Clarity can come from unexpected places -- even that unlikeliest of sources, MSNBC.
Such has been the case with a pair of recent guests on "The Rachel Maddow Show" who made a series of surprising statements -- albeit only in the context of MSNBC.
Example one -- Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, appearing on Maddow's show May 12 and criticizing Dick Cheney's assertion that harsh interrogation of captured al Qaeda prevented terrorist attacks after 9/11 --
WILKERSON: You'll notice that Cheney always says, seven and a half years or almost eight years, no terrorist attack and so forth. That's because he has the honor of being, or the dishonor of being the man on whose watch 3,000 Americans died. More Americans died from a terrorist attack under Dick Cheney's leadership, if you will, than any other president in our history.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
The second thing that I want to say is that the reason we have not had another attack in this country, more than any other thing, is over 200,000 Americans who have been fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq against al Qaeda and other associated enemies and they present not only this skill and talent at doing what they need to do, they also present a target-rich environment for al Qaeda. So we have had 200,000 Americans overseas presenting al Qaeda with very, very lucrative targets and therefore, why would they want to come here? This is idiocy of the first order that Dick Cheney is putting out.
Also known as fighting them there instead of here. Chief proponents -- George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. A better example of "idiocy of the first order"? Keeping those 200,000 Americans at home after 9/11 instead of deploying them abroad, the better to provide al Qaeda with "very, very lucrative targets" on the homefront. In addition to the skyscrapers, nuclear plants, bridges, dams and malls that al Qaeda would have targeted in the process.
Example two -- former CIA weapons inspector Charles Duelfer, who succeeded David Kay as head of the Iraq Survey Group, on the Maddow show two nights later, appearing in same segment as Bob Windrem, author of a Daily Beast story alleging that "Cheney's office" ordered waterboarding of a captured Iraqi official to show links between Saddam and al Qaeda --
DUELFER: You know, I think everyone would agree that Saddam was a threat and a problem that had to be dealt with. The Bush administration elected to deal with him by getting rid of him by force and they had to sell that to the American people and they had to sell that in a way that would make it worth an enormous cost. The risk that they painted was weapons of mass destruction, where the intelligence community genuinely got it wrong. It wasn't like we were making this stuff up, but all the evidence pointed in that direction. Saddam certainly had a track record on it.
Chief proponents, once again -- George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
As for "everyone" agreeing that "Saddam was a problem that had to be dealt with," guests on MSNBC shows making this assertion are advised to add the caveat, "present company excluded." Seeing how so many in this ideological cohort demonstrate far more ardor for show trials of Bush junta hooligans than for defeating America's enemies.
Example three -- Wilkerson again, this time on the Maddow show May 18 to patch the damage from his appearance six days earlier. Wilkerson did his part to prop up liberal meme of harsh interrogations used to find links between Iraq and al Qaeda, not for stopping terrorist attacks. He also described his "investigation" into alleged abuse of detainees after Abu Ghraib came to light, as requested by Powell --
WILKERSON: And I began at that point an investigation and I kept up with that investigation, classified documents, unclassified documents and so forth throughout the rest of the year until the election, until January, we left the State Department. And then after that I still had a grave interest in it, even though I did not have the classified documents any more, lots of people made those documents available to me as soon as they became unclassified. And I began to put together my own audit trail, as it were, as to how all of this happened. And I created a lot of contacts in doing that, in the agency, in the military, in the diplomatic service and so forth, and a lot of people have talked to me over that time and I have been very careful to corroborate what I'm saying with multiple sources, just as I was taught to do by George Tenet out at the CIA as we prepared Powell for the 5 February presentation at the UN.
Chief proponents of the "5 February presentation" -- George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Starting to see a pattern? And what did Powell allege that day in 2003 after being so dutifully prepped by Wilkerson? Here's what the New York Times reported on Feb. 6, 2003, four paragraphs into its lead story --
In the Bush administration's most explicit effort to connect the activities between Iraq and Al Qaeda, Mr. Powell suggested that Iraq's lethal weapons could be given at any time to terrorists who could use them against the United States or Europe.
More along these lines from Powell himself, as aided by Wilkerson, and transcribed in the Feb. 6, 2003 New York Times --
We are not surprised that Iraq is harboring Zarqawi and his subordinates. This understanding builds on decades-long experience with respect to ties between Iraq and al Qaeda. Going back to the early and mid-1990s, when bin Laden was based in Sudan, an al Qaeda source tells us that Saddam and bin Laden reached an understanding that al Qaeda would no longer support activities against Baghdad.
Early al Qaeda ties were forged by secret high-level intelligence service contacts with al Qaeda -- secret Iraqi high-level contacts with al Qaeda. We know members of both organizations met repeatedly and have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s. In 1996, a foreign security service tells us that bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Khartoum and later met the director of the Iraqi intelligence service.
Saddam became more interested as he saw al Qaeda's appalling attacks. A detained al Qaeda member tells us that Saddam was more willing to assist al Qaeda after the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Saddam was also impressed by al Qaeda's attacks on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000.
Iraqis continued to visit bin Laden in his new home in Afghanistan. A senior defector, one of Saddam's former intelligence chiefs in Europe, says Saddam sent his agents to Afghanistan sometime in the mid-1990s to provide training to al Qaeda members on document forgery. From the late 1990s to 2001, the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan played the role of liaison to the al Qaeda organization.
Some believe -- some claim these contacts do not amount to much. They say Saddam Hussein's secular tyranny and al Qaeda's religious tyranny do not mix. I am not comforted by this thought. Ambition and hatred are enough to bring Iraq and al Qaeda together, enough so al Qaeda could learn how to build more sophisticated bombs and learn how to forge documents; and enough so that al Qaeda could turn to Iraq for help in acquiring expertise on weapons of mass destruction.
My favorite part of Wilkerson's most recent appearance on the Maddow show -- a tossup between Maddow looking unimpressed when Wilkerson cited the UN presentation as an example of his thorough investigatory skills, or Wilkerson repeatedly arching his eyebrows as he said it. Whether for emphasis or irony, I couldn't tell. I just hope the man keeps coming back to clarify.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
All together now: Bush was
May 21, 2009 - 05:31 ET by HockeyKidAll together now: Bush was right!
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
LOL
May 21, 2009 - 06:15 ET by Massage_Master07LOL
I was confused about this at first.
May 21, 2009 - 06:24 ET by JWFEverything Mr. Coleman stated was as normal as breathing. Then I realized I am not keeping up with the latest insane leftist meme. The latest insane leftist meme about getting Bush & Co in jail - The reason we waterboarded those Al Qaeda guys was to get them to admit a link to Saddam.
Is it me or are these get Bush memes getting a little boorish now. Ok, let's get Nancy Pelosi out here and have press briefing about it. That ought to clear the air.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
There are things Democrats love to talk about
May 21, 2009 - 11:11 ET by allanf.. such as closing Guantanamo Bay, but they really don't want to do it. Now they have a President who really and truly "doesn't get it" and believes the rhetoric. Do you think this brilliant and most intelligent President got the Senate's 90-6 memo?
SharkGirl
May 21, 2009 - 07:42 ET by SharkGirlI fail to understand how the Liberals have a problem with
waterboarding, but can pass laws to rip a baby apart, limb by limb, or
shove scissors into the base of their skulls and suck their brains out,
or leave a baby on a roof to die if it survived the grousome torture of
abortion.
And what does the Traitor in Chief state? That if his
girls were to make a mistake, he wouldn't want to punish them with a
baby. He even wants babies, that are born alive after the torture
process failed, to be killed.
And Obama wants to go after people who waterboard?
The Liberals are sick. They pass laws to legalize their sickness and then condemn those who oppose them.
How many body parts of children are ripped to shreds, and yet they don't see that as torture?
I also don't see Obama ending the war. It's so easy to blame Bush, but Obama has looted America and is expanding the war.
SharkGirl
http://facingtheshar...
A non-lawyer vs. lots of lawyers
You can't understand it
May 21, 2009 - 09:23 ET by mattmYou can't understand it because you are a reasonable person. They are not. Abortion fits perfectly with the leftist/statist programme of a government-dictated utopia, whereas fighting terrorism in defense of America and freedom do not fit their ideals. It makes perfect sense. Freedom and individual rights, like the right to life, are antithetical to the religion of the State.
How about Pearl Harbor, Dufus?
May 21, 2009 - 06:57 ET by ThisnThatThis is how Lawrence Wilkerson would have worded it following WWII, right?
Franklin D. Roosevelt had the dishonor of being the man on whose watch 2,300 Americans died. A higher percentage of Americans died from a terrorist attack under Roosevelt's leadership, if you will, than any other president in our history. Not only that, but the attack occured at a military base which should have had the ability to fight back -- but didn't, due to Roosevelt being asleep at the switch. And Roosevelt, unlike Bush, had an opportunity to stop the head terrorist, Hitler, because he was President during Hitler's rise. Clinton was president under bin Laden's rise.
The second thing that I want to say is that the reason Germany did not attack this country, more than any other thing, is over 10,000,000 Americans who have been fighting in Europe against Hitler and other associated enemies and they present not only this skill and talent at doing what they need to do, they also present a target-rich environment for the Nazis. So we have had 10.000,000 Americans overseas presenting Hitler with very, very lucrative targets and therefore, why would they want to come here? This is idiocy of the first order that Roosevelt and his backers are putting out.
___________________________________
The challenge is to follow a consistent plan despite inconsistent prices - Sarah Palin, State of the State of Alaska speech
History ain't over yet.
May 21, 2009 - 07:01 ET by supercon"More Americans died from a terrorist attack under Dick Cheney's
leadership, if you will, than any other president in our history."
I'm starting to get a little tired of former Powell staff members.
Hey Janet Napolitano...I'm proud to be a Right-winger.
so now you know...
May 21, 2009 - 07:26 ET by AJBAre you really surprised about Powell? He's proof that afirmative action does not bring the best and brightest to the top of the pile. Favoritism and racism does.
The money quote
May 21, 2009 - 07:39 ET by kgThis is the only statement that Maddow and all her viewers will remember tomorrow.
"More Americans died from a terrorist attack under Dick Cheney's
leadership, if you will, than any other president in our history."
"DumbAssity of Dope"
I know I will remember the quote
May 21, 2009 - 10:18 ET by TheHistorianI will remember the quote because Dick Cheney never WAS President. Comments like this show how dumb Powell's Chief of Staff, and by reflection he, is.
Or maybe the libs are going to rewrite history like they have in the past so that Cheney was President?
"What experience and history teach is
this - that people and governments never have learned anything from history,
or acted on principles deduced from it."
G. W. F. Hegel
its official then madcow has
May 21, 2009 - 10:43 ET by kangarooits official then madcow has just jinxed us, and we will blown out of the water, (knock on wood)
during the Clinton years-the intel units-
May 21, 2009 - 07:37 ET by JIMMY1660were separated, the intel was there, but no one was able to connect the dots. it was not allowed. who was the nice lady(Jamie0 who now is stealing from Fannie and Freddie, who promoted the silos? took Bush AND HIS CREW A FEW MONTHS AFTER 9/11 TO PUT THE INTELL UNITS ON THE SAME PAGE.
BHO wants the same thing done with ms Pelosi gutting the CIA.
BHO- the one term DIMOCRAT
Terrorist Interview Method
May 21, 2009 - 07:46 ET by kilrodAustralian View on Terrorist Interrogation.....
T. B. Bechtel, a City Councillor from Newcastle, Australia, was asked on a local live radio talk show, just what he thought about the allegations of torture of suspected terrorists. His reply prompted his ejection from the studio, but to thunderous applause from the audience.
HIS STATEMENT:
"If hooking up one raghead terrorist prisoner's testicles to a car battery to get the truth out of the lying little camelshagger will save just one Australian life, then I have only three things to say: Red is positive, Black is negative, and make sure his nuts are wet."
Remember, only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier
yea a mate of mine emailed
May 21, 2009 - 10:45 ET by kangarooyea a mate of mine emailed me that, typical aussie, tells you like it is LOL
The State Dept. is full of America haters
May 21, 2009 - 08:38 ET by jefflebowskiI met a guy who spent many years with the State Department. Listening to him, you'd think he worked for one of our enemies. His views were closely aligned with moveon.org and that ilk. Everything, according to him, bad in the world is the fault of the US. I wanted to give him a slap.
Angry White Dude
www.angrywhitedude.c...
Jail 'em!
May 21, 2009 - 09:08 ET by iveseenitallThe Bush and Cheney administration kept us safe from attacks. Cheney is now a private citizen who knows what he is talking about. Cheney is not lying; he is giving sensible advice to Barry about the dangers which still exist. Scheeze, put the guy behind bars and throw President Bush in there with him. It'll make the libs "feel good". Isn't that what it's all about?
NEVER,NEVER trusta "liberal"
Speaking of MSNBC...
May 21, 2009 - 09:00 ET by pwozAnyone see Ed Schultz completely flip out against Dr. Ron Paul yesterday?
Schultz is such a disrespectful tool. Dr. Paul was going into a deep discussion about the unnecessary growth of government and then Schutlz just flips out. It was unreal, and really showed the immaturity of that liberal swine!
sgt. schultz still has a
May 21, 2009 - 09:46 ET by Texasteachersgt. schultz still has a show??? I'll be damned...
What's she up to, 5 viewers a week?
obama's notion of bi-partisanship is telling conservatives to shut up and do what he wants.
Re Bush was Right
May 21, 2009 - 10:15 ET by slickwillie2001Another delicious item in the 'same as the old boss' category: Obama -Plame Lawsuit Should Not Be Reconsidered by Supreme Court: http://www.huffingtonpost.com
"Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington learned today that the Obama administration is opposing our request that the Supreme Court reconsider the dismissal of the lawsuit, Wilson v. Libby, et al."
This won't get much liberal media coverage because it reinforces the fact that the Wilson-Plame case was a complete crock of BS. It also thankfully spares us from having to look at the oleaginous Wilson & Company one more time.
After listening over the years to former Bush administration
May 21, 2009 - 10:37 ET by Rush Fanofficials in the State Department, CIA, and White House (Scott McClellan) criticize former President Bush and Vice President Cheney, I realize the additional difficulty both men had in fulfilling their responsibilities.
Not only did they have to contend with hostile forces from without, but also from within.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"They are actively promoting the decline of America." ~ Rush Limbaugh on liberals and Democrats
Still rewriting history
May 21, 2009 - 10:53 ET by CobraMan"That's because he has the honor of being, or the dishonor of being the man on whose watch 3,000 Americans died. More Americans died from a terrorist attack under Dick Cheney's leadership, if you will, than any other president in our history."
I see the liberals are still rewriting History. Now it's Dick Cheney who was President and NOT Bush! Which is rather ironic as for the last 8 years he liberals told us ROVE was actually in charge of the White House.
Hay, loony liberals, make up you minds as to who was in charge, ok? This constant rewriting of history isn't helping your "message," unless you want that message to be one of confusion and contradiction. Oh, wait, confusion been your message all along! Keep up the good work!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
"Some believe -- some claim
May 21, 2009 - 11:19 ET by Flashman"Some believe -- some claim these contacts do not amount to much. They say Saddam Hussein's secular tyranny and al Qaeda's religious tyranny do not mix. I am not comforted by this thought. Ambition and hatred are enough to bring Iraq and al Qaeda together, enough so al Qaeda could learn how to build more sophisticated bombs and learn how to forge documents; and enough so that al Qaeda could turn to Iraq for help in acquiring expertise on weapons of mass destruction."
I've heard this argument many times before. I always point to the material aid given by Gaddafi to the IRA, hardly a Guinness swigging, rosary carrying Catholic himself.
BBC link
http://news.bbc.co.u...