Rachel Maddow: Her Intelligence is Right

Rachel Maddow will not let former officials dodge responsibility for launching an unnecessary war in Iraq. Why do other journalists?

In her interview with former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge on August 31, Maddow demonstrated why she is one of the top journalists in the country. Ridge gave what is now the standard dodge when she asked if he regretted pushing for war with Iraq. "The intelligence was wrong," he said. But Maddow wasn't buying it.

She drills him for over 5 minutes, saying in part:

Maddow: You don't think that the administration -- Vice President Cheney, your long-time friend President Bush, the intelligence system set up under Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon -- you don't think that they had any role in skewing the intelligence to a foregone conclusion. You think that it was an intelligence community error and not a politicized decision. Really?

Ridge: Yes. I know some of these men better than I know others, but I don't think any one of these men would have contrived in their own mind a scenario without -- in their own mind and heart -- substantive belief based on information they received that the threat was real...The intelligence may have been proven to be false, but there is no doubt in my mind that they were motivated to keep America safe....

Maddow: I think that is an eloquent argument and I have to tell you, 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 are going to invade Iraq that pervaded every decision that was made about intelligence....It sounds like you're making the argument you would have made that same decision again....The intelligence that proved the opposite point was all discounted, the intelligence was combed through for any bit that would support the foregone conclusion of the policymakers...[It]was a wrong decision made by policymakers; it wasn't the spies fault.
...
Ridge: You're not going to convince me, I'm not going to convince you, but I do appreciate the civil way that we've had the discussion. Frankly, I think we would advance our interests as a country a lot further and a lot faster if we could have the discussions such as this and I thank you.

Rachel Maddow interviews Tom Ridge on MSNBC, August 30, 2009.

This answer -- "The intelligence was wrong" -- is used by every former Bush official, and for good reason: it works. It shuts down most journalists.

Why does it work? As every former Hill staffer can tell you, if a witness can dodge a question twice, they are usually home free. Members, like journalists, have a long list of prepared questions to ask. If they are deflected, they are easily convinced to move along, nothing to see here.

More importantly, journalists have allowed the former Bush officials to define what the intelligence was. They have allowed them to freeze the intelligence into one specific moment in time: the deeply flawed 2002 National Intelligence Assessment on Iraq. But intelligence before and after that NIE was correct in concluding that there was little evidence of any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons in Iraq. Only the NIE was so definitively wrong. Why? Because it was intentionally manipulated and distorted by senior officials to give them the findings they needed to start a war. They manufactured the intelligence they now insist was wrong.

Do we know this for certain? Yes. In one of the best pieces of research I have ever done (in large part because of the exacting standards of my co-author, Carnegie President Jessica Mathews), we demonstrated in our report, WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications, that the intelligence agencies before the Bush administration took control more accurately assessed the risks. There was cause for concern, but nothing like the definitive statements the NIE made, or that officials then exaggerated to claim that Iraq had reconstituted nuclear weapons, as Dick Cheney said before the war.

We further know, as I documented in another article, that there was substantial dissent inside our intelligence agencies. This dissent was suppressed, Maddows argues and Ridge denies. But Senate Intelligence Committee reports support Maddows. As several members of the committee concluded:

The Committee's report deconstructs the October 2002 Estimate and demonstrates how many of its key judgments were not substantiated by the underlying intelligence. The Estimate contains numerous instances where intelligence was stretched and manipulated to serve an analytical bias that Iraq's mass destruction programs were stockpiled and weaponized.

[Full disclosure: I have been a guest on The Rachel Maddow Show; and while a staff member of the House Armed Services Committee, I worked with Congressman Tom Ridge for over 5 years on military reform legislation and cuts to the Star Wars program.]

We also know that the most important intelligence before the war, the on-site inspections of the UN to every suspect facility, turned up no sign of weapons or programs. Inspectors pleaded for more time to complete their job. But Cheney and other officials derided them as bumbling Inspector Clouseau's and rushed to war. The UN intelligence was right. The US inspection teams two years after the war concluded that there were no chemical, biological weapons, programs or intentions to restart any programs. There was no reason to invade.

Rachel Maddow, to her credit, refuses to let these officials off the hook. She says on her show September 2, that we cannot "look back at the rational for the Iraq war now and say, "well, none of those reasons for the war turned out to be true but what does that matter?"

She is right. Policy matters. Bad policy leads to seriously bad consequences.

Why are we still threatened by Al Qaeda? Because we diverted troops from capturing Osama bin Ladin to overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

Why are we trapped in a losing war in Afghanistan? Because we decided invading Iraq was more important than stabilizing Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Why do we have a skyrocketing deficit? In part, because we will spend $1 trillion on the war in Iraq.

Why are we threatened by nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea? Because we shunned effective means to shut down those programs when they were a fraction of their current size in the vain hope that we could overthrow those regimes as we had Iraq's.

We need more journalists like Maddow. And, as she and Ridge agreed, more serious discussion about a war Senator Ted Kennedy called "one of the most serious blunders in the entire history of American foreign policy."

Follow Joe Cirincione on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Cirincione

Comments

[Liberterna]

indeed, Rachel Maddow's coverage of the Iranian revolution was by far the best on American Television networks.

She is truly a stellar journalist and an absolute gem.

I recommend her show to anyone.

[jsgaetano]

Ridge is such a phenomenal spinmeister.

The CIA collects the data... but somehow, magically, Ridge accepts that Bush and Cheney reached conclusions which were supported by evidence the CIA somehow didn't have access to, but the Loyal Bushies did.

Yeah, that's believable. Not.

[blood1]

Rachel Maddow, or Dr. Maddow is great. To be fair, she has also spoken negatively about the Dems who have "laid down" on healthcare reform. One of her best moments was on MTP, where she confronted Dick Army. What most journalist or commentators don't do...is rely on research....but watch her...she will read back to anyone, their EXACT statement...from NOTES! Whodathunk­it....some­one actually did research and then uses it ON-AIR...reading from it. That is the most refreshing part of her presentation....she may not know everything, but relies on her (or her staffs) research to READ....rather than blather on.

As she says, she's a policy wonk...and I think a good one! Those that disagree can ignore her, but that will not make her go away. She broadcasts when she/her show is called out for her statements / research by a lobbying or special interest group and then somehow, by magic, the threat goes away.

MSNBC would be really stupid to let her go, because her followers will leave too. There are others that can fill in momentarily, but there has been no evidence on any other program (cable or otherwise) that has displayed the intelligence to do what she does.

She welcomes right-wing politicians onto her show...and they never show up. It must be difficult for them to contemplate having a real discussion with Rachel, who will come with FACTS and all they have is empty rhetoric!

[pagangrandma]

Thank-you Rachel, you are a needed change from the Media-as-usual types. May this just be the beginning of a long and illustrious career.

[pizzmoe]

Ms. Maddow is an actual journalist, which means that the MSM wouldn't know what to do with her.

[JanSP1971]

Dr. Maddow is one of the best. She does her home work unlike many in the MSM.

[DestinationsUnknown]

Rachel needs to tell KO that he does not need to play entire segments of Beck when boycotting advertisers works and he puts him on msnbc

is that nuts?

why does KO dothis?

He is defeating all our protests with this behavior- Stop playing segments Keith of Beck-

Just Stop - why boycott then?

[Yellowstonedemocrat]

You're right, Joe C. Rachel does not let former officials get off easy for launching the Iraq war. Why do other journalists? You are also right that when they answer "the intelligence was wrong," it fools most journalists into skipping all further questions.

But let me tell you the real reason that other journalists tend to let former officials off the hook. I think it is because so many of them are not real journalists. Instead they are sensationalists and commentators. Real journalism seems to be dead! What have these people done with their journalism degrees? Chris Wallace, David Gregory, and many others do not doggedly pursue a line of questioning in a persistent manner as Rachel does. Rather than holding a guest's feet to the fire and reminding us of past hypocrisies, they take the easy way out and move on to another softball question.

That is not journalism. A real journalist looks for the BS and tries to "out" it. Rachel is simply smarter and better at it than are most of her compatriots...even without a journalism degree.

That Oxford Ph.D. seems far superior here. Or perhaps it is simply Rachel's inherent smartness and toughness.

[littleolwinemakerme]

Ms. Maddow ought to have David Gregory's job.

[JanSP1971]

I love Keith and I laugh my a ss off everytime I see him do his Beck stick. He is showing what a fool Beck is and also how insane he is. LOVE IT!

[ailbhe]

I like Rachel, she actually believes in truth and bothers to ask appropriate questions.

[poobah]

Unless she gets a venue like Meet The Press, her influence will continue to be peripheral. The ones who need to be asked the hard questions will not appear on her show. They will continue to appear only on friendly ground at Fox Snooze where they are treated as heroes and never be challenged. She is ready for prime time, and a smart news organization would put her in a position where she can't be dodged.

[SEQUOIABISON]

The only reason he tolerated questions from Rachel was because he is trying to sell his book.

She was so correct in her assessment, that the W administration had already established that they were going to invade Iraq, they just needed a pretext.

When ambassador Wilson refuted their claim regarding a Nigerian connection and aluminum tubes, they went after his wife Valarie Plame and committed treason by exposing her CIA undercover status.

This gang of warmongers and liars should not be allowed a free pass, especially with our young men and women still dying in Iraq because of their lies about WMD.

To me there is nothing more convincing that they already decided to invade Iraq, than their unwillingness to abide by the findings of Hans Blix the UN inspector, who found no WMD and was ordered out of the country while he was still doing his investigation. Why?

[MinerSam]

Psychological Abusers, In this case tthe leaders of the Republican Party, focus as Ridge did here
on their subject/op­poent/vict­im's demeanor when cornered.

While in this case it was phrased nicely because he was intellectually cornered....same crap, same lies, SAME POLITIZATION OF POLICY IN AN ESCALATED WAY.....Just as they did by turning the Justice Dempartment into a weapon....Including CHANGING its manual which for decades stated
That at all cost you avoid certain actions (that bring the Justice Department's independance into question)...that you avoid going after certain people prior to an election..­........th­ese scoundrals even changed the field manual for the Justice Department itself.

Mr Ridge sounded appeared to have contradicted his very book when appearing on Television..
This pattern began early with O'Neal.........who described the Bush Cabinet to the effect that it was
as a bunch of blind people surounding a deaf one...

Manipulators (and Rats) shift their behavior when cornered...

On NPR Ridge was challanged (Finally some challange to Republicans on this right shifting organization)...He was challanged about how the code orange was reduced right after the election.
Kieth Oberman already proved HOW AND WHEN Elevation of the color code was PoliticiZed AND WE LIVED THOUGH THEM ALL LIVE.

[Westof405]

What Rachel does is and does well is like applied physics-you take a theory, find the facts, see if they fit the theory and if they don't, you start to ask why not and you don't stop until you find the answer. She does it with tact, humor and a relentless belief that if you are going to sit there and lie to her, she will respectfully grill you until you fold like a cheap deck chair. The fact that she doesn't just rant and yell at people like Beck or Rush makes her that much more effective-she lets these people hang themselves on their own words.

The one time I've seen her get really angry and really lay into someone was at Pat Buchanan for his comments about how only white people have ever done anything good in this country. Man, I would not want to be sitting opposite her in a debate. They don't call her "Dr. Maddow" for nothing and yes, that means she has a Ph.D (from Oxford).

For all you right wingers, Oxford is in England, you know, that country where everyone has communist health care. Home of that famous commie, Margaret Thatcher, Reagan's good friend during his presidency.

[valkyrie607]

Tee hee.

Sudden mental image of Margaret Thatcher, in a Che Geuvera style beret, fist upraised.

It'd be great for a t-shirt.

[Westof405]

In his book, "Jawbreaker," CIA operative Gary Berntsen describes how his forces were on the verge of capturing or killing Bin Laden when Rumsfeld and Bush pulled out all the troops supporting Gary's people, leaving him with no forces to surround Bin Laden at Tora Bora. Why did this happen? So that those troops could be sent into Iraq.

By invading Iraq, Bush blew a big chance to get Bin Laden. It is his,Cheney's and Rumsfeld's fault this happened. I have met Gary a couple of times and a friend of mine co-wrote the book. Gary is hardly some bleeding heart liberal; he was a field agent for a long time and worked operations all over the world. He and the other men in Afghanistan were betrayed by Bush for partisan political reasons that made us less safe and left us with the mess we now have in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan could very well turn out to be Obama's Viet Nam, but the responsibility for that happening lies squarely with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of the incompetent hacks who worked for them.

[Sleepyjohns]

Eloquent and intelligent, both for this column and Ms. Maddow's show in general. And while Ridge is correct in his assertion that calm, thoughtful debate is the proper way to conduct conversations on policy, his utter failure to move away from the administration line of 'poor intelligence' gives us all some insight in to just how rapidly that debate becomes tedious and insulting. Good on you Ms. Maddow, we benefit by your smart wonkiness and your respect for substantive reporting.

[metivo]

That's why she should be the moderator of Meet the Press. Too bad the stupid networks don't know enuff to do that. Instead, the talk is all about flacid Diane Sawyer reading the evening news for millions of dollars a year. Who cares? Just goes to show how OUT OF IT the networks are.

[JanSP1971]

I would love to see her doing MTP. Then it would be just another right wing agenda talking point show.

[beckpod1]

The best rises to the top....Thank you Rachel!
This professionalism should be an everyday business as usual...you're a journalist...do your job!
Journalism today is like fast food....pr­e-cooked..­.low in nutrition...not sure what it is in the food that they are serving...and usually not good for you!