Iraq WMD Lies

TOPICS Video Cafe
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1399)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (5585)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Morning Joe Oct. 22, 2009- Joe Scarborough and Lawrence O'Donnell get into it over Cheney's remarks that President Obama is "dithering" in Afghanistan and on the WMD argument for invading Iraq.

Joe Scarborough defends Cheney's remarks and is still carrying water for the Bush administration on the WMD lies. Lawrence O'Donnell calls him out for it and Scarborough resorts to personal attacks and calls O'Donnell "crazy" and says that he has "a back pile of appliances" that he's "trying to sell in the five boroughs". It got pretty heated before the segment finally ended with Scarborough getting one last dig in on O'Donnell at the very end telling him to "go sell" his "appliances".

Scarborough was out in California where it was about 4:30 in the morning. Anyone else think he stayed up too late the night before this airing?



TOPICS Video Cafe

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1379)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (5587)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

h/t David

Howard Kurtz is still playing water carrier for the Bush administration and their WMD lies used to justify invading Iraq and when called out for it by Daniel Ellsberg who says he'll name names as to who in the Bush administration knew better what does he do? Why try to change the subject of course!

Ellsberg is the subject of a new documentary The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers which debuts this week in New York, Los Angeles and at the Toronto Film Festival.

KURTZ: Do you think that the Obama administration is getting as much pressure from the press as it should, particularly compared to previous administrations, say the Bush administration?

ELLSBERG: None. No administration has gotten the pressure that it should from the press on this point. We got into Iraq with as much deceptions as occurred in Vietnam, a generation earlier. A performance by the press no better than we saw of pressing behind the lies of the administration than we got during the Johnson administration when I was in; nor did we get a single person within the administration, the Bush administration now, who saw that the adventure into Iraq was going to hurt our counter-terrorism efforts, hurt our security, and was violating the Constitution in terms of treaties. Another example would be treaties on torture and our domestic laws on torture. People who saw that clearly, not one of them leaked to Congress, or to the press.

(CROSS TALK)

KURTZ: Obviously, there were conflicting opinions and conflicting evidence, for example on WMDs. But let me come back to this.

ELLSBERG: No, pardon me.

KURTZ: Go ahead.

ELLSBERG: When it came to lying -- when it came to lying about the nature of the evidence that the evidence was unequivocal, that was as much of a lie as saying that evidence of the attack on August 4th, on our destroyers, was unequivocal. Yes, there was --

KURTZ: You're comparing the Bush's building of the case to go to war in Iraq, with Lyndon Johnson's Tonkin Gulf war incident, just to be clear.

ELLSBERG: I am, indeed. It's exactly the same in the performance not only by the president, but by all of the people who knew that it was a disaster. And I could name names there, if you want.

Continue reading »


TOPICS Video Cafe
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1624)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (5375)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

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.


TOPICS Video Cafe

Rachel Maddow and Michael Isikoff Debunk Liz Cheney

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (117)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (663)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Rachel Maddow and Michael Isikoff debunk Liz Cheney's earlier appearance with Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC. Rachel says she's trying to get either of the Cheney's to come on her show but they won't do it. I bet Rachel wouldn't have to go back and do her "homework" to bebunk either Cheney. She'd have done it before they came on with her. You know...like you'd expect from a journalist.


TOPICS Video Cafe

DOWNLOAD (72)
WMV QuickTime
PLAY (112)
WMV QuickTime


You Tube

Bill Kristol is asked by a caller on Washington Journal whether himself, Fox News, The Weekly Standard or the any of the neo-con think tanks owe the American public an apology for hyping the WMD lies on Iraq. Of course Kristol doesn't think so, but then that would require some degree of introspection that I highly doubt the man is capable of for him to have answered differently. It also would require having something called a conscience, but I don't think Kristol has one of those either.

In his response he attempts to diminish the role these conservative think tanks and publications have had in pushing our government into going to war. Does anyone think that we would not have invaded Iraq had it not been for the influence PNAC, AEI and the rest of them had over our elected offials? He also does not address at all the role the "news" networks played in getting us into that debacle.


TOPICS

DOWNLOAD (55)
WMV QuickTime
PLAY (88)
WMV QuickTime

In the wake of Dick Cheney's steadfast refusal to admit any wrongdoing, Chris Matthews and David Corn absolutely demolish wingnut/neocon extraordinaire and Cheney-apologist Frank Gaffney over the necessity of the Iraq War and Saddam Hussein's phantom weapons of mass destruction.

Matthews: "You guys sold the war as a nuclear threat to the United States. You sold every trick you could to get us into this war. And now you're backpedaling. And I do find it astounding....four thousand people are dead because of the way you feel and, Frank Gaffney, you're wrong about this."

Gaffney: "It is regrettable that they had to die, but I believe they did have to die. The danger was inaction could have resulted in the death of a great many more Americans than 4,000. And that's the reason I'm still delighted that we did what we did."

It astounds me that people like Gaffney can continue to cling to the idea that Saddam really did pose an imminent threat/that he really had WMD/that the intelligence wasn't cooked etc. and still be regarded as some sort of foreign policy expert who should be taken seriously. It's 100% clear now that the administration "fixed the facts around the policy" by cherry-picking dubious intelligence reports that supported their case while ignoring others (that were far more credible) that disproved it. Not only should Gaffney and his ilk be laughed out of town, they should be committed and/or indicted.

You can catch the entire glorious smackdown here.