I tracked back to you here. But it doesn't show up in your list. JUst FYI.

This guy is a such a piece of shit

If you can call that rambling mess a 'question,' I just love how he prefaces it;

"I don't want to sound like an apologist..."

Mmm hmm.

I think Matthews was intending on implying "suppose we were a good and even-handed country in the eyes of most Muslim countries, (not in American eyes)...in the context of entirity of what he was saying, I think that is what he was trying to say.

If that is true, it is worth pondering. Would Binnie and the mad Islamicists still come after us if we were not so biased towards doing Israel's bidding and truly committed to reform in the ME? If there was a Palestinian state and the end of Israel's land grabs?

The answer is that yes, they would still come after us and others. That is why nations like Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Syria, and Egypt - where less than 10% of the population is sympathetic to America - are all cracking down on Islamists. Radical Islam threatens all nations.

But terrorism isn't the only issue. We should strive to have American citizens welcomed and accepted in other countries. Though good relations clearly would greatly improve our odds of winning the war on terror - if we stopped tilting towards Israel so much and worked with Islamic nations to repair the false image so many Muslims have of America as a malevolent force. But it's not all about terror. It's about regaining the freedom of Americans to do business again overseas, walk around in a Muslim country, without being seen as "the enemy" by ordinary citizens.

I am not going to interpert what he said. I heard what the idiot said. If this is not correct the imbecile should try thinking before speaking. He trys to twist what others say so much that he has ended twisted.

I agree with Cedarford. I watched the interview, and I didn't interpret Matthews's question the way Ace did (I also disagreed with Ace's charactization of another part of the interview). I love Ace, but I think he's mistaken on this one.

If the transcript is available, I'd encourage someone to post a link to it so people could decide for themselves. But hearing the question myself, in the context of the discussion between Matthews and Scheur, I did not interpret the question the way Ace did.

Get lost, paleoboy.

First, thanks to Ace for the link. By the way, the transcript is available at MSNBC.com Second, how can you commenters apologize for this guy? Scheur intepreted Matthews' comment the same way Ace and I did.

"We should strive to have American citizens welcomed and accepted in other countries." I disagree. Other countries should strive to welcome Americans as citizens of the country that has done more good for the world in just over 200 years than all other societies in the history of human existence combined. The French should blow us kisses for saving them. The Germans should give us blessings for rebuilding their country, then reuniting it be defeating Soviet communism. If they don't like our policies, it reflects only their total ignorance. Arab nations are included in that. We are bringing them into the 20th, if not 21st century. The Arab people will benefit immensely from our policies. That is what bin Laden cannot abide. He is an oppressor of humanity, as were Hitler and Stalin before him.

"Second, how can you commenters apologize for this guy? Scheur intepreted Matthews' comment the same way Ace and I did."

I'm not apologizing for Matthews. I honestly and respectfully think some folks are misinterpreting the meaning of his question, but even if I'm correct in my interpretation, I think he should probably be more careful in how he phrases questions so they don't sound so bad. Here's the full leadup to the question asked:

"Does he think, for example—let me try this—and I don‘t want to sound like an apologist. But suppose we had truly an even-handed policy in the Middle East. Suppose there was a Palestinian entity of some kind and it had reasonable borders and it was contiguous enough to be a working state, and we didn‘t back dictators like the Saudi royal family, people like that who are simply selling the oil to keep their fingers filled with rings and girlfriends in London, all right? Suppose we were a good country and an even-handed country, all right? Would that make him any less hostile to us?"

Look, I'm slightly to the right of VDH when it comes to Middle East policy, but even I can see that the U.S. policy hasn't been perfect. We do have too close a relationship with the repressive Saudi government, as the folks at the Weekly Standard and National Review regularly point out. A lot of folks on the right and the left have also been critical of SOME aspects of U.S. policies with respect to Israel and the Palestinian Authority (I think Israel is largely in the right and have little sympathy for the Palestinians at this point, but even I can think of a couple situations over the past six decades where we've been too uncritical of Israel). I interpreted Matthew's question as being "Imagine if our Middle Eastern policy was perfect...(why) would they still hate us?" The question was meant as an opportunity for the guest to expound on the nature of anti-Americanism in the Middle East. No more, no less.

Also, just to clarify, when I said I agreed with Cedarford earlier, I just meant the part about the meaning of Matthew's question, not necessarily anything that followed.

Mike, assuming your more forgiving take on his statement, it still makes little sense. The guys who hate us hate the Saudis for talking to us. They want the whole middle east to be one big repressive Saudi Arabia, with no connection to the U.S. Liberals like Mattews grossly underestimate the number of people who do like us, or at least like what we've done in Afghanistan and Iraq. What he doesn't get is that the things bin Laden hates are for are the very best things we're doing, so we should never pursue any policy that would please bin Laden.

SteveL,

Believe me, I completely agree with you as to the nature of the enemy. But Matthew's wanted to hear the guest's own opinion, so he presented Scheur with a question where he'd have a chance to expound on the nature of our enemy, as he saw it.
Scheur has some very...interesting opinions. Keep in mind that at one point in the interview, Scheur stated that while he thought Bin Laden would surely nuke the U.S. if given the chance, under the belief that we would then leave the Middle East and thereby enable Bin Laden to take it over, Bin Laden would also have no problem with subsequently selling America oil at market price. I interpreted Matthews's line of questioning to be an attempt to understand what Scheur believed to be the scope and basis of Bin Laden's aims (i.e., "If we were absolutely perfect, would he still be so intent on us leaving the Middle East that he'd nuke us?").

SteveL - You are a little blinded by your "The world should kiss our ass" model of international diplomacy. Which postulates that out of sheer gratitude for everything we do, or have done, our "intrinsic goodness" - no one has the right to criticise or oppose anything we do, any policy we make. Thus, any ill-will or lack of slavish affection can be dismissed as a lack of gratitude or jealousy.

I argue instead that certain US policies have indeed made us unpopular in much of the world, and some of those policies do bear scrutiny.

Put it this way, no nation has done more to bring civilization to the world, given laws and good societal structures, set up more flourishing nations - than Great Britain. Do you feel the need to kiss British ass, demonstrate your gratitude and devotion? No? How about China and it's immense contributions to civilization and half the stuff you buy these days. Do you feel obligated to kiss some yellow butt, or do you feel free to oppose certain Chinese policies? The Soviets did 70% of the work fighting the Nazis in WWII. Were we remiss in not kissing Russian butt more? If you think that Americans have been under no obligation to support whatever those nations did, or at least defer to them in gratitude.........why do you expect other nations to consider themselves obligated to kiss our asses?

We agree that radical Islamists would come after us and most others no matter what, but any sensible person would consider the US slide in esteem in Europe, Asia, Muslim countries, and Latin America - into getting closer to being another reviled pariah state like N Korea, Israel, apartheid S Africa - is cause for concern. It's not a good thing, and not a good thing to dismiss lost American influence and prestige, lost American business and travel opportunities - as trivial. That sentiment, SteveL, is the arrogance of some in great power that revels in making enemies and typically signals that that great power is in danger of decline.

Yes, Cedarford, and if it were not for the help of France, the American Revolution would have certainly failed.
But Matthews is still (and yet again) all but showing outright sympathy to Islamofascists who would gut his whole family for fun.

Now, can we all get back to the scorn- heaping?

Cedarford, perhaps this is a worldview issue. I would love to heap praise on the British that were, but not the British that are. They gave us the notion of a free press, now they stifle their own. They gave us idea of the right to bear arms and now ban all firearms. They gave the idea of self defense as a legal prerequisite, now they have bannished the notion from their laws. I can make a similar case for the French and Germans. We don't even need to discuss the Chinese. The world is going backwards in nearly every country on earth. The United States is virtually the sole representative for the values that I hold dear (although the Poles and Czechs are close to joining us and Aussies and New Zeleanders aren't far off), and that our founding fathers held dear.

So when much of Europe detests us for the very things that make us great, I for one am not concerned. I'd like to know which of our policies have brought us scorn and how we should change them?

SteveL -

I postulate that the US was not in an ass kissing mode for the British Empire when it was at it's 18th & 19th Century apogee.......so it is unrealistic to expect that America is "owed" ass kissing obsequience from all nations, save perhaps always the exception Israel, this century, as their moral obligation. And that somehow those nations will all fall in line to schmooch our buttocks if we demand it loud enough (except Israel).

We obviously have a choice. Do we wish to say we are the Imperial Hyperpower that expects gratitude and lackeys, or do we say we are a powerful country but one that needs allies and goodwill, therefore we will listen and modify our policies if need be??

Realistically, there is no ass-kissing, there is only national interest.
Cedarford: Your argument would work better if these other countries had militaries that were worth a damn, and weren't dependent upon us.

One of my friends has an aunt in Austria who is virulently anti-American. But when the concentration camps appeared again in Europe this last time she said, "When are the Americans going to do something about it?"