Chris Matthews And Jim Cramer--Brothers In Cluelessness

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 16:31

First off, Greenwald noted (in his diary title, no less), "There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer," first noting how Cramer had obediently served as a stenographer for the rich and powerful, only to be lied to repeatedly, then pointing out:

But there's absolutely nothing about Cramer that is unique when it comes to our press corps.  The behavior that Jon Stewart so expertly dissected last night is exactly what our press corps in general does -- and, when compelled to do so, they say so and are proud of it.

Second, Glenn pointed out that Cramer was actually better than most.  At least he felt some sense of responsibility--no little thing in contrast to most:

At least give credit to Cramer for facing his critics and addressing (and even acknowledging the validity of) the criticisms.  By stark contrast, most of our major media stars simply ignore all criticisms of their corrupt behavior and literally suppress it (even if the criticisms appear as major, lengthy front-page exposés in The New York Times).

Greenwald pointed at length to the record on the Iraq War, and here Matthews has his own shameful past to live down, which he tries to obscure by saying he opposed the war--notwithstanding his worshipful adulation of Codpiece's flight suit moment. Yet, here we are, 6 years down the road, and he still can't get his arms around what happened then, as he give Ari Fleischer the floor for one more round of Bush revisionism--this time it's for the ages!--all the while posing as the tough-guy interrogator, not quite realizing he's actually the patsy.

MATTHEWS:  Well, let's talk about the change in parties which occurred last year in November.  You're as aware of politics as anybody around.  You speak about it.  You think about it.  You write about it.  It seems to me there were two reasons why Barack Obama was elected president.  First of all, he won the primaries because he was totally against the war in Iraq.  He won the general because the economy sucked.

Now, to put it bluntly, what's wrong about that?  Doesn't the war still stand as a mistake, as an unpopular war?  Doesn't the economy that you left the country when your party left the country in our hands terrible and worthy of a change of parties?  What's really changed since November?

(CROSSTALK)

FLEISCHER:  I don't think a lot has changed in terms of what you just described.  And I would agree with your overall political assessment.  It was in part because of Iraq and in large part because of the economy that Barack Obama won.

Having said that, I also think Barack Obama should say thank you every day that he inherited a world without Saddam Hussein in it.  Imagine how much worse the Middle East would be if Saddam and his sons were still in charge of that country and how much worse human rights would be in that region of the world.

So it's not as simple as just saying that one factor contributed to an election.  That's absolutely true in the politics of it.  But now that he's governing it's a lot more complicated, isn't it.  Take today...

That's quintessential Chris Matthews.  Genocide is bad if you lose the next election. If you don't, it's politically brilliant, and you're to be congratulated.  And, of course, it leaves the door absolutely wide open for the interviewee to walk in and start spinning any which way he wants, because there's always another election on down the road.   And so Fleischer goes back to the fundamental neo-con lie, and starts reguritating it as required:  we protected you, we made you safer, we're fighting evil and evil is everywhere, anyone who isn't with us is against us and wants you all to die.

Fleisher goes on to add 2 more fundamental claims: that Bush will be remembered for keeping us safe, because we weren't attacked after 9/11, and Bush was justified in attcking Iraq, because everyone else thought Saddam had WMDs, too.

The first claim here is fundamentally invalid.  It's an ad hoc argument: 9/11 happened, Bush woke up to the terrorist attack, we didn't get attacked again, so Bush is responsible for us not getting attacked again.

But, of course, this not just an invalid form of argument, it completely ignores the logic of the terrorist strategy, which is not necessarily to keep on doing the same sort of thing over and over again.  9/11 accomplished what it was supposed to accomplish.  Bush has done far more damage to America after 9/11 than bin Laden did to America on 9/11. Before 9/11 bin Laden was making all sorts of preposterous claims about the US.  Then he went and committed such a horrific atrocity that millions in the Muslim world refused to believe it.  He had utterly discredited himself... until Bush responded and turned him into a hero, giving him the status of "holy warrior" that he could never have achieved by himself.  This is what actually happened after 9/11, and it's not a hard case to make.

But you can't possibly make the case if basically all you do is the same thing as Jim Cramer--interview the powers that be, and reguritate all their lies.  To get the real story, you have to go to actual experts in terrorism, guerilla movements, and the like, experts in the history of Middle East politics and religion, and you have to engage in a critical sorting process, in a cross-interrogation of the various different claims that are being made.  Over 7 years after 9/11, Chris Matthews has done none of that--and neither has virtually any other M$M star.  They are all Jim Cramer, they are all powerless to intelligently confront the lies of power.  Yes, they can jab, and put on a good show.  Chris Matthews is a good entertainer.  But a journalist?  Not exactly.  At least not in the true meaning of that word.

Fleisher's second big lie is even easier to refute: ecerybody else thought Saddam had WMDs, so you can't pin the blame on Bush.  Refuting this lie on it's most basic level is child's play: First, everyone else didn't believe it, Bush himself didn't believe it, as he kept pushing for other people to cook evidence for him.  Second, many of those who did believe it were relying on Bush lying to them.  Third, regardless of what people believed before weapons inspectors went in, by the eve of the war, the vast majority of world opinion on WMDs had turned around, and even those who were still uncertain wanted inspections to continue, rather than supporting Bush's push for war.

But it's not the basic level we should be looking for here.  Six years after the war began--a war that's arguably one of the biggest strategic blunders in our history--we should have a comprehensive, multi-level understanding of what went wrong.  And that means understanding that depends on all the available evidence.  Such evidence includes the Downing Street Memos, which contain clear evidence that everything the Bush Administration said publicly was a ruse to get us into war.  If necessary, Bush was prepared to trick Saddam, one way or another, to create a pretext for war.  And for Matthews to not know this history--or to know it, but not raise it (which is arguably much worse) represents a level of journalistic malpractice at an even higher order.

Unlike Jim Cramer, Chris Matthews has yet to even begin the process of addressing his past mistakes.  And in that, Chris Matthews is even more typical than Cramer of official media today.