Disgusting: MSNBC’s Corn, Matthews Think Action in Syria Is Distraction from Russia Probe

The Sarin gas attack on Tuesday in Syria was one of the worst atrocities this generation has ever seen, but when it came to the U.S. fighting for those affected, all MSNBC’s maniacal hooligans Chris Matthews and David Corn could think of is how any military strikes would distract from the Russia investigations. 

Speaking on Hardball to Democratic Congressman Mike Quigley (Ill.) and Corn (who’s D.C. bureau chief for the far-left rag Mother Jones), Matthews turned to Corn to hit him “with real cynicism” which was really conspiracy theories.

Despite the emotional reactions people like him had expressed days earlier, Matthews wondered if doing something against a Russian ally would harm the chances of tying Trump to the Russian Federation:

Here's a President who’s under incredible scrutiny for his relations, such as they were, with the Russians in all those months that the Russians were helping him get elected President. And here he is tonight apparently — we're hearing lots of talks about it with guests we've had on — that there may be military action against Russia's number one ally, which is Syria. Is this to cover his tracks? 

This Syria matter isn’t humorous at all, but this was enough for Corn to quipped: “Well, that would be the wag the dog scenario, right?”

<<< Please support MRC's NewsBusters team with a tax-deductible contribution today. >>>

“It would distract from the investigation and show I'm not in bed with the Russians. I can launch strikes that are inconvenient and maybe end up killing some Russians. Who knows what that goes from here,” Corn added.

Matthews followed up by fretting that military action against Syria’s Bashar al-Assad could “clear him of the charge” that he colluded with the Russians before the election because, you know, that’s what should be at the foremost of our minds. (That was sarcastic.)

The shameful MSNBC political analyst responded by complaining that “it may distract us if we get tiny a mess in Syria.” He then gloated what “a disaster” the Trump administration has been and chiefly on foreign policy with the National Security Adviser post and Devin Nunes.

“We need sound and sane national security policy. That function at the White House is centered in the National Security Council and so Trump has not been able to put a team in place there, and only yesterday afternoon he was saying, you know, my thinking is changed on Syria when he always said to Obama don't do any of this. And now we might be rushing into military action without him contemplating it, without a National Security council that works,” he concluded.

The blockheaded analysis returned a few minutes later before commercial break as Corn responded this way to a Matthews question about the possible fallout from any airstrike or military campaign:

You could have Hezbollah striking. It could embolden ISIS to move forward in Syria, and maybe that will, you know, take out Assad, but is that good? Do we want ISIS to take out Assad? Relations between Russia and the United States are already conflicted and tainted and so the issue is, is he doing this — yesterday he came out and said, you know what? I never thought about this before. I've changed now because of this. So is he just doing this because he feels like doing something right away?

Most readers will recall that it was these same two pundits that condemned the Susan Rice controversy on Tuesday night as racist and sexist. In other words, it’s been a banner week for them.

 

Here’s the relevant portions of the transcript from MSNBC’s Hardball on April 6:

MSNBC’s Hardball
April 6, 2017
7:31 p.m. Eastern

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Let me go to David on this, and I will hit you with real cynicism, okay? I think I can outdo you on this one. Here's a President who’s under incredible scrutiny for his relations, such as they were, with the Russians in all those months that the Russians were helping him get elected President. And here he is tonight apparently — we're hearing lots of talks about it with guests we've had on — that there may be military action against Russia's number one ally, which is Syria. Is this to cover his tracks? 

DAVID CORN: Well, that would be the wag the dog scenario, right? And perhaps — 

MATTHEWS: Cover his tracks meaning you think I'm in bed with the Russians? 

CORN: — and the Russians that’s right. And it would distract from the investigation and show I'm not in bed with the Russians. I can launch strikes that are inconvenient and maybe end up killing some Russians. Who knows what that goes from here? 

MATTHEWS: Would that clean him? Would that clear him of the charge that he was doing with the Russians.

CORN: I don't think so, but it may distract us if we get tiny a mess in Syria. To me, one of the big pictures here, because you talk about what Nunes did. We've seen the NSC. It's only been 11 weeks. It's been a disaster. We are on our second National Security Adviser. People who want to be fired are kept in place for political reasons. They're involved with Nunes on this midnight run and listen. Tonight's a good example. We need sound and sane national security policy. That function at the White House is centered in the National Security Council and so Trump has not been able to put a team in place there, and only yesterday afternoon he was saying, you know, my thinking is changed on Syria when he always said to Obama don't do any of this. And now we might be rushing into military action without him contemplating it, without a National Security council that works.

(....)

7:35 p.m. Eastern

CORN: I think Syria is about as complicated an issue as we have. 

MATTHEWS: Give me the fallout if we hit — if we kill a bunch of — Syrians — kill a bunch of Russians. 

CORN: You can go in any way you imagine. 

MATTHEWS: Hezbollah strikes. 

CORN: You could have Hezbollah striking. It could embolden ISIS to move forward in Syria, and maybe that will, you know, take out Assad, but is that good? Do we want ISIS to take out Assad? Relations between Russia and the United States are already conflicted and tainted and so the issue is, is he doing this — yesterday he came out and said, you know what? I never thought about this before. I've changed now because of this. So is he just doing this because he feels like doing something right away?


Please support NewsBusters today! (a 501c3 non-profit production of the Media Research Center)

DONATE
CyberAlerts Foreign Policy Middle East Russia Syria Military Conservatives & Republicans Liberals & Democrats Trump-Russia probe MSNBC Hardball Video Chris Matthews David Corn Bashar al-Assad Donald Trump
Curtis Houck's picture