Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Chris Matthews: 'Not a Crime to Call al Qaeda'

I wonder if Chris Matthews remembers 9/11.

If he's foggy on that, I'm sure he doesn't recall the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the bombing of the USS Cole.

Al Qaeda is responsible for those acts of terror.

Matthews seems clueless.

From the Heritage Foundation, more on al Qaeda's Declarations and Acts of War.

Listening to Chris Matthews interview Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, on Hardball, November 9, it's as if Matthews is trying to brush off the significance of Fort Hood attacker Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's efforts to contact al Qaeda. AL QAEDA!

Matthews questions whether all those glaring warning signs in regard to Hasan, like the al Qaeda connection, were enough to warrant intervention.

TRANSCRIPT

CHRIS MATTHEWS: You know, I have a hard time with this because people like Sirhan Sirhan, who is still serving time for killing Bobby Kennedy, didn't like what Bobby Kennedy had said on television. Bobby Kennedy had made political statements saying we're going to sell arms, fighter planes directly to Israel, not under the table. We're going to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Those are the things that triggered his killing spree. He killed one person - Bobby Kennedy, horrifically. But did he become a different religious person because he committed the crime? And when did this happen?

See - we have a problem. How do we know when someone like Hasan is going to make his move and do we know he's an Islamist until he's made his move? He makes a phone call or whatever, according to Reuters right now. Apparently he tried to contact al Qaeda. Is that the point at which you say, 'This guy is dangerous?' That's not a crime to call up al Qaeda, is it? Is it? I mean, where do you stop the guy?

What is he babbling about?

I think you stop the guy when he's calling up al Qaeda!

How could anyone not consider that to be a giant red flag?

ZUDHDI JASSER: I mean, you can't... you have to. We're not even out of the box in this contest. I mean, we are completely asleep, let alone following him and saying that we were going to stop him. We didn't have any of the signs that we were following.

...

MATTHEWS: Well, this guy, according to all the testament, admittedly it has not been admitted into court. We cannot call him the shooter until we have a trial. That's the way we work here, you know, that's how it works in America, certainly not in the news business. You can't call somebody a murderer until you get a conviction in court. And the question here is when can you identify a problem? That's what we have to deal with. And you say it's an ideological point - you can find the problem. But then we get into the business of checking out on people's thinking. And that's the problem.

When does a person become a danger, when they have a certain thought system? Or when they go out and buying semi-automatic pistols, or when they start phoning up al Qaeda, saying how can I join the gang? I mean, where do you stop a person? This is criminology, maybe not ideology, but or even religion. But how do we weed out a guy - it seems to me, all of the warning signs, I mean, we have seen them all now. It's like looking at pictures of Muhammad Ata hanging around convenience stores and going to ATM machines. We got all kinds of information about this guy after it's too late.

But this guy was running around shooting his mouth off saying how he hated this country's wars with - look, you can listen to me on television and hear me saying I didn't like the war with Iraq. You know, I don't agree with the war on Iraq and a lot of Americans didn't like the war with Iraq. They didn't start shooting people about it.

Matthews is so confused.

When does one become a danger?

I'd say contacting the enemy is crossing the line. That can't be compared to someone merely expressing dissent.

Apparently, the government had information on Hasan's activities but nothing was done about it.

That's an inexcusable lapse.

I think Matthews is just trying to blunt criticism of the Obama government for failing to do something about Hasan before it was too late.

He can't seriously be unable to grasp the gravity of a U.S. Army major getting in touch with al Qaeda.

I don't see how Matthews can defend such behavior or consider it a gray area.

Absolutely ridiculous.


Video.

10 comments:

jill said...

There's no point in asking what's wrong with him, but . . . What is wrong with Chris Matthews? Honestly.

Mary said...

I'm asking the same question about Obama and his administration.

They don't want to acknowledge that Islamic extremists are at war with us and one of the terrorists was serving in the U.S. Army.

It's scary.

emily said...

Oh--I'm sorry--are you saying this guy just enlisted during the time Obama was President? I think not. If this crazy lunatic's superior's didn't recognize his predisposition to violence (which is scary), how are you blaming OBAMA for not recognizing it?

Use your head

Mary said...

Clearly, you're having trouble comprehending.

It's the Obama administration that came up with "man-caused disasters" to use instead of terrorism.

It's the Obama administration that came up with "Overseas Contingency Operation" instead of War on Terror.

My question: What is wrong with Obama and his administration?

Matthews doesn't understand the threat Islamic extremism poses to our security. My concern is that Obama doesn't either.

Ian said...

It's funny how Obama can rush to judgement on behalf of his buddy Gates and say the "Cambridge Police acted stupidly" but he wants US to reserve our judgement on the muslim extremist who shot and killed 13 of our troops. Also funny how these clearly liberal biased news outlets wont call him a killer, muslim extremist, or a murderer. Everyone knows he did it, theres no disputing it. I say skip the trial and save the taxpayers more money for this new health care deform bill that only the bums on welfare and illegal aliens really want...

Mary said...

I think it's disgraceful that the lib media are, or were initially, bending over backwards to ignore how Islam factored into the shootings.

Of course, we don't skip trials in the U.S.

I'm confident that Hasan will get what he deserves. Justice will be done.

About health care --

Obama and most elected Dems really want it. They aren't on welfare or illegal immigrants.

Ian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ian said...

Had our military still been allowed to carry guns, or had there been an MP posted at the door instead of an outsourced contractor, this man's due process would have been carried out on the spot, and many lives would have been saved.

Ian said...

Mary, do you think that Obama and the elected Dems will be using this same healthcare system they are trying to push when they need to see a doctor?

Mary said...

No way.

H.R. 615