(H/T Ace)
This comes via NewsBusters:
Video:
Transcript:
MATTHEWS: … to the double dealing charge against you personally, sir, that you have a different attitude about President Bush and President Obama. President Bush took six days, according to the record, to respond to the shoe bomber. The president we have now, our president, took three days or 72 hours, I believe it was.
What‘s the difference in the way you score this? You seem to score it differently—is there is bell curve for Republicans…
WALSH: Really!
MATTHEWS: … where they‘re given more time? Is this the Katrina rule, where if it‘s anything faster than a week, it‘s somehow Speedy Gonzalez here?
(LAUGHTER)
CHRISTIE: Chris…
MATTHEWS: I mean, why do you give credit to Bush for six days you don‘t give to this president for three days? What‘s your scorecard, sir?
CHRISTIE: I‘m not looking at a scorecard, Chris.
MATTHEWS: Well, what are you looking at?
CHRISTIE: I‘m looking at connecting the dots. If you go back to Major Hasan Nidal (SIC) this past summer…
MATTHEWS: You‘re changing the subject.
CHRISTIE: … the shooting at Ft. Hood…
MATTHEWS: Why does Bush get six days?
CHRISTIE: No, no, Chris! No! I‘m going to actually answer this question. Again, we had a very tepid response from the Obama administration initially. First they said everything was under control. Then they said it was an isolated incident. Then we come forward to the Christmas incident. Chris, the difference is one thing and one thing only, Christmas Day is one of the most holiest day in the Christian religious faith.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
CHRISTIE: This was a radicalized Muslim who tried to kill 300 Americans on Christmas Day. I wanted my president to come out and say, We recognize this is an act of terror by a radicalized Muslim on Christmas Day…
WALSH: That‘s ridiculous.
CHRISTIE: … and we have the situation under control.
MATTHEWS: Why did he have to say “radicalized Muslim”? Why is that lingo so important to you?
WALSH: Richard Reid was a radicalized Muslim three days before Christmas. I had relatives flying in. It was 2001. I was actually scared to death at that point. So were a lot of Americans. But nobody thought to bray about President Bush staying on his vacation because that wasn‘t the climate at the time.
The climate right now is that Republicans use everything they can to undermine and delegitimize this president. And it‘s actually un-American. It‘s traitorous, in my opinion. Do you want to give aid and comfort to our enemies? Continue to treat this president like he wasn‘t elected and he doesn‘t know what he‘s doing! He knows what he did. He knows what he‘s doing. I‘m proud of him. I believe that he has the stalwart, resolute nature to get this done. In my opinion, sometimes he goes too far, but to talk about him like he‘s some socialist out-to-lunch…
MATTHEWS: OK…
WALSH: … is just outrageous!
Hmmmm. Remember when Salon Wrote this, right after the fall of Baghdad? Ace Weighs in here:
Traitorous? Really? To quote this for the hundredth time, here is Gary Kamiya, writing in Joan Walsh’s Salon webzine, soon after the fall of Baghdad:
I have a confession: I have at times, as the war has unfolded, secretly wished for things to go wrong. Wished for the Iraqis to be more nationalistic, to resist longer. Wished for the Arab world to rise up in rage. Wished for all the things we feared would happen. I’m not alone: A number of serious, intelligent, morally sensitive people who oppose the war have told me they have had identical feelings.Some of this is merely the result of pettiness–ignoble resentment, partisan hackdom, the desire to be proved right and to prove the likes of Rumsfeld wrong, irritation with the sanitizing, myth-making American media. That part of it I feel guilty about, and disavow. But some of it is something trickier: It’s a kind of moral bet-hedging, based on a pessimism not easy to discount, in which one’s head and one’s heart are at odds.Many antiwar commentators have argued that once the war started, even those who oppose it must now wish for the quickest, least-bloody victory followed by the maximum possible liberation of the Iraqi people. But there is one argument against this: What if you are convinced that an easy victory will ultimately result in a larger moral negative–four more years of Bush, for example, with attendant disastrous policies, or the betrayal of the Palestinians to eternal occupation, or more imperialist meddling in the Middle East or elsewhere?
Wishing for things to go wrong is the logical corollary of the postulate that the better things go for Bush, the worse they will go for America and the rest of the world.
Talk about double standards. Amazing… 🙄