Michelle Malkin — author, blogger, and Fox news analyst has an excellent post regarding Chris Matthew's conspiracy theory on the hug between Iraqi voter, Safia Taleb al-Suhail, and Janet Norwood, the mother of a marine who died serving his country in Iraq.
If you remember my previous post, "The Hug Heard Round the World," I posted an excerpt from "Hardball" with Matthew's accusation that the whole thing was staged. I think Michelle Malkin sums this incident up perfectly:
CHRIS MATTHEWS SLIMES A MILITARY FAMILY
By Michelle Malkin · February 03, 2005 06:39 PMLast night, MSNBC blabber Chris Matthews suggested that the powerfully moving hug between Safia Taleb al-Suhail, who recently voted in the Iraqi elections, and Janet Norwood, mother of a Marine who died in Iraq, was staged. Matthews sneered that fellow MSNBC host Pat Buchanan was being "naive" for arguing otherwise.
Exactly right, the newly crowned "Big Giant Ass" — a special award that I just invented for Mr. Matthews — slimed a military family. Even worse he implied with his statements that the Norwood's would dishonor the memory of their son by participating in a political ploy. I think the honorary title of "Big Giant Ass" fits perfectly, don't you?
BGA needs to apologize for his assinine remarks [yes, the pun was intended].
David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Aaman
Harping on a non-event is getting pretty boring. Political acts are staged? - wow big revelation!
2 - Aaman
David, I'm not sure if you remember Bob Montgomery, Eisenhower's coach for television, and the first 'media consultant' to the White House, later anti-Communist with HUAC. Organized, feel-good events are the norm, not the exception. In the age of visual consumerism, getting the message across and pulling the heartstrings is paramount.
3 - Sydney
David,
OF course it was staged, this is what they do for political events. Do you think they'd put their theatrics on hold for one the most important events of the year?
This Bush administration has taken theatrics, rhetoric and lying to an unprecedented level (though I acknowledge the democrats are hardly better). That you would be surprised at the HUG, is amazing to me.
What's really frightening to me is the twisted way in which you take aim at anyone who criticizes a military family. That's not patriotism, that's anti-democratic. People like yourself create such an intimidating atmosphere for people who disagree with you. Younger people in particular, are unlikely to develop opinions in opposition to those like your own, simply because they take the route of least resistence (Attitudes, opinions liek your own are common in highschools... I work there..).
Just because soldiers died fighting for the bush administration doesn't mean they were not infallible people, or misguided etc (it doesnt even mean they weren't horrible people). They are simply people, like any other American.
Your attitudes are so scary.. I bet your of the same group of people that called Michael Moore Anti-American because he criticized American Foreign policy and the Bush Administration. You don't tolerate descent in your America?
To me David, this is the brand of Patriotism your selling:
"Bush knows best, and by God I'll stand by my president-- And YOU will too, or so help me God...! God Bless America!! God Bless America!! God Bless America!!"
4 - Scott
David, why should you really even care what Chris Matthews thinks? You think it was a nice and touching moment, why not just leave it at that? I mean, is this a major story or something? What's the angle? People on the left are evil? Can I ask any more questions? One? Two? Three?
5 - sydney
Actually, like so may things I suppose how we perceive the hug depends on the perspective from which we want to see it.
Those opposed to the war don't want that hug to be representative of the situation in Iraq.
Those for the war, see the hug as hopeful, and as reinforcing their beliefs that America is exporting happiness and freedom.
However, my political beliefs aside, I am very suspect of anything that goes on at a state of the union address. This is not a time for unplanned conversations and spontaneity.
6 - Eric Berlin
Everything is staged at huge political events, which Matthews has covered and been around for nearly 30 years. So if his stating the obvious makes him the ass of makes his "bias" apparant, so be it.
Secondly, Malkin has a huge grudge against Matthews for when he tore her up into bits over Swift Boats last summer.
So maybe you need to pin the tail elsewhere on this one...
Eric Berlin
Dumpster Bust: Miracles from Mind Trash
7 - Al Barger
In the first place Mr Berlin, Matthews did not "tear her into shreads." He just completely had a meltdown on air, and shouted her down, insisting on putting statements in her mouth that had nothing to do with anything she said.
She was there to talk about immigration policy, which is her area of expertise. Matthews insisted on making bogus arguments on behalf of the Bush administration about the swift boat vets that they wouldn't have made.
Then he insisted on treating Malkin as an administration spokesman saying those things, which is several kinds of stupid in that she's never been a member of the administration nor any kind of Republican partisan. Indeed, she's just as critical of Bush immigration policy as she is of the Clinton legacy.
It was a disgraceful and loutish display on Matthews' part, a low moment in his career. She'd be absolutely justified in disliking him.
Also, not absolutely everything is 100% staged. Clinton was considerably worse with this, notably the poignant moment making the little monument on the beach with stones that had been carefully placed there for him to "find."
That's pretty cheesy, but scripting a hug from the mom of a dead soldier would be magnitudes of order worse. Just putting them physically together like that amounts to leading a horse to water. However, there's every obvious reason why they would be only too happy to drink, without having to force it.
In other words, putting them together like that, a simple hug like this was an obvious and natural gesture that wouldn't have needed to be forced.
8 - Eric Berlin
Matthews basically took Malkin to task for spreading unverified rumors under the guise of "accusations have been made..." Malkin basically insinuated that Kerry had shot himself on purpose in Vietnam, which, without hard evidence, is slander of the highest order (to say the least). I applaud Matthews for attempting to put an end to this Witch Trial school of "journalism."
Secondly, it's simply beyond humorous to suggest that Clinton staged things more than Bush. This is the staged presidency: Bush in the Iraq Thansgiving, Bush on the Carrier: Mission Accomplished... and on and on. It's style over substance under the impression of substance.
Obviously this works for a majority of the American people, but it doesn't do it for me. Give me Slick Willie and Monica and the rest any day of the week.
9 - SFC SKI
Sydney: "You don't tolerate descent in your America? "
Is that your misspelling of dissent, or some other play on words?
You come on billing yourself as an educator but can't proofread?
FYI, the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting for Pres. Bush.
10 - Mike Kole
It's hard to get worked up about what an opinion guy says, and that's what Matthews is, especially when the opinion is offered within minutes of the event. I'm betting that Matthews wouldn't have even made the assertion if he had more than an hour to think about it. People as props? In a SOTU address? No way!
What the heck, though. Let's have the Malkin-Matthews cage match.
11 - Eric Berlin
My money's on Chris. Bro's from Philly.
12 - Sydney
SFC Ski,
Your right about my spelling. I always need help in that area. On the other hand, I use spell checks when I care to get it right. Its horrible that I might teach your children, isn't it?
-- "FYI, the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting for Pres. Bush."
Oh is that so? You know the troops do ya? Remarkable. My apologies again, I was under the impression they either served in Iraq or they went to jail. Not that jail time would be the worst of it. No, facing an American public that ridicules conscientious objectors and calls them cowards, thats the real kicker.
But apparently I'm mistaken. They're all their fighting and Dying for Bush.
13 - Sydney
And for the record, though I agree with Chris Mathews' remarks regarding the staged hug, I realize he's an idiot.
Arn't all the T.V. pundits these days? They too are hired for style rather than substance. You'd be a fool to not observe them from a safe critical distance.
14 - Hal Pawluk
On Malking from my THE WILD-EYED RIGHT IS LOSING THEIR COOL AND BECOMING UNHINGED (opens in new window):
She is a self-indicted weasel.15 - Hal Pawluk
FYI, the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting because of Pres. Bush.
16 - David Flanagan
What's really frightening to me is the twisted way in which you take aim at anyone who criticizes a military family. That's not patriotism, that's anti-democratic.
You're right Sydney, I do take aim at these people for critisizing a military family. Especially one whose sign died serving this country.
Now, you can disagree with what I've said, which is certainly your right, but please don't go shoveling this ridiculous "anti-democratic" garbage. This whole process is perfectly democratic. I've said what I think, you disagree.
I think, at least here in the United States, we call that "free speech."
Now, if I were trying to threaten someone, to force them into silence or to intimidate them, you know, like the insurgents are trying to do in Iraq, THAT would be anti-democratic. Are you seeing this difference here?
What I'm giving you is a heartfelt opinion whereas the insurgents are just plain killing people. Opinion vs. violence.
Right?
Thanks for your comments.
David
17 - David Flanagan
Oops! Meant "son", not "sign." Talk about needing to proofread...
David
18 - Sydney
I hear you David,
But my point is that if a military family did choose to partake in this sort of highly-charged rhetorical theatrics, then we also have a right to be critical of her actions.
My condolences to the family for their sacrifice, truly. But that doesn't mean that the family can do no wrong from hear on out. Chris Mathews had a right to take aim at her, and personally I might have done the same.
Also, I wanted to point out that there does exist, in my opinion, a culture of intimidation whereby dissent is met with feirce and often frightening opposition in America.
I understand your opinion, but that's where mine differs. I got to say blogging is useful democratic excersise.... (and it's improving my spelling too)
19 - sydney
Also,
I do see the difference between using violence (as is the case in Iraq) to intimidate, and using verbal intimidation (as I think is the case here).
However, both can be very powerfull. Let's put an end to both.
20 - SFC SKI
Yes, Sydney, I do know some of the troops, I am an active duty service member in the US Army. It is painfully obvious you don't know any.
I take exception to your use of the false and outdated view of the military as a place for those with no other choice. If you arre goingto start of withthis sort of atitude, it is going to be difficult for me to give any other opinions you have much credence, educate yourself, or ask questions, but don't come off as knowing something that you don't.
21 - Dave Nalle
Oddly Sydney, I don't see anything so wrong with 'intimidating' terrorists, especially if that gets them to change their behavior. I know you'd rather nurture and hug them, but that just lets them get close enough to stab you in the back.
Dave
22 - sydney
SFC Ski,
I'll tell you straght out. I know three members of the military. Two in service, one finished. The two in service are my age (24) and joined the army to get an education. They dislike Bush and his motives for war. It is their view that they had no choice but to go to war, that was the terms of getting their education.
The older one who is done his service, is appreciative of the fact that he made a career of the army. He is currently retired and looking for work in Australia. He has no plans of returning to America ("not even to visit is brother"). He is extremely cynical of the politics of war. He's very bitter that his freinds have lost their lives in Iraq (the first war). So he has mixed feelings with regards to his service.
In any case, I also know of ex patriots in Canada who are waiting to be deported back here. The Canadian gov't is granting them asylum currently and likely will continue to do so until such time as they are granted Canadian citizenship. However, if they are deported they face long sentences.
So anyway, that's not as much experience as you have obviously. But from that perspective, from their perspective, and from the obvious conclusions that one can make about the complex nature of war politics, I think its fair of me to say that some of those troops are fighting for their lives, not for George Bush. Moreover, that it is not an outdated view to say that there is little choice with regards to what/who your fighting for. Anyway, its my opinion, it is NOT a shot a those in service. I understand your opinion.
Dave,
You completely misunderstood what I was writing about. Perhaps it's because the discussion was carried over from earlier comments. In any case, I was simply saying that it is not good to "intimidate" people who choose dissent as a means of changing Public policy. In other words, we should not be so quick to call anyone who opposes the war or GWB, UN-AMERICAN.
I have no problem with the idea of fighting terrorism. However, I am one of those people who feel Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism or 9/11, and that we've only created many many more terrorists by invading Iraq.
23 - David Flanagan
I do see the difference between using violence (as is the case in Iraq) to intimidate, and using verbal intimidation (as I think is the case here).
Sydney,
Me, a peon, calling Chris Matthews, one of the biggest names in cable news a "Big Giant Ass" is intimidating? :-D
Forgive me for laughing, but if what I wrote is truly intimidating, then we are all in a heck of a lot of trouble, because this is nothing.
Thanks,
David
24 - Hal Pawluk
Dave: "this is nothing."
Agreed.
25 - Aaman
Insert Obligatory Shakespeare reference here: Much ado about nothing