3f710bb54e92…

“I think we should start reminding everybody that if this war is about oil as Alan Greenspan pointed out the other day, and many other people have …

Let me tell you, I went back and read the book on the air and I will do it again …

The book stands for itself. He is trying to cozy up with his former allies and colleagues, but clearly Alan Greenspan spent years writing this book. He wrote what he believes. He said the war is obviously about oil.

I’m not going by the PR, I’m going by the text of the book. I read it. It’s still in there, Laura. You ought to read it. It’s on, I think, 332.”

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.

“What do governments whose economies and citizens have become heavily dependent on imports of oil do when the flow becomes unreliable? The intense attention of the developed world to Middle Eastern political affairs has always been critically tied to oil security. The reaction to, and reversal of, Mossadeq’s nationalization of Anglo-Iranian Oil in 1951 and the aborted effort of Britain and France to reverse Nasser’s takeover of the key Suez Canal link for oil flows to Europe in 1956 are but two prominent historical examples. And whatever their publicized angst over Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction,” American and British authorities were also concerned about violence in an area that harbors a resource indispensable for the functioning of the world economy.

I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil. Thus, projections of the world oil supply and demand that do not note the highly precarious environment of the Middle East are avoiding the eight-hundred pound gorilla that could bring world economic growth to a halt. I do not pretend to know how or whether the turmoil in the Middle East will be resolved. I do know that the future of the Middle East is a most important consideration in any long-term energy forecast. Even though oil-use intensity has been significantly reduced, the role of oil is still such that an oil crisis can wreak heavy damage on the world economy. Until industrial economies disengage themselves from, as President George W. Bush put it, “our addiction to oil,” the stability of the industrial economies and hence the global economy will remain at risk.”

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.

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.

US, Canada, Mexico. Only.

May, 9 2004….West Texas Intermediate $14.25 a barrel.

scooter on September 21, 2007 at 8:30 AM

Wow. Now THAT’s cherrypicking.

Miss_Anthrope on September 21, 2007 at 11:36 AM

…and wrong. Try closer to $33-35/barrel.

May, 9 2004….West Texas Intermediate $14.25 a barrel.

scooter on September 21, 2007 at 8:30 AM

Wow. Now THAT’s cherrypicking.

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.

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

?

And what does that mean, that Mary Matalin shouldn’t be trusted?? C’mon.

AprilOrit on September 20, 2007 at 11:51 PM

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.

Greenspan said disruption of even 3 to 4 million barrels a day could translate into oil prices as high as $120 a barrel — far above even the recent highs of $80 set last week — and the loss of anything more would mean “chaos” to the global economy.

Given that, “I’m saying taking Saddam out was essential,” he said. But he added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab.

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”.

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.

It’s about time somebody kicked Matthews_interruptus in the teeth on his own show!

Ok, everyone e-mail him and ask him what was going on.

Seriously, and remind him you don’t listen to what he says your just a spit groupie and this performance was especially funny.

“We read the book on this program…” Who is “We”?)

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.

Do they all sit around a little campfire and read a book verbatim together after each show? HAH

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!