Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Feb 9, 2007 in Politics | 26 comments

GOP Advisor Mary Matalin Appears On “Imus” To Talk About The Libby Trial

And (to use a bit of classic understatement) did not convince the host in her comments about her longtime friend “Scotter” Libby and Plamegate. (Note to readers: We have added The Imus Show Blog to our blogroll under Other Voices)

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2007 The Moderate Voice
  • kritter

    If Matalin was so convinced that Chris Matthews was lying, she could have told Libby to appear on his show, or send a representative of the VP’s office to defend their point of view. Its much more likely that Cheney and Libby were alarmed because Matthews was very close to breaking the real story and they wanted to get it off the air before other news outlets picked it up and the VP became a central player in the scandal. Good for Imus for calling Matalin and the administration on their inability to tell the truth about this matter.

    Matthews was one of the few reporters to grasp the real meaning behind PLamegate- the fact that we went to war based on false intel from Bush’s 2003 SOTU. Wilson had debunked their claim that Saddam was getting yellowcake from Niger, but that finding was ignored by the WH in its rush to go to war. When Wilson complained in his NYT editorial, Cheney and Libby set up a PR campaign to discredit him by saying (falsely) that he was sent by his wife.

    Cheney should have been sworn in during his Grand Jury testimony by Fitzgerald. That he wasn’t, is an indication that the prosecutor was unwilling to take the case all the way to the top, and stopped at Libby. Maybe he knew Cheney might perjure himself. Also, Cheney was not called as a material witness by Fitzgerald-is this because he was himself a co-conspirator and would have been hostile to the prosecution? Contrast this kid-glove treatment with Ken Starr’s pit bull attack on Clinton for getting a BJ in the oval office!

  • Kim,

    I want to get COMPLETELY off-topic as this is more important, IMO…BUT did you see this!?!?

    Zbigniew Brzezinski Calls Iraq War an Historic, Strategic and Moral Calamity & Says Stop the Trappings of Colonial Tutelage

  • kritter

    CP- Good for Brzezinski. I agree with a lot of what he wrote (especially about the inevitability of war with Iran!), but don’t know about the possible repercussions of following his plan. It does have the unmistakable ring of truth. Whenever anyone starts talking ideologically about spreading democracy and freedom overseas, I think it really means free markets for US corporations or gaining a strategic advantage for the US in the region.

    Do you really think that a Nat Security Advisor from the Carter administration will get the US to change course in Iraq if Jim Baker couldn’t?

  • I see the Right is attacking already by saying “Well it’s HIS idea for funding the Anti-Soviet insurgency in Afghanistan.” with the Left attacking back by showing the fact that the Reagan Administration INCREASED funding for this adventure. In my eyes, all sides are culpable, but at least some people (Baker and Brzezinski) are admitting to it.

  • kritter

    Gotta agree there, CP- our ME policy has been piecemeal, convoluted and short-sighted. Most of our Cold War foreign policy only had one objective- to stymie Soviet influence any way or where we could.

    None of our agencies or leaders were prepared to deal with the unwanted byproduct of that era—growth of worldwide anti-Americanism, and its outgrowth- terrorism. We have not fared well as the world’s only superpower, we seem to be only adept at uniting world opinion against us.

    In my opinion, however, mistakes made in the Cold War era paled in comparison to the mistakes we have made in Iraq , Iran and Afghanistan under Bush. I agree with Brzezinski and Al Gore who believe invading Iraq will be seen as a mistake of colossal proportions, and could even lead to our demise as a superpower, much as the Soviets’ defeat in Afghanistan led to theirs. The attacks in the 90’s were the terrorists’ attempts to engage us so that we would get bogged down in Afghanistan, as the Soviets were for 10 years. Looks like Bush took the bait, and their plan worked. Not, as OSB hoped, in Afghanistan, but in Iraq.

    Is this what Eisenhower warned us about when he worried about wars being waged due to the influence of the military-industrial complex?

  • I believe that this Administration’s mistakes are the ultimate culmination of poor Anti-Soviet policy and supporting anything that would be “Pro-American” and now things are really beginning to bear fruit (strange fruit, even).

  • …and about Ike’s speech…here ya go, Kim:

    Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

    This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

    In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

  • kritter

    Thanks, CP. Though Ike himself started the ball rolling when he allowed the CIA-backed coup against a nationalist leader in Iran in 1953. This policy led to installation of the more repressive Shah, whose eventual overthrow in the Carter years led to the rise of Islamic radicals. Extreme Islam found many ready converts who tired of the repressive US-backed regimes. Of course we even backed Saddam during its war with Iran, providing some of the WMD’s he used ultimately on his own people.

    But who on earth will ally with us or trust us after our latest fiasco? With the departure of Tony Blair, even the Brits won’t help in Iran, and some of the other European powers opposed our efforts in Iraq.

  • Kim,

    Notice how no one is even trying to refute what we’re saying…and on a larger scale, you can even say it started earlier than that with Truman’s support of the Batista dictatorship in Cuba in the late 40s and 50s…

  • DBK

    You haven’t added my blog to your blogroll and I comment here. When did Imus ever comment here, huh?

    Some people don’t know who their friends are. And to think I just recommended this site to a congressional staffer (about five minutes ago, actually) who was investigating blogging on behalf of his boss. Harumph!

  • C Stanley

    CP,
    Don’t forget Ike’s SOS Dulles and his ties to United Fruit Company- and how that played into the CIA sponsored overthrow of the Arbenz govt in Guatemala.

    Here’s the part where my opinion diverges from Brzezinski’s:

    This simplistic and demagogic narrative overlooks the fact that Nazism was based on the military power of the industrially most advanced European state; and that Stalinism was able to mobilize not only the resources of the victorious and militarily powerful Soviet Union but also had worldwide appeal through its Marxist doctrine. In contrast, most Muslims are not embracing Islamic fundamentalism (most are not actively opposing it either though- and generally it’s the US backed dictatorships in the region that have kept it in check); al Qaeda is an isolated fundamentalist Islamist aberration (hmm, isolated in the sense that they have had the most success- but that’s primarily because al Qaeda represents an alliance of several competing factions and that itself is a disturbing development that we shouldn’t ignore); most Iraqis are engaged in strife because the American occupation of Iraq destroyed the Iraqi state (not sure what this has to do with his main point); while Iran–though gaining in regional influence–is itself politically divided, economically and militarily weak (and our strategy should be to make sure Iran’s population sees this as a reason to focus on their internal problems rather than seeking to enlarge their influence through threats to the security of their neighbors). To argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran is the epicenter, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy.

  • C,

    Our country has done so much dirt in the name of “Democracy” it’s a wonder how we’re even classified as one.

  • kritter

    I’m somewhat in the middle on the Islamic threat. I think it is wider than Brzezinski portrays it, but not a global existential threat like the current administration has portrayed it. Our invasion of Iraq has been an excellent recruiting tool for al queda, so while we are in the process of defeating terrorism, we are also the impetus for creating more of it.

  • C Stanley

    I sort of agree, CP, but I’d also ask, what country has ever done any better (not an excuse but puts things in perspective) and what county has done as much good (even if you qualify that as doing good when it also coincides with our own interests). And of course, I could also ask, if we’re so bad then why do we have such an influx of immigrants? I’m just pointing out, it’s all relative, y’know?

    And the thing is too, I’d like to see us move away from that Cold War mentality. Brzezinski seems to think it’s OK to do so without concern for the Islamist movement becoming an existential threat, and I disagree.

  • Cool…I see where both of you are coming from, but I’ll add my take:

    This simplistic and demagogic narrative overlooks the fact that Nazism was based on the military power of the industrially most advanced European state; and that Stalinism was able to mobilize not only the resources of the victorious and militarily powerful Soviet Union but also had worldwide appeal through its Marxist doctrine. In contrast, most Muslims are not embracing Islamic fundamentalism (most are not actively opposing it either though- and generally it’s the US backed dictatorships in the region that have kept it in check);

    I see it differently from both of you in a way. Once can say that US backed dictatorships have kept fundamentalist Islam in check, but couldn’t it be that having those dictatorships allowed fundamentalism to fester and fester in the underground until it got to a breaking point where it ended up becoming a full fledged movement not even a dictatorship could control…and I see these movements come to as a result of the brutality of the dictatorship. Mind you, in my opinion, politics is like physics…every action has an exactly equal and opposite reaction. That’s what we’re seeing now if you ask me.

    al Qaeda is an isolated fundamentalist Islamist aberration (hmm, isolated in the sense that they have had the most success- but that’s primarily because al Qaeda represents an alliance of several competing factions and that itself is a disturbing development that we shouldn’t ignore);

    Agreed with both of you…maybe that’s a plan of attack to stop al Qaeda, and since we’re good at it, instigate and play both sides to target each other instead of anyone else…don’t know how that would work but it’s a possibility.

    most Iraqis are engaged in strife because the American occupation of Iraq destroyed the Iraqi state (not sure what this has to do with his main point);

    As much as I hate to say it, we yanked the stability rug from under the Iraqis (Alluding somewhat to what you said above about US Backed dictatorships) and as a result have a lack of everything from basic services to policing, etc.

    while Iran–though gaining in regional influence–is itself politically divided, economically and militarily weak (and our strategy should be to make sure Iran’s population sees this as a reason to focus on their internal problems rather than seeking to enlarge their influence through threats to the security of their neighbors).

    Agreed with both arguments here, can’t add any more to it, really.

    To argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran is the epicenter, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    …and this is what it invariably all boils down to, IMO. Do I have the solutions? No, but we should stop and think before acting, and think long and hard too.

  • I sort of agree, CP, but I’d also ask, what country has ever done any better (not an excuse but puts things in perspective) and what county has done as much good (even if you qualify that as doing good when it also coincides with our own interests). And of course, I could also ask, if we’re so bad then why do we have such an influx of immigrants? I’m just pointing out, it’s all relative, y’know?

    A complete Catch-22 in a way, don’t ya think? *muted laughter* Also, you’re right, it is all relative.

  • kritter

    if we’re so bad then why do we have such an influx of immigrants? I’m just pointing out, it’s all relative

    CS I never understand why conservatives ask this. Immigrants come here because we are still a land of opportunity for our own residents, and of course, our standard of living is much higher. We can be hated for our political interference and envied for our standard of living at the same time. Its as though those in other countries are on the outside looking in. They may disapprove of us, but want what we have at the same time.

    We have been a force for good in some ways, the best example I can think of is our rescue of the Europeans with D-day and the Marshall Plan. Many more would have starved without our help. Another example would be the Berlin airlift, the Peace Corps, and a generous foreign aid policy throughout the years.

    I would like to see our status as a superpower used more in that way: combatting AIDS worldwide, or helping impoverished nations develop industry. Our generous support after the tsunami was the best export of democracy that we could ask for. We can say we want to aid pro-democracy forces in Iran. But if we attack, won’t Iran unite as a nation, the way this country did after 9/11?

  • Wow we completely hijacked this post LOL

    Can we get a seperate post about this, Joe, Michael (vdG and S), Holly, somebody?

  • kritter

    CP- I actually am a little disappointed that no one responded to the original post or my comment on it. I’m a big Hardball fan and think Matalin is one of the most dishonest, divisive partisans in the GOP. If you listen to her voice in the recordings on Imus’ blog you can see that she is having a lot of trouble answering questions about Russert, Libby and Matthews. She contradicts herself numerous times, and has to call the show back after she composes herself with a more prepared answer. I’m in awe at the blatantly dishonest way this administration and their minions have conducted themselves in the media.

  • C Stanley

    ChuckPrez said:
    February 9, 2007 at 11:48 am
    Wow we completely hijacked this post LOL

    I noticed that too, CP. Better watch it or they’ll start locking the cockpit doors!

  • I just hope we don’t get Flight 93’d

    btw, C, I’m not a big fan of talking heads anymore…all I seemingly find are a bunch of windbags on both sides of the political spectrum so anything talk radio related automatically drives me away *shrug*

  • kritter

    CS, CP- Where is MvdG? I need to report to the moderator that I am disappointed at the level of the debate:) I mean there’s no written rule about hijacking a post, but I do think you should get it back on track.

  • C Stanley

    Uh, oh, CP, Kim’s pretty mad. I think she’s going for the beverage cart now…Quick, start flying erratically and tilt the plane to throw her off balance!

    LOL!

  • As a result Department of TMV Security MvdG has issued the following color coded warning system (which was developed by Chuck Prez’s home site Okayplayer.com):

    http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/4250/snarkalertsi6.gif

  • C Stanley

    LOL, CP!

  • kritter

    CS,CP- I think you should know that you have disappointed me once again with meaningless drivel. I hope you two weren’t trying to have good clean fun again. I find I must express severe disapproval at the level you both have sunk to.:)

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com