The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.
Showing posts with label MSNBC's Chris Matthews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MSNBC's Chris Matthews. Show all posts

Thursday, November 5, 2015

Ben Carson' Pyramids As Grain SIlos: MSNBC's Chris Matthews, Hardball (VIDEO)

We will commence eight minutes of MSNBC, Hardball, video regarding Ben Carson with a reminder of the extent to which his mind clearly doesn't deliver a sane message to his mouth.

Let's take a The Guardian UK wild ride on his 1998 commencement speech (eg. Egyptian Pyramids and grain storage).

 Chris Matthews, Hardball

Matthews ended the November 5th segment as follows.

We have long posited our deep belief that Carson has something going on in his brain. Cognitive activity if observed by a mental professional will surely lead to repeat visits and more couch time.

UPDATE: It doesn't take much to refute the tadpole pool shallowness of one Ben Carson: Forbes


Friday, September 11, 2015

Chris Matthews Effuses Over Obama Two Years After Slamming The President

Please finish, but do so with a degree of consistency and sincerity. 

MSNBC's Chris Matthews broadcast a "Let Me Finish" that via reflection back to 2014 made previous comments about President seem childish ratings hunting and nothing else.

2014 Back Ground 

Two years ago almost to the month, Chris Matthews, hardball, hosted a panel of talking heads from Bloomberg News, USA Today and the National Journal specifics below). The essence of the segment, a mere week before the 2014 mid-term elections, appeared as a contrived effort at condemnation of President Obama from of all people Chris Matthews. Months prior to the segment, Matthews often appeared over-the-top angst filled about President Obama's lack of interest in moving the nation to direct confrontation with ISIS. I recall Hardball segments in which Matthews reminded of the most hawkish of GOP politicians (McCain, Graham).

Yes, Matthews's seeming wanton desire for troops on the ground war with ISIS was stunning and so out of character I wondered if he wasn't simply playing for ratings. During 2013-through present ratings periods MSNBC was the overwhelming loser of viewers. The loses have been comparable to the sucking of air from a blazing forest fire. Yet, one MSNBC show in early October 2014, rose above the 'ratings flushing. By the nature of this developing piece you already know which show.  

On Monday and Friday of last week, only one MSNBC show all day, “Hardball” with Chris Matthews, even topped 100,000 viewers in that 25-54 group. And the daytime numbers are much worse. Mr. Farrow’s show averaged just 45,000 viewers in the preferred group, down 51 percent from other programming in the same slot last year.
Only one show topped 100,000 viewers for the first week of October 2014, with eye sight of the 2014 mid-term elections! What should a network host do to grab that straw to ward-off drifting down like all other shows on the network? 

The segment below ran on October 24, 2014. Matthews sat with the following guest for a segment obvious developed to mailing the Obama Administration and to exact specific criticism of President Obama.
Below the video, we posted a few comments from Matthews who was obviously much more damning of Obama than any of his guest. At one point Matthews seemed to chastise a guest, Paul Singer, USA TODAY, who chose words that indicated a desire to moderate his personal level of criticism against the nation's 44th President.


Matthews segment comments.  Not one of his guest matched the following level of vitriolic and criticism of Obama. 
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Do you think Obama is ready to change in his last two years and become a real chief executive, not just a really good speech giver, or an inspirational leader, but actually accept the job of running the U.S. government? Is he ready to take that job on every day, 24/7, I'm the guy running this place? Is he ready to do that?  
MATTHEWS: They run the government of the United States and everybody reports to them. That's how we like them. By the way, there's only one person we get to vote on, him. So if we don't like the way the government's run, we don't like him. But he's got to run the place. 
Look, here's the question. Who's running the healthcare system for the president right now? Anybody know the name of this person? Because when he had the rollout problem, we kept saying, "Oh, oh, it's the COO, the CMM of the HHS," and I actually don't see that person too often. You'd think -- normally there would be somebody he would have appointed the day he got the bill passed. I want this person talking to me everyday how it's going so when the rollout time comes, we know it's going to work...  
MATTHEWS: Do you think the American people believe this country, when the government talks about Ebola, for example? Do you think they buy the fact that it's hard to catch?  
MATTHEWS: Yeah, this isn't about right-wing and left-wing and the usual ideological fights we have around here. It's about getting something done right.
So much for 2104, Matthews has gone ratings hunting while waffling.

If you cannot join me in thought of Matthews of ratings hunting, I would be amazed. It is also important to note, Matthews never once took on criticism of Rand Paul as Paul traipsed through long periods of plagiarism of speech text and print text. Matthew strategically avoided criticism of Paul as others took him head-on about issues related to his opposition to certain civil rights legislation. Now, what MSNBC show did Paul visit after swearing off the network following Rachel Maddow's pants around his ankles exposure of his opposition to certain parameters of the 1965 Civil Right Act?  He appeared on Matthews Hardball and once finding Matthews proclaiming he and Paul showing similar of some issues was uncanny.   

News hosts are to the person wealthy people. They are not job seeking job hunters who jump around scrounging for dollars as do millions across the nation. They earn copiously. If you think for one second Matthews would not leverage ratings opportunities to maintain his level of wealth (via viewership), you have wasted a few minutes on this piece.

Watch, the following 1:20 minute segment from Matthews as he effuses about President Obama's productivity final years while dismantling his own previous (2014) remarks that seemed to denote coming, lack of leadership and Lame-duckism for Obama.  

US media has actually devolved into ideology purveyors with more than a central focus on ratings that garner revenue. No longer do we live in the times of Walter Cronkite, Ed Bradley, David Brinkley and Chet Huntley. We live in times when we secure most of our news from television. 

Television news and local news through the millionaire talking ;head news readers on the major network offer little more than entertainment between commercials. We have personalities who seriously embellish (lie about) news stories and their involvement in the gathering of the news. In the two most prominent cases (Brian Williams and Bill O'Reilly) their multi-million dollar annual contracts have not been disrupted via revelations of their lies. From the lucrative business of television ews as entertainment to the reality and relevance of Chris Matthews waffling regarding President Obama, we are not being served well via US media. 

Chris Matthews's recent "Let Me Finish" is an accurately portrayal of a departing president. Why other than ratings hunting did the MSNBC personally reach for damning dogma just a bit over two years ago? Obama's accomplishments did not manifest solely within the past 24 months. As Matthews stated this week, Obama has been in office for seven years and the body of his work will stand the test of time and a developing legacy.

The US public really deserves much better.  


Thursday, May 21, 2015

Bush Administration Lied About Iraq; Conservatives In Denial

Image via MSNBC Fireshot Screen Capture
Think about the following chart as you work through this piece:

On May 19, 2015 and during the course of a former CIA directors quest to hawk a book, MSNBC's Chris Matthews extracted the ultimate truth about the Bush Administration's potential nation killing charge into Iraq. Bush and team lied about WD and for the express purpose of entering a another theater of the early 2000 Middle East wars. 

Before I offer up full segments of two days of Matthews on the topic, I am posting a brief segment with the meat of it all. 

The former Deputy of the CIA has admitted on national television that Dick Cheney lied about Saddam's possession of WMD (nuclear weapon). Cheney's lie was but the minuet tip of the iceberg. The lie was probably the most exhaustive and heinous case of political subterfuge and malfeasance in US History.
In a 2006 issue of Mother Jones, the Bush Administration lies were delineated as clearly as the teal blue waters of the South Pacific.
Mother Jones 

Lie by Lie: A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq

Yesterday Opinion writer Paul Waldman keyboarded a definitive piece on how the Bush Administration went far beyond developing lies to facilitate invading Iraq. 
The Week
George W. Bush didn't just lie about the Iraq War. What he did was much worse.
Now let's revisit Chris Matthews's segments over the past two days. As I viewed these segments I couldn't help, but think about the frequent anger filled retorts I receive from conservatives when the issues of "What we know now" is the center of discussion.  Their favorite and most often stated rationale for looking back is the "INTEL was wrong."  I haven't run across one conservate to date who will accept thew reality of the data was fabricated and promulgated and very effectively so. 
May 19, 2015 May 20, 2015
The Daily Kos partial transcript and credit to Mother Jones Chris Matthews ended his 5/20/2015 show with a cogent and poignant ...... Let Me Finish
Now, consider viewing the chart at the top of this piece once again. Why is the GOP so far outside the acceptable level of national opinion and equally outside the scope of sanity?

Wednesday, April 8, 2015

Chris Matthews Jumps To Rand Paul's Defense From RightWing Operatives

Of all the admiration I hold for MSNBC's Chris Matthews for his stance against voter suppression and outright racism reaped on President Obama throughout his time in the Oval Office, I remain totally perplexed about Matthews's affinity for Rand Paul.

Matthews has avoided any criticism of Paul as The inimitable politicians squirmed around his plagiarism relations. If Matthews was critical of Paul's active participation in signing the Tom Cotton Open Letter to Iranian leadership, I missed that segment altogether. Additionally, I don't recall Matthews ever referencing Paul's stumbling and mumbling interview with Rachel Maddow. The interview in which Paul openly stated he would not have supported the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 due to his aversion for forcing "private" business owners in any way. Thus, he admits he would not have supported desegregation restaurants, hotels and other establishments available for public accommodation. As a matter of fact, after swearing-ff appearing on MSNBC, Paul accepted an interview on the network and Matthews ended the segment with (Paraphrased): "Our proximity of some issues is uncanny." The essence of the paraphrased remarks are actually disappointing if Paul's receives a review as the total (social and political) package. He is a liar, a shifty political Chameleon, who has admitted wanton inclination to "misinform" for personal gain.

Again, why Chris Matthews has adopted an affinity for Paul "The Younger" is totally perplexing.

Apparently, Matthews has literally taken-up the role of flag bearer for Paul. The following Crooks & Liars piece offers insight into Matthews sitting in on another MSNBC show, to wave the Paul flag. And, therein lies a credibility killer for a cable news host who works for a network that consistently has fewer viewers than Fox News and CNN. When Paul flops or suffers more character revelations, will Matthews go on air and admit to being duped as are many voters who habitually vote GOP. 

Before the full Crooks & Liars piece, let's take a quick read of Matthews and his flag waving. 

Love for Paul.....
I can see why people from both parties are going after this guy even on the very day he announces for president: he’s a danger to conventional politics in this country. He’s willing to challenge government intrusion in our lives, willing to challenge America’s intrusion into foreign countries, especially that sad, tragic mission we call “nation building.”
Without regard for Paul's history and his apparently inclination to lie, Matthews lays his neck on a political guillotine. Is it possible Mathews has failed to review Paul's voting record over his short spa in the US Senate? The MSNBC host has no way of knowing the veracity of Paul's utterances.

Crooks And Liars

Chris Matthews Rips MSNBC For Airing 'Goddamn' Right-Wing Ads, Then Airs It Himself

Chris Matthews went a little off the reservation on Thomas Roberts' show Tuesday, chewing on MSNBC and Roberts for airing an attack ad against Rand Paul, put together by the same group that Swiftboated John Kerry. TPM: MSNBC anchor Thomas Roberts ended up under friendly fire on Tuesday when his colleague Chris Matthews launched into a…

Friday, October 24, 2014

MSNBC's Chris Matthews Criticizes Obama; Milt Shook Provides Real Perspective

Criticizes Obama, laughs based on a flawed poll and shows signs of an affinity for Ran Paul.

As MSNBC moves farther towards a conservative and Libertarian political lean, the informed voter must seek reliable information while leaving the media darlings to their celebrity. 

Take a few minutes to see exactly why US media is literally walking the nation back into the greedy and incompetent arms of the GOP. The perfect example is the increasing anti-Obama segments broadcast on MSNBC's Chris Matthews, Hardball. 

If you are a progressive, the five minute segment is a horrific as it gets. Watch (below) as Matthews leads his seemingly conservative panel in literal laughter when mention of "the country on the right track" worked into the discussion (1:00 minute mark). Matthews also asked the panel questions that show support what I perceive as neo-affinity for Rand Paul. He literally asked one panelist if President Obama would "actually lead in his last two years in office." As matter of over-kill. Matthews frames a question with seemingly disparaging remarks about Obama as a professor with sub-group disparaging "Law professor."

Matthews actually used data from a Politico/GfK poll. In addition to data showing media polls as less accurate, GfK has a history of inaccurate polling and polling with a major slant right. 

Allow an example.

AP/GfK: Flawed And Conservative Survey Company Reports Only 26% Support ObamaCare   (Excerpt)

My past experience with AP/GfK was along this line. As we approached the 2012 General Election, I ran across this headline:
"Majority Harbor Prejudice towards blacks."  

Now, why do you think such a headline would attract my interest? May I suggest,  if you are a normal person with any interest beyond sitting each day watching six different TV judge shows, or flipping between various mindless reality shows (including various derivatives of talent panel contests), the headline should have piqued your interest.

My askance and curiosity took me a few steps farther. The following is an except from a piece I wrote after reading the October 2012 headline posted above. The TPI AP/GfK piece is long. Out of respect for your time and possible lack of deep interest in the genesis of the headline, I am posting a Awesome Screenshot Capture &Annotate image below the table box (below). 

TPI (October 2012)
If you never reviewed poll data, you have to give a look at the AP/GfK Poll  data released just a few days before the November 6th Elections. The poll's major tickler was, a "Majority harbor prejudice towards blacks".   [See Link above]
Page 33 of the Growth for Knowledge (GfK) poll reads like this (Key Demographic data):

The TPI link provided in the table will take you to even more startling and ridiculous survey findings related to perceptions of candidate religion. The 1,071 survey respondents (predominately white and from the South) seem to have been comprised of a potential respondent pool stacked for achievement of desired results. The headline:"Majority harbor prejudice towards blacks,";was both indicative of what many should consider flawed survey administration via 
GfK, and indicative of the dangers of subsequent headlining via media or political operatives.

But more than two-thirds distrust polls conducted by political parties or candidates and automated telephone surveys. Media polls fall in the middle, with somewhat more distrusting than trusting.  Note: the "News media" category below.
2013-09-04 Which polls do people trust
Nate Silver looked at which polls scored best coming out of the 2012 elections. His review also included look and reporting of poll bias. If you look about midway through the table below you will find AP/GfK; you will quickly notice the AP/GfK poll has a strong bias to the Republican Party. You may also notice GfK uses the very survey methodology shown by Silver as biased towards the Republican Party with moderate margins of error.
The New York Times 538 Blog  
"Which Polls Fared Best (and Worst) in the 2012 Presidential Race"Excerpt
We can also extend the analysis to consider the 90 polling firms that conducted at least one likely voter poll in the final three weeks of the campaign. One should probably not read too much into the results for the individual firms that issued just one or two polls, which is not a sufficient sample size to measure reliability. However, a look at this broader collective group of pollsters, and the techniques they use, may tell us something about which methods are most effective.
You Gov Dot Com
Figure 1 below shows the point estimates (and reported margins of error) for final national polls from different polling organizations for the Obama share of the national major party vote. The final YouGov poll, released on Sunday November 4, based on 36,472 interviews of likely voters between October 31 and November 3, had Obama at 48.5 percent, Romney at 46.5 percent, other candidates at 2.3 percent, and the remaining 2.7 percent of voters undecided. This translates into a 51.1 percent share of the national major party vote for Obama. As of this writing, the Associated Press reports that the Obama share of the national two party vote was 51.0 percent, so the YouGov estimate had an error of less than 0.1 percent. Two other polling organizations also pegged the Obama lead at two percent.

A few words about AP/GfK. Any polling authority would publish a survey with results indicating a "Majority harbor prejudice towards blacks," and show respondent demographic data with southern while males are the predominant data source, shouldn't be considered reporting.

Mattews? The Hardball host was noticeably absent in criticism of Rand Paul through the full scope of Paul's plagiarism. He has even intimated that Paul was a 'watcher' for 2016. The old school former progressive, Matthews, seems to have joined the neo-libertarian, Chris Hayes, ALL IN, in on-air complements and nascent affinity for GOP quacks. 

Image via FireShot Screen Capture

From the 47 second mark to the 59 second mark on the video below, you have cause for my increasing disdain for Chris Hayes and a couple of additional quasi-liberal MSNBC hosts (include Chris Matthews and Steve Kornacki).
When progressive media hosts audition for GOP campaign soundbites and video, I find ti contemptible.  While, criticism is appropriate where and when it is due, MSNBC seems to reach for viewers well outside the reality of its potential audience. When a supposed progressive host induces laughter regarding the state of the nation and literally exhorts a guest to take shots at the Democrat president, the network moves farther away from my viewing interest.

As MSNBC management has changed my news viewing habits. US media and some polling authorities have provided much more time to actually perform research on issues critical to life as an informed voter.

There are few sources more reliable and timely than Milt Shook and his PCTC Blog. 

Read more after the break

Sunday, October 12, 2014

The Daily GOP Ignominious: Rand Paul ...Ebola And "GOP Wants To Help African-Americans!"

You know Rand Paul has issues with credibility (plagiarism, misinformation, shiftiness). I know Paul is not supportive of individual rights despite his claim to some sphere of Libertarianism. On camera, Paul  told Rachel Maddow he would have worked to modify the 1965 Civil Rights legislation as it related to open access for all people. In response to questions from Maddow, Paul clearly fell to a rambling mess of gobbledygook surrounding a themes of he would not be in favor of forcing private business owners to serve people they did not wish to serve with race as the differentiating factor.

Paul evasive (Maddow Interview Part 1...7:23 minute mark; Part 2 ...6:00 minute mark)

In July of this year, Paul responded to a follow-up question about his remarks to Maddow. Paul denied his remarks as certainly and matter of fact as his Republican red tie. Watch the first 1:24, minutes of this clip.

Before we briefly probe Paul's serial plagiarizing text and speech components (without any form of attribution), let's make a quick stop with Paul at a Kentucky university speech to a group of medical studentsI will not devote moderate amounts of bandwidth nor web page space to an entire Paul speech of 39 plus minutes including questions. I have linked to the a speech segment in which Paul clearly tells of his affinity for and utility of misinformation. 

  1. Google   Misinformation
    1. false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive.

Paul and his take on mischievous misinformation with the unarguable purpose of deceit for personal gain. 

It is critical to note, Paul spoke to a group of young aspiring medical students outside the realm of politics. Credible people would probably not offer an inner core of deceit tot he young and influence-able, especially those who study for medical certification with a resultant Hippocratic Oath that direct relates to Medical ethics. An Oath with a foundation in honesty and impeccable veracity. Paul doesn't possess either trait.

Paul's pathological inclination to deceive and misrepresent has served him well in arenas where people offer fertile ground for sowing his deceitful seeds. Hence MSNBC's Chris Matthews seeming allure for Paul, despite all evidence of Paul's Chameleon-ism. The opposite manifest when Paul took his deceit to Howard University and sprinkled the audience with patronizing and condescending drivel about how the GOP was more historically beneficial for black people than the Democratic party. His remarks were insulting to the learned audience; he flopped. 

The Rand Paul Road show with GPS navigation settings on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue continues with exaggerated deceit, lies and comedic statements. 

Paul's use of the Ebola virus to join other in his party on yet another pre-election fear campaign is typical and without surprise. A writer for The Fifth Column along with a sub-headline quote from The Daily Beast illustrates Paul's penchant for use of sensational topics for political gain, while practicing 'real' GOP politics in the course of his Senate seat.

Rand Paul, Republican Senator from Kentucky, recently told conservative radio host Laura Ingraham that Ebola “could get beyond our control” and speculated: “Can you imagine if a whole ship full of our soldiers catch Ebola?”  
Saying “it’s a real mistake to underplay the danger of a worldwide pandemic,” Paul, doing his level best to overplay the danger, told Glenn Beck: “I think I said this the last time I was on your show a couple weeks ago, I said that I’m concerned that political correctness has caused us to underplay the threat of Ebola.” Er, um, because the people dying of Ebola in West Africa are black? I’m confused… Anyway, I thought the reason not to let panic spread was because, you know, panic is bad and we should have a rational and informed public rather than an irrationally fearful one.
Why do I sometimes think of Sarah Palin when I hear Paul's ramble incoherent oratory? Ebola as an item of fear for political gain? Speaking of Palin, I hope no one from Wasilla contests the 1600 Pennsylvania address posted above.

How about this one from the inimitable Paul. First, he agrees to go on camera with the safe zone Wolf Blitzer and the ever obvious Right leaning CNN. The GOP pseudo-candidate claims the GOP wants to help African-Americans. You will notice he separates himself from the GOP ("they") and shrouds his sophism in truism. The GOP not only hasn't "gotten into the African-American community" the party has enacted innumerable measures that are so obviously anti African-American Paul's remarks are an insult.
“I think in the Republican Party, the biggest mistake we’ve made in the last several decades is we haven’t gone into the African American community, into the NAACP and say you know what, we are concerned about what’s going on in your cities and we have plans,” he continued. “They may be different than the Democrats, but we do have plans and we do want to help.”
 For sake of clarity: "......say you know what, we are concerned about what’s going on in your cities and we have plans,” he continued. “They may be different than the Democrats, but we do have plans and we do want to help.”

Seriously Rand Paul, seriously? Even if there was one elected official in the GOP who might be inclined to "go there" think of the reaction from the 92% white party. A party m many with overt racists, bigots in the millions, and an equal number of the intolerant ? Does Paul seriously believe Fox News would support such? How about the reaction from Limbaugh, Beck and Ingraham. Paul's (over-the-top) insults the majority of progressives. Do you believe uber wealthy oligarchs like the Kochs, Adelson and other would allow any member of the GOP to enact Paul's lie?

If the NAACP officials in the St. Louis area find any redeeming qualities in the chameleon Paul, the organization should re-think its potential effectiveness. Paul's only reason for journeying to Ferguson Missouri was to camera-hound for people who might be inclined to buy into his B/S. Did Paul visit the community days and weeks after Mike Brown was summarily executed by the white cop? Has Paul asked for any investigation into the shooting?


He is conspicuous in this list!


Wednesday, December 19, 2012

The General Sinks Deeper And Deeper

 Yet Another US General as loser!

Military generals are not people who will work well with progressive Administrations.  Admiral Mullen is first not a military general and as a naval commander he is the antithesis of all things "general."  Mullen's service to America has been impeccable  courageous, and loyal to country and Commander-in-Chief. Former General and Former CIA director is the direct opposite.

It is almost impossible to find generals throughout US History who have worked both for the good of the nation and for all that is bad in America.  US Generals at least the most pubic via highest rank,  seem to fall either to good or bad with few in-between. They represent an executive in an entity (the military) that is unbound by nor inclined towards US politics. Their lives are comparable to the over-compensated US CEO.  Factually, they are most often than not supporters of Right-wing dogma as it fits their war-laden paradigm. Generals are not bringers of peace. Administrations suffer when they fail to perceive the military leaders for what they are, people of war.

Generals like Dwight Eisenhower and the nations first general George Washington are over shadowed by generals noted for major military failures. Williams Westmoreland (Viet Nam), Douglass MacArthur (WWII and Korean War), and thousands others stand as a military 'loser-standard' vs exceptional military leaders. We must remember that Admiral Halsey (WW II) was factually not a military general. He like Admiral Mullen was a WWII hero without equal (exception for Eisenhower). 

Recent military leader losers....


General Tommy Franks with Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld in 2003 

Romney Enlists General Behind Iraq Debacle as Key Military Adviser

| Fri Oct. 19, 2012 2:03 AM PDT

"I'm proud to be supporting Mitt Romney in this critical election about our nation’s future," said General Tommy Franks, USA (Ret.), Past Commander, U.S. Central Command. "Governor Romney is committed to restoring America's leadership role in the world. Instead of playing politics with our military, he will strengthen our defense posture by reversing the President's devastating defense cuts. The fact of the matter is that we cannot afford another four years of feckless foreign policy. We need level-headed leadership which will protect our interests and defend our values with clarity and without apology."
Few living Americans can speak with as much authority about "years of feckless foreign policy" as can Tommy "Rumsfeld's water boy" Franks, who comes in at No. 4 on a Foreign Policy list of worst US generals ever.
Tom Ricks writes...

That was the discussion I was having yesterday with several friends. Here is my ranking of their nominees:1. Douglas MacArthur
2. Benedict Arnold
3. Ned Almond
4. Tommy R. Franks
5. William Westmoreland
6. George McClellan
7. Ambrose Burnside
8. Horatio Gates

NOTE: Tom Ricks is the Pulitzer Prize winning journals who was unceremoniously cut short in a Fox News interview as he spoke truthfully about Fox as a wing of the GOP. 

We feel that Ricks cannot help but add Former CIA Director/Former Four Star General Patraeus to his list of worst Generals in US History.  As Patraeus moves away from national and personal embarrassment related to his penchant for carnal mischief and infidelity, his legacy continues to take form.  As is always the case, once the walls start to crumble the wall falls in  a heap.  During revelations of his experiences with his married concubine, the world found the concubine possessed information that could have been the result of improper interaction with the CIA director. Of course, her knowledge of militia captives held in US Embassy facilities could have come from her work as an analyst, but it could also have come from intimate privilege.

The very fact that the nation's top general and intelligence officer would exhibit judgment that led to an extra-marital affair is comparable to the decision to jump parachute less from a skyscraper to assess the feelings of flight. The very temporary glee of satisfying the curiosity of flight after a short time becomes the reality of a hard landing. It is as if the former general may have exercised judgment, but he surely leaned towards exercise of poor judgment. His poor judgment also spilled into the realm of conservative politics.

MSNBC's Chris Matthews, Hardball, broadcast a segment that is as eye-opening regarding Patraeus as it gets.   As Matthews sat with guest David Korn, Mother Jones,  and Ravi Chandrasekaran, Washingotn Post, viewers are treated to yet another example of just how dangerous was the General so trusted by President Obama.


Matthews ends his show on a strong and enlightening note.

Presidents have suffered greatly from the actions and leadership of their generals.  Harry Truman and Abe Lincoln rid themselves of generals who worked against the principles and orders of their Commander-in-Chief.  President Johnson and Richard Nixon failed to rid themselves of General Westmoreland, and life for each was as the leadership of Westmoreland; that of a loser.  Thus, the US lost a war that never saw its forces lose a military battle.

The Progressive Influence via The Pardu has stated many times, our president should not have ordered Patraeus's surge in Afghanistan.  We feel the president should have pulled out of Afghanistan, despite the fact our presence in country probably aided in the killing of Osama bin laden.  Obama should have pulled out.

If the Washington Post's is accurate, our president and our troops were placed in harm's way with possible input from right-wing war mongers given access by Patraeus himself.

Kimberly Kagan The Institute for the Study of War

President Obama is no micro-manager, but in today's political and militarist climate, a president needs to be very much aware of their top commanders. Patraeus was a time-bomb in hiding with 'closet' war mongers advising him while in Afghanistan. Imagine the glee of the Kagan's when Obama appointed Patraeus to the highest level of US intelligence.  The nation is probably far better off with his removal from the CIA and relegating the fallen leader to the list of Worse US Generals (above) and most dishonored CIA directors in US History.

I will continue to posit, when one wallows with the Right they fall like bricks in a crumbling wall.