Rachel Maddow Takes on Tom Ridge Over WMD Justification for Invading Iraq
By Heather Wednesday Sep 02, 2009 8:00am
Rachel Maddow doesn't back down an inch in what was really a pretty amazing interview with Tom Ridge. Amazing in that we haven't seen enough of them and how sad it was these kind of questions weren't asked of the Bush administration by anyone in the press before we invaded that country. At the end of what was a three part interview, Rachel calls Ridge out for his attempt at revisionist history.
Rachel asks him if he still believes that Iraq had WMD and Ridge says he does not. She asks him if he really doesn't believe that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld "had any role in skewing the intelligence to a foregone conclusion" and "an intelligence community error and not a politicized decision". Ridge of course says that no one in the Bush administration would have done something like that and that he believed that they just wanted to keep the country safe.
Maddow: I think that is an eloquent argument and I have to tell you….I think you making, I think you making that argument right now is why Republicans after the Bush and Cheney administration are not going to get back the country’s trust on national security. To look back at that decision and say we got it wrong but it was in good faith and not acknowledge the foregone conclusion that we were going to invade Iraq that pervaded every decision that was made about intelligence, looking back at that decision making process, it sounds like you’re making the argument you would have made the same decision again.
Americans need to believe that our government would not make that wrong a decision, would not make such a foregone, take such a foregone conclusion to such an important issue that the counter, the intelligence that proved the opposite point was all discounted, that the intelligence was combed through for any bit that would support the foregone conclusion of the policy makers. The system was broken and if you don’t see that the system was broken and you think that it was just that the Intel was wrong, I think that you’re one of the most trusted voices on national security for the Republican Party, and I think that’s the elephant in the room.
I don’t think you guys get back your credibility on national security until you realize, that was a wrong decision made by policy makers, it wasn’t the spies fault.
Ridge: Well, I think you’re suggesting that it was only being driven by quite obviously, the people who made the decision knew more about the threat than you and I do, and again I think it’s a, it’s a pretty radical conclusion to suggest the men and women entrusted with the safety of this country would predicate a decision upon any other basis than to keep America safe. Late on it may have proven that some of the information was inaccurate, but there were plenty of reasons to go into Iraq at the time, the foremost were the weapons of mass destruction. That obviously had proven to be faulty. But the fact of the matter is at that time, given what they knew, they knew more than you and I did, it seemed to be the right thing to do and the decision was made in what they considered to be the best interest of our country.
We’ve been litigating it now for about five or six years. I guess we’re going to continue to litigate it and historians and the final history hasn’t been written because of Iraq. If some form of self government, some form of democracy ultimately is achieved in Iraq and it’s not going to look exactly like ours, but you know, the Muslim world does admire freedom of speech. The Muslim world does admire democracy. As difficult as it is over there, the notion that we went in improperly will be obviously reversed and the history is yet to be written. Democracy in Iraq…
Maddow: Reversed?
Ridge: Well, yeah. Democracy in Iraq will make a huge difference not just for the men and women and the people and the families in Iraq, but for the entire region for a lot of reasons.
Maddow: If you can go back in time and sell the American people on the idea that 4000 Americans ought to lose their lives and we ought to lose those trillions of dollars for democracy in Iraq, you have a wilder imagination than I do. We were sold that war because of 9-11. We were sold that war because of the threat of weapons of mass destruction and this guy didn’t have them and our government should have known it and frankly, a lot of people believe that our government did know it and that it was a cynical decision and maybe everybody wasn’t in on it and maybe that is a radical thing to conclude...
Ridge: Well, I don’t share that point of view. I know you do. I’m not going to convince you and you’re not going to convince me, but I really appreciate the civil way we’ve had this discussion. In frankly I think it would advance our interest as a country a lot further and a lot faster if we could have the discussion such as this.
Login or Register to post comments.
revisionist history sack of monkey shite.
Iraq's nuclear ambitions died with the Israeli bombing of the unfinished Osirisk (sp?) nuclear reactor in 1986. The entire Niger "yellow-cake" charge was fabricated by the Defense Policy Review Board, specifically Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and Paul Wolfowitz. The outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame by Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney, and Robert Novak was intentional treason designed to squelch reports that disproved the Niger claim.
Iraq did, at one time, posses chemical WMDs that were sold to Saddam by the USA government for the express purpose of using them against the Islamic Republic of Iran, which threw the USA and Britain out, including their oil company interests, after the 1979 Revolution. Chemical WMD's deteriorate over time, especially in the very hot climate of the Middle East. The Bush administration had substantiated reports that Saddam no longer had a viable chemical WMD capability well before the March 19, 2003 invasion. NSA Condoleeza Rice, Sec. of State Colin Powell, and Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld were all quoted on TV news interviews in April and May of 2001 that Saddam posed no threat to the USA, nor to any of Iraq's neighbors, from chemical or biological WMD -- no threat whatsoever.
A document from September 2000, the Policy for a New American Century, was dusted off after the secretive Cheney Energy Commission as a blueprint for establishing permanent military bases in the Middle East in order to control the vast oil reserves. The need for action became urgent with the news that Saddam had not only signed tentative oilfield exploration and development contracts with Chinese, French, and Russian oil companies, but that Saddam was going to open his own oil stock exchange for oil futures trading, based on the Euro instead of the US Dollar. All of this was supposed to happen just as soon as the United Nations lifted the "Oil For Food" sanctions by the end of 2003. Instead, a new "Pearl Harbor" happened on 9/11 that changed the entire Middle East dynamic, if properly played out.
Tom Ridge was part of the Bush/Cheney Crime Family, is still trying to twist historical facts into a Bush-friendly legacy, as well as avoid, for as long as possible, the legal consequences to their criminal and unconstitutional activities. He belongs in prison, and not on TV. WTF?
> revisionist history sack of monkey shite.
Going to make lots of fodder for Hollywood to paint the US in a winning bright light then .......... same shite, different day.
> United Nations
Ah yes ......... the organisation that the US vetos and ignores every time it's not in the country's interests, while lying to it's own population about it. Always a giggle when the US uses UN to back up it's decisions when it suits.
Good summation though I will quibble with you about a couple of things: Israel bombed the Osirik reactor in 1981 and Iraq did NOT give up its desire for a nuclear weapons program until after the Gulf War. In fact, the UN inspectors found that Iraq was much closer to a nuke than what was assumed at the time. This is what supposedly made then Defense Secretary, Dick Cheney become paranoid about security issues and came not to trust the UN. But after that war, it has now come to be known that Saddam gave up his WMD programs but kept up the pretention that he still had them, mostly to ward off Iran.
... is a great interviewer! 1-0
and let him 'agree to disagree' on facts: that Bushco sold the war on WMDs. Honestly, I'd prefer if she'd called him a liar and if necessary shown a few video clips to prove him so. But maybe that's why I don't have a show on the teevee.
... that it's not calling someone a liar per se, it's presenting the facts that show the opposite and letting the viewer come to the conclusion on their own.
I can't be polite at times when discussing things that are of this nature and that which I am so passionate, and that is probably a character flaw of mine.
She comes off really well; she laid it out very clearly in her rebuttals of his statements.
In fact, I'll say this: She's got the possibility to be the savior for progressive media in the US.
One, because Rachel has a brilliant mind. Two, she knows how to make her cases clearly and evenly. And three, she does not come off in an abrasive manner at all but clearly does not suffer fools.
I think Rachel Maddow is one of the finest journalists we've ever had in US media. I really do.
Compare her interview with Ridge and what practically anyone on Fox does with a Democrat politician. At the end Ridge made the comment that more calm, polite and rational discussions are needed. You can't model a better way to do politics by imitating hate-mongers.
thank you, rachel...
fantastic, again!
She is fantastic ... and getting a reputation of being tough but fair.
Maddow rocks!
They are fucking liars! Ridge will lie to get what he wants. I say fuck this lying old fool.
republicanism is a mental illness!
What a lying fool!
Game, set, match. Put MTP in Rachel's fine hands and watch the level of conversation as well as the ratings soar.
That is exactly what I was thinking as I read the transcript. I was just imagining her on MTP with him doing this same interview. Now there is a program I would not miss on Sunday mornings if Rachel were the host.
.
Let's make it happen! I am willing to bet that all of that blogging last year where so many of us were jockeying for the Maddow Show that we now enjoy helped, at least a bit.
I don't watch teevee on weekends!
I gotta have my Maddow fix during the week, gosh darnit!
What about MEEEEEE? lol
But I agree, Maddow would bring MTP the respect it's lost.
Also...Ridge was lying his ass off.
His shifting eyes were a dead giveaway.
We can never let these fucking morons get hold on our government again!
republicanism is a mental illness!
Though he does represent a huge % of the US though ........
instead he gives 'interviews' where he's 'verbally fellated' by the likes of useful idiots like Chris Wallace. Ridge at least sat there and listened to what Rachel said and what a lot of her viewers believe and know to be true. and as for your opinion, sir, history doesnt have to happen for you to be vindicated. you are wrong. it was always be 'fact' that invading Iraq was the 'right' thing to do. it wasn't. you are wrong and will always be wrong on this. this is not a matter of opinion or agreeing to disagree, you are factually wrong. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and should never have happened. you failed and i will always know it. and no thank you for your service.
He will never do an interview with Rachel. Cause you know she would Rip the piece of S&!t apart.
These crooks will eventually stop giving interviews to Maddow because they know she will ask the tough questions that she already knows the answers to. They will try to starve her out by not giving her anyone to expose, and therefore no more classic clips like this to show how great she really is.
This asshat is complete utter horsesh*t. I think it's more and more true he did all that to cause controversy to sell his book. A true neocon - [financial profit] ends justify ALL means.
no matter their "core beliefs" would be able to come to that conclusion after watching this.
and Maddow did the far better job between the two...
It's gone toward right of center, since the Thugs squeezed funding and they have to rely on grants and monies from Mobil, Exxon, et al.
So the fact that you found the Maddow interview, more interesting, I think that's not so surprising at all.
Maddow is right, the repugnacans lied and lied about everything and until they admit it and change they are liars and I don't vote for liars.
... requires that one be armed with the truth.
Which truth would that be, Mr. Ridge?
- Factual Truth: Saddam did not have WMDs and was not a 'grave and growing' threat.
- Legal Truth: Torture is against American and international law.
- Moral Truth: See above.
So I see you holding a bag filled with dog turds and trying to convince us you're bringing in donuts ...
and disguised them with sprinkles. You don't like them yet? Maybe he's got icing for them too
... a nice big cup of
kool-aidcoffee to wash it all down.sold
...which therefore I'm going to have to ask you not to take into consideration... irrespective of well-established facts.
Tom Ridge has the gall to blame "the Brits" for the "faulty" (read: fixed) intelligence! The head of MI6 returned from Washington and briefed the UK government, in his infamous "smoking gun" Downing Street memo, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_street_memo, saying that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed [by the U.S.] around the policy". Ridge is a liar and he knows it. Thanks, Rachel Maddow, for busting him... could have been done more forcefully, though.
reminds me of JEdgar Hoover. And a cigarette machine.
would have responded to 911.
I believe Gore would have heeded them and the takedown would have been fairly top secret, so as not to alarm the American People. It would not have happened under a President who would have taken his PDBs seriously.
pre 911 time line when world intelligence was handing Bush Co all the clues they needed to pop the plot before it even happened.
Gore would have become President Jan. 20th NOT Sept. 10th.
...the topic was Ridge, Maddow, and the people who were in charge after 9-11 who made the decision to invade and occupy Iraq?
but I guaran-damn-tee ya, he wouldn't have gone apeshit like boooosh.
If Gore had been president, he wouldn't have been distracted by his obsession with plans to go whup Saddam's heinie and thereby prove he had bigger stones than his old man.
Having your brother rig the election for you... priceless. And extremely costly as well.
if the Powers that Be had wanted Gore to be President they would not have rigged the election in Florida and then fixed the Supreme vote for Daddy's little boy. Simple as that.
How would he have reacted upon receiving intelligence that Al Qaida was going to attack us with hi-jacked airplanes BEFORE 911. With a competent President, there might not have ever been a 911.
This guy is little more than a follower; a mouthpiece for others. Screw him.
How can we get Rachel to head MTP?
I think that would be a great improvement.
She always does an excellent job and has more balls than all of the guys put together.
...as a good journalist sticks to the truth, they only need average ones. But yes, Maddow has a shiny, brassy set.
you disrespect The Maddow, SIR!
She's got a balls of adamantium!
Wait...if I understood that, then that makes me a geek, too.
Busted!
Wonder Nerd powers....ACTIVATE!
Geeks get it done.
Ain't no shame in being a geek, be proud of it.
Without geeks, the world wouldn't be as cool now would it?
But I digress..
Form of...A Slide-rule!
for the nasty anti-American lies he spews in this interview.
This last bit would funny if it wasn't so tragic:
Ridge: Well, I don’t share that point of view. I know you do. I’m not going to convince you and you’re not going to convince me, but I really appreciate the civil way we’ve had this discussion. In frankly I think it would advance our interest as a country a lot further and a lot faster if we could have the discussion such as this.
Typical of a liar on the losing end of an argument. He shuts it down, quits, and masks the move with a polite air. As far as I am concerned, just by reading that (I haven't watched the video yet), it looks like Ridge showed Maddow his belly.
The ease with which Tom Ridge lies is breathtaking.
None of those men would have knowingly shed American blood? Laughable.
One word for Ridge, which he can apply to himself as well:
Sociopaths.
Got to give Ridge credit for making the appearance. Most Repubs don't have the courage.
Of course, he looked like a man undergoing an exam at the proctologist.
Short take: We were wrong about absolutely everything but we are great American heroes so all is well.
Yes, at least he showed up and did his best. Picture any of the other crowd of Keystone Kops he hung around with during the Bushwhacker years ever daring set foot on Rachel Maddow's set. Better they just stick with ClusterFox (thank you, Keith Olbermann) and get patted on the head for being such heroes.
...and he barely noticed because she didn't call him a "pinhead." THIS is journalism.
Ridge exposed on tape the workings of the insane mindset of the Bush administration when he said "As difficult as it is over there, the notion that we went in improperly will be obviously reversed and the history is yet to be written. Democracy in Iraq…"
He believes that facts will literally change IF we are able to really install a Democracy in Iraq. Even if we are able to create a true Democracy in Iraq with civil rights for all, a friendly relationship with the U.S. and a make a real dent in the ability of terrorists to attack us, it wouldn't change the FACT that we went to war in that country on totally false pretenses. Facts cannot be changed, but Ridge and the other Bushies seem to think they will be.
It would be a whole other thing if he said that they made a mistake but that they acknowledge the mistake and were attempting to do something positive with that mistake. But instead they deny the mistake entirely and say they would gladly repeat it.
That is what Maddow was referring to when she correctly stated that the Bushies cannot get their credibility back.
"As difficult as it is over there, the notion that we went in improperly will be obviously reversed.."
Improperly? No. "Illegally".
You launched a preemptive strike against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 but as Rumsfeld pithily noted,"Had better targets".
Tom, you and your pals are internationally reviled criminals.
Rachel's dissembling of tom ridge was masterful. Armed with FACTS and a refusal to accept talking points she let ridge hang himself. I have read a lot of posts complaining about what Rachel didn't say, i.e. 'Downing Street'.
This segment wasn't an argument, it was an interview. She asked him question, after question and ridge wiggled said 'He didn't write the blurbs on his book. He didn't mean what he wrote IN his book. Ultimately in the last two minutes she quietly, succinctly rubuked him, and by extension the administration, for blaming the CIA, for the missing WMD, the wasted casulties and treasure on a phoney war, and manipulating the country with terror alerts.
ridge will be on with tweety today. I'm guessing that tweety will do a little rehab for ridge.
if, as ridge says to rachel: no one in the Bush administration would have done something like that and that he believed that they just wanted to keep the country safe
then why did ridge claim that "After that episode, I knew I had to follow through with my plans to leave the federal government for the private sector"?
for a brief moment i thought ridge was going to show some class, some true patriotism, some morals... but, nope, he is merely out to peddle some books and try like hell to get back in to the GOP's good graces.
someday we will get more honest media back.
Where anything you want becomes reality.
Sure Ridge, everyone in the west would like to see these countries be peaceful, democratic nations. The point is, you were idiots for trying to blast them into it. The GOP Luntzed us into an expensive war with no payoff except to those who produce weapons and insanity.
Keep selling it Ridge, keep selling. It's the only hope for your party.
I must say, Ridge hung in there pretty well with Rachel, but she didn't let him get away with anything. Wish she'd get Cheney and give him the grilling he ought to have had long since.
would Darth Cheney allow himself to get whooped on by her.
no fucking way.
he doesn't have the balls. he only goes on tv with hosts that will lick his scrote.
Not only Cheney, but his bumpkin Liz, are both too damn CHICKEN to appear with Maddow.
to blumpkin and you're getting closer to the real Cheney.. :)
If the warning code color system decision were not made with political intentions, why then did they stop using, changing and publicizing the alert warnings AFTER the 2004 election? anyone? Gov. Ridge?
damn i would have liked to hear that question asked and answered. my former governor (never voted for him) is ans was a total tool.
Yes, there was motivation enough to use blood and treasure for the third largest oil field in the world. "Keeping America safe" is HOGWASH. Saddam knew damned well if he or anyone connected to him attacked the U.S.A., the entire nation of Iraq would be obliterated immediately. He also knew he would die if Iraq were invaded. Why didn't he use these mysterious weapons then? Tom Ridge is boldfaced lying to protect himself and the integrity of the position he once held.
watch the effin' clip.
I am sick to death of listening to members of "The Party of Personal Responsibility"
Lie, stonewall, weasel, fib, blame, misrepresent, being reckless with the truth and otherwise hoodwinking everybody all of the time about every-damn-thing that they have perpetrated.
Having Ridge on has certain ratings value.
As far as it adding to the conversation and clarifying just exactly why he suddenly flip flopped. Not so much.
gave that awesome comment....he looked like she had beaned him right between the eyes.
Would he have been dumb enough NOT to know that was coming??
Dumb enough to believe his own lies, of course. It's the only defence take that away and the whole charade comes down.
He's there to spew the lies and have his own reputation destroyed or at least made to look stupid when they are, albeit rarely, called on it.
That is what mafia soldiers do. The godfathers stay above it all.
Ridge is just a Bush cabal messenger boy. A nothing.
> A nothing.
Indeed, which is where Maddow does well by saying [words to the effect] "You're one of the most respected republican voices on defence".
Then publicly shredding him. Build 'em up and rip 'em down. I think enough of the US audience will be effected by that, even if they don't understand what she is doing. So that's a step in the right direction.
having a truth commission.
"We’ve been litigating it now for about five or six years. I guess we’re going to continue to litigate it and historians and the final history hasn’t been written because of Iraq."
-Tom Ridge
we don't need to see the final history to examine how this thing started.
Hey Obama, you can't move forward without knowing what really happened in the past now can you?
cherry-pickin' liars selling a trillion dollar war to the public with a short-changed price tag of a mere few billion. shame shame shame
This was a GREAT interview!! To see a strong (alleged) republican cabinet secy try to back peddle HIS OWN WORDS and try to make up new reasons to stick by old talking points/excuses was wonderful to watch..
No punches pulled here but to watch Ridge even disavow the words on the sleeve of his own book and try to make excuses for chapters in his own work, was classic bush/rove/cheney/rumsfeld excuse-based lunacy.. Listening to Ridge try to exonerate people in the bush admin. that by their own admissions LIED over and over and over again, especially in the run-up to the disaster in Iraq, was like vomiting in your own mouth and trying to hold it in...purely disgusting..
Ridge proved to the whole world, cause it's on 'tape', last evening that he's no better than buch/cheney/rove/rumsfeld/addington when they almost ran this place into a sand dune.....he clearly earned his seat on the plane to the Hague last night....
Is it a "point of view" that the Bush administration cherry-picked the opinions of junior analysts who said the tubes could only be for centrifiging unranium -- not the senior ones (later proved right) who said it could also be for conventional rocket launchers? (Reported by the NYT back in 2004.)
Ridge seems to have staked out a "limited hang-out" position to run flak for the war criminals. Even his coy back-and-forth posture on whether he was pressured politically to manipulate the threat level, seems calculated to add to a smoke screen on behalf of someone.
if we weren't both gay.
or, love sees no boundaries???
Ridge's basic argument is that despite it looking like the threat levels were politicized, he knows in his heart that that couldn't have been the case because he knows the Bush administration personally and they're all really really nice guys. in his heart, guys.
basically the argument given is exactly the same one he gives for the iraq war, which many republican apologists also give: the outcome was a disaster but the intention was benign. and why should you believe this? because we said so, that's why!
nevermind the fact that there has been substantial information out already about the politicization of the war (such as downing street memo or the fact that Bush had already set a date for the war while inspectors were on the ground). and please forget about the fact that Bush Admin politicized almost every aspect of the government (firing attorneys who weren't "loyal bushies", outing CIA operative, asking contractors going to the green zone what their stance on abortion was, asking town-hall attendees to sign a loyalty oath, etc. etc.), or the fact that the administration has a long pattern of lying or deceiving the american public.
you can trust us on this one, we promise.
seriously, imagine how it would sound if somebody else made this argument. if some top adviser to Khamenei says "yeah, that whole stolen election thing turned out to be much messier than we would have liked. but believe me, i know the Ayatollah personally and i just know that in his heart he just wanted to do what was best for the Iranian people"
would anybody take this statement seriously?
My wife and I have been fans of Rachel Maddow long before she went on MSNBC. It is great to have such a smart, hardworking, prepared, and flat out gutsy interviewer on the air. She puts the pap or screeds put out by other news shows to shame. She can tear huge holes in manipulative arguments and be honest, respectful, and sane in the process. What a great representative of progressive views. The utter absense of looniness keeps folks focused on the issues and debate quality. Even her quests seem to appreciate and respect how they are treated...fair. I also appreciate her williness to immediately retract on air the few mistakes she does make. Great example of how to do news interviews from any prospective.
He knew they were cooking the inteligence, anybody with half a brain and a computer knew. It is just a game to them, but the papers say....who wrote the papers???....Maddow another great win.
Sorry Ridge, but I know the truth, sorry dude.
In Lakoff's book "The Political Mind" he says that the Left basically approaches issues from the point of view of empathy, and the Right from the point of view of authority. I think that Maddow exemplifies this in her show and in her interviews.
Unfortunately, on left-leaning blogs (in the response sections generally) one can find plenty of liberals who seem very authoritarian; advocating kicking Repuglicans in the mouth and so forth. If Lakoff is correct, can liberal values really be promoted through authoritarian (and therefore conservative means)?
Ridge is a nice guy but he's a blockhead. Another stooge in the bush-cheney debacle. His arguments don't add up.
His perspective on the preemptive destruction of Iraq is appalling.
It was disappointing that Rachel did not present the findings of Hans Blix, Mohamed ElBaradei and the U.N. Inspectors who were in Iraq. Their findings totally refutiated Bush's claims that Iraq had WMDs and Powell's fraudulent U.N. presentation. In addition, ElBaradei presented evidence to the U.N. Security Council showing that the paperwork purporting that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger was not authentic.
Ridge and the rest of the Bush junta and neo-con cabal continue to justify their crimes as "well intentioned and to keep America safe". They firmly believe that it is OK to flush the Constitution down the toilet and to empty the Treasury to no-bid contractor give aways as long as they do so with the right intentions and it keeps us safe.
What ever happened to Land of the Free, Home of the Brave? For all the patriotic posturing these neo-cons love to do, they certainly have a very low opinion of the ability of the citizens to be brave and live free.
Mis-guided hypocrites. Well intentioned disaster is still a disaster.
Absolutely.
yes, yes, yes, well intentioned to keep america safe by squashing any debate or arguments that countered their invasion plans. based on what i have seen, i have a low opinion of the ability of the citizens to be brave and live free when they say shut up as a retort, slam doors as a defense, then reach for their guns to solve problems.
until we get a truth commission.
we are in a very deep hole.
While she exposed him to be the lying republican idiot he is. I was cussing up a storm watching him. He has denied his own book. He did not write it. Amazing. He is on a book tour to sell his book which he does not claim he wrote that part, or this part or the cover. What a creep.
when i saw rachel would be the one taking on ridge in this interview, i felt perfectly comfortable. i knew that she had the firepower and the intellect to stand toe to toe with this mental giant of the republican party. true to form, she tore him a new a...hole. she threw him no softballs and called him on his lies and wont to lay the blame elsewhere. you won't see him on her show in the near future. as for rachel, where does the line form to vote her into office. what is she running for...anything she wants. i'll vote for her. she's not only bright, she's fearless and goes where no man before has dared to go. all right rachel!
I worry bacause i wonder if she would fold if she actually ran and won a high office, kind of like coleman, as the padre announcer, he had all the answers. however once he became the padre skipper, he was as dumbfounded as all who had preceeded him. would rachel pull a colman. I doubt it. i'd campaign for her.
We need more TV like this with informed media people having respectful, but pointed, dialogs with policymakers of both parties. The problem is, of course, where we can find media people who research and think and are more articulate than the latest slogan, outside of Rachel Maddow and the Comedy Channel.
Ridge is still a lying right wing Republican covering his ass , plain and simple . If anyone believes that the Bushlerites actually believed that Hussein was an immediate threat and possessed WMD's ... their head is seriously up their butt and they know absolutely nothing . There is no debating it anymore ,the proof and the facts are out , Bush , Cheney and the Bushlerites flat out lied us into invading Iraq .Without question Bush , Cheney and those responsible are in fact international war criminals.
Maybe he really believes this - in any case he keeps *saying* "But the fact of the matter is at that time, given what they knew, they knew more than you and I did" and hammering at that.
But . . . Obviously, if his interpretation of their decision making process is right, and they *were* acting in good faith, then, no, they *didn't* know more than everyone else did. Despite the greatest intelligence system in the world, they obviously new *less* than the U.N. Weapons inspectors, indeed they knew less than McClatchy Newspapers.
Frankly they knew less than *I* did - and I was just looking at open information, not even sifted via McClatchy (Which I learned about later via Bill Moyers.)
So, at the end of the day, his fundamental defense is that they weren't dishonest, they were just . . . idiots.
But he thinks the decision-making process was sound?
If the only logical explanations are that the administration was being run by lying cynics, or the entire process was being run non compos mentis, those are indications of a problem.
Jonnan
Great work, Rachel.
As a follow-up, however, I think you should call Tom on his assertion that leaders of the country wouldn't go to war on intel they knew to be false. History is replete with examples of this. I would start with Operation Northwoods, and show the American public some of the documents that are freely available on the internet right now. Documents that show us the sorts of devilish planning that goes on behind closed doors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northw...
and the documents:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/no...
Skip ahead to page 10 for the devilishness...
Login or Register to post comments.