E&P: Columnist Barnicle Joins MSNBC's Scarborough In Expressing Alarm About Bush and Iraq

Editor&Publisher: Columnist Barnicle Joins Scarborough In Expressing Alarm About Bush and Iraq
By E&P Staff
Published: December 21, 2006

NEW YORK -- MSNBC host, and former GOP congressman, Joe Scarborough, was once a strong supporter of the Iraq and the President, but he has turned harshly critical of both in recent weeks. This may have reached a climax of sorts on Wednesday night, when he welcomed, among others, Boston newspaper columnist Mike Barnicle to talk about the president's latest statements on Iraq, which seemed to suggest that he was no longer listening to his generals (as he once said he always did).

This caused all of the guests, as well as the host, to suggest that Bush may be turning "delusional," with Barnicle going so far as stating that perhaps the generals need a new commander-in-chief soon. Scarborough agreed, saying it was "uncharted territory" and "very frightening." Bush, he added, is "standing alone! He just doesn‘t seem to have any credibility. And this is extraordinarily disturbing to me, as a guy who supported this war and supported this president twice."

Here are excerpts from the chat, with Barnicle at center stage.

*

SCARBOROUGH: Well, Mike Barnicle, as you know, I supported this war and I supported this man twice for president, and yet I‘m growing more disturbed every night by how isolated George W. Bush has become. All the Joint Chiefs oppose his plan for Iraq. His lead general opposes his plan in Iraq, and now he‘s going to quit because Bush has ignored him. Colin Powell opposes his plan in Iraq. And an “L.A. Times” poll is showing that only 12 percent of Americans support his plan for more troops in Iraq. Shouldn‘t more Americans be disturbed at this unprecedented example of a White House that‘s in—and you can only call it this—a bunker mentality?

MIKE BARNICLE: Well, I think, Joe, that more Americans ought to be truly depressed by what they saw today on TV, the latest press conference. We have a president of the United States who is isolated. He‘s delusional. He is stubborn. He has had one intervention that clearly didn‘t work, the Baker-Hamilton report. He is clearly in need of another intervention.

You don‘t have to be von Clausewitz to figure out that urban warfare in the city of Baghdad, comparably the size of New York City, a tremendously hostile environment now, will become even more hostile with the introduction of more American troops. It will do very little, if nothing, to lessen the level of violence in Baghdad....

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003524431

It's been interesting to watch his "evolution". He has gone from a total Bushbot and party hitman...back in the Clinton Inquisition days to chafing under DeLay and bailing out into the corporate media world rather than running for the Senate in '04 (not to mention a certain dead intern problem) to his lackluster support for the GOOP in the recent elections. He move out of the beltway and this seemed to get him away from the spin as well.

I think the straw that "broke his back" were the attacks on MSNBC by the GOOP in the closing days of the election and attacks on NBC News in specific that he feels are also directed at him. This happened on election night and since then his rhetoric about numbnutz, the Repugnican party and Faux Noise has been constant. It's been interesting to watch his change...and at least he's openly challenging the status quo. It used to be I couldn't watch this guy, now he's doing some interesting stuff.

side on which his bread is buttered, but he's got an understanding, like many, many of us do, of the dire situation with which we're faced.

He deserves credit for being willing to say he backed the wrong horse. MKJ

liability, and have let their dogs off their leashes. Distancing.

I'm far from embracing Joey...although when he made a Frank Zappa reference several weeks back, it did give him some brownie points...I can see him filling a hole that has been widening and a void that could be major following the '08 elections. He's trying to be a "Raygun" by using a TV perch while the party divides and corrupts itself below him. He's insulated and innoculated from the party's current messes and sits in a very good position to pick up pieces once the party totally implodes. I give the guy credit for reading the tea leaves and not being the party toadie other "pundits" are. If he's impressing me, I'm sure he's building up some major bona fides with the moderate Repugnicans and Independent/Liberatarians who bailed on numbnutz and the current party leadership and are looking for an alternative.

family. I cannot watch him.

He is part of the same-o radical Republican cabal that has decided to jettison Bush, making Bush the scapegoat for all the excesses and evils. At least, IMHO.

during Katrina-being a Floridian and seeing what was able to be done for Floridians the year before when we had like 4 major hurricanes-in an election year in a republican state run by the president's brother-to then see what WASN'T done in a democrat run state was too much for ANY human with a pulse and a conscience to bear.

I think Katrina was a real eye-opener for many of the media types.

Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough had an exchange about Bush considering himself to be King of America. They talked about how it was time for some Republicans to go to Bush and tell him that our endeavors in Iraq were finished. Unwinnable. Finished. They talked about this being a particularly dangerous time for America.

I'll try to get the transcript and post it when it's up.

they were talking about Bush bombing Iran.

CROWLEY: And we know how taxed our military is right now. We can‘t afford to be starting a second war, particularly with our troops so vulnerable there in Iraq. Iran could make life miserable for the U.S. military in Iraq.

BUCHANAN: Joe, here‘s the thing, though. Ahmadinejad is not a - he‘s not crazy; he‘s a fanatic. He‘s a dedicated, serious fanatic.

But here‘s the thing. The president of the United States does not have the authority to attack Iran. That is an act of war against a country we have not declared war against.

SCARBOROUGH: Well, didn‘t Ronald Reagan .

BUCHANAN: The Congress of the .

SCARBOROUGH: Didn‘t Ronald Reagan attack Libya?

BUCHANAN: He attacked Libya in response to an attack. If Iran attacks us, George Bush has authority to smash them. And he would.

But what I believe Congress ought to do is pass a resolution, if it‘s got any guts, saying the president of the United States does not have the authority to attack Iran unless and until it comes to us and gets our approval of acts of war against Iran. If the Congress had any guts, they would do that on January 5th.

SCARBOROUGH: I don‘t think they‘re going to do it. And I think this conflict is going to continue to rise. And I wouldn‘t be surprised if we didn‘t strike out against Iran in the next six months to a year, because I believe - look, Pat, and you alluded to it - I believe this president will not leave office with the Iranians holding a nuclear weapon.

BUCHANAN: But, Joe, isn‘t that .

SCARBOROUGH: I just - I don‘t think it‘s going to happen.

BUCHANAN: Isn‘t that a impeachable act to take us to war in the absence of a declaration of war and in the absence of any attack? Where does he get that authority? He‘s not a king.

SCARBOROUGH: Well, a lot of people would say right now that the president‘s acting like a king in Iraq. When you‘ve got only 12 percent of Americans wanting more troops.

BUCHANAN: Right.

SCARBOROUGH: When you have him going against all of his generals.

We‘re in a very frightening time.

BUCHANAN: But, you know, Joe .

SCARBOROUGH: Pat.

BUCHANAN: Joe, the Congress could cut off the funds for the new troops, if they had any courage. They don‘t. That‘s the problem.

SCARBOROUGH: Well, we‘re going to see what happens. We‘re going to see if the Democrats deserve the majority, or whether they‘re going to be booted out two years from now.

thanks for posting!

Two hard core repubs now BEGGING the Democrats to do what they would never have expected their own party to do ....

Even Buchanan is now talking the possibility of impeachment .... unheard of even a couple of weeks ago ....

This exchange is frank and encapsulates much of what we have said here ... Once again: DU is ahead of the curve, and right on track .... I have found Buchanan's realism refreshing the last couple of years ..... at least the man is honest to himself and to his constituents ....

Notice how they dont respect the 'Pink Tutu' Democrats for not 'doing the right thing' .... Are the Dems listening ? ....

Democratic Party Leaders ? ..

Got Guts ? .... Got Spine ? ....

Get'r Done ! ....

if he proceeded to put more troops in Iraq against the wishes of the vast majority of citizens and members of Congress, and against the advice of the generals.

Interesting. How long before he utters the words "impeachment" and "Bush" in the same sentence?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16325815/


SCARBOROUGH: And, you know, it seems to me, Michael Crowley, that when you talk about this surge - and Arianna was saying, now is not the time for escalation - that most Americans understand, Michael, that there is a whiff of desperation in the president‘s call for more troops.

And I want to read you very quickly what the “USA Today‘s” editorial headline said about a troop surge.

It said, “plan would have been wise in 2003; now it carries a whiff of desperation.”

My question to you is this, Michael, again, and I think it‘s a question we have to keep repeating: If the president‘s generals, if 88 percent of Americans, if most military minds out there are saying, we shouldn‘t escalate, how does a president move forward and ignore everybody, without causing a constitutional crisis?

CROWLEY: You know, I don‘t know, Joe. I mean, I think it‘s kind of a scary prospect. I think we are in somewhat uncharted territory here. I think .

SCARBOROUGH: So, what do we do? Did you agree with Arianna that it‘s the Democrats‘ responsibility, and some Republicans‘ responsibility to step forward and say, Mr. President, “No more. It is over. Bring them home.”

CROWLEY: Sure. You know, I would argue that it‘s more the responsibility of Republicans. I mean, Arianna‘s point is well taken, and Democrats have to be forceful about what they believe.

But first of all, it was Republicans who initiated this. And so, it would be nice to see them now step up and take on the responsibility of solving the problem.

And second of all, it just carries more weight. I mean, look at the amount of attention someone like Gordon Smith got. When Republicans speak up and say, it‘s time to get out, they just get a lot more attention. It‘s the old man bites dog theory. It‘s less expected.

And so, I actually think that any given Republican, particularly one who supported the war who speaks up now, will have a lot more effect than a Democrat.

WALSH: But I would also add - but I would also add that a Jane Harman has an impact, too, that the Democratic hawks coming forward are important. Hillary Clinton taking a strong line is very important.

And, you know, I‘ve been on the show and heard Democrats say, oh, the Democrats don‘t really have to solve this problem. They can sit back and watch it unfold.

I now officially disagree with that. I really think that if the Democrats want to continue to lead this country, if they want to win in ‘08, they‘re going to have to come forward with a pretty bold and serious proposal for, certainly starting off, no new troops and for timed withdrawal.

And I think that they can‘t get away with saying the other guys got us into this.

SCARBOROUGH: I agree with you. It‘s time that we see political courage, and it‘s time for people to step forward, Republicans and Democrats alike, and take quick action before things get even worse - if we can believe that things can actually get even worse.

Joan Walsh said that Democrats CAN get away with saying the other guys got us into this. Transcript says "can't". It's wrong.