WILLisms.com: Chris Matthews Writes A Talking Point For Osama

« Quote Of The Day | WILLisms.com | Dozens Of Iranians And Syrians Killed In Nerve Gas Accident »

Chris Matthews Writes A Talking Point For Osama

Bob Woodward in the Washington Post debunked claims today that Alan Greenspan's new memoir says the War in Iraq is about an oil grab by the U.S. The article states that oil was indeed a major national security concern of the administration prior to the invasion of Iraq, and rightly so:

a top-secret National Security Presidential Directive, titled "Iraq: Goals, Objectives and Strategy" and signed by Bush in August 2002 -- seven months before the invasion -- listed as one of many objectives "to minimize disruption in international oil markets."

Greenspan supported the invasion of Iraq, for much the same reasons:

His main support for Hussein's ouster, though, was economically motivated. "If Saddam Hussein had been head of Iraq and there was no oil under those sands," Greenspan said, "our response to him would not have been as strong as it was in the first gulf war. And the second gulf war is an extension of the first. My view is that Saddam, looking over his 30-year history, very clearly was giving evidence of moving towards controlling the Straits of Hormuz, where there are 17, 18, 19 million barrels a day" passing through.
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.

But many on the left misinterpreted (or didn't understand) Greenspan's comments, leading Chris Matthews to come up with a rather ugly sentiment:

Should we put Exxon signs up over Arlington Cemetery and Mobil signs up there, like they have at baseball stadiums?"

Let's see if Osama bin Laden puts that in his next video. Thanks, Chris.

Posted by Ken McCracken · 17 September 2007 10:09 PM

Comments

Consider the cynicism behind CM's disregard for the truth. Even without knowing the details, he knows he is painting some comment in the worst possible light for effect. If that is how one is supposed to make one's living, I suppose, it is understandable. But it completely undermines any claim to be an objective journalist, or pursuing some noble calling. One can grub for money and status by taking statements not for what they mean, but for what they can be made to look like they could possibly mean, but one cannot then claim the honor of being a source of truth.

That such posturing is now fairly standard for journalists goes a long way to explaining why they do not have the credibility they once had. They are trying to have it both ways.

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at September 18, 2007 08:17 AM

Is it a requirement for journalists to be Libs today? IF not it sure seems like it...

Posted by: zsa zsa at September 18, 2007 10:13 AM

"maestro" my ass. He knows less about foreign policy than he does about economics.

Posted by: lester at September 18, 2007 04:45 PM

Matthews and Keith Olbermann are both either deranged or woefully undereducated. They display an appalling lack of insight each time they open their mouths.

Posted by: benning at September 19, 2007 10:05 AM

lester, thank you for another in-depth, well-sourced analysis of the subject.

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at September 19, 2007 10:33 AM

no problem. the iraq war had nothing to do with oil. It was bush's failed attempt to take the jewish vote from the dems. worked about as well as his attempts at the hispanic and black voters hahaha

Posted by: lester at September 19, 2007 02:57 PM