Laura Ingraham Knocks Out Chris Matthews on 'Hardball'

Photo of Geoffrey Dickens.
  • Bookmark and Share

Sticking and moving like a prize fighter, talk show host and author Laura Ingraham, outnumbered in a three against one fight, took out not only "Hardball" host Chris Matthews but his colleague David Shuster and NBC News political director Chuck Todd, as well.

View video here. (courtesy NB contributor Mark Finkelstein)

On Thursday night's "Hardball" Ingraham took Matthews to task for his outrageous claims about the Iraq war being about oil as she threw his past bias in his face: "What? What? Chris are, were you the one, the other night, correct me if I'm wrong, who said that we should hang Exxon and Mobil signs at, at Arlington National Cemetery?" Then Ingraham slapped down Matthews about his pessimistic view on the war: "Chris, I'm different from [where] you are on this. I actually have hope that goodness will prevail."

However, Ingraham didn’t pull any punches when it came to Shuster or Todd. The Power to the People author not only called Todd out on his "conventional wisdom" about the GOP presidential candidates but after a typically slanted report from Shuster, Ingraham sarcastically noted: "First of all let me say my life is not complete without a David Shuster report on President Bush because those reports are always completely unbiased and completely just objective...So I love those. I love those."

The following is a blow-by-blow account of the exchanges as they occurred on the September 20 edition of MSNBC's "Hardball":

ROUND 1

Chris Matthews: "Laura, did the President find the sweet spot today by going after Moveon.org, in other words, this war is hard to sell but is it easier for him to trash Moveon.org in its ad making fun of Petraeus?"

Laura Ingraham: "First of all let me say my life is not complete without a David Shuster report on President Bush because those reports are always completely unbiased and completely just objective."

Matthews: "As, as you are yourself Laura-"

Ingraham: "So I love those. I love those."

Matthews: "-equal, equally, equally, symmetric in your judgments."

ROUND 2

Chuck Todd, NBC News political director, talking about the anti-David Petraeus Moveon.org ad: "What's been interesting, though, with this is that all the Republican presidentials jumped on this and used this as a way of ducking of having to actually deal with the policy debate last week."

Ingraham: "Well I think they did deal with the policy debate. You, you guys-"

Todd: "I think what's amazing. Well they didn't, but you had-"

Ingraham: "That's, that's the conventional wisdom in Washington Chuck. That is ridiculous."

Todd: "Okay, c'mon. They did. Rudy-"

Ingraham: "The Republicans have been talking about the surge."

Todd: "Rudy created a straw man."

Ingraham: "They've been talking about what's working and not working frankly in Iraq and, and the fact that Moveon.org stepped in it, once again, and made fools of themselves in front of the national media and for the public at large, which condemns what they do, give me a break."

Matthews: "Okay Laura you made my point. It's easier to trash the Moveon.org than it is to defend this war, right?"

Ingraham: "What? What? Chris are, were you the one, the other night, correct me if I'm wrong, who said that we should hang Exxon and Mobil signs at, at Arlington National Cemetery?"

Matthews: "Yeah but-"

Ingraham: "Did you say that?"

Matthews: "-I think we should start reminding everybody that if this war is about oil, as Alan Greenspan pointed out the other day-"

Ingraham: "Yeah."

Matthews: "-and many people, other people have. If it is about oil why are the oil companies making such huge windfall profits at the cost of what we're putting into this war. Yes, that's a legitimate charge."

Ingraham: "Well first of all Alan Greenspan, Alan Greenspan has, Alan Greenspan, as you know Chris, has stepped away from the way that book was marketed and he said the Bush administration, he doesn't believe they thought the war was about oil. He's making a comment about reality."

Matthews: "Well let me tell ya, 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 was obviously about oil."

Ingraham: "Right, well earth-shattering conclusions like Republicans are spending too much money. Of course, you know we've only been saying that for about 10 years in, in conservative politics. Of course they're been spending too much money! Of course there's a lot of shenanigans going on, on Capitol Hill."

Matthews: "Right."

Ingraham: "Take it from someone who's out there selling a book. I mean the way press material sometimes written doesn't always necessarily reflect what the real sentiment is of the book."

Matthews: "No, 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 oughta read it. It's on I think, [page] 232."

Ingraham: "Yeah I did read it Chris! He did not say that the Bush administration got into the war on Iraq because of oil and if you think he did then go to the times he's been interviewed where he doesn't say that."

Matthews: "He said, well we'll get the text. We'll, we'll get the book, we'll get the book and read it aloud in a moment when we get-"

Ingraham: "Thank you. Please do."

Matthews: "No you don't have to thank me because we read it and we will, Laura, we read the book verbatim here and we'll do it again."

Ingraham: "Excellent."

Matthews: "You know it's hard to do it after you make it into an order, Laura."

ROUND 3

Ingraham on Iraq: "Chris, I'm different from [where] you are on this. I actually have hope that goodness will prevail."

Matthews: "No, but when do you hope it will happen? When do you expect it will happen? When will this war look like a smart decision by the United States, in the interests of the United States, to invade Iraq? When will it look good?"

Ingraham: "When America, when America, maybe gets a little more united behind the idea that we're trying to do

Matthews: "No when will it, objectively, look like this was the smart move for America?"

Ingraham: "-we're trying to do something very liberal in Iraq."

Matthews: "When will it look like the smart move?"

Ingraham: "Chris we know where you are on this, you think it's a disaster and it's never gonna get better. Okay? We know that's where you are and I, and I respect that, that's what you think."

Matthews: "Let me, let me read you the quote, by the way, let me read the Alan Greenspan quote from this book."

Ingraham: "Okay, here we go."

Matthews: "‘I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows, the Iraq war is largely about oil.'"

Ingraham: "Did he say that George Bush believed when he went in the war was about oil?"

Matthews: "No he just, he's just, he's just said the Iraq war is largely about oil."

Ingraham: "Is, he, he has since commented that he doesn't believe

the administration went into Iraq for oil, as many times on this show, I believe, different people have implicated."

Matthews: "What does it mean-"

Ingraham: "That's no the case."

Matthews: "But what does it, what does it mean to say the Iraq war was largely about oil? What could that mean?"

Ingraham: "I don't care, I really frankly don't care what Alan Greenspan is writing."

Matthews: "Okay."

Ingraham: "Alan Greenspan is not a national security expert last time I checked-"

Matthews: "Okay that's a fair-"

Ingraham: "-he was keeping rates too low in 2004."

Matthews: "-that's a critique but it's not a denial. Laura, you're always welcome but it was the quote, directly from Al."

Ingraham referring to Chris' brother, Pennsylvania Republican Jim Matthews: "I like your brother, I like your brother better than you are right now."

Matthews: "Laura, you know it's hard to face the truth."

Ingraham: "Yeah, right. Good, good try."

—Geoffrey Dickens is the senior news analyst at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Ingraham should be Ashamed

Ingraham should be ashamed taking advantage of 3 light weight male liberals in such a free fire zone. Doesn't she know Matthews has been auditioning as Al Gore's stooge (wow the stooge word I wonder if Maher knows it) to get the nightly spot away from rating sinking Brian Williams.

Ingraham has now ruined most of that by pounding him.....next time Chris Matthews had better call a woman in to help him like he did Liz Edwards popping on Ann Coulter.

 

*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS

war is partially about oil - so WTF about it, anyway?

Alan Greenspan suggested to Bush that he could make a case for the Iraq war being partially about oil. Bush rejected that notion.

I think the oil aspect of the war was a potential ancillary benefit - that's probably what Greenspan thinks "everyone knows" and that's what the completely irrelevant terrorist-supporting libs desperatley tried to extrapolate into some sort of reason for being - they've been feverishly grasping at straw like that since 9/11 - throwing anything against the wall to see if it would stick - and war for oil has stuck somewhat...

War of oil is theoretically not "politically" viable only because the Repubs need to grow a pair and correct that completely BS notion...

What the hell is war for if not for something of value?! Jesus H. Christ, this is not fricking rocket science... 

TM, you might want to leave

TM, you might want to leave Jesus' name out of this.  I don't think He appreciates the reference.

v

Let's say the war is about oil.

Somebody should ask Chris Matthews and his ilk what is wrong with a war over oil. Has he ever thought about what the worldwide economic outlook would be if Saddam Hussein, Iran, Wahabi terrorist sponsoring states and Venezuela controlled the price of oil? Instead of $3/gallon, how about $10/gallon with all the profits going straight to every Islamic and narco-terrorist group out there? Yeah, what a wonderful world.

Besides transportation, how about realizing that petroleum is critical in the plastics industry. Good thing nothing is made of plastic, Chris.

When an idiot liberal (not all liberals are idiots, only the ones who mouth MoveOn talking points) says that we went to war for oil, that is only partially true. We went to war for economic and political stability. This is a long term goal, not some sort of pre-made order that can be delivered by FedEx. Worldwide economic recession, unmanageable political crises instigated by rogue regimes, and no hope of making things better are the alternative.

anger management - this

anger management - this pisses me off big time

doesn't make it right of course

might be able to apologize tomorrow

bastard scum liberals anyway

frackin scum

Get a grip big guy. 

Get a grip big guy.  Forgiveness is His strong suit.

As far as the libs go, remember; Don't wrestle with pigs: You'll get all muddy and the pigs will love it.

“But is it good for everyone, and how soon will we know?” – Brian Williams NBC"

But experts say beware of the downside of any economic upturn." - Kevin Tibbles  NBC

Oh, so now it's "Making Fun"?

Matthews: "is it easier for him [President Bush] to trash Moveon.org in its ad making fun of Petraeus?"

No, Chris, the ad was not "Making fun". It was a serious attempt at character assasination. It was a vile advertisement full of contempt and hate for the United States and the U.S. Military. It was also put there to influence Congress and the American public. I know what "Making fun" is, Chris, and this was not making fun.

Is Chris so dumb that we can't see thru him? I guess Laura's punches must have really done a number on him.

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

TnT, I have it in another

TnT, I have it in another thread, but the guy on Kos who posted about the Senate vote on dailyKos, said that the vote in the Senate was about the MoveOn ad that called General Petraeus a biased figurehead.

I'll bet you didn't know that "General Betray Us" is a synonym for "biased figurehead"!

I really can't stand liberals...they throw their mud and then claim they tossed confetti. They make disgusting allegations and then claim they were just joking. So the ad was either making fun, or they just called him a "biased figurehead." Nothing about betrayal.

Gutless Wonders.


"Not only are ye a cheat, ye're a gutless cheat as well.
" -Doyle Lonergan to Henry Gondorf in "The Sting."

Figurehead, Making Fun

Wonder what's going on here? All of a sudden, Moveon seems to be downplaying this, while none of the Dim presidential candidates -- NONE OF THEM -- voted for the resolution expressing support for the General (and condemning Moveon).

Did Moveon realize they won, and then decide it's best to backpeddle and take the heat off them? Knowing all along that the Dim candidates could not possibly back out without inviting the wrath of the loony bins? Did they plan it this way, to actually betray the Dim candidates??? Wonder when the dims are going to catch on? Hopefully, never -- keep giving them bigger shovels, I say.

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

Mission accomplished

Did Moveon realize they won, and then decide it's best to backpeddle and take the heat off them?

Probably.  With pre-Pretraeus appearance polls indicating that America's support of the war had risen a bit with the Surge, MoveOn.org needed to kill the messenger, and hence the ad.  their smear campaign accomplished at least two things:

1)  In one stroke, it publicly notified all the Dems -- and their Leftist supporters -- that the focus would be on undermining the crediblitiy of a highly decorate general officer.  Hence, clowns like Harry Reid  -- never one to get the timing right --- was denouncing Petraeus' testimony before he even delivered it.  CDuring the testimony, Clinton essentially called the general a liar to his face.

2)  It reminded the DNC and the Dem Presidential candidates that MoveOn still calls the tune that they dance to.  In effect, it was a loyalty check, and candidates responded in accord.

Knowing all along that the Dim candidates could not possibly back out without inviting the wrath of the loony bins? Did they plan it this way, to actually betray the Dim candidates???

The candidates were certainly left holding the bag, as the Senate vote to condemn the infamous ad passed despite NO votes from Clinton and Dodd (Obama and Biden conveniently ducked the vote).  Now they'll catch the heat.  It may very well have been planned that way.

But I also believe that MoveOn didn't anticipate the high level of blowback it got from the ad.  Using the words "Betray Us" was not-so-clever rhyming diction, but to people who wear and have worn the uniform of the Armed Forces, the words are nothing short of calling the general a traitor.   DailyKos contributors may now be trying to tone the meaning of the words down, but they are daming nonetheless.

Overall, the Dem candidates will survive, but it won't be the last that they'll hear about this case or their vote, nor should it. 

Awesome!

"It takes two people to lie Marge"

"One to lie and one to listen...."

A was at the gym when this was on the air so I couldn't catch it. Does anyone have the video of this? Absolutely delicious. Ingrahm goes on there and calls out the "war for oil" "qoute" from Greenspan and actually explained the context of it in detail. Matthews did this "contextless" (new word) analysis with Gen. Patraeus and his comments about if the Iraq War is making us safer, a question that should not have been asked and one which Patraeus is not qualified to answer. Of course Gen. Patraeus later gave a candid response to Cong. Evan Bayah (D) saying that it did make America safer. Of course, no mention of this from Matthews.

This is what Matthews has been doing for a while, especially the last few weeks, trying to push his views from the left. No balance in his shows, no one to argue him....you get the point. And finally Ingrahm comes out and calls him to question and provides the context that Matthews should have given...what an ass.

Does the video link work?

Does the video link work?

Coffee: link working now.

Coffee: link working now.

Thank you

Thanks

"Chris, I'm different from

"Chris, I'm different from [where] you are on this. I actually have hope that goodness will prevail."

Laura Ingraham gets a big ole "SHACK" on that one...

Who you crappin'?

"It takes two people to lie Marge"

"One to lie and one to listen...."

I just saw it on T.V. and it was a pretty sweet showing. She kept going after Matthews and wouldn't let up. And he would not give a response to her stating the fact that it was only Greenspan that thought the war was largely about oil, because she was correct in stating that nowhere in the book did Greenspan say the Bush Admin said it was about oil. She even took Matthews to task on the fact that Greenspan later clarified his statement. He wouldn't concede the point even if it was true. Again....what an ass.

Laura, you forgot to tell

Laura, you forgot to tell Chris his fly's down ...

Fly down

What's to see?

 

/*-/*-/*-/*-/*-/*-/*-/*-/*-

With Democrat revisionist history and liberals guaranteeing the future (global warming, nuclear destruction, etc.) only the future is certain; the past is always changing.

Exactly ...

Exactly ...

I dig Laura. She gets

I dig Laura. She gets it.

I just wish she had gotten to the real punchline here... The fact that the Iraq war was "largely about oil" just shows once again that it is the United States and ONLY the United States that is willing to step up and protect the interests of the global economy for EVERYBODY.

Classic lefties -- if you don't like the context - stick to the soundbite. If you don't like the soundbite, stick to the context. They just love the soundbite from Greenspan, so they ignore the context. Greenspan should have known better and not allowed his editor so much leeway.

Read Michael Mandelbaum's excellent essay, "David's Friend, Goliath" for a truly clarifying discussion of the United States' value to the world.

 

 

Right, kahoona. I wish she

Right, kahoona. I wish she had said "Chris, you say that as if it were a bad thing!"

yes, Kahoona....

"I just wish she had gotten to the real punchline here... The fact that
the Iraq war was "largely about oil" just shows once again that it is
the United States and ONLY the United States that is willing to step up
and protect the interests of the global economy for EVERYBODY."

Spot-on, Big K !!! :)

and, really, protecting ALL basic interests of the non-rogue state world... so we can all continue to enjoy the fruits of true freedom, capitalism, consumerism, etc.. If you find these values to be evil/sinful, fine, then leave your country and join radical Islam, denouce all material things and move to some remote jungle, do whatever. Otherwise, don't be a f-ing hypocrite and cry foul that the "evil U.S." is fighting for oil.

The American Military

The American Military defeat's Saddam Hussien's Military. Only a liberal would consider this a defeat.

Ok, the war's about oil, and drugs, and gold, and...

... and whatever other commodities the Iraqi regime was using to raise funds or hide funds in support of WMD programs, genocide and illusions of domination.

But was "oil for food" such a great success?

Oil is a bad guy in the "Religion of Environmentalism" so of course the left uses oil as the boogeyman.

the Iraqis...

Weren't that-smart about gold, so they went right from paper dollars to an attempt to take equally-paper Euros. The Iranians, OTOH, knew full-well what was coming, and snagged their bars outta Switzerland to Iran in some VERY poorly-reported moves a bit less than 2 years ago, when gold was MUCH lower. Contrast & compare the Bank of England's treatment of their own taxpayers. I'm not saying Iran is good, but I am saying -- along with that nasty hindsight thing -- that they were right, because clearly they were, like it or not.
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

Laura: 10 Chris: Goose Egg

You go, girl!

Matthews today, Barry Man-He's-Not tomorrow.

Of course the war is partly

Of course the war is partly about oil. Duh. It wasn't, however, about stealing Iraq's oil, which is how the "war for oil" angle is usually spun.

 

"The ultimate Democrat constituent would be a public schoolteacher on welfare who needed an abortion and was suing her doctor."

Ann Coulter

Feel the goodess Chris

I agree with Chris that the war is about oil.

But it is not the US that is waging the war. The war has far less to do with the US than it does with political factions in Iraq.  The war being waged in Iraq about oil is the political, sometimes physical war for oil primarily between the Sunnis and Shia in oil-rich Southern Iraq with the Kurds keeping a sharp eye up North.  Chris is just too determined to be correct in calling our engagement in Iraq a "failed policy" to acknowledge that fact.

Chris stubbornly ignores the fact that the war the US is engaged in, not just in Iraq but all over the world is against terrorism, not to seize other countries oil - plain and simple.

Saddam supported terrorism (remember Saddam paid families of suicide bombers), developed a plan to assassinate a sitting US President (Bush) and persistently attacked Americans and Brits (no-fly zone) - we took terrorist supporting Saddam and his thug military out (paying attention Iran). The war was won at that time.

Defeatists can spin until they are dizzy but the war was primarily about removing maniacal Saddam - something nearly every prominent Democrat has supported at one time or another. 

Now we could have left Iraq to their own self-destruction after removing Saddam and defeating his thugs but such selfish action wouldn't reflect the "goodness" of America that Laura was defending and the demedia can't comprehend.  But the Iraqis understand.  And that is why the majority of Iraqis including many of the insurgents that formerly were our enemies have become our allies.  And now that al qaeda is on the run once again, Iraq is becoming safer as the Iraqi Army and the Iraqi police, trained by the American military, is slowly but encouragingly emulating the "goodness" they observe by their new American military friends.

Unfortunately the war for Iraqi oil will continue to be fought by the various political factions in Iraq for some time to come.  But it is their internal political war, not ours.  And with a Representative form of government in Iraq, the oil wealth has a better chance of being spread around more equally now than was ever possible or demonstrated in the dictatorship of Saddam.  

No Chris, it's much more than just oil.  It's about defeating the bullies of the world while developing a positive image to the Iraqis of what America is really about - goodness. 

Laura rocks

She dont take no garbage from anyone.She just says it like is.Chris needs to get a clue.Shulster has no credibility.He doesnt even try to disguise his political bias.Todd is a joke.As posted Laura Rocks!

Why is Chris Matthews on the

Why is Chris Matthews on the air?  Even the liberal's despise this jerk.  Seriously, if you can "stomach" a website like mediamatters et. Al., read the forums and you will find liberals that can't stand Matthews as well.

hmm

Comedy Relief?He is such a joke.Come closer to the camera...closer..

Chrissy will argue a lie

Watched the linked video where Chrissy argues a deliberate lie concerning Greenspan's words that the war in Iraq was about oil.  Having watched an interview with Greenspan on the subject it was clear that the headline was NOT a reason the Bush Administration went to war.  Unfortunately the video did not include any of Rounds 1, 2 & 3 transcribed in the NewsBusters article, too bad I love watching Chrissy get slapped.

The real story here is how unhinged and in the tank for the Moonbats and Lunatic Left Chrissy has become.  I stopped watching Matthews some months ago, but he has descended a long way since then.  Anyone appearing on one of his programs better be prepared to counter his lunatic "facts" and shout-overs or not waste their time.

Chris Matthews

During this interview, Chris became angry with his crew and reacted to it. This clip can be seen on Youtube and Inside Cable News. 

It is the best "gotcha" moment I have ever seen on cable news. 

It is Chris as he really is - a jerk!

 

Poor Chris

They had a testicle counting contest.  Laura beat the three lightweights combined by 4. The last time Mathews was so emasculated, he was challenged to a duel by Zell Miller.  Spitballs at 20 paces.

 

/*-/*-/*-/*-/*-/*-/*-/*-/*-

With Democrat revisionist history and liberals guaranteeing the future (global warming, nuclear destruction, etc.) only the future is certain; the past is always changing.

"No war for civilization!"

Given how critical oil is to the West's economy and civilization itself, THAT's the essential meaning of the mindless anti-war chant about "no blood for oil".

They're that stupid.