Chris Matthews gave this idiot a smackdown of epic proportions. These conservative blowhards are all idiots... kudos to Matthews for exposing how the emperor has no clothes.

Bravo Chris Matthews!

Appeasement is not the act of talking to an enemy. Appeasement would be talking to Iran and agreeing to give them half of Iraq. These nutjobs seem to think that the act of talking to someone is appeasement. No wonder the world is so screwed.

WOW! What a historical ignoramus. I simply do not know why Chris Matthews didn't motion to his engineers to cut the microphone to that blathering buffoon. They wasted most of the interview time on it.

Actually, considering that Barack Obama and other gutless Democrats refuse to support impeachment or any other real accountability for Bush and the criminals that surround him, "Nazi appeasers" is a pretty apt description.

I haven't enjoyed anything that much in days! History 101.

unity pony, given the tenor of your comment, you might want to consider updating your user name.

Inoculated Mind, I agree: I kept wondering why Matthews didn't just cut the ignoramus's mic.

the unity pony - I have to say your logic didn't really work for me...kind of a + b = doorknob

I have to get out of the habit of reading the comments first and then watching the footage - then I would only post once - I promise to do better.

I just have to say thank you to CM for calling out this bozo's ignorance. That was truly embarrassing (probably not for the yeller though - he doesn't seem bright enough to realize how incredibly dumb he sounded.) I've got to say, I think I'm pretty weak in history but, c'mon, this is a very famous historic moment that is cited over and over. We're not talking obscure......

Actually pony's logic makes sense, the democrats have shown that they will not impeach under any circumstances, and although bush and co are a long way from nazis, they are still pieces of shit, who deserve to see the end of a rope.

But this video was awesome, just shows that the republican talking heads never need any facts to back up anything they say, just buzzwords. And bushs idea of appeasement is not instantly dropping bombs on a country of brown people.

i thought it was interesting that matthews, after giving his own definition of appeasement as "actually giving something to the enemy" (as if this were completely seperate from the idea of negotiation), then let greens' examples of non-appeasement- israels negotiations with jordan and egypt- pass uncontested.(sorry about the run-on sentence. read it again, it works.)

whether those negotiations and their results constituted appeasement is debateable, but they certainly resulted in "actually giving something to the enemy"- in egypts case, the whole of sinai and in jordans, the acceptance of resposibility for the west bank by israel (which, unfortunately for israel, is full of palestinians, not oil).

matthews insistance that people should know what they're talking about is commendable (though unrealistic in the extreme in the context of american network news shows), especially with "shouty boy" there, but people in glass houses...

btw, will you people stop sending us your retarded presidents? trying to get anywhere by bus here in jerusalem has been near impossible for days. i hear he's leaving today, thank the FSM.

"Why are you screaming?" Hahaha. Matthew's still has a bit of fuel left in his engines, it seems.

Speaking of Nazi appeasers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Bush#Business_links_with_Fritz_Thyssen

Pony's argument is not without logic.

Man, Chris really rips this guy a new one. Great fun!

No Chris, USS Cole did not happen under Bush. Get your historical facts straight!

How did this guy make it on Tv? If you are going to show the other side of an argument at least use someone intelligent. I can still hear his voice in my head. Ugh.

A couple of you couldn't understand why Chris didn't cut Kevin's mike. It's because then Mathews would be just like Bill O'Reilly! Besides, leaving the mike on just gave the guy more rope to hang himself with.

wow, i still think we should get rid of all the over the top talking head from both sides of the political divide and have well political experts as the talking heads....

If George Bush and his jackass acolytes want to get into it with Barack Obama on foreign policy - Obama should simply say, "Bring it on, Dubya, bring it on."

:D

Maybe cutting his mike would have been wrong (like deleting offensive comments on a blog). But they sure as hell could have turned him down, to prevent his crazed monologue from completely overwhelming any rational discussion. This is the kind of crap that completely undercuts efforts to inform the public. Since informing the public is the job, mission, and duty of the media, they should have muffled the braying of that jackass.

They should have disenvolumed him.

As to the untidy pony's sloppy assertions and the side-conversation that has sparked...

the democrats have shown that they will not impeach under any circumstances

Patently false. Your reach exceeds your grasp. They have not enjoyed the circumstance of an effective majority in the Senate.

What we will see in upcoming months is the tail end of a disastrous administration increasingly beleaguered by serious legal indictments. This will hopefully act as a bulwark against BushCo being able to make a strong case for war with Iran, even if there's a well-timed terror event on US soil or property. Also, the legal process will go on until AFTER the next president takes office, which, if convictions and sentences are handed down, will probably take "pardon" off the table, except (perhaps) in exchange for very weighty political capital, which would hopefully be spent on repealing legislation and building in greater Constitutional protections.

"They have not enjoyed the circumstance of an effective majority in the Senate."

Super majorities are nothing without spines.

"What we will see in upcoming months blah blah blah . . ."

You've gone from nominating a guy in 2004 who promised to fight and then didn't, to a guy in 2008 whose entire premise is that he refuses to fight from the very beginning. Nice work Democraps.

This guy illustrates nicely that if you don't know what you're talking about and you want people to listen, just talk louder.

Hillary Clinton supported Obama on this issue, whereas before she had been critical of Obama on this issue. I see this reconciliation as the first sign that they might end up being the "dream team".

You've gone from nominating a guy in 2004 who promised to fight and then didn't, to a guy in 2008 whose entire premise is that he refuses to fight from the very beginning. Nice work Democraps.

My little pony, I failed to notice the "I Refuse to Fight!" Banner at the last Obama rally.

I hate this preconception that our nominee needs to be a viscous scumbag to win. Kerry's "refusal to fight" was about a Vietnam veteran troubled by his service. And a Politician told by consultants not to be "too anti-war".

Did you notice that tool stumbing over his words made up the new name "Neverland Chamble?" Hysterical. The real crime is that screaming nutjobs like that are even allowed to be on TV.

I don't see the dream team happening. The window for that is past.

If Obama wins the nomination, he'd be most unwise to choose Clinton as his running mate. Her methods are too much at odds with his message. Also, clearing the race AND gender hurdles in one leap would probably be more than we can reasonably expect from the US public. My guess is Clinton as VP is a no-go. In all likelihood, he'd choose a slightly older, slightly more conservative, more seasoned, white male.

On the other hand, as unlikely as it might sound, if Clinton wins the nomination I think she'd be a fool not to pick him, and I think he'd acquiesce.

But my guess is Obama's going to get the nomination, and as for VP, I'd put all my chips on Biden.

As a good friend of mine likes to say, "If you're thrown into a snake pit, you better be prepared to cut off some heads." You can try reading passages from "The Audacious Dreams of my Hopeful Father" to Republican snakes. Let me know how that works out for you.

We know that Obama isn't a fighter because his pathetic Senate career has proven him to be just another gutless, dry-powder Democrat. He has voted to continue funding Bush's Iraq slaughter, because really fighting to end it would be just so divisive. He has allowed Bush to hand the Supreme Court entirely over to corporate interests because, you know, leading a filibuster to protect it would be just so divisive. He hasn't fought to protect our civil liberties because, well, apparently he thinks legislation like the Patriot Act is just fine, since he voted to renew it.

Do I want my nominee to have a vicious streak? If that person is representing my interests against bloodthirsty Corporatist Republicans and Do-Nothing Democrats, you're damn right I do.

My little pony, I failed to notice the "I Refuse to Fight!" Banner at the last Obama rally.

Indeed, dramatically punching someone in the nose (politically speaking) is not the only, nor even always the best, way to fight. Rendering them irrelevent to the political conversation is just as effective. It is obvious that John McCain's pollsters are alert to this his looming 'dunno-much-'bout-economy' 'no appeasment on Iraq' irrelevence, I'd say, given his shift leftward on a number of issues this week. See how they run indeed.

Given that I think that re-orienting the countries political sensibility in the way Obama has is the best strategy at present, and that I find fantasies of revenge to be not helpful, however desirable and even laudable their aims, I sympathize, I think, to some extent with your broader criticism, unitypony. Leaving aside the presidential campaigns, in the past 8 years, even if the democrats didn't have the majority needed for impeachment, they have failed make a public and visible issue of it, which would have been both important and politically smart in the long term. My criticism of the democratic party as a whole is that they've been so timid for fear of short-term fall out--on Iraq, on the economy, on oil, on impeachment, on torture, on much else--that they have surrendered in many cases both the possibility of being a more vocal moral leaders and deprived themselves of long-term political gain, to be reaped when obviously disastrous and inadequate policies failed just as expected.

Incidentally, Tim: Your wish came true within hours just after your comment. I'm impressed.

Adam:

The article you linked to has this quote from Obama:

“In the Bush-McCain worldview, everyone who disagrees with their failed Iran policy is an appeaser,” Mr. Obama said. He added: “I believe we need to use all elements of American power to pressure Iran – including tough, principled and direct diplomacy.”

Again, he relies more on diplomacy than on beating the war drum. Good for Obama.

You've gone from nominating a guy in 2004 who promised to fight and then didn't, to a guy in 2008 whose entire premise is that he refuses to fight from the very beginning. Nice work Democraps.

Look everyone, it's the birth of a Troll... Don't get too close, he'll eat your goats.

"I find fantasies of revenge to be not helpful"

The fact that demanding accountability and justice for war criminals, thieves, and traitors is dismissed as "revenge fantasy" is one of the main reasons I am no longer a Democrat.

"it's the birth of a Troll..."

Well, that didn't take long. At least you didn't call me a racist troll. It's surely coming, though . . . I've no doubt about that.

Back to the idiot in this clip.

Who goes on National television and doesn't at least read a freakin wikipedia article about the topic of discussion?

I guess he figured if he just kept yelling no one would notice that he was just saying the same thing over and over.

Yeah, when I wrote my comment earlier I was thinking not to have the mike "cut" but "turned way down" It was allowing him to overshout the other guest when the guest was asked a question. I've moderated radio debates before, and if it's not someone's turn to speak and they're cutting in, they get a quick flick of the slider down so if they decide to keep yelling they just lose out on the other person's argument and can't respond to it. But then again, if you let fools keep talking long enough, they make themselves known to everyone soon enough.

I'm glad that CM took advantage of this moment. I bet GWB doesn't even know what Chamberlain did in Munich! I only wish every dipshit that sided with Dubya would be put on blast like this! I hope this is a sign of better times to come. ~richard t greer

Yes, good for Matthews! It gives me hope that other media personnel will tire of the B.S that has coursed through the industry over recent years.

As for the facts, well, I guess we can't expect much from O'Reilly wannabes, but why didn't one of his handlers google the info and hold up a cue card? I guess same should have happened for Matthews and the USS Cole reference. But Kevin James truly made an ass out of himself, though it was fun to watch CM contribute.

Sadly, Itoo still hear KJ's voice. Eeeeyaaaaah!

"What did he do!?"

"Neverland Chamble was an appeaser!"

"What did he do!?"

"Neverland Chamble was an appeaser!"

"What did he do!?"

"Neverland Chamble was an appeaser!"

"What did he do!?"

"Neverland Chamble was an appeaser!"

"What did he do!?"

"Neverland Chamble was an appeaser!"

"What did he do!?"

"Neverland Chamble was an appeaser!"

There's your sum up of the whole interview. Funny yet sad at the same time.

But I still have to give Chris Matthews some credit outside of giving that joker a platform. He didn't cut him off like Bill O' would if he didn't agree with someone. He challenged him. And that's what real interviewers do.

"...But my guess is Obama's going to get the nomination, and as for VP, I'd put all my chips on Biden."

I fully agree! Together, with them both of them haveing served on our foreign relations committee(Biden for YEARS now), they will make McCain and his views on foreign policy out to be foolish at best.

Obama/Biden O8!!!

Umm waynuma...

"i thought it was interesting "

Welcome back Becker! Wandering in, from wanderings in some metaphoric Sinai?

"stop sending us your retarded presidents" Unrealistic in the extreme, but you all really do not want to be thought of in the same breath with this guy, Radioactive Bush, not burning, except in effigy. The Sad-Geiger counter is tapping out a stochastic fugat'about-it. Strettissimo.

I am cheered though by Einstein's (400,000$)letter.

Vale!