews anymore? All he does is talk over people, answer his own questions, try to point out how hip he is and talk about being a good Irish Catholic.
Utter waste of time and brain cells.

[politicscorner]

There are a lot of people talking about this - pundits and talking heads - that have little knowledge and offer little in the way of useful discussion. Matthews sees everything in terms of left v. rught, Democrat v. reupublican. His whole show is about how everything is said and done with political purpose and for political advantage. No doubt that there is political calculation that goes on, but people also actually do have knowledge and beliefs about issues and policy. Instead of an honest discussion about issues on their own merits, Matthews focuses only on the politics. It does everyone a disservice.

But this is the MSM. Their interest is maintaining the political status quo of which they are very much a part. Glen Greenwald has a great piece on this.

[antaeus]

Agreed. And for one of the better treatments of this issue, listen to today's "To the Point," which included Greenwald, Jane Mayer, Philip Zelikow, and Clifford May:

http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/tp/tp090423the_torture_memos_tr

[commonsense]

Stephen, this "Democrat" report stuff is no small matter. It is an established GOP strategy developed by Karl Rove and Tom Delay, to denigrate The Democratic Party whenever speaking in public. They believed they could easily spread this strategy throughout the GOP, because while it's deliberately meant to be derisive, substituting "Democrat Party" for "Democratic Party" often comes across as some kind of innocent "malaprop" or colloquial patois of language-mangling southerners like Bush. Make no mistake, the GOP has largely succeeded with this strategy to covertly manipulate the political lexicon, in an effort to disrespect Democratic officials and policies. Can't you just picture Karl Rove contracting some psycho-linguistic expert to come up with an almost imperceptable "weapon" such as this?

I get livid whenever I hear GOP spokespersons using the term, and not being called out on it, or corrected by interviewers. On Fox News, it's rampant. It's intentionally insulting, and I propose a counterstrategy for fair-minded interviewers to start using the terms "Republicrat" or "GOPCRAT" and see what the reaction is. The GOP would never stand for it or shut up about how they'd been "attacked."

[SurrealPumpkin]

And now the RNC is voting on whether to change the name of the Democratic Party to the Democrat Socialist Party!

How about the Republick Party? Or the Republican Party of No.

[ESerafina42]

Or another one that I've heard - the RepubliCAN'T party.

[Mabon-Tail]

If the RNC has the right to change the name of the Democratic Party to the so-called "Democratic Socialist Party" *cynical wanking gesture,* especially without our consent, then the DNC should rebrand the Republicans as the Fascist Republican Corporatist Party. It's a perfect fit for them! Besides, their proposal will be an egregious failure of epic proportions due to the sole fact that they've obviously forgotten that Democrats control the White House, and vast majorities of both the Senate, and the House of Representatives. Congress will support that bill about as far as they can sling a piano. Honestly, whoever came up with that brilliant idea is about as sharp as a bowling ball.

On a side note, Michael Steele said that personal liberty was a major part of the Republican Party's ideals... How can that lying hypocrite possibly support personal liberty while bashing gays as an immoral plague, or even support personal privacy whilst supporting that godforsaken abomination called the Patriot Act? He doesn't get that personal liberty is a major liberal standpoint, and that man is not liberal by any stretch of the imagination.

[ebanks84]

I like republicrat because it can be used as the opposite of democrat. I like it and will use it in the future. I hope I annoy the heck out of them, too.

[pmorlan]

I'm reposting this because I had a broken link on my previous post and there was no way for me to correct it other than to re-post.

Matthews is certainly ignorant about the most basic information on this issue but he is far from alone. I watched Joe Scarborough, Donnie Deutsch and John Meacham, from Newsweek, have a discussion yesterday where one had to wonder if they knew even the most basic information about this topic. It appeared as though they hadn't even bothered to read the recently released legal memos, ICRC report, etc.

I find it unconscionable that people who pretend to be journalists on TV and some who are journalists, in Meacham's case, appear to be so totally ignorant of the facts about the news that they discuss.

I posted a blog post yesterday called "Pathetic" that was about this very Morning Joe discussion. Check out the tape and see for yourself.

http://democracity.blogspot.com/2009/04/delusional-inside-beltway-torture.html

[JakeMontero]

Whay are you so concerned? take a gander at Matthew's ratings ... http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/

[sasidechick]

I can't watch his show anymore. He asks a question and then proceeds to talk over the answer the entire time. He has no grasp of actual facts because I have heard him spout stuff that was untrue. He usually gives one person more time to speak on a subject than the other.

Really, why does he have a show??

[JDM73]

You're absolutely right, sasidechic­k--Matthew­s regularly talks over his guests. I'm not a fan by a long shot, but I could stand him if only he would let people finish their responses before he started yakking again.

[WinterParkMom]

I watched this last night and I was yelling at my tv during this segment. I do not know why Matthews has a show when he does prove himself to be sometimes less than informed and more often than not lets important zingers fly by him without noticing it so he can rebut it.

The only ones on MSNBC worth watching are KO, Rachel and David Shuster. Ed Shultz is another who does not dig deeply and ask more precise questions. MSNBC made a big mistake taking 1600 Pennsylvania off. Shuster is da bomb.

[res-nyc]

I agree. The Ed show has no depth. Loud and sorta garrish. Not sure what MSNBC was thinking. A liberal populist version of a Fox show? Shuster and 1600 was much better and had potential to improve.

MSNBC management have good talent with Norah O'Donnell and Lawrence O'Donnell (no relation to each other), that they are barely leverage. Wake up Phil Griffin and others!

[wendy82551]

And what's the deal with Ed's set? I can't listen to him--I'm too distracted by the color bars going up and down. I agree about getting rid of Matthews. HE CAN'T SHUT UP!!! I think Lawrence O'Donnell would be GREAT with his own show, or bring back David Schuster and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue -- ANYTHING but Chris and Ed!

[shadowpoodle]

I'll take Ed over any of the CNBC morons they have on from time to time.
It's nice to have at least one person who understands that many of us make less than $30K a year.

I don't own property, and I pay my bills. This stagnant economy still affects me through no fault of my own. It's infuriating to watch people from a business network try to make an argument for usury by blaming consumers.

[JillQ]

Don't forget Lawrence O'Donnell. Now he plays Hardball.

[nobillary1]

"Matthews could not dispute Ensign's nonsense because he does not know the most basic facts."

This is something that really gets my goat with MANY of the interviewers on MSNBC! The network has hosts (AND producers) who never do their homework ahead of time, so when someone says something that most of their viewers know to be false, they either let it slide without correction or they just change the subject. I'll add that the same can be said about CNN as well. (and, naturally, we've come to expect it from Faux News, so I won't even go there.)

WHEN will the networks wake up and do their research ahead of time so they don't get caught with their pants down??! They're just making fools of themselves when they allow this sort of thing to happen.

[shadowpoodle]

I saw Matthews pwn Darrel Issa (R) CA on the "Democrat" nonsense about a month ago, it's not that he didn't know, I think he just wanted to follow up on his line of questioning.

For my part, I generally throw a "T" on the end of Republican that most people don't even notice in conversation. It's stupid, but so is 98% of politics.

Honestly though, until they advance past name calling and the self delusion that their policies were really great, but just under appreciated, they're going to lose.

If anything, I'm more horrified that he legitimizes people who have zero credibility like Tom Delay or Frank Gaffney. I couldn't be less interested in giving time to people who helped create the mess we're in sh*t all over the people who are trying to clean it up.

[-0013]

"For my part, I generally throw a "T" on the end of Republican that most people don't even notice in conversation. It's stupid, but so is 98% of politics."

I'm sure people notice but they just assume you are childish.

[shadowpoodle]

I resemble that remark.

[FlamingLibrul]

Right, because constantly saying DemocRAT is so mature. Got it.

[dbw53022]

More and more, the anchors at MSNBC either repeat unsubstantiated "facts" or fail to understand the issues enough (or are unwilling) to challenge their guests on the FACTS.

Most recently Joe Scarboroough repeated the same old CRAP that the CIA received critical intelligence from waterboarding and make the connection that an absense of terrorist attacks during the remainder of Bush's term substantiates the claim that torture "works".

Just like a rooster crowing in the morning takes credit for the sunrise.

Who you gonna believe? The guys who need to cover their asses for doing the torture? Dick Cheney? Don Rumsfeld? And if it's so effective, way does it have to be done 183 times? Forget to ask a question?

[wendy82551]

Possibly, but Keith is the only person on TV doing anything remotely like old time investigative journalism. His piece about McCain's connection to Enron was a masterpiece.

[negogato]

Should it be called the Republic party?

now we hear Ensign mispronounces the president's name so that we hear

Al Bomba

What is the matter with these people?