Chris Matthews couldn't help himself during the GOP debate in Michigan, as he returned to his "No blood for oil," rant, when he essentially asked Republican candidates if they thought the U.S. would have invaded Iraq if it didn't need the oil. On CNBC's live coverage of Tuesday's Republican debate the "Hardball" host asked Ron Paul the following:
"Congressman Paul would you, would we have gone to war in Iraq if we weren't so dependent on Middle East oil?"
Matthews then repeated that same question to Sam Brownback:
"Do you believe that, Senator Brownback, that we would've gone to war in Iraq if we weren't so dependent on Middle East oil?"
For his part, Matthews' co-moderator, CNBC Washington bureau chief, John Harwood, went after Big Oil when he asked John McCain the following question:
"Senator McCain, ExxonMobil, Chevron and Conoco-Phillips this past year earned a combined $72 billion in profits. Is that too much? Should the oil industry pay higher taxes or should it be required to use some of those profits to help solve our energy problems?"
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Drill Often....Drill
October 9, 2007 - 17:20 ET by bigtimerDrill Often....Drill Everywhere!
Here in the USA
BT DITTO!
October 9, 2007 - 18:56 ET by Cape Conservativeonce again! We have so many opportunities right here in our own backyard - we need refineries, too!
Did he ever ask the
October 9, 2007 - 17:22 ET by Chris NormanDid he ever ask the Democrat candidates, "Would you be so soft on illegal immigration if your party didn't want their extra votes so badly?". Didn't think so.
We all know
October 9, 2007 - 20:56 ET by Cape Conservativethat one will NEVER come up!!
The premise of Matthews
October 9, 2007 - 17:30 ET by SMGalbraithThe premise of Matthews question is flat out wrong.
We're not "dependent on Middle East oil". We get about 17% of total imports from that region. Most of the oil we import comes from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela.
Obviously, if we were to completely cut off oil imports from the Middle East, a reduction of about 1/6 of our imports (or roughly 9% of total oil consumption) would be harmful to our economy.
But we'd survive.
SMG
Canada and Mexico?
October 9, 2007 - 18:07 ET by totalkaosdaveTotalKaosDave
MY GOD! We get most of our oil from CANADA and MEXICO? When are we going to invade? Oh wait, we're not. That's right, we don't start wars for oil. Comrade Clinton, when Islamonazis strike America under your command and kill homosexuals, will you charge them with a hate crime?
Why didn't someone say, "So,
October 10, 2007 - 06:46 ET by motherbeltWhy didn't someone say, "So, Chris, if we invaded to get their oil, where the hell are we hiding it????"
Congressman Paul would you,
October 10, 2007 - 09:29 ET by dscottCongressman Paul would you, would we have gone to war in Iraq if we weren't so dependent on Middle East oil?"
It's a valid question, however not for the reason Chris Matthew's spin makes it out to be. If Saddam Hussein did not have access to that oil wealth from selling Iraqi oil to "Europe and Japan", he would not have been able to purchase WMD technology, tanks, missle technology, nuclear technology, etc. So the answer to that question is the US would never have needed to reign in on a rogue nation who repeatedly invaded other countries, if the "world" wasn't so dependent on one form of energy. Once again, the US has to clean up the messes created by the foolishness of other countries.
Perversely, the fact that both Iran and Iraq persued nuclear energy in spite of the massive oil wealth they possessed indicates even they recognize that keeping all your eggs in the same basket is not a good idea.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity
A trade?
October 9, 2007 - 17:24 ET by ThisnThatWonder if Iraq would trade oil for Matthews -- we'd throw in a couple billion dollars just to sweeten the deal.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
For a couple billion
October 9, 2007 - 17:26 ET by bigtimerFor a couple billion Olbermann better be included...heck, just add one more billion and make it all of msnbc.
Now that would be a sweetheart deal!
That's terrorism
October 9, 2007 - 17:31 ET by ThisnThatAl Queda would lock themselves up in self-defense if that whole MSNBC crowd suddenly showed up on Al Jeezera TV.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Well, Chris...
October 9, 2007 - 17:25 ET by c5thenMSNBC is losing money hand over fist, has the worst ratings of all the cable news channels and is the most biased of them to boot. Shouldn't the station be shut down or better used as a 24 hr infomercial channel?
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Fred08.com
and when I turned
October 9, 2007 - 21:01 ET by Cape Conservativethe channel to MSNBC (first time in I can't remember when!) I had the opportunity to see KO in his last minutes...YUK! I can do without that "pleasure" anytime.
What a joke...listening to CM's "economic" questions...right! He is he!!bent on getting Iraq in every way he can.
IMO, so far I don't think FT has done so bad - don't know what kind of tap dance is expected by the msm. Personally, I believe the msm are scared to death that he could/would beat HRC and are coming out full force against him. I like his style...who says the president must "cackle" or jump up and down to be effective?
Matthews Is Overpaid
October 9, 2007 - 17:42 ET by WoodyMI would have asked Chris Matthews how much he made last year and told him that Exxon, at least, does something useful for its profits.
Post when Matthews pulls a Wallace...
October 9, 2007 - 17:45 ET by mgerardnIt'll be appropriate to post a Wallace quote when he gets to the Chris Wallace partisan level: (To Ron Paul) "You're basically saying we should take our marching orders from Al Qaeda? If they want us off the Arabian Peninsula, we should leave?"
Well, that was cryptic, mgerardn
October 9, 2007 - 18:10 ET by RJI get it that a quality commentator like Chris Wallace bothers you. After all, who would want to have to defend the likes of drooling Chris Matthews?
But the overall point you're trying to make is hopelessly obscure. Help me out here.....
Quality Commentator?
October 9, 2007 - 18:29 ET by mgerardnYou don't think Chris Wallace's question to R Paul was blatantly partisan?
That was your point?
October 9, 2007 - 18:42 ET by RJHuh.
Well, no I don't think it was blatantly partisan. Ron Paul wants the U.S. to leave. Immediately. That's what the terrorists want us to do. Wallace asked a legitimate question. Maybe if you put it in context. What led up to the question?
Liberal version of the Chris Wallace question
October 9, 2007 - 18:47 ET by mgerardnAre you stating that if you want to stay in Iraq, you're okay with soldiers to continue to be murdered?
What?
October 9, 2007 - 18:52 ET by RJI'm sorry. Since Liberal is a second language to me, I sometimes have a hard time with interpretation. How on earth do you get to that last question from the Chris Wallace question?
I have no interest in your opinion
October 9, 2007 - 19:02 ET by mgerardnI said what the Liberal Version of the Chris Wallace question would have been - not with what you think....the world isn't all about you.
Oops, I was rewriting as you were posting, mgerardn.
October 9, 2007 - 19:16 ET by RJ(I admit that sometimes I have a problem with liberal-speak.)
Which brings me to: soldiers being murdered? Huh? How do you get to that from the Chris Wallace questions?
The soldiers murdered analogy
October 9, 2007 - 19:29 ET by mgerardnis as inane as Osama Bin Laden telling the military what to do - how can you not see that...
Whaaat? See what I mean about liberal-speak?
October 9, 2007 - 19:33 ET by RJ....just throw any obtuse, unrelated remark in there and pretend it's intelligent dialogue....and then brag about it....sigh....
It's no use RJ, this person
October 9, 2007 - 19:35 ET by Chris NormanIt's no use RJ, this person is out of controll...
Chris Norman - too many posts...
October 9, 2007 - 19:37 ET by mgerardnShouldn't you guys be out turning in illegals or oppressing minorities or something? BTW, free C Matthews quote for you down at the bottom...
No. Here at the plantation,
October 9, 2007 - 19:41 ET by Chris NormanNo. Here at the plantation, we have people that do that. Nice try at wit, though. A little heavy handed...
Come on, don't you pine away
October 9, 2007 - 19:43 ET by mgerardnCome on, don't you pine away for times like that, Trent Lott... (where's comments on my C Matthew quote down below)
LOL. Oh, that changes
October 9, 2007 - 19:46 ET by Chris NormanLOL. Oh, that changes everything. That's pretty weak, even for you.
mgerardn (AKA Chris Mathews)
October 9, 2007 - 19:47 ET by Dave RAh, actually, I would rather be out hunting those turncoat surrender-monkeys among us who are actively aiding our enemies.
With one of these.
BTW-I still have all four of my 13 round magazines for my Glock 21. By far it is the best .45 I have ever owned.
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
...
October 9, 2007 - 20:00 ET by mgerardnhey, ya gotta compensate, right. Have you got one of the trucks with the big tires too?
mg thinks he's riding but
October 9, 2007 - 20:02 ET bymg thinks he's riding but we know better
"Television is where you watch people in your living room that you would not want near your house." Groucho
Yeah, I see it too late, Chris
October 9, 2007 - 19:40 ET by RJBut bragging about being inane is just so...so....inane.
RJ, This person is all over
October 9, 2007 - 19:43 ET by Chris NormanRJ, This person is all over the boards today. He can't keep one coherent thought, let alone two. What's the typed version of babbling?
The secret right wing way
October 9, 2007 - 19:44 ET by mgerardnto keep incoherent thoughts together is by connecting them with Clinton BJ jokes, you guys are comedy gold - and I'm sure a hit at parties.
I have to leave now. Thanks
October 9, 2007 - 19:48 ET by Chris NormanI have to leave now. Thanks for providing much laughter. It's been like watching Wile E. Coyote flapping his legs, trying to fly...
Still no response to Cmatthew!! HAHAHAHA
October 9, 2007 - 19:50 ET by mgerardnYou guys are priceless....see you at the minutemen meeting...
Howler Monkey
October 9, 2007 - 19:54 ET by RJHowl away....
Only if you know the secret handshake, troll.
October 9, 2007 - 19:59 ET by Dave RYou future member of the proletariat, or future slave to your future Islamic masters.
Either way, I doubt you will last very long.
BTW-The Islamo-fascists that you and your America-hating ilk are so enamored of aren't exactly known for their regular sword maintenance. They prefer them to be dull and rusty.
And they hate liberals and they stone homosexuals, as they consider you all to be sexual perverts.
Good luck, dumbass.
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
we love islamo-fascists
October 9, 2007 - 20:02 ET by mgerardnTotally - the 75% that disapprove of this president can't wait for an islamo-fascist state -
Welcome back
October 9, 2007 - 20:07 ET by Free StinkerWelcome back rhayes.
. . . and no matter how horrific the terrorist attack, it's conducted by losers. Winners don't need to hijack airplanes. Winners have an Air Force. --P.J. O'Rourke
Great sig, Free.
October 9, 2007 - 20:11 ET by Dave RWhen I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
Thanks. P.J. O'Rourke is
October 9, 2007 - 20:14 ET by Free StinkerThanks. P.J. O'Rourke is the man.
I see we have a new crop of trolls. Anyone giving odds on how long this latest one will last?
Well, sheeeeeeeeit. Why
October 9, 2007 - 20:09 ET by Dave RWell, sheeeeeeeeit. Why don't we just put a surrender monkey in the WH. Then, we can just withdraw from Iraq, pat ourselves on the back for our ingenuity and sit around and wait for Akhmedinadinnerjacket to attempt a nuke attack on an Israeli city.
Any idea as to the kind of war you are going to see then?
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
Akhmedinadinnerjacket
October 9, 2007 - 20:20 ET by mgerardnAkhmedinadinnerjacket - that's clever - taking someone's name and making it sound funny. Keep rocking, guys - you're the future.
Speaking of Funny Names
October 9, 2007 - 20:27 ET by HypocriteHaterBetter yet is Chimpy McFlightsuit. You know, because Bush is an idiot and he wore a flightsuit. Now THAT'S comedy gold! Comparing someone to a chimp because he's stupid. Oh, my ribs!
mgerardn, Sort of like
October 9, 2007 - 20:28 ET by hydrodynDMmgerardn,
Sort of like you writing "Bozo the Bush" three minutes before you posted this?
Son, dense and hypocritical are no way to go through life.
Calling names vs. making up clever names
October 9, 2007 - 20:32 ET by mgerardn2 different things stupid (that's me calling you a name). I love how the right wing rednecks take the middle eastern names and change them to sound like english words - hysterical
mgerardn, Stupid? Gee,
October 9, 2007 - 20:39 ET by hydrodynDMmgerardn,
Stupid? Gee, whatever will I do now that someone who can't keep up his end of a simple argument called my intelligence into question?
Really mgerardn, let me in on the subtly which is "name calling". I guess I missed the nuanced way that you make fun of Bush's name as opposed to the pedestrian way that us dumb-ass conservatives do it.
"I love how the right wing
October 9, 2007 - 22:20 ET by ckc1227"I love how the right wing rednecks take the middle eastern names and change them to sound like english words - hysterical"
And we love how liberals like you get soo defensive when we make fun of the heroes of the left, like ackmadinnerjacket, ugo CHAVEZ, and feedel castor oil.
Don't cry now, Gerardo, Sean Penn will say something profound any moment to raise your spirits.
Mgeradn has gone WAY to the Right
October 10, 2007 - 16:28 ET by JayTeeat least in this NB post above...Far to the RIGHT way........RIGHT
Gee, I can't wait for one
October 9, 2007 - 20:29 ET by Dave RGee, I can't wait for one of your witty posts when we all wake up one morning to see Tel-Aviv, Tehran and Damascus with the remnants of mushroom clouds hanging above. Not to mention the world's armies on the move.
Should be real interesting to see what you peace-at-any-price ostriches have to say about that.
Of course, we could intervene now, and render the Iranian Hitler's nuke program useless, thereby preventing a major holocaust. But you clowns would rather wait for him to start WW IV before doing anything, if even then.
And you and your ilk call yourselves enlightened. My ass.
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
Gotta Go - Heading to the Nuclear Fallout Shelter
October 9, 2007 - 20:43 ET by mgerardnTroll out!!
Republicans currently at Threat Level: Moron
mgerardn, That's right.
October 9, 2007 - 20:46 ET by hydrodynDMmgerardn,
That's right. Run away.
"Republicans currently at
October 9, 2007 - 22:08 ET by ckc1227"Republicans currently at Threat Level: Moron"
Which makes us at least 100 times more intelligent than you.
"Troll out!!"
Uh oh, better hide the sheep.
mgerardn, your reply proves that you are intellectually unarmed.
October 11, 2007 - 19:58 ET by Dave RI guess ignorance really is bliss.
You must be the happiest person on Earth.
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
and first head to roll
October 9, 2007 - 21:06 ET by Cape Conservativewill be that of HRC once the Islamofascists come to town!
Me thinks somebody missed their electro-shock appointment
October 9, 2007 - 19:49 ET by Dave RWhen I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
Howler Monkey, Chris
October 9, 2007 - 19:46 ET by RJ"...the dimunitive howler monkeys roar their unintelligible sounds with a noise that belies their small size. Be alert as these amusing creatures move through your habitat, because they delight in throwing objects at the unsuspecting."
A new one, RJ?
October 9, 2007 - 20:04 ET by BlondeWow, I worked kinda late today...but I see you all have had lots of fun with the latest arrival from DKos.
We need a better class of trolls, here.
This one is more scattered than most I've seen. Off topic, off of his meds, too, apparently.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Yeah, Blonde, sigh
October 9, 2007 - 20:08 ET by RJLike the monkeys they are, they poop in their hands and think they've accomplished something wonderful. Just be alert because they like to throw stuff. ;^)
Oh, RJ..it does get tiresome.
October 9, 2007 - 20:14 ET by BlondeI'm listening to the debate (join the chat?)....Huckabee sounds pretty good.
I know this is old news...but I was busy paying my taxes at 4:00 p.m. today.
We need a better class of troll, here.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
mgerardn, Still waiting
October 9, 2007 - 18:49 ET by hydrodynDMmgerardn,
Still waiting for you to get back to us on how Olbermann doesn't claim to be unbias.
Doesn't claim to be unbiased?
October 9, 2007 - 19:27 ET by mgerardnNice double negative - you said he claims he's independent, step up to the plate - show something -
mgerardn, Wow. If you
October 9, 2007 - 19:41 ET by hydrodynDMmgerardn,
Wow. If you bother to go back to that thread, you will see the following from you:
In a response to you, I posted a link in which he does claim to be independent (or unbiased). So ... wait for it ... you were claiming that Olbermann doesn't claim to be unbiased. That's what I was referring to.
Still with me? Well, if you are, maybe you can "step up to the plate" and comment on the link I posted to you.
takes elements of "the liberal playbook"
October 9, 2007 - 19:49 ET by mgerardndoesn't sound that independent to me - way to pick and choose quotes.
mgerardn, Ok, I'll assume
October 9, 2007 - 19:59 ET by hydrodynDMmgerardn,
Ok, I'll assume you are referring to the Olbermann quote - given your cryptic response, it's kind of hard to tell.
If I am correct in assuming that, then I have to ask:
So how exactly is the MRC page I linked to picking and choosing quotes?
If you were actually referring to something else, let me know. I'd be willing to let you look like a pompous ass over whatever topic you like.
you're picking and choosing the quotes, stooge
October 9, 2007 - 20:03 ET by mgerardnYou are not unpicking the quotes from the story
mgerardin, What? Maybe
October 9, 2007 - 20:13 ET by hydrodynDMmgerardin,
What?
Maybe you aren't really familiar with how an "argument" or "discussion" works. Let me help.
You made an assertion - that Olbermann never claimed to be independent.
I countered that with a link to an article which has direct quotes from Olbermann where he seems to suggest that he is independent.
Now, it's your turn to respond to that article (presumably after reading it) in an attempt to back up your original assertion.
It seems that you are suggesting that the MRC article takes Olbermann's words out of context. If you feel that's the case, it's up to you to explain - in detail - why that is.
See how that works?
Say he's independent vs."seems to suggest"
October 9, 2007 - 20:21 ET by mgerardnRe-read your post, you just proved my point. Thanks.
mgerardn, If you honestly
October 9, 2007 - 20:34 ET by hydrodynDMmgerardn,
If you honestly think these vague responses are impressing anyone, you are mistaken.
It would be a sign of maturity for you to simply admit that you were wrong about Olbermann and move on.
Instead, you throw off cryptic replies in some juvenile attempt to claim victory in an argument.
Truly sad, dude.
"Senator McCain,
October 9, 2007 - 18:05 ET by jdhawk"Senator McCain, ExxonMobil, Chevron and Conoco-Phillips this past year earned a combined $72 billion in profits. Is that too much? Should the oil industry pay higher taxes or should it be required to use some of those profits to help solve our energy problems?"
And, Brownback's answer was bereft of a solid grounding in conservative principles and the championing of capitalism.
He should have said, that we should all be proud of the wonderful profits that the hard work of hundreds of thousands of employees were able to achieve while providing products without which our economy would fail.
That these companies and the others in their industry solve our energy problems every day by delivering their products whenever and wherever they are needed.
Not only are these companies employing massive numbers of American citizens in high paying jobs, but the tax revenue generated from this industry is staggering.
In fact, if it weren't for companies like these, we would have to lower taxes even more to further stimulate the economy to replace the tax revenue generated by them.
No Viewers
October 9, 2007 - 18:34 ET by PawpawNDid any one other than Matthews family watch it! Heck, they probably didn't.
TiVO
October 9, 2007 - 19:29 ET by azholmesI haven't watched it yet, bumgonna!
<p>
October 10, 2007 - 07:37 ET by Par for the Course<p>
Follow the Grease Slick
October 9, 2007 - 19:21 ET by Lame CherryOh for a Republican or even Ron Paul to simply tell Chris Matthews:
Rothschilds financial cartel created by funding.........
John D. Rockefeller who with their money created the oil cartels and with J P Morgan funded by Rothschilds the Federal Reserve Banking cartel.
Rothschilds created Karl Marx to manage people cheaply in "communism".
English and French Rothschilds created the Ba'ath Party which is communist and sustained by another Rothschild creation called: Bolshevik Russia.
Prodigy Bill Clinton saved stooge Saddam Hussein from being overthrown so Rothschilds and Rockefellers could skim billions in Iraqi oil........oil which the Rockefellers made the world dependent upon by destroying the American railroads, electric cars and converting diesel engines from vegetable oil to what is now called diesel fuel.
Rockefellers purchased control of key US government agencies and key media of like minded comrades.........which little Chris Matthews just so happened to sell his soul for to carry their water and advance the global agenda. (Currently for their boy Al Gore.)
So for Chris Matthews to be asking if we would have gone into Iraq for oil.............
Why in this world didn't the GOP tell Matthews, "ASK YOUR BOSS YOU PROPAGANDIST AS YOU ARE THE REASON AMERICANS ARE DYING IN IRAQ!"
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Great Chris "the liberal" Matthews line interviewing Coulter
October 9, 2007 - 19:34 ET by mgerardnYou are a controversial lady. You write beautifully. You have a brilliant brain.
Can we ask for a
October 9, 2007 - 20:22 ET by wiwfCan we ask for a nonpartisan moderator next time?
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
there's only one nonpartisan employee at Fox
October 9, 2007 - 20:28 ET by mgerardnGreta Van S. Put her in there, she'll just ask the candidates about unsolved murders.
Greta: "Senator McCain, how
October 9, 2007 - 20:33 ET by HypocriteHaterGreta: "Senator McCain, how will you find Natalie Holloway?"
I saw, or at least heard. a
October 9, 2007 - 22:26 ET by JerI saw, or at least heard. a good bit of the debate. So here is a quick take from a Democrat:
Overall, I was impressed. Collectively, more impressive than the Democatic candidates. More specifically [and obviously this is just my opinion]...
1. Guiliani and Huckabee tie for the best in show
2. Romney and Brownback close seconds
3. Thompson did better than I expected, considering his late entry, his first debate, and some curious remarks recently indicating a possible lack of preparedness, insufficient gravitas, undeveloped positions, etc.
4. McCain doesn't seem as dynamic as he once did; age may be catching up with him
5. Tancredo is too much of a single issue candidate. He could be asked about the Yankees losing and turn it into a lecture on the evils of immigration
6. With condolences to sarcasmo, Ron Paul comes across as too much of a radical, at best a maverick who is going to appeal to a limited constituency...not the broader electorate
I think Guiliani or Romney would have a good chance of defeating Hillary. Possibly Huckabee or Thompson, too.
Did I forget anybody? As I said, this was a very quick take.
Jer
From the hour or so I
October 9, 2007 - 22:55 ET by HermanoFrom the hour or so I watched, I got the same impressions of Paul and Tancredo. I would have liked each and every one of them to have commented on just how well our economy is running right now! Of course it could be better, more stable, etc.
I enjoyed Rudy's Hillary-bashing on just how much she was going to give away.
What's with the "Late" arrival judgement on Fred...
October 10, 2007 - 07:54 ET by JayTeehas everyone FORGOT just when historically the Presidential Candidates announce and start earnest campaigning ?
This was the Earliest of all the Presidential races to have Candidates coming out.....let alone all the moving up of the State primaries.....everyone is acting like Fred is late, but he's on time with History.
IF you want to slam someone for "timing", slam Hillary for being so early ....leaving her empty shell of a Senator working in Congress, and running for President ........ she just couldn't wait .....
One year before an election is plenty...especially if you have a full time job...like Senator....running distracts from your Day job.
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
Proper answer: "Chris, you
October 10, 2007 - 12:45 ET by MikeBProper answer: "Chris, you ignorant slut. The United States gets its foreign oil mostly from Canada and Mexico. We get very little of our oil from middle east sources. While the United States is dependent on foreign oil, we are not dependent on oil from the middle east. The United States wouldn't be as dependent on Canadian and Mexican oil if Congress and the environmentalist extremists hadn't stopped the oil companies from drilling in the ANWR, hadn't blocked the building of new, more efficient oil refineries for the last thirty years, and hadn't blocked the construction of new nuclear electrical generation plants for the last thirty years. So your question, besides being based on ignorance is a non sequitor."
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan