Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Published on Wednesday, September 2, 2009 by The Rachel Maddow Show
Tom Ridge and Rachel Maddow Debate Decision Behind Iraq War
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
© 2009 msnbc.com
Comments are closed
14 Comments so far
Show AllUnrepentant bullsh!t.
And Maddow is BRILLIANT!
Ridge was backpeddling like a bear on a unicycle.
Sad to watch someone of his reputation piss away the last remaining bit of his ethics and morality on TV.
I had to wonder if he has ever read his own book...he seemed totally unfamiliar with its contents.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
What reputation? Just another corrupt tool of the Corporation...
"I find it rather difficult to think that anybody in this country would believe that people in charge of their government...would commit our blood and our treasure to a cause if they didn't truly believe in their heart and their mind that it wasnt to protect America. I just reject that notion."
When Tom dropped this steamy turd on Rachel's desk she swiftly, deeply and politely cut his head off on national TV. It was rolling on the floor before he fully realized what she had said. I love her madly. That woman has the skill of a Ninja.
Ordinary humans become pod people when they reach his level of government service. Tom conveniently forgot that his Viet Nam tour of duty was built on an admitted lie. Admitted by McNamara and exposed by the Pentagon Papers. They lie, we die.
Rachel tells the truth. For over four thousand of our soldiers to die and tens of thousand Iraqi civilians to perish because of lies is terrible.
Has this man read the Downing Street Memos? When ministerial members of British government are on record saying the itelegence would be gerymandered to suit the the war agenda... Nothing to do with threat. An unbelievable ass!
So they still lie about this. How much are they still lying about about 9-11 itself? A lot!
And Tom repeats 'the gov't knew more than you and I at the time' but the most the gov't could have known was that THERE WAS NO IMMANENT threat at all!
In a way, he's calling the former repub. administration liars on national TV without realizing it.
.
Tom Ridge is a sad fool,.....sadder still is his failed attempts to defend our illegal invasion of Iraq. Poor Tom
The real reason our government invaded Iraq was because of the Zionist/Neoconservative agenda and its takeover of our country's foreign policy in the Middle East. There was no other reason. Never before has a foreign country wielded such power within our government.
Wow ! This is the best of reporting that I have seen on TV.
We all know TV is owned by the Neo Cons and not one
reasonable reporter was allowed to voice a dissenting
remark about going to War in Iraq.
The american people knew that all these charges were drummed up by the neocons led by Joe Lieberman who were only interested in getting rid of Saddham because he was a threat to Israel. The other reason was to get a hold of all the oil within that Country into the profits of our Oil Companies.
Israel's interest and Big Oil's interest are the reasons we invaded and continue our presence in that country.
I would love to hear Tom Ridge give just one clear explanation on something that happened on 9 11. If he could it would instantly change my view of him and his close and dear friend George Bush.
How could 3 massive Steel Framed buildings fall on their own footprint in freefall speed when in the history of
steel framed buildings it has never occured since recorded time. The only way a building has ever fell on its own footprint is thru planned and planted demolitions.
Answer that question Tom and you will make me a believer in your belief that these men you admire so much had the sole interest of America in their hearts when they went to war.
911 was the reason given for this countries escapades into Afghanistan and Iraq and yet if you look at the simple physics of what happened on that day ones only conclusion can be that these buildings came down due to thermal detonations planted in each of these buildings many days before 911 !
http://www.ae911truth.org/
No matter what your politics there is empirical evidence that these building could only come down by implanted thermal
explosions found so many times in the past when a city wanted to demolish a building in its area.
It is quite ironic that Tom Ridge and George Bush and the NeoCons were so convinced that Saddham had weapons of mass destruction yet these so honorable and trustworthy citizens could not have the common sense to see that on
911 the only way these 3 buildings could ever be destroyed in the manner that they were was by thermal explosions planted many days before the actual day of their destruction.
These men we must assume cannot make reasonable conclusions on empirical evidence presented to them yet have sent our country and its cherrished blood to war on evidence that no reasonable person could believe to be true. This is a classic case of delusion or collusion !
Quote:
scary-times September 2nd, 2009 10:57 pm
Wow ! This is the best of reporting that I have seen on TV.
End quote
I'M NOTE sure you're right, given the rest of your post contains bogus perspective or claims.
Quote:
We all know TV is owned by the Neo Cons and not one
reasonable reporter was allowed to voice a dissenting
remark about going to War in Iraq.
End Quote
Some of them could have, if they had been sufficiently sane, wise, "sharp", alert, ... and willing; and that awfully few were is their own fault. I forget his name, but one reputed US msm news media man got canned because of his critical views stated through the station airing to the whole USA. Maybe he was then with CBS (?).
It wasn't permitted, but some media people did state critically oppositional views and questions. I'm not sure that that man's case was about the war on Iraq, but it was about part of the GWoT and more likely Iraq than Afghanistan.
Quote:
The american people knew that all these charges were drummed up by the neocons led by Joe Lieberman who were only interested in getting rid of Saddham because he was a threat to Israel. The other reason was to get a hold of all the oil within that Country into the profits of our Oil Companies.
End quote
Sure, western Big Oil, esp. U.S., stood to profit and at least some in the U.S. were involved behind the scenes, in the back stage area; but Lieberman leading the neocons? That's a joke! As fiend as he is, he wasn't leading the neocons.
Quote:
Israel's interest and Big Oil's interest are the reasons we invaded and continue our presence in that country.
End quote
It was not about "Israel's interest", and this bs propaganda should have stopped by now.
Israel is of interest to the U.S. ruling elites who, along with the UK, ..., made Israel the 4th most powerful military force on Earth and the only nuclear-armed force in the Middle East. They strategically needed and still need military allies, because they can't achieve global dominance, alone; even if it's only achievable by making large regions very destablised and keeping them that way, instead of through outright conquest.
Some neocons may have said they were interested in protecting Israel, but it wasn't in any danger, so their claims were obviously bogus. However, such claims and AIPAC definitely provided quite a distracting stage show. If AIPAC was really as powerful as the league of American idiots claimed it was during the Bush-Cheney years, then we'd be hearing or reading a lot more than we about its influence today; but it's become a disappearing topic. AIPAC hasn't disappeared, but has been removed from the front stage and surely not due to its own choosing.
Two Harvard guys, Walt and Mearsheimer (I believe their last names are), claimed that the war was for Israel and that there was no evidence of OIL being part of the plan; a wholly bogus claim. Apparences permitted people to be fooled into believing such claims, but there was no really supporting evidence. There was plenty of evidence of OIL being a BIG reason for the war; but it's not the sole reason.
The war is very much about geopolitics and strategic military positioning for these politics, which relate to economics; like controlling (as much as possible) the world's principal energy reserves and market(s), f.e.
And the Cold War against Russia probably wasn't because the USSR was a real threat to the U.S.; it was more likely, if not certainly, because the U.S. ruling elites wanted to make their power, through use of the U.S. government and military, much more superpower than WWII had already made them. Not conducting the Cold War against the USSR would make it only more likely, if not certain, that it would be a real obstacle to achieving greater world power by the U.S. ruling elites.
It's about geopolitics, geo-economics, OIl, energy resources, and other profitable markets, dominating over all of this as much as achievable; and Israel, like NATO, is strategically instrumental.
When apparences tell us something important, then we should not stop there. We should look further into what's really and wholly going on; behind and besides what's only apparent.
Rachel Maddow was too young to remember the Ist Gulf war. We had been told about the great military threat Saddam Hussein's regime was to the world. But in reality, his air force was wiped out in no time, he had no navy, his army consisted of mostly forced conscriptors who surrendered by the thousands without much of a fight. The US killed them as they retreated and called it a turkey shoot. It took no time to bomb Iraq into the stone age. Following this , the US kept the nation of Iraq under siege. It was not allowed to rebuild. All its imports were controlled by the UN Security council. They were not allowed to import chemicals to clean their water which had been deliberately contaminated by the US. for fear that they use the chemicals to make weapons. How could any informed American, in congress, the white house or reporters of the news possibly believe that this nation of war devastated Iraq, where every move they made was monitored and all supplies were forbidden, even lead for pencils had been sanctioned because it could be used for weapons , could be a threat to the US, their neighbors, the world??? When Peace Activist opposed the pre-emptive strike we were told that they(government officials) knew more than we did. Tom Ridge used this nonsense in his debate with Rachel. Yes Rachel did a good job but I was disappointed that she did not remind Ridge that the US sold Saddam the chemical weapons that Ridge said Iraq used in the past. And how will the people of the world ever know if Democracy would have happened in Iraq without US intervention sometime in the future and without the bloody uncivil war that is resulting in hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi deaths and mutilations our meddling is causing along with the US and coalition forces deaths and mutilations?
Ridge is just a fool, as well as a tool. That doesn't make Maddow a genius, but she does deserve credit for the impact of the show. Now if she could just get Powell on camera. It is clear that Powell had more access and more info an yet was either a liar misleading the UN and the American people, or a naive incompetentswallowing Bush/Cheney pablum. Maddow: get Powell. He is vain enough to want to be on your program as he tries to rehab his reputation. Hey, get Kissinger and Powell together and you can bag two great statesmen who are actual War Criminals.
Yes, a fool and a tool, a willing tool.
As for Powell, what you say, "It is clear that Powell had more access and more info an yet was either a liar misleading the UN and the American people, or a naive incompetentswallowing Bush/Cheney pablum", negate, forget about the latter possibility, for while it might be possible with other people, it's surely not with Powell, who has been written about in terms of his oppositional attempts in the Bush-Cheney admin. leading up to the war on Iraq and then, as always before, caving in to what his masters ordered.
Powell is former military, plenty of years in it, served in the Vietnam War, where people have stated that he became a war criminal, and he's been a war criminal ever since. Some people say that he's often been oppositional at first, but that he nevertheless always folds in to doing as his masters order.
Anyway, he did not mislead the UN, for the UN never voted to authorise the war on Iraq! He may have possibly succeeded in misleading DUMBER than dumb Americans and some of their international supporters, but did not mislead the UN, nor a lot of the rest of us. When I was viewing his speech at the UN in Feb. 2003, it was immediately obvious that he was pronouncing damn bs. He was convictable "on the spot". After all, he then showed pictures of trailers somewhere in the Iraqi desert, showing nothing but the outside of these trailers, and there was nothing incriminating for Iraq in these images. So we definitely and obviously could not justify war just because of his obviously bogus claim that these trailers were being used to manufacture or produce WMD.
You don't know what a box contains until you open it up and look inside of it, unless the box's walls are transparent, which wasn't the case with those trailers he showed satellite pics of.
He did not mislead the UN, he made a laughing stock of himself; just that we weren't hearing many people laughing.
I dislike the UNSC, but even it refused to authorise the war on Iraq, and it also refused to authorise the war in Afghanistan. So not only was the UNGA not fooled by Powell, even the UNSC wasn't buying his bs claim(s).
Anyway, I evidently differ from what you posted only in terms of whether Powell was naive, incompetent, ..., and having mislead the UN, which he didn't do.