Think about it….it would be like me inviting, like, Ken Blackwell, to write a post here. Why would I do that? Matthews knew that Fleischer and Gaffney were still Bushian neo-con ringers…why would he invite them on?

The only other answer I can come up with is the same old "controversy" justification. News media loves "controversy"….higher ratings, I suppose. Ari and Frank may have been on to 1) defend the Bushies by lying, and 2) stir up the controversy pot by doing the lying.

Whatever….Matthews was exceptionally weak with both guests. Proving once again that Chrissy is intimidated by tough talking, bullies…even if they are water carriers for other poser bullies.

Who invited Fleischer and Gaffney ? Matthews.

Who asked the loaded questions ? Matthews.

Who interrupted the answers ? Matthews.

I'm not drinking any Kool-Aid. I'm just presenting the facts. I leave it to you to twist them.

Matthews gave Gaffney and Flesicher free reign on Hardball. Go back and look at the clips. Matthews didn't even allow enough time to refute these guys, as you suggest.

Just like with Cheney on CNN yesterday, the corporate media is beholden to those voices who promise to reduce their taxes. Simple as that.

International criminals and their co-conspirators are not only welcome to spew their lies on national teevee…..they are encouraged to do so by the same media who cheerleads for them still. The evidence is overwhelming.

Matthews has people like Fleischer and Gaffney on IN ORDER TO DISCREDIT THEM. Remember, it's Matthews' show, so of course he's going to try to find a Republican who'll say something he can denigrate. Matthews picks the guests. They don't pick him.

The link actually backed up what Gaffney said. Gaffney said there was circumstantial evidence linking Saddam. He said the evidence wasn't conclusive, which it isn't. And Mylorie wasn't the source, nor was Mylorie the only source. The info actually came from the FBI and other sources. There's nothing treasonous about investigating and gathering intelligence about criminal acts.

I don't care for Matthews, and you know I've ripped him more than once.

The question to ask is this….Why was Fleischer, and later Gaffney, on teevee at all? Did they have breaking news? No. They were on to spout their lies, again…and Matthews let them.

I read the link. Contained within was the writer Mylorie's revisionistic efforts to justify her Dear Leader's imminent attack on Iraq. She grasped for straws at every opportunity. She was part of the Mighty Wurlitzer media machine as it spun out Soviet-style propaganda during the year 2002. Treasonous, really.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110002217

Chris Matthews is a total disgrace as a journalist, if you can even call him that. He asks loaded questions that pass judgement and then he doesn't even let his guest answer them. He interrupted Fleischer the entire time, from beginning to end. Fleischer hardly got a complete sentence out. I think the reason Matthews constantly interrupts people like Fleischer is precisely to get them to make some kind of verbal mistake like that so the moonbats can go wild with it. Matthews was so busy interrupting Fleischer so that Fleischer wouldn't be heard that he didn't even notice Fleischer's mistake. You only played a tiny sliver of that interview, Rev.

As for Gaffney saying Saddam had something to do with Oklahoma City, I have no idea what that was about. Alzheimer's maybe ? I do think Saddam was behind the OJ Simpson murders, though. There's circumstantial evidence of that.

Blind squirrels who believe the truth of 9/11 and Iraq was determined by lefties in 2005 or so are just as deluded as the blind squirrels who thought it was determined by the Bush Administration in the runup to the invasion.

Following that thinking…..was George W. Bush really ever the president? Maybe not, huh? I mean, it would seem, if all the evidence is studied, that Bush was really the president for 8 years here in America, but it's not set in concrete.

Hard to make heads or tails of anything, I guess.

I'm typing this comment, but I really can't be sure that I did. Others, who may come along later, I suppose, will be able to, at least, tentatively, determine whether I, indeed, typed this comment. However, no one will ever be able to say, for sure, that I did. Ever.