Posted on 09/20/2007 7:08:04 PM PDT by SandRat
Matthews: "As, as you are yourself Laura-"
Yes Chrissy, but you miss an important point... Laura is a political commentator. David Shuster is supposed to be "a new reporter." Or a "journalist." There's supposed to be a big difference: Not that there is any more.
Mark
Mathews is a partisan, left wing douche bag.
No one should go on his show (which is unfit for FreeSpeech Television)...
Pray for W and Our Troops
bookmark
ProtectOurFreedom: How anybody can watch those vacuous shout-fests between rude and bullying know-nothings is beyond me.
I am happy to say that I have had the cable unplugged for more than a year to eliminate some of the rubbish in my life. And BOR was absolutely among the worst. He used to really drive me nuts when he would start huffing and puffing about the "Factor investigative team" working on some story as if he ever went into anymore depth than the tabloid headlines. He is only a cut above Jerry Springer. (Of course, he is sometimes useful in riling up sheeple who would not know what is going on in the world were it not for his sort.)
Watching the video shows Mathews won the camera with his long drawn out responses imped to give his research crew time to find the book passage, and kept his spittle to a minimum while feigning patience, but collectively Laura won the exchange.
Mow jumping into the mindset of a touchy feely koolade drinker, with a nod to all of Mathews 12 viewers, winning the camera is all that matters.
I watched this interview and the best part was watching Matthews snarl at his off-screen assistants after Laura goaded him into reading Greenspan’s direct quote from his book. It was great television!! Matthews was clearly agitated that Laura forced him into reading directly from the book. He didn’t want to do it, clearly.
Unlike most Hardball guests, Laura didn’t let Chris get away with making a false allegation. Greenspan did not write that Bush admitted he went to war over oil, as Matthews charged. And, after the book’s PR machine tried to sell the idea that Greenspan accused Bush of going to war over oil, Greenspan issued a statement correcting that false impression. Laura told Matthews he knew that to be the case.
I loved seeing Matthews taken to the mat. It doesn’t happen often.
I loved Laura going after David Schuster too. Most of the time, Matthews presents Schuster’s long winded reports and no one gets the chance to rebut them with facts, or even criticize his accuracy.
Laura is hawking a book, doing a great job of it too, even going into the Hardball snakepit. I think POWER TO THE PEOPLE is still top ten. LOL as I imagine how that irritates the helloutta Matthews
Greenspan told Bush the war "should be about oil" and Bush rejected this !
Go read what Greenspan said on Fox yesterday and he said the President rejected his notion that the war on Iraq should be about oil and Greenspan told him he could make a good case on going to war for oil but said Bush told him that's not the correct reason..
and still another smack-down for Chris Matthews.
Laura really flustered Matthews when she told him he knew he was misrepresenting what Greenspan said.
I like this one too:
Greenspan Corrects Record, Slams Democrats
Two days ago, it was reported that Alan Greenspan said in his new book that, “the Iraq War is largely about oil.” Within hours the story had been picked up by news and bloggers around the world. Liberal websites were beside themselves with glee! “See! Greenspans says Bush went to war for oil!…Its all for oil!”
By Wednesday, a Google search returned 1,310,000 hits on the story.
Now we find out that Greenspan’s views were misrepresented:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Clarifying a controversial comment in his new memoir, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said he told the White House before the Iraq war that removing Saddam Hussein was “essential” to secure world oil supplies, according to an interview published on Monday.
Greenspan, who wrote in his memoir that “the Iraq War is largely about oil,” said in a Washington Post interview that while securing global oil supplies was “not the administration’s motive,” he had presented the White House before the 2003 invasion with the case for why removing the then-Iraqi leader was important for the global economy.
“I was not saying that that’s the administration’s motive,”
Are the autographed Chris Matthews drool cups being offered on Ebay yet?
Nothing new...war for oil, illegal war, civil war etc.
Laura, God bless her spirit and pluck, fought back admirably but ineffectively in refuting the standard Democrat talking points on the war.
As Sergi said in reply to my post: "Laura struggled to try to make a very subtle distinction between whether the war was "about" oil or whether it was "started over oil." She was not very successful, IMO.
Net, net; its very difficult to advance a "thinking man's" argument in the midst of a bunch of screaming liberals!! Matthews knows that - its very difficult for a conservative to come out lookking good in that environment.
Why we participate is beyond me.....ABC,NBC,CBS,CNN...all stack the deck, and we walk in like lemmings.
Exactly. If we're holding this up as an example of superior conservative talking points on the Iraq issue, we've got nothing.
Not that I know of but I think the anti-DROOL bibs are.
Now MSNBC throws this weak-kneed trio of shoe tappers against our gal.
What do they have to do over at 30 Rock/Secaucus to put some manly men on their news shows? A human sacrifice to the Cult of Cthulu and raising John Chancellor from the dead?
A double-whammy for y'all.
Laura Ingraham signs book at the Hannity Freedom Concert on 9-11-07 while Ann Coulter chats it up in the the background.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.