Chris Matthews Thinks It's 'A Little Ridiculous' to Blame Obama Admin for Benghazi Security
MSNBC's Chris Matthews ranted on Thursday's Hardball that
"it's a ridiculous" to hold the Obama administration culpable for the
lack of security around the Benghazi compound during the September, 2012
attacks.
"But the idea that somebody else should have been covering for him
[Ambassador Chris Stevens], that someone else should have the army there
waiting to defend him, I think it's a little ridiculous," Matthews
insisted. "How would the President even know he [Stevens] was going on
that trip out there to Benghazi?
[Audio here.]
Guest Michael Steele was incredulous at Matthews' assertion. "If the
President doesn't know, at least his Secretary of State and her
department should know what his [Stevens'] needs are on the ground and
what is required to protect the United States ambassador in a place like
Benghazi."
Matthews said Ambassador Chris Stevens was a "grown-up" who chose to
make the "risky" trip to Benghazi, and that attacks happen all the time
around the world:
"We live in a world of unpredictability and horror. And the idea that one of these incidents would be blown up as the most important issue of the upcoming presidential elections for kingdom come to me is out of proportion."
Below is a transcript of the May 1 Hardball segment aired at 7:08 PM EDT:
Rep. DARRELL ISSA (R-Calif.): It comes in a week in which the American
people have learned that you can not believe what the White House says,
you cannot believe what the spokespeople say, and you cannot believe
what the President says. And the facts are coming out that, in fact,
this administration has knowingly withheld documents pursuant to
congressional subpoenas in violation of any reasonable transparency or
historic precedent, at least since Richard Milhous Nixon.
(End Video Clip)
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Well David Corn, it does seem to me you're right. The
language coming out of these people couldn't be more horrendous, given
the fact that there's hardly even a nuance of difference between what
we're learning now and what we learned a long time ago about the tragedy
that occurred in Benghazi. By the way, would we please all remember
that Ambassador Chris Stevens was a grown-up, a serious professional of
sound mind. He decided to go out there to that risky facility that
night. He made that decision which ambassadors have to make. It turned
out to be a horrific situation me walked into. But the idea that
somebody else should have been covering for him, that someone else
should have the army there waiting to defend him, I think it's a little
ridiculous.
(Crosstalk)
MICHAEL STEELE: I think it's the responsibility of the President of
the United States and his administration to protect those ambassadors
who do go into harm's way willingly –
(Crosstalk)
MATTHEWS: How would he know that Chris Stevens was going out to a
facility alongside a CIA facility in the middle of the night some
weekend. How would he know that?
STEELE: How would he know what? I didn't hear the question.
MATTHEWS: How would the President even know he was going on that trip out there to Benghazi?
STEELE: How would the President know that specific event? We do have
e-mails and correspondent between the ambassador and the State
Department. If the President doesn't know, at least his Secretary of
State and her department should know what his needs are on the ground
and what is required to protect the United States ambassador in a place like Benghazi. Come on guys, this isn't rocket science and
you daggone well if the shoe were on the other foot, you would be
screaming holy hell about how a Bush administration failed to protect
one of its ambassadors.
(...)
MATTHEWS: But this argument, it seems to me, trying to apply this to
what happens in any war zone – which is this was a war zone. This
country was not being governed at the time. You go into Afghanistan, you
go into Syria today, you go into Iraq, there are places in the world
where dangerous to go to. Where people get killed all the time in
surprise ambushes. It happens all the time. Roadside bombings.
Improvised explosive devices. We live in a world of unpredictability and
horror. And the idea that one of these incidents would be blown up as
the most important issue of the upcoming presidential elections for
kingdom come to me is out of proportion.
— Matt Hadro is a News Analyst at the Media Research Center. Follow Matt Hadro on Twitter.
