Chris Matthews Negotiates With Bin Laden

This from 'Hardball With Chris Matthews' last night. Mr. Matthews was speaking with Michael Scheuer formerly of the CIA:

'MATTHEWS: After 22 years with the CIA, Michael Scheuer left the agency this past Friday. It is fair to say few people there knew more about Osama bin Laden than did he and does. Yet Scheuer says his warnings about the threat that bin Laden posed to this country fell on deaf ears. His complaints were made public in “Imperial Hubris,” a book critical of the CIA and the Bush administration.
Michael, you‘re a gutsy guy. When did you sense that bin Laden was going to be a danger to us?
MICHAEL : I think we found out shortly after we began chasing him in January of 1996 that he was much more than any kind of terrorist we had ever seen before.
MATTHEWS: What is his motive? Why does he want to kill us?
SCHEUER: His motive—his motive is to change our policies, sir. Notwithstanding what the president or Mr. Kerry said during the campaign, he really doesn‘t give a darn about our democracy or our society. He is after a change in policies which he views as lethal to Muslims.
MATTHEWS: 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?
SCHEUER: We are a good country, sir, to start with.
MATTHEWS: In other words, in his eyes.
SCHEUER: Yes, in bin Laden‘s...
MATTHEWS: What are the problems besides Middle East and the oil kingdoms?
SCHEUER: With bin Laden, his opposition is based on support for Israel, support for the tyrannies.
MATTHEWS: Yes. Does he want to eliminate Israel?
SCHEUER: I think he does. I think that‘s...
MATTHEWS: OK, well, that makes it simple. You can‘t do that.
SCHEUER: That‘s clearly his goal.
MATTHEWS: So there‘s no policy negotiation we could ever have with this guy.
SCHEUER: It has to be a changes in policies and a more assertive use of military force.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: No. What I‘m saying, there‘s no way not to be at war with this guy, from our perspective, is what I‘m asking you.
SCHEUER: Yes.
Right now, the choice isn‘t between war and peace. It is between war and endless war.
MATTHEWS: Was there any time that we could have avoided war against him?
SCHEUER: No.
MATTHEWS: So, basically, he started a war against us. We just got to beat him.
SCHEUER: Yes. That‘s exactly right.
MATTHEWS: OK. That‘s what I want to know.'

So, Mr. Matthews maybe finally gets that you can't negotiate with terrorists? Maybe, maybe not. But his words do show where his heart lies.
And why does the far left want so much to deal with these usurpers of Islam? Do they not realize it is exactly their leftist ideology that the terrorists hate so much? But let’s deal with the these murderes. Let’s just make concessions. Sound good? OK then, let’s make a list of what we could offer:

1) We could give up women’s rights...no more equality, the Islamo-fascists hate that. No more women working. No more having it all ladies, but then of course no more glass ceiling or unequal pay, either. No more passing out condoms to high school girls. Shoot, no more girls in school at all. No more fashion industry, how many colors of berkas could there be? And you can throw out the whole ‘choice’ debate. No more abortions, period. And let’s throw in female circumcision and honor killings just for fun.

2) We'd have to cede the left's love of tolerance and compassion. No room for tolerance in a religion whose very name means 'submission'. The Suni's and Shiite's can not even tolerate each other, how do you think they'd feel about secularists, athiest's, American Jews, and Christians? How 'bout tolerance for those who engage in non-straight sex? Let's just say the words 'submit or die' come to mind.

3) Maybe we could negotiate away homosexual marriage and civil unions altogether. But, we’d probably be beheaded for even bringing it up. Let’s not. ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’? Don’t think so...better to deny it exists at all. Homosexuality doesn’t sit well with those true believers in the ‘religion of peace.’ There goes all our ‘What Not to Wear/Queer Eye’ clone television shows. Shoot, and no more interior decorating or antiquing. On the positive side, maybe we could keep the Boy Scouts.

4) Might as well throw in our televisions, DVD players, cable, and satellite. Our programs and cinema would not sit well with the sophisticated pallette of the child killers. Our God hating, controversy driven, sex teasing media would have to be replaced by America-Jazeera. The perverse sexuality that the ACLU protects has to go. No more, “It’s the parent's responsibility to protect their own children from what society spits out.” Now it will be the mullah's responsibility, not you evil non-believers.

5) Let's toss in the lefts idea of justice. No more gettting our panties in a wad about supposed police brutality. That is what the police would then be for. You can forget about Miranda warnings...here's the warning, "Stop, American Satan pig!" Followed, of course, by the sound of Uzi's. That would make the whole death penalty controversy obsolete. Of course, we would then have the 'not in my backyard' dilemna of where to put the mass graves.

I could go on, but I'm getting bored. And by now, maybe you can see that many of the left's beloved ideas are the very reasons the Islamic terrorists hate us in the first place.