Gibbons Revisionist History
So Gibbons got soft-balled on Hardball with Chris Matthews. Hangin' with the beauty queens has mellowed out Matthews quite a bit.
I swear Matthews took pity on the Gibster when he saw how the Gibster tripped up when Matthews challenged Gibbons' remark about Nevada being "unique." Matthews countered that "all states are unique," and Gibbons' had the pained expression of a man drowning in his own incompetence.
Anyways, Gleaner caught the gaffe of the day, wherein Gibbons says that the Yucca Mountain project is "good science," a statement he himself has denied many times in the past. (Here, here, here...)
But there's another goody. During his tirade about how Bush's surge will win the War in Iraq, Gibbons said:
Gibbons: [The Surge] is going to change the policy of how we address that war, that conflict over there, rather than changing the logistics aspect of it. If you change the policy of how we treat those insurgents and the terrorists that are over there, then we can win that war.
Matthews: You really think that government over there is willing to take down the killing squads and the militia?
Gibbons: I hope so. Because that's the only way...
Matthews: That's the bet we're making here.
Gibbons: And that's the one that's going to change the outcome of this war.
Matthews: Do you think it could turn out to be the worst mistake since Vietnam to go in there?
Gibbons: No, absolutely not.
Matthews: You still think that it's probably a good bet?
Gibbons: Well, I'll tell you something, uh, when you look back at history, you see the thousands and thousands of innocent people that died under the previous regime there, how can you sit here and say changing that regime wasn't a good idea? Were we able to project and predict what would occur today? I don't think so.
Well, there was one feller who so predicted. Take a gander at this excerpt from a Coolican piece:
Although a reliable, 90 percent supporter of President Bush's policies, Gibbons has never had the kind of settled ideology or convictions of most of his colleagues. During the 1990s, he opposed a policy of regime change in Iraq, warning that it could lead to a protracted occupation, sectarian violence, and Iranian and Syrian manipulation.
Oops. One can only wonder why Gibbons insists on defending so vehemently the failed policies of a President which even he thinks are doomed to failure.

