Video: Ingraham clashes with Matthews over Iraq, Greenspan
posted at 9:15 pm on September 20, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
She starts with a slap at “Slippery” Shuster and it’s all downhill from there. The most annoying bit isn’t from Matthews, ironically, it’s from Chuck Todd recycling the left’s dreary, pitiful meme that any subject of conservative interest other than Iraq is a contrived “distraction” from Iraq. That comes from the same childish impulse as the screeching about the supposed coincidence between terror alerts and Republican scandals, even though there were no alerts during the period of steady decline in Bush’s approval rating after Hurricane Katrina and deterioration in Iraq in early 2006. After round-the-clock coverage of Petraeus’s testimony last week, a burst of opinion polls before and afterwards about the effect of the progress report, independent analyses among all the major papers of whether conditions have improved, and two votes already this week in the Senate on withdrawal proposals, Todd has all the attention on Iraq he needs to make the case for a pullout. If the fish aren’t biting, then perhaps it’s time, shall we say, to MoveOn.
I tacked on 20 extra seconds of stupidity at the end. Listen closely as someone in the background drops something on the set and Matthews starts making faces which — he thinks — the camera isn’t picking up.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Hahaha! Poor widdle powdy face Maffwhews…
Mr. Bingley on September 20, 2007 at 9:26 PM
Laura is smarter than Greenspan. I betcha her book sells more copies.
infidel4life on September 20, 2007 at 9:29 PM
I’d love to see a montage of Matthews’s gaffes and off-air persona exposed. I recall that not too long ego a he was caught on air yelling at his producers that he was “putting on crap,” which, you know, is probably the most true thing he’s said in a while.
Nessuno on September 20, 2007 at 9:31 PM
Matthews is such a pompous ass. I’d bet all six of his nightly viewers even think so too.
Sheesh..
commonsensehoosier on September 20, 2007 at 9:33 PM
LOL….all the Crown Royal in Chrissy’s liquor cabinet had to be replaced the next morning. I heart Laura!
Limerick on September 20, 2007 at 9:34 PM
The exchange about what Greenspan actually wrote was funny because Matthews came off like a 5 year old.
Mindcrime on September 20, 2007 at 9:38 PM
Laura does sidestep Matthews after he asks her when she thinks things will get better in Iraq. She should work on a tighter response than “I have hope that goodness will prevail”. In the Middle East one can wait centuries for that to happen.
The progress in Kurdish regions is at least one of the more tangible developments she could reference.
dedalus on September 20, 2007 at 9:38 PM
Does Matthews’s have a glass eye or is that a nervous
twitch . He never seems to co-ordinate his blinks.
But he sure spin a topic. Huh ! !
Texyank on September 20, 2007 at 9:46 PM
More heat and that makes good TV, but I liked her Tucker interview better (yesterday?). There are two minds I’d really have appreciated flushing out this tangled issue more.
Spirit of 1776 on September 20, 2007 at 9:47 PM
All ventriloquist dummies do that. It happens when the strings inside the wooden head shrink due to moisture.
Mindcrime on September 20, 2007 at 9:47 PM
Oooo! Scary. That mean Cwissy is SO menacing.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on September 20, 2007 at 9:48 PM
Laura you ROCK..!!!!!
Legions on September 20, 2007 at 9:51 PM
“I like your brother better than you, right now.” LOL!
ToddonCapeCod on September 20, 2007 at 9:55 PM
It really depresses me to see one of my heroes, Laura, succumbing to a bully’s intimidation and being unable to explain Greenspan’s comments even as well as he himself subsequently did.
Rush did it well. Laura blew it.
petefrt on September 20, 2007 at 10:01 PM
Of course Laura pounded Matthews. She’s using facts and logic, he’s just repeating leftist talking points. But that face he made! Reminds me of my dad’s “mad face” when I was acting up around guests. Only my dad had something to back it up.
stonemeister on September 20, 2007 at 10:02 PM
Let’s state the obvious –
1). Voting against a political ad/speech is really very unConservative not to mention utterly ridiculous. The party of less gov’t got pawned again by those who have usurped it.
2). Chris Matthews and Laura Ingraham are both extremely biased as most people who post on political blogs or rant their opinions across the airwaves.
3). It is hard to accept the truth on both sides of the aisle.
4). She got creamed on the Greenspan point unfortunately by arguing minutsha for want of better facts.
AprilOrit on September 20, 2007 at 10:03 PM
Laura once again delivers. I love her, she tolerates bullsh*t from no one. Matthews couldn’t advance his argument one inch.
Dork B. on September 20, 2007 at 10:08 PM
In what sense is it unconservative? They didn’t vote to ban the ad, they voted to criticize it.
Allahpundit on September 20, 2007 at 10:13 PM
That’s true.
Spirit of 1776 on September 20, 2007 at 10:14 PM
Advance what?
He read Greenspan’s words…he stated fact she argued heresay.
AprilOrit on September 20, 2007 at 10:14 PM
And naturally the Caveman wouldn’t let her finish her sentence.
Next time ask him if he has stopped molesting his kids yet – and then talk right over his answer.
CrazyFool on September 20, 2007 at 10:21 PM
“Minutsha?”
Michelle on September 20, 2007 at 10:21 PM
When a liberal like Mathews says it’s about oil they mean that the pres. went to war to get oil for his friends. What Greenspan was saying is that it was about oil because we can’t allow the oil supplies to be controlled by fanatics. The difference is in what is being said by the same words.
Rose on September 20, 2007 at 10:24 PM
Dear AprilOrit – try watching the clip with the sound off. Laura smiles and nods and wins this debate – Chris frown, scowls, and licks his lips.
With or without the sound, Laura dominates with the best reasoning.
centralcal on September 20, 2007 at 10:24 PM
Personal smear and a filthy one, sounds like a Koskid is among us, did you roll in from one of there or one of the other fever swamps?
AprilOrit on September 20, 2007 at 10:24 PM
I dare say she meant ‘minutiae’.
Spirit of 1776 on September 20, 2007 at 10:25 PM
That is what I understood and I think you are underestimating what most people thought, even Tweety Bird. Furthermore Greenspan has clarified this.
Who cares whether Chris Matthews licks his lips or she smiles and nods, is this a debate or an Imogene Cocoa and Sid Ceasar routine??
And where did the child molestation accusation about Chris Matthews come from? You have hard proof he molests his children?
AprilOrit on September 20, 2007 at 10:29 PM
LMFAO, his grunt look to whoever in the background in the last 5 seconds is awesome!
infidelesto on September 20, 2007 at 10:32 PM
I did, I’m a jew I wrote it the yiddish NYer way…dare I explain.
AprilOrit on September 20, 2007 at 10:32 PM
I seem to remember a long while ago someone constantly pulling the ‘I read the book’ and consistently quoting erroneously or out of context from it on their show. But I haven’t seen that in a long while. Was that Matthews or Russert? (If it helps, I think it was Bob Woodward who was finally ready for it and gave the him the ultimate smackdown.)
Anyway, I’ll be waiting for Matthews to fulfill his promise. Maybe it was Greenspan’s book that was dropped on the floor, as kind of like a “STFU will ya? It’s not in there!”
Dusty on September 20, 2007 at 10:34 PM
they could have used a Paris Hilton B-Roll.
The point that Greenspan was making was that Saddam Hussein was threatening the global supply of oil by terrorizing his oil rich neighbors and messing with the straight of hormuz. By taking Hussein out, the global supply of oil was no longer under threat.
BY THAT LOGIC, Greenspan concluded that the Iraq war was about OIL (has nothing to do with WHY we fought the war). Unfortunately Greenspan is much too much of an intellectual for Matthews to comprehend anything other than supporting his childish bias to bash Bush.
ThackerAgency on September 20, 2007 at 10:35 PM
Crissy Mathews is such a petulant child. “We read the words of the book here.” Yeah, you do, with no context and no interest in what the auhtor of those words had to say about them when they were inevitably twisted by the MSM.
And Laura makes no bones about her bias, but Schuster is supposed to be objective, right? Or has Crissy joined Olby in throwing away the facade of objectivity?
VolMagic on September 20, 2007 at 10:37 PM
Righto. A straightforward point. I wish Laura would have explained it at least as clearly as that.
petefrt on September 20, 2007 at 10:41 PM
But he read the quote, he said he read the book, whether he did or not is immaterial, people claim to read books that they’ve never read all the time.
Someone somewhere within that studio pulled the quote and he read it over the air.
AprilOrit on September 20, 2007 at 10:42 PM
AprilOrit on September 20, 2007 at 10:42 PM
Quotes are worthless. Give me context.
VolMagic on September 20, 2007 at 10:43 PM
Shana tova.
Thanks for the clarification. I haven’t read the book, I was quite curious. I don’t think securing strategic interests in the region should be so negatively frowned upon – unless we want to create an economic crisis in the economy that fuels many parts of the world. Plus we’d have to go back and demonize Ike, etc.
AP if you have a minute – Was the critique of the ad a good move by the Senate or no? I didn’t see your view in the post, if it’s in the comments, apologies. If yes, is your view of the difference between that and Rudy’s response just rooted Rudy’s attachment of his name and quote?
Spirit of 1776 on September 20, 2007 at 10:44 PM
Say what?? In theory Shuster and all of them are supposed to be objective but are they? Me thinks not.
Fox leans Right – sometimes Far Right, CNN leans Left and sometimes Far Left and MSNBC leans Far Left Fringe.
None of them are objective or Fair and Balanced. If you believe they are I have a great bridge for sale….
AprilOrit on September 20, 2007 at 10:47 PM
Rose on September 20, 2007 at 10:24 PM
My goodness. I’m glad someone finally put it to words. Matthews is the preverbial ’slime from the video” taken from the song by Frank Zappa.
Griz on September 20, 2007 at 10:47 PM
Try this link April – it’s the Post’s article on Greenspan’s clarification.
Dork B. on September 20, 2007 at 10:47 PM
AprilOrit on September 20, 2007 at 10:47 PM
I don’t think they are buddy. But have you ever tried to broach the subject of media bias to a liberal? They honestly think that stuff is objective, and MSNBC does nothing to dissuade that notion. I was making that point that Crissy seemed to acknowledge that his buddy David’s special reports were as biased as Laura’s radio program, a major step towards the acknowledgement of liberal media bias. Which liberals think is a myth.
VolMagic on September 20, 2007 at 10:55 PM
Chris Matthews doesn’t need anyones help making a fool of himself, he’s just so good at it all by himself.
If Chris’ middle name weren’t BDS perhaps he wouldn’t assume that when Greenspan writes the word “is” its really not spelled B.u.s.h, no matter how much he’s Kindergarten ego wishes it to be so.
Speakup on September 20, 2007 at 10:55 PM
AprilOrit on September 20, 2007 at 10:47 PM
And unless that bridge is in New York, I’m not buying.
VolMagic on September 20, 2007 at 10:56 PM
I haven’t purchased the book nor read it. Chris Matthews read from the book and what Greenspan said – he read Greenspan’s words. His words are his words, unless he didn’t write the book…
I have watched/heard Greenspan explain what he meant, but regardless of what he is saying that he meant he did write the book and make certain statements which he has not denied.
It either is or it isn’t; this partisan dissection or analysis of what people think he said to frame it into anything other than what he said or meant, or what one thinks he said or should have meant based on their political proclivity is silly.
Big whoop, he’s a Republican and spoke out against the administration; he broke the 13th Commandment. God forbid one Republican not walk in lockstep with the rest of the pinheads.
AprilOrit on September 20, 2007 at 11:00 PM
It’s here, do you hondel or do you haggle? :)
AprilOrit on September 20, 2007 at 11:03 PM
That’s your partisan interpretation of his words. Why would a serious person believe your interpretation of the meaning of these words more than the explanation of the one who spoke and wrote them?
petefrt on September 20, 2007 at 11:12 PM
AprilOrit on September 20, 2007 at 11:03 PM
Haggle, in the finest sense of the word.
AprilOrit on September 20, 2007 at 11:00 PM
Yeah, he said it. Again, no context and no further elaboration of what he meant. I’m sure you can understand the power of taking a quote out of context. It is not framing the issue to listen to what the person who wrote it said he meant when he wrote it. When Crissy Mathews uses that quote to imply, as he clearly did with his comments about Exxon signs at Arlington Cemetary, that this war was launched as an oil grab so the corporations could make huge bucks, it is incumbent upon people like Laura to clarify. It’s not a question of Chrissy and Laura framing it to suit their purposes, it about setting the record straight and showing Crissy for the lieft wing shill he is.
VolMagic on September 20, 2007 at 11:14 PM
Not to mention the sound of him slamming his fist on his desk.
Ok, everyone e-mail him and ask him what was going on.
- The Cat
MirCat on September 20, 2007 at 11:15 PM
[VolMagic on September 20, 2007 at 10:43 PM]
Exactly, Volmagic. In much the same way that AprilOrit conveniently overlooked my previous paragraph about context.
AprilOrit, I’m amazed you argue I should trust the truthfulness and accuracy of his quoting, while at the same time acknowledge a high probability that he lied about reading the book, because ‘people do it all the time’. Well, everyone misquotes, both mistakenly and intentionally, all the time too.
The heads of talk shows edit copy and ad lib all the time, too. There is only one A-list news show host/anchor that I know of who was only, ever, “just a narrator” /s
You defeat your own argument.
Dusty on September 20, 2007 at 11:19 PM
All the time, I am born and raised in NY and i live here. David Shuster has always been biased in my opinion at least the times I have seen him, he usually sits in for Tucker if Pat Buchanan doesn’t, who I watch regularly. I don’t really watch Chris Matthews regularly, it really depends on who is on.
What I do not like about Chris, and this is not meant to be a personal smear by any means, he spits allot when he gets excited, and I just don’t like the looks of that on my TV screen. Spittle really makes me ill. Why his producer hasn’t mentioned it and tried curb it is a wonder.
I watch Bill O’Reilly nightly, and usually Hannity and Colmes, but since Dan Abrams has come on at 9 on MSNBC I have been watching him. He had a crime/law show at one time on MSNBC which I liked. His show is more like Greta’s. I am into true crime as much as politics, love Greta, watch her everynight.
AprilOrit on September 20, 2007 at 11:24 PM
Who’s Chris Matthews’s brother?
(I’m going to do a search for the answer, but figured I might get more context from someone here who’s in the know.)
mikeyboss on September 20, 2007 at 11:28 PM
Why didn’t she mention that Greenspan is in bed with (literally) liberal media sweetheart Andrea Mitchell. Is there really any question where this guy’s politics lie?
wryteacher on September 20, 2007 at 11:35 PM
That doesn’t mean anything of itself. I’m sure there are plenty of conservative men (not saying AG) who enjoy wonderful relationships with liberal women. And a few the other way such as Carville-Matalin.
Spirit of 1776 on September 20, 2007 at 11:47 PM
You know I hear what you are saying but I really don’t think he did this. He asked for the book, someone off camera pulled it and he read Alan Greenspan’s words. Again, what he wrote is what it is.
For me, and I am speaking for myself here, to go into protracted anaylsis about what one thinks about the real underlying meaning of what someone else wrote to further an arguement to appease political partisanship is wasteful thinking to me, and mostly because I am a leukemia survivor. I try to take one’s words at face value and not bend them to mean what I think they should. For me this is a very big part of my remission, because before I got to this point in my life I was quite the opposite.
Again it’s personal, but if you doubt Chris Matthews, you have every right to do so.
AprilOrit on September 20, 2007 at 11:47 PM
?
And what does that mean, that Mary Matalin shouldn’t be trusted?? C’mon.
AprilOrit on September 20, 2007 at 11:51 PM
Honest question here, because I don’t watch Matthews at all these days but I did quite a few years ago: was he drunk, or does he have some sort of stroke-induced speech impediment? I don’t remember him slurring his words like this back when I watched him now and then. Seriously, he sounds like someone who had a three martini lunch.
Twice.
Mibrilane on September 20, 2007 at 11:54 PM
I was making a point that Matthews often starts with a leading question (such as asking something like this) and then not allowing any sort of answer.
I admit (and apologize) that it wasn’t the best example I could think of. I probably should have use the classic ‘beating your wife’.
CrazyFool on September 20, 2007 at 11:56 PM
He is Jim Matthews – he ran on the GOP ticket with Lynn Swann in PA. I think he is still in some political position in PA, like on a county level.
Chris Matthews, like Hillary, grew up in a Republican home believe it or not.
AprilOrit on September 20, 2007 at 11:58 PM
Or maybe beating the dog instead? Oy, the mental picture of Chris Matthews beating his wife is not something I want to visualize.
AprilOrit on September 21, 2007 at 12:01 AM
Laura kicked their collective, fat ass…
F A N T A S T I C !!!
D2Boston on September 21, 2007 at 12:07 AM
But Alan Greenspan has spoken them abd explained them, I said that in an earlier post. I think that you are making my point, I said that people should not interrupt what someone else writes or means.
I have watched/heard Greenspan explain what he meant, but regardless of what he is saying that he meant he did write the book and make certain statements which he has not denied.
AprilOrit on September 21, 2007 at 12:09 AM
Whoops, I am obviously tired, meant to write interpret…not interrupt, although Chris Matthews is guilty of this. I guess it was a Freudian slip….
AprilOrit on September 21, 2007 at 12:20 AM
He read the book. (Well, he says “We read the book ont his program…” Who is “We”?)
But did he COMPREHEND The reading?
Mazztek on September 21, 2007 at 12:20 AM
Geezus — I am sure I am not the first one make this observation — but did Chris Matthew just say that Move-On AD was just making fun of Petreaus and and comment on Move-On is trashing them?
WHAT a FRUIT LOOP.
Thanks for clearing that up Chris — it was just a funny prank, eh? They aren’t serious.
Hilarious.
and the facials are PRICELESS!
Topsecretk9 on September 21, 2007 at 12:25 AM
Yeah Mazztek — and I think he said they read the book verbatim. too.
Do they all sit around a little campfire and read a book verbatim together after each show? HAH
Topsecretk9 on September 21, 2007 at 12:28 AM
He is saying that he directly quotes the book on the air. Hence, ‘we read this book on this program’ – he is trying to say he takes from it directly.
Spirit of 1776 on September 21, 2007 at 12:29 AM
Seriously, and remind him you don’t listen to what he says your just a spit groupie and this performance was especially funny.
Topsecretk9 on September 21, 2007 at 12:30 AM
Oh yeah, I like the faces at the end. Seems kind of like 10 year old move. Does anyone still do CM on SNL?
kahall on September 21, 2007 at 12:58 AM
Of course, Chris Matthews is objective.
madmonkphotog on September 21, 2007 at 1:33 AM
I still think that CM is going to have a major breakdown on air someday…
d1carter on September 21, 2007 at 1:44 AM
Good on you Laura.
It’s about time somebody kicked Matthews_interruptus in the teeth on his own show!
georgej on September 21, 2007 at 2:26 AM
Laura displayed more stones than those two ‘bulls’ put together.
The video reminded me why I don’t regret not watching Mattews (whose program I used to like) any more.
In addition, he’s such an uncontrollable flirt, even when the topic is war. His thingie is constantly in his head. The other guy was just making faces, after he spoke his nonsense.
Entelechy on September 21, 2007 at 2:29 AM
Chrissy forgot to read the WaPo interview by Bob Woodward this past week.
Sorry, but having interns frantically scrambling for money quotes for Chrissy to read on air while he vehemently insisted “he read the book” to Laura was insulting.
Chrissy is known as a “A nahr bleibt a nahr”.
kiakjones on September 21, 2007 at 6:48 AM
Typical left, typical dems. They are always asleep at the wheel. Curious ? Nahhhh ! They have been asleep at the wheel and will in all likelihood in the future be asleep at the wheel.
oldelpasoan on September 21, 2007 at 8:02 AM
Matthews is such a disgusting little puke that I just can’t watch him on a full stomach. Give him hell Laura.
rplat on September 21, 2007 at 8:18 AM
May, 9 2004….West Texas Intermediate $14.25 a barrel.
Good thing we went to Iraq for oil….if not for this brilliant invasion by the bushies oil could be 4 or 5 times that by now and we would be in ruin. Thats why we can’t withdraw.
scooter on September 21, 2007 at 8:30 AM
Mary Matalin doesn’t parade around as some impartial journalist pretending to be oblivious about liberal media bias. I’m just saying, it’s something to think about.
He shares a bed with someone who talks like this.
wryteacher on September 21, 2007 at 8:35 AM
If any of you think the Iraq war is about oil:
1. You are an idiot.
2. You are an idiot.
3. I want the 200 billion we have spent on Iraq back.
4. Do not talk about fight club.
Chris Matthews is intellectually dishonest.
msipes on September 21, 2007 at 10:32 AM
200 billion?
scooter on September 21, 2007 at 11:12 AM
Wow. Now THAT’s cherrypicking.
Miss_Anthrope on September 21, 2007 at 11:36 AM
…and wrong. Try closer to $33-35/barrel.
Miss_Anthrope on September 21, 2007 at 11:39 AM
It’s accounted for within the NYMEX Light Sweet category, which is only North Amercan Producers.
US, Canada, Mexico. Only.
Miss_Anthrope on September 21, 2007 at 11:42 AM
Chrissy is a wuss ,who only likes to hear himself rant and rave over what is relavant to him and his handlers I don’t watch his garbage any longer and hate to even see it on HA except I liked Laura and knew she would nail his can
bones47 on September 21, 2007 at 1:40 PM
Matthews never seems to know when he is on camera. My favorite Chris Matthews moment was during the Reagan funeral when they cut over to Chris eating a cheeseburger. I wish there was video of that.
tommuck on September 21, 2007 at 3:00 PM
What Greenspan said in his correction is that he advised the President less than a year after 9/11 to *invade* Iraq and depose Saddam to protect the Strait of Hormuz, because if Saddam disrupted the flow of oil in acts of piracy, terrorism or war, it could cost the world economy trillions of dollars.
In his view, protecting the flow of oil was the best reason to go to war. Indeed, because of the rhetoric from the worst elements of the Left, it *is* politically inconvenient to acknowledge that if you believe this was the best reason as Greenspan does.
Laura could have been more effective if she was aware of the full content of Greenspan’s clarifications. Sure, she stared Matthews down, but she didn’t wallop him like she could have.
Anil Petra on September 21, 2007 at 3:20 PM
Okay, sorry, I forgot to pick up the book yesterday afternoon and today was hectic. But now I have the time so let me preface with the Matthews comments from the vid:
Now for the book. First it’s not on 332. Even if I heard him wrong, it’s not on 232 either. In fact there is nothing on 232-233 with respect to oil and on 332-333 only Russia’s energy assets.
It’s on 463 in the Chapter not having to do with the war but titled “The Long Term Energy Squeeze”. It is a short sentence at the beginning of the concluding paragraph of this 27 page chapter. It a good chapter, each sentence showing more understanding and giving more insight than a year’s worth of Hard Ball. Below are the last two paragraphs with the one Matthews likes to emphasize he read, bolded.
Take a moment to look at the sentence following the one Matthews uses for his pot-stirring hackery. While it tips a hat to Matthews’ point about oil, I think it is a bold slap to his face in that Matthews he refuses to acknowledge the eight-hundred pound gorilla.
Dusty on September 22, 2007 at 11:07 PM
Comment pages: