Politics and Pressure

Tom Ridge has been on TV recently flacking for his new book, The Test of Our Times, about his tenure as head of the Department of Homeland Security. Among other appearances, yesterday, he braved the "Rachel Maddow Show," and today he was interviewed by Chris Matthews, on "Hardball." Speaking of balls, Ridge has a couple, putting his head (to mix anatomical cliches) between the jaws of these two liberal lions. He was trying to coax the hottest sentence in the book, "I wondered, 'Is this about security or politics?' "-- which was about the pressure to raise the threat level a week before the 2004 election -- into meaning something other than what it obviously meant. Namely, that the threat-level elevation was at least in part an effort to help scare people into reelecting George Bush. On both programs he was speaking a mile a minute, like a kid lying about breaking a window, torturing his syntax as if it were an al-Qaeda suspect in Guantanamo -- no deer ever looked more afraid of any headlights than Ridge did in the glare of these TV studio lights.

Why isn't he standing by what he has written? It must be pressure once again, as it was in that 2004 meeting. It was so pathetically unconvincing that Matthews took pity on him and tried to help him figure out a way to save a bit of face. He said something like, "I think you've been consistent and now what you're doing is presenting a different viewpoint." It was embarrassing -- a microcosm of the vast cosmos of denial and mendacity that characterized that presidency. At least Ridge had the decency to squirm, and thus give himself away. The way that he said that he didn't mean what he said showed me that he did.

Follow Daniel Menaker on Twitter: www.twitter.com/agoodtalk

Comments

[Jannsmoor]

It did not take that much courage for Ridge to go on Rachel Maddow. The media has given them all a pass ever since Bush started his run for office. I'm sure he never thought Rachel would directly confront him on the Iraq war. No one else really has.

I was disasppointed that the Bushies continue to get away with spreading the lie that the intelligence was wrong, therefore they were right to go to war. I have never seen anyone confront any of the Bushies about the fact there were in fact people who knew more than all the intelligence services combined, who were actually inside Iraq, who were actually looking for any evidence of WMD, and who were specifically trained to locate WMD!!! And those people were reporting to anyone who would listen that it was becoming increasingly clear Iraq did not have WMD. I am of course referring to the UN weapons inspectors. I wish Rachel would have confronted Ridge about that.

Because what logic does he have left to say he was right to promote the war? Oh, we were right to ignore the people most likely to actually know if Iraq had WMD? Or, Iraq posed such an imminent threat to the US we simply could not wait another 3 months for the UN to complete their inspections? Based on what evidence?

[iamjoneskeepupwithme]

i missed the chris matthews appearance, but the rachel interview was a sight to behold. it was like a light swich! as soon as the bald faced lies started pouring out, the facial ticks and chair squirming began. it was so obvious. it was like a terrible car wreck, you are horrified but cannot look away....

[Chumleysmom]

For you to put Chris Matthews in the same category of liberal as Rachel Maddow gave me my first laugh of the day.

Matthews is a chameleon, especially with conservative guests. Whatever the argument, you'll usually see Matthews veering to the right to be accommodating, just as he did yesterday when he practically fought to get Ridge to agree with his helpful translation of Ridge's gibberish.

A "liberal lion"? Hardly.

[den1953]

Mr Ridge is a typical Bush foot soldier tell a gaff in a book or in public and it's the truth then back track and lie your head off and deny it, if that don't work you go to Fox News or Rush Limbaugh and they'll cover for you!

[Policon]

Tom Ridge says he WONDERS if politics was a motive, and you bash him because he came to the conclusion that is wasn't. Priceless.

[Scarborian]

Tom Ridge wrote that security decisions were taken that were not justified by the available security intelligence and he wondered if the decisions were taken for political reasons. Now he says doesn't think they were political decisions but he doesn't offer a shred of evidence to support his conclusion. Also, his body language was inconsistent with someone speaking honestly. That leads the viewers to come to their own conclusion.

[dapperd72]

Tom Ridge had no real credibility when he was Director of Homeland Security & told bold-faced lies to the American people about the hyped "threat level" nor does he have any more credibility now. He must've been pressured by Ashcroft's defenders to retract his statement, otherwise he wouldn't now be protesting to Rachel Maddow that her "interpretation" of his book, as she read directly both from the text and the jacket, was wrong. I also wonder what the practical difference is between a "musing" (as Ridge described his thoughts that politics may've played a role in the color codes) & a "speculation" which he denied. If he didn't approve of the jacket's contents when it was released, perhaps he should sue his publisher for defamation. I never believed anything coming from Bush's "national security" team for his entire 8 illicit years in office and Ridge's backtracking is more unnecessary proof of how deceptive & insulting to our collective intelligence is the Republican institution as a party. When they're caught with blood on their hands for all the world to see, they can't take the heat of accountability, so they must blame the messengers & ignore the message, in this case coming right from their own mouths. Anyone who takes what these Republicans say at face value desperately needs her/his head examined for starters.

[kate9]

Tom Ridge has always been an apologist for the Administration he was complicitly involved. He should not be rewarded with air time to shop his book. The book, like his policies, represents the imaginations of an unsuccessful public official. ----not worth reading - not worth listening to and certainly not worth buying and aiding the duplicitious politician-----

[curledup]

Oh, that Paul Ekman (the inspiration for Tim Roth's character on LIE TO ME) hadn't pledged not to comment on public officials or those seeking public office. We might have actual honesty in politics.

[Michigan-Woman]

He wrote it, he meant it, he can't back away from it.
It's as simple as that.

[wreckedkarma]

Lincoln's original plan to end slavery was to repatriate slaves with Africa. In another idea, he suggested "buying" the slaves for $400 each (as a cheaper solution to war), in exchange for a promise from slave states to end slavery within 20 years. He ultimately decided on the Emancipation Proclamation.

Q: Which of the first two [written] proposals should he have *not* backed away from?

[HumanistHeart]

Amen to that, my fellow Michigander! We know bunkum when we see it!

[backroadsbusiness]

Ridge seemed to think Rachel's interview was going to be a walk in the park, and didn't understand that the most devastating questions can be asked with civility and respect. 24 hours later on Chris Matthews, he definitely was in panic mode and didn't seem to understand or accept the lifeline Chris was throwing him with the so-called 'consistency' Chris saw between the two conflicting statements. I was disappointed to see Chris try to Ridge a way out from the maze of lies he created for himself. Next, I'd like to see Tom Ridge on Jon Stewart and watch him get 'Cramer-ed.'

[pearlx2]

Yes, I was disappointed at the way Chris Matthews handled Tom Ridge -- he did try to give him an out; Chris wasn't man enough to just go with the truth and let the chips fall where they may, as Rachel did.

Rachel Maddow will win a Pulitzer Prize one of these days, I do believe. That woman is the only hard-hitting, unafraid, truth seeker on television. She does not kid around. The men in the media business could learn a lot about guts from Rachel. She is what journalism USED to be about.

Thank you, Rachel Maddow, for true journalism in a time when we have never needed it more, but have so little of it.

[Chumleysmom]

I agree with all you say. But the part about Rachel -- I agree with gusto! especially about the Pulitzer

[HumanistHeart]

I agree completely. I've always loved Rachel, but her interview of Ridge--a model of journalistic integrity if ever there was one--made my heart soar with pride!

[Michigan-Woman]

I couldn't agree more!

[wreckedkarma]

Let's suppose for a minute that raising the security threat a week before an election is a political devise. Let's also suppose that terrorist suspects are/were "tortured" for sadistic purposes...other than saving American lives... something we clearly cannot allow our military to do (tongue in cheek). Let's also take at face value that Tom Ridge wrote something that perhaps wasn't phrased to perfection, and which he now wishes to distance himself from.

Please enumerate for me which of these political "tactics" or "devices" that the Democrat Party [now in exclusive leadership] has not, and would not use, under any circumstan­ces...ever­...?

Lions?

...referred to the King of the jungle, they actually do not inhabit jungles...
they can be easily backed down or killed by elephants...hyenas can also back down or even kill a solitary lion...adult males have long, dark, shaggy manes...can copulate up to as many as 100 times in a 24 hour period...Male lions weigh from 330 to 530 pounds; ....and sleep up to 20 hours a day...can usually only hold on to a pride for 2-4 years before a younger, stronger male or coalition of males throws him out and takes over...Lions may also feed on domestic livestock, especially in areas near villages...Young males join in coalitions, usually with brothers and cousins, and search for a pride to take over...female and male lions live apart, joining only to mate.

[Jannsmoor]

Can you please explain your logic to me? You outline 3 items, the first a self serving manipulation to gain political advantage (a crime in the US), the second a war crime (a criminal act in both the US and the rest of the world), and the third a lie about the illegal manipulation.

Your next logical step is to ask if Democrats wouldn't do exactly the same thing.

What logical conclusion are you asking me to draw? Are you asking me to accept that because some democrat might do such things therefore it is OK that the Bush administration broke criminal laws? Regardless of your political affiliation, is not a crime still a crime? If democrats commit crimes, should they also not be prosecuted? Are you asking me to accept a world where our government has impunity to break all laws?

Are you asking that I accept your characterization of criminal violations as mere "tactics" and "devices?" Because I can never do that without abandoning the principle that we are a nation of laws. I ask you to tell me what do we have if we are not bound together by the bonds of law?

[wreckedkarma]

>>Can you please explain your logic to me? You outline 3 items, the first a self serving manipulation to gain political advantage (a crime in the US)the third a lie about the illegal manipulation

[strick9]

I have to give Tom Ridge credit for facing Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews, I don't believe his latest version of the story, but it took courage or an over developed ego. The rest of those on the right realize that you cannot lie to those two. I noticed that he wasn't as calm with Chris as with Rachel. I think that if he now were to go on Keith's show that he would completely loose it and confess like an old Perry Mason show, then maybe justice could prevail.

[Magee]

I'd love to see that!