Chris Matthews plays T-Ball with Senator McCain about “Torture.”
Senator John McCain: Okay. And so, anyway, it baffles me. It baffles me that people could say that the United States of America would get the reputation in the world for doing such things.
[Comment by Jeff Berkowitz: It baffles me. It baffles me how a person of as much integrity, character, principle and honesty as Senator McCain could not see fit to make any of the above distinctions between soldiers acting on behalf of a nation-state and fighting terrorists as opposed to soldiers acting on behalf of a nation state and fighting other soldiers acting on behalf of a nation-state. It baffles me. It also baffles me how Senator McCain could apparently be so unaware of those, e.g., Director Tenet, with views that differ from McCain's.]
*******************************************
In the first few years of Hardball (which began its run a decade ago), Chris Matthews’ show seemed appropriately named. Matthews didn’t put up with spin and he didn’t stop until he got a clear answer from his guest. Notwithstanding his numerous years working for Democrats, including as a top aide to House Speaker Tip O’Neill, Speechwriter for President Jimmy Carter and aide to Senator Ed Muskie, Matthews seemed tough in his questioning of both Democrats and Republicans.
Chris Matthews certainly exhibited a “take no prisoners,” approach with the Clintonistas, especially during the impeachment proceedings and their aftermath. Although Matthews has conceded, publicly, that he voted for Clinton twice, he obviously had some regrets, especially over Monica Lewinsky and the White House efforts to trash the lady, as they did each of the Bill Clinton “bimbo eruptions.”
That kind of tough, but fair, questioning continued up to and following 9/11, with Matthews best characterized, at times, as “adoring of President Bush’s leadership,” such as when he discussed Bush on November 8, 2001. See suburban, City of Chicago and Aurora editions of Public Affairs, airing the Week of Jan. 7, for clips of Matthews and a Berkowitz interview of Matthews on November 8, 2001.
But with Matthews’ early distrust and then opposition to the War in Iraq from the get go and his quick analogies to the Vietnam War (which he opposed in his youth in the late 60s and early 70s), Matthews began to lead the charge of the group of mostly Bush and Republican haters and liberal lovers at MSNBC, best exemplified by the mindless, venomous far left rants of Keith Olbermann.
MSNBC does have some token Republicans and maybe even conservatives, e.g., Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson, not unlike perhaps the token liberals on the Fox News Channel, e.g. Alan Colmes and Juan Williams. However, mainstream media bias being what it is, no one characterizes MSNBC as having significant bias to the far left in the same way the mainstream media characterizes FOX as having far right bias.
So, you ask-- what bias does Matthews bring to an interview with Senator and Presidential candidate John McCain (R-AZ)?
First, Matthews can be expected to have a substantial soft spot for McCain because the good Senator was one of only three Republicans to oppose the Bush tax cuts, worked with Democrat Russ Feingold on Campaign Finance (McCain-Feingold) and worked with one of Matthews’ Democrat friends (Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA)) on Comprehensive Immigration Reform (McCain-Kennedy).
But, more importantly, if you are as strongly anti- Iraq War as Matthews is, you are not just opposed to the War, but you are enthusiastic about tearing down every aspect of the American effort in Iraq. That certainly includes “aggressive interrogation,” which Matthews is quick to characterize as unlawful and immoral torture.
With McCain’s well-known opposition to aggressive interrogation of soldiers, quick willingness to call such behavior torture and to downplay any notion that the interrogations could be effective-- you can see the Matthews softballs getting set-up in the pipeline. And, as we all know, occasionally a batter can miss even a slow-pitch softball. So, Matthews essentially treats McCain like a toddler and places the ball on the T for him.
We have transcribed, below, the relevant portion of the Matthews interview with Senator McCain on Hardball on December 19, 2007. However, we have also included, below, in brackets, the questions that someone who is balanced, e.g., Berkowitz, might have asked Senator McCain. Of course, if the guest were somebody who defends aggressive interrogation by the U. S. or Iraqi forces, the right questions for a balanced host to ask would include those that McCain or Matthews raised. You see how that works. That would be hardball.
Perhaps, it is asking too much of a candidate, but if McCain really is the straight-talking Express, as he claims, he might have answered a few of the Berkowitz suggested questions, even if Matthews didn’t choose to ask them. I mean I am sure McCain knows the relevant questions that his opponents on this issue would raise. At least, this reporter hopes he does.
************************************************************
Chris Matthews: It’s hard to keep up with the way people look at things like torture. You’ve had first hand experience. Are you surprised that you are sort of the only one, the only voice in your Party that’s expressed really passionate concern about the- the misuse of the United States authority when we have someone in our custody?
Senator McCain: Well, it concerns me that people think somehow that it is effective—it gives reliable and unreliable information but the thing that concerns me most of all, Chris, is the moral standing of the United States in the world. And, by the way, I am not the only Republican; Colin Powell has weighed in heavily on this, as have---
Chris Matthews: Yes, another soldier.
Senator McCain: Yes, it’s interesting—those who have served in uniform are uniformly against such a thing and those who haven’t seem to think that it is effective; it’s not effective, it’s not reliable. [But, see here.] We tried Japanese for War Crimes after World War II who waterboarded American prisoners of war. Now, how do you then justify—if we tried Japanese for committing war crimes, how can we then justify doing that same thing. [See here].
[Questions Jeff Berkowitz would have asked Senator McCain: How much do you actually know about those war crimes trials of the Japanese? Were they tried for anything else, other than alleged waterboarding? Was the waterboarding the same exact technique alleged to be used by the U. S. against high-valued terrorists? [See here]. Did it matter that the Americans who were "tortured," were soldiers of a nation state with which Japan was at war, as opposed to terrorists who make no effort to adhere to any of the rules of war?]
Senator McCain; So, there’s many arguments I can make, whether it be the moral high ground, whether it be effective or not, and whether we think that this—Let me just put it this way. I believe we are going to win this War against radical Islamic extremists in the ideological battleground.
Chris Matthews: We’ll be the good guys?
[Question Jeff Berkowitz would have asked Senator McCain: George Tenet, former CIA Director, during his CBS “60 Minutes,” Interview earlier this year, spoke much more positively than you regarding the effectiveness of “aggressive interrogations,’ including waterboarding. Tenet said, “the program of questioning ‘high value’ targets (a program that has been criticized for using sleep deprivation and water boarding among other techniques) was more valuable to the security of the United States than all the work done at the FBI, the CIA and the National Security Agency, which tracks foreign electronic communications.” [See Fox News.Com, April 26, 2007] Senator McCain, what do you say to Director Tenet?
Senator McCain: We’ll have the moral high ground. You lose the moral highground. When you do something like that. Let me relate one incidence that I had recently. I was in Iraq. I met with a former high-ranking member of Al Qaeda. I asked him. What were the reasons for their success? He said two. One was the lawlessness and total chaos after our initial victory because we didn’t have control of the country. And, two: Abu Graib. Abu Graib, he said, was his greatest recruiting tool.
Chris Matthews: Yeah.
Senator McCain: I rest my case.
[Question Jeff Berkowitz would have asked Senator McCain: Really, do you see Abu Graib as an example of the U. S. military using aggressive interrogation techniques to obtain information from the enemy? Or, would it better be characterized as example of sadistic behavior by rogue prison guards who had little or nothing to do with U. S. or Iraqi efforts to obtain information from enemy combatants or detainees? If it is the latter, what is the point of your raising it in this discussion?
Chris Matthews: Well, you have some hostages to destiny, yourself. You have service people in your family.
Senator McCain: Yeah, and also my constituents and—what Colin Powell and a lot of the military worry about, of course, as you well know is that if we do this to people—then what’s going to happen in future wars—not against Al-Qaeda, but in a war against another nation—and they decide that they are going to torture people—our men and women in the military—because we did. And, let me just add one point. Why do you think it is the British didn’t torture German pilots during the battle of Britain, where the survival of the British Empire, the island, was at stake, and they captured German pilots. I’ll tell you the main reason is because they knew the British pilots were going to be in the hands of the Germans.
[Question Jeff Berkowitz would have asked Senator McCain: Doesn’t your reference to the British avoiding torture of the German soldiers to protect subsequent British POWs kind of miss the point? The British thought the Germans would avoid torture of Brits if the Brits did not torture the Germans. Do you see any indication that Al Qaeda or other terrorists not a part of a nation-state will reciprocate in not engaging in “torture,” or “aggressive interrogations,” of American soldiers who are caught if America does not employ “aggressive interrogation techniques. Wouldn’t the same distinction apply in future wars with terrorists? Who would you ask to sign the Geneva Conventions on behalf of Al Qaeda? Osama Bin Laden?]
Chris Matthews: Pretty soon.
Senator McCain: Okay. And so, anyway, it baffles me. It baffles me that people could say that the United States of America would get the reputation in the world for doing such things.
[Comment by Jeff Berkowitz: It baffles me. It baffles me how a person of as much integrity, character, principle and honesty as Senator McCain could not see fit to make any of the above distinctions between soldiers acting on behalf of a nation-state and fighting terrorists as opposed to soldiers acting on behalf of a nation state and fighting other soldiers acting on behalf of a nation-state. It baffles me. It also baffles me how Senator McCain could apparently be so unaware of those, e.g., Director Tenet, with views that differ from McCain's.]
*****************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Show Host/Producer of "Public Affairs," and Executive Legal Recruiter doing legal search can be reached at JBCG@aol.com. You may watch "Public Affairs," shows with Presidential Candidates Richardson, Obama, McCain, Giuliani and Cox and many other pols at www.PublicAffairsTv.com
*********************************************
[Comment by Jeff Berkowitz: It baffles me. It baffles me how a person of as much integrity, character, principle and honesty as Senator McCain could not see fit to make any of the above distinctions between soldiers acting on behalf of a nation-state and fighting terrorists as opposed to soldiers acting on behalf of a nation state and fighting other soldiers acting on behalf of a nation-state. It baffles me. It also baffles me how Senator McCain could apparently be so unaware of those, e.g., Director Tenet, with views that differ from McCain's.]
*******************************************
In the first few years of Hardball (which began its run a decade ago), Chris Matthews’ show seemed appropriately named. Matthews didn’t put up with spin and he didn’t stop until he got a clear answer from his guest. Notwithstanding his numerous years working for Democrats, including as a top aide to House Speaker Tip O’Neill, Speechwriter for President Jimmy Carter and aide to Senator Ed Muskie, Matthews seemed tough in his questioning of both Democrats and Republicans.
Chris Matthews certainly exhibited a “take no prisoners,” approach with the Clintonistas, especially during the impeachment proceedings and their aftermath. Although Matthews has conceded, publicly, that he voted for Clinton twice, he obviously had some regrets, especially over Monica Lewinsky and the White House efforts to trash the lady, as they did each of the Bill Clinton “bimbo eruptions.”
That kind of tough, but fair, questioning continued up to and following 9/11, with Matthews best characterized, at times, as “adoring of President Bush’s leadership,” such as when he discussed Bush on November 8, 2001. See suburban, City of Chicago and Aurora editions of Public Affairs, airing the Week of Jan. 7, for clips of Matthews and a Berkowitz interview of Matthews on November 8, 2001.
But with Matthews’ early distrust and then opposition to the War in Iraq from the get go and his quick analogies to the Vietnam War (which he opposed in his youth in the late 60s and early 70s), Matthews began to lead the charge of the group of mostly Bush and Republican haters and liberal lovers at MSNBC, best exemplified by the mindless, venomous far left rants of Keith Olbermann.
MSNBC does have some token Republicans and maybe even conservatives, e.g., Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson, not unlike perhaps the token liberals on the Fox News Channel, e.g. Alan Colmes and Juan Williams. However, mainstream media bias being what it is, no one characterizes MSNBC as having significant bias to the far left in the same way the mainstream media characterizes FOX as having far right bias.
So, you ask-- what bias does Matthews bring to an interview with Senator and Presidential candidate John McCain (R-AZ)?
First, Matthews can be expected to have a substantial soft spot for McCain because the good Senator was one of only three Republicans to oppose the Bush tax cuts, worked with Democrat Russ Feingold on Campaign Finance (McCain-Feingold) and worked with one of Matthews’ Democrat friends (Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA)) on Comprehensive Immigration Reform (McCain-Kennedy).
But, more importantly, if you are as strongly anti- Iraq War as Matthews is, you are not just opposed to the War, but you are enthusiastic about tearing down every aspect of the American effort in Iraq. That certainly includes “aggressive interrogation,” which Matthews is quick to characterize as unlawful and immoral torture.
With McCain’s well-known opposition to aggressive interrogation of soldiers, quick willingness to call such behavior torture and to downplay any notion that the interrogations could be effective-- you can see the Matthews softballs getting set-up in the pipeline. And, as we all know, occasionally a batter can miss even a slow-pitch softball. So, Matthews essentially treats McCain like a toddler and places the ball on the T for him.
We have transcribed, below, the relevant portion of the Matthews interview with Senator McCain on Hardball on December 19, 2007. However, we have also included, below, in brackets, the questions that someone who is balanced, e.g., Berkowitz, might have asked Senator McCain. Of course, if the guest were somebody who defends aggressive interrogation by the U. S. or Iraqi forces, the right questions for a balanced host to ask would include those that McCain or Matthews raised. You see how that works. That would be hardball.
Perhaps, it is asking too much of a candidate, but if McCain really is the straight-talking Express, as he claims, he might have answered a few of the Berkowitz suggested questions, even if Matthews didn’t choose to ask them. I mean I am sure McCain knows the relevant questions that his opponents on this issue would raise. At least, this reporter hopes he does.
************************************************************
Chris Matthews: It’s hard to keep up with the way people look at things like torture. You’ve had first hand experience. Are you surprised that you are sort of the only one, the only voice in your Party that’s expressed really passionate concern about the- the misuse of the United States authority when we have someone in our custody?
Senator McCain: Well, it concerns me that people think somehow that it is effective—it gives reliable and unreliable information but the thing that concerns me most of all, Chris, is the moral standing of the United States in the world. And, by the way, I am not the only Republican; Colin Powell has weighed in heavily on this, as have---
Chris Matthews: Yes, another soldier.
Senator McCain: Yes, it’s interesting—those who have served in uniform are uniformly against such a thing and those who haven’t seem to think that it is effective; it’s not effective, it’s not reliable. [But, see here.] We tried Japanese for War Crimes after World War II who waterboarded American prisoners of war. Now, how do you then justify—if we tried Japanese for committing war crimes, how can we then justify doing that same thing. [See here].
[Questions Jeff Berkowitz would have asked Senator McCain: How much do you actually know about those war crimes trials of the Japanese? Were they tried for anything else, other than alleged waterboarding? Was the waterboarding the same exact technique alleged to be used by the U. S. against high-valued terrorists? [See here]. Did it matter that the Americans who were "tortured," were soldiers of a nation state with which Japan was at war, as opposed to terrorists who make no effort to adhere to any of the rules of war?]
Senator McCain; So, there’s many arguments I can make, whether it be the moral high ground, whether it be effective or not, and whether we think that this—Let me just put it this way. I believe we are going to win this War against radical Islamic extremists in the ideological battleground.
Chris Matthews: We’ll be the good guys?
[Question Jeff Berkowitz would have asked Senator McCain: George Tenet, former CIA Director, during his CBS “60 Minutes,” Interview earlier this year, spoke much more positively than you regarding the effectiveness of “aggressive interrogations,’ including waterboarding. Tenet said, “the program of questioning ‘high value’ targets (a program that has been criticized for using sleep deprivation and water boarding among other techniques) was more valuable to the security of the United States than all the work done at the FBI, the CIA and the National Security Agency, which tracks foreign electronic communications.” [See Fox News.Com, April 26, 2007] Senator McCain, what do you say to Director Tenet?
Senator McCain: We’ll have the moral high ground. You lose the moral highground. When you do something like that. Let me relate one incidence that I had recently. I was in Iraq. I met with a former high-ranking member of Al Qaeda. I asked him. What were the reasons for their success? He said two. One was the lawlessness and total chaos after our initial victory because we didn’t have control of the country. And, two: Abu Graib. Abu Graib, he said, was his greatest recruiting tool.
Chris Matthews: Yeah.
Senator McCain: I rest my case.
[Question Jeff Berkowitz would have asked Senator McCain: Really, do you see Abu Graib as an example of the U. S. military using aggressive interrogation techniques to obtain information from the enemy? Or, would it better be characterized as example of sadistic behavior by rogue prison guards who had little or nothing to do with U. S. or Iraqi efforts to obtain information from enemy combatants or detainees? If it is the latter, what is the point of your raising it in this discussion?
Chris Matthews: Well, you have some hostages to destiny, yourself. You have service people in your family.
Senator McCain: Yeah, and also my constituents and—what Colin Powell and a lot of the military worry about, of course, as you well know is that if we do this to people—then what’s going to happen in future wars—not against Al-Qaeda, but in a war against another nation—and they decide that they are going to torture people—our men and women in the military—because we did. And, let me just add one point. Why do you think it is the British didn’t torture German pilots during the battle of Britain, where the survival of the British Empire, the island, was at stake, and they captured German pilots. I’ll tell you the main reason is because they knew the British pilots were going to be in the hands of the Germans.
[Question Jeff Berkowitz would have asked Senator McCain: Doesn’t your reference to the British avoiding torture of the German soldiers to protect subsequent British POWs kind of miss the point? The British thought the Germans would avoid torture of Brits if the Brits did not torture the Germans. Do you see any indication that Al Qaeda or other terrorists not a part of a nation-state will reciprocate in not engaging in “torture,” or “aggressive interrogations,” of American soldiers who are caught if America does not employ “aggressive interrogation techniques. Wouldn’t the same distinction apply in future wars with terrorists? Who would you ask to sign the Geneva Conventions on behalf of Al Qaeda? Osama Bin Laden?]
Chris Matthews: Pretty soon.
Senator McCain: Okay. And so, anyway, it baffles me. It baffles me that people could say that the United States of America would get the reputation in the world for doing such things.
[Comment by Jeff Berkowitz: It baffles me. It baffles me how a person of as much integrity, character, principle and honesty as Senator McCain could not see fit to make any of the above distinctions between soldiers acting on behalf of a nation-state and fighting terrorists as opposed to soldiers acting on behalf of a nation state and fighting other soldiers acting on behalf of a nation-state. It baffles me. It also baffles me how Senator McCain could apparently be so unaware of those, e.g., Director Tenet, with views that differ from McCain's.]
*****************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Show Host/Producer of "Public Affairs," and Executive Legal Recruiter doing legal search can be reached at JBCG@aol.com. You may watch "Public Affairs," shows with Presidential Candidates Richardson, Obama, McCain, Giuliani and Cox and many other pols at www.PublicAffairsTv.com
*********************************************
<< Home