It’s 2005: Lawrence O’Donnell And Joe Scarborough Yell About Weapons Of Mass Destruction
The Morning Joe team flashed back to around 2005 this morning, as co-host Joe Scarborough and regular guest Lawrence O’Donnell went at it over weapons of mass destruction, the lead up to the war in Iraq and the Bush administration.
All this came about after some more harsh comments aimed at Pres. Barack Obama by former VP Dick Cheney last night.
The part of Cheney’s speech that will get the most attention are two specific words, which we’ll bold: “The White House must stop dithering while America’s armed forces are in danger…It’s time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity,” and “President Obama now seems afraid to make a decision, and unable to provide his commander on the ground with the troops he needs to complete his mission.”
With that as the context, Scarborough (from San Diego) and O’Donnell (in New York) joined four others for a discussion – that turned into a one-on-one argument between the two. “Let us not let facts get in the way,” said Scarborough after O’Donnell brought up Cheney’s “dithering” in the lead-up to the Iraq War.
Then this exchange:
Scarborough: I know that you’re a little crazy, and I know you’ve got a back-pile of appliances that you’re trying to sell in the five boroughs, but let me tell you buddy, that when you’ve got the CIA Director…in the Oval Office standing up saying ‘Mr. President, it’s a slam dunk, he’s got weapons of mass destruction.’ I hate re-debating this, but we just can’t let false information go out over this show just because you hate Dick Cheney.
O’Donnell: Tell me one thing that I said that was false, tell me one thing.
Scarborough: Everything you say is false, Lawrence, all the time.
This quote from O’Donnell later touched a nerve as well: “We have a Vice President who was a proven liar when it came to the single most important decision that administration made.”
Do you want to rehash the whole weapons of mass destruction debate? Here’s the full segment – enjoy the play-out music that starts about three minutes before the end, which of course was ignored:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
—–
» Follow Steve Krakauer on Twitter
26 comments
Bush/Iraq/WMDs are the fall back for most Liberals today. If you can’t win your argument using facts, if you can’t point to actual concrete evidence… the best you can do is bring up one of those things. It’s a last ditch effort to distract from reality.
In this context, what does Iraq have to do with this? Perhaps Cheney “dithered,” perhaps he didn’t… it’s debatable, but not really relevant. One could argue pretty quickly that the Iraq war (for its good and bad) gave Cheney experience enough to see what works and what doesn’t… so his view on “dithering” is relevant. However, instead of addressing that issue, and the actual substance of the complaint, it’s easier to insult the messenger (Cheney), because the left hasn’t come up with a coherent and unified message on what they believe should happen next in Afghanistan.
Once Obama makes a decision on the next step, the rest of the blue-commentators will fall in line, the response will move away from Cheney (no matter what he says), and become a straight “tow-the-line” reply. Until the White House makes a decision… attacking Bush/Cheney/Iraq/WMDs is all they’ve got.
I just want to know why Lawrence O’Donnell’s embarrassing and hysterical “You’re a liar!” freakout has been scrubbed from the Internet. If anyone has a link to it, please let me know.
On this point, Joe is right. Lawrence lies regularly, that’s why he’s allowed to guest-host Countdown. No one with the ability to see things through a factual prism would ever get within spitting distance of Olbermann’s chair. My question is, should Joe be able to bar O’Donnell from his show just as Olbermann bans conservatives from his?
I can’t STAND Lawrence O’Donnell. He is hysterically shrill.
And wrt to Cheney – if the Obama administration is going to continue to blame Bush and Cheney for everything, then Cheney is justified in chiming in.
Obama spent two years bashing the Bush administration, and now he is flip flopping like a fish out of water.
President Cheney had his own intelligence group installed in the Defense Department to stovepipe the intelligence directly to him that the CIA refused to endorse and actually specifically claimed was unsupported buy the facts.
The head of British intelligence said in 2002 the decision to go to war had been made and “the facts and intelligence were being fixed around the policy”.
President Cheney also made 10-12 personal, unprecedented visits to Langley to pressure the CIA to get on board with the program.
President Cheney got what he wanted, let Joe defend it.
And all of that is relevant how, Jim?
Yes, Jim. How is that relevant?? Allow true intellectual scholars such as Ol’ Blue here to guide you onto that
Right-Wing Treadmill to…nowhere. Yup!
Facts are facts you morons the Bush Administration and Dickey Cheney lied. They took their eyes off the real war to go fight a war of choice and they chose to have 3000 of our soldiers or more die for a war that they chose. The Iraq war gave him experience at the cost of our soldiers. You neo-cons are idiots… defending a man that broke the law and hides behind his employess to take the rap (Libby) that should be tried for treason. He needs to keep his mouth shut and go off to the nursing home and try to convince people they did the right thing.
I understand why many of you hate Dick Cheney. I, for one, choose to admire him because I always knew what he stood for. Right or wrong, both he and President Bush were decisive. I would have a lot more respect for President Obama if he would man up and make a decision, even if that decision was to withdraw. We elected a commander-in-chief, and commanders must make decisions. If he wanted to deliberate ad nauseum, he should have stayed in the senate. He can’t just vote “present” anymore.
>Bush/Iraq/WMDs are the fall back for most Liberals today. If you can’t win your argument using facts
explain why no WMD where found, when they were the reason we invaded
M,
Every senior member of President Clinton’s foreign policy team, including Clinton and Vice President Gore believed there were WMDs in Iraq. So did his CIA Director, who also served under Bush. So did all the Democrats in the House and Senate who gave Bush the authority to invade.
To answer your question directly, no WMDs were found because there were no WMDs. Regardless, the country is still better now than it was before we went in.
Presidents can’t make decisions based on what people will know in the future. They can only act on the information they have at the time, and the overwhelming international consensus was that coalition forces would find WMDs in Iraq.
m says:
October 22, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Perhaps because our government believed the existed?
“Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.” — Tom Daschle in 1998
“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” — Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.” — Madeline Albright, 1998
“(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983″ — National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” — From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
“This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” — From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
“Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.” — Joe Lieberman, August, 2002
“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.” — Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002
“The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
“I share the administration’s goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.” — Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Al Gore, 2002
believed they existed. grrrr typo!
Sara, I think I’m in love
Oh, I forgot one other reason, M:
Tragedy of Halabja: March 16, 1988
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndXNTjJzPdw&feature=related
Oops, my paste didn’t work. ;O)
sarainitaly, nice list. Here’s the debunking:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
>and the overwhelming international consensus was that coalition forces would find WMDs in Iraq.
It’s hard to believe that someone actually think there was an overwhelming international consensus. If there had been, there would’ve been a Security Council resolution or to the very least something from the General Assembly. Truth is that there was a complete international consensus AGAINST an Iraqi invasion. The Coalition of the Willing is the most pathetic attempt of a coalition ever established in American history. Blair got removed as PM because of his support. Spain switched governments. There’s a reason why NATO was completely left out, a lot more than half of all the members were dead-against an invasion.
France, Germany and et al were openly mocked by people like you in 2003 because they thought invading Iraq was insanely stupid.
The IAEA was mocked by people like you in 2003 when they didn’t think he had any weaponry.
Hans Blix was mocked by people like you in 2003 after his weapons inspection results were negative.
Turns out – they were all right.
I supported the invasion back then, actually. I was a conservative then too. There was just no doubt in my mind that after watching live coverage of Colin Powell’s presentation to the United Nation Security Council that Saddam had WMDs. Why would a government use evidence that wasn’t vetted? Why would we use information that wasn’t true? My gut just twists today when I think about it. How our country could go and try to present the case for a war in front of the entire world with the shabbiest piece of evidence ever scraped out of the insides of someone’s rear end. I didn’t know that back then. I wish I did. I wish I could go back in time.
M, two different sets of facts.
Yes, the countries you mentioned all opposed the invasion. No, none of those countries’ leaders expressed any doubts that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
If you could go back in time, am I to assume you would oppose the war based on the lack of WMDs? Me, I’m glad Saddam is gone, and I’m proud our troops brought peace to a nation viciously violated by such an evil man. Obviously we can’t help every country in such dire straits, but we could and did help Iraq. I think there is nobility in that accomplishment.
Has Scarborough ever explained how one of his interns was found dead in his office? An office that had his fingerprints all over it?
m says:
October 22, 2009 at 6:29 pm
sarainitaly, nice list. Here’s the debunking:
Debunking? Um…there was no debunking there. It provided their full context, but no debunking. “All the quotes listed above are substantially correct.” Snopes was fact checking whether the Dems supported the invasion, or not. That was not the point I was making. My point was that they all believed Saddam had WMDs.
And M – I thought invading was wrong. I was sitting in Italy, watching the whole thing unfold, and saw how they were blurring the lines between 9/11 and Iraq. I didn’t support the invasion, but when it happened, I hoped that the people of Iraq would at least be happy that Saddam would be taken out of power. And yes, I believed Colin Powell. But I never supported Bush or Cheney. Again, you really need to stop acting like you know all about me, and others, because you are wrong every time. *Freedom Fries*? haha
I am glad Hussein is gone, and I too am proud of the soldiers, and they work they have done, and all they have sacrificed.
Jelperman says:
October 22, 2009 at 10:57 pm
“…was found dead in his office? An office that had his fingerprints all over it?”
Wow – good work Dick Tracy. He left fingerprints in his office?
>Obviously we can’t help every country in such dire straits, but we could and did help Iraq. I think there is nobility in that accomplishment.
Engaging in a war with no international legitimacy based on faulty evidence. Hard to find any nobility there. Doesn’t matter what the end results are. This war was a complete sham. All the evidence that was used to claim Iraq had WMDs was unassessed and de facto fabricated. Anyone can gather intelligence, but when the White House cherry-picks intelligence that hasn’t been vetted and presents it to the United Nations – that’s either extreme incompetence or straight-up deception.
It’s easy to say “Well, Iraq is better off without Saddam” when your argument consists hoping things will get better in the future. Everyone can hope everything becomes better in the future and say that anything done in the past is makes it better. You just can’t argue for a hypothetical scenario that we haven’t gotten to – in todays Iraq, gays are still getting stoned. Young wives are still traded with goats. Terrorist come there to train and study techniques and educate themselves. All while American money spent and blood have been spilled, doing nation building for which they weren’t trained, carrying out a mission for which they were never meant to do. With the end result strengthening Iran’s position.
When the history books are written, future generations will go back and wonder what the hell went on – how Americans could get dragged into a war for no reason and create such a strategic blunder. It the 21st century equivalence of Athens invasion of Siciliy. Obama is Nicias; the leader who during the build-up spoke out against it.
>Debunking? Um…there was no debunking there. It provided their full context, but no debunking. “All the quotes listed above are substantially correct.”
The irony is striking…you try to defend taking quotes out of context by taking another quote out of context. If you kept reading it said…“However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in “degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein’s ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.”
It’s a list with quotes taken out of context, basically.
No M – Snopes calls the story True.
Snopes said that people have tried to use those quotes as proof that those Dems wanted to invade Iraq.
My intent was to show that they all believed Iraq had WMDs. There was nothing taken out of context in their belief that Iraq had WMDs. They all believed Saddam had WMDs, and they said so.
Whether some Dems later claim they wanted to invade Iraq based on those beliefs, that is another issue. The issue is that they all believed they existed. And as the video I posted above shows, they DID exist in 88.
When 75% of the Senate approved of the Iraq resolution they did so based on prior beliefs of WMDs, and some current intelligence (which was later determined false).
As I recall Kerry, Clinton and Edwards all signed the Iraq Resolution (NIE), Kennedy did not. And as I recall, none of them read it.
This is a list of quotes, dating back to ‘98, of Democrats who believed Saddam Hussein had WMDs.
M – read the 10 November 1999 Madeleine Albright address, or the December 2001 letter from Dems and Repubs about WMDs, which, if I am not mistaken, occurred after Desert FOX and before the yellowcake intelligence. They all believed Iraq still had WMDs.
And Kennedy, while he did not support the invasion, stated “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
sarainitaly says:
October 23, 2009 at 5:16 am
Wow – good work Dick Tracy. He left fingerprints in his office?
HAHAHAHAH!
m says:
October 23, 2009 at 8:59 am
Everyone can hope everything becomes better in the future and say that anything done in the past is makes it better.
And here I thought that was Obama’s strategy to a T. Does this mean you think Cheney should win a NPP too? Or that Obama didn’t really deserve it?
___________
Folks, this is why when the ol’ WMD/Bush/Cheney, etc. thing comes up from the left… you need to call it out as a strategy, and then move on. They’re not looking for a debate, they’re looking to steer debate AWAY from a topic they can’t defend. Notice how many comments reflect the actually topic of this thread… only a few. Then notice how many more are about the WMD-rehashing that is completely irrelevant to the thread.
Cheney called Obama out on waffling and not being able to make a decision on a “war of necessity.” The left can’t defend it because they don’t yet know Obama’s opinion (once he makes up his mind, they’ll be strongly behind whatever he decides). So, to cover their non-argument… they’ll change the subject.
Folks… don’t get fooled by fools.
ImNotBlue says:
October 23, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Grrr You are so right! I get so distracted. I do like shiny objects…
Good for “Mourning Joe.” I don’t usually agree with much of what he says but he was right to put the nutball, Lawrence O’Donnell, in his place. I stopped watching PMSNBC after Larry’s fit of rage and meltdown on live TV years ago. I hope he had therapy and shock treatments but if he did he needs to get a refund. It’s not working.
- » Karl Rove: 'Fox News Is Fairer Than MSNBC'
- » Watch: MTV Bans Lady Gaga/Beyonce's "Telephone," CNN Reports (Update)
- » SNL's Toyota Prius Commercial Is Out Of Control
- » Bill O'Reilly: 'Tom Hanks Has Gone Off The Rails'
- » 5 Best Fashion Moments In Gaga And Beyonce's "Telephone" Video
Predictably, Fox Contributor Wants Lady Gaga Video Banned: ‘This Is Just Poison’

So, this was probably inevitable. Sandy Rios, Fox news contributor and president of the Culture Campaign (the name alone should send some warning signals) told Megyn Kelly that she thinks Lady Gaga's latest (jaw-droppingly awesome) video "Telephone" featuring Beyonce should be banned from MTV. Three guesses why.
Would A Christiane Amanpour Hiring Drastically Change This Week?
In a surprise move, FishbowlDC is reporting longtime CNN anchor and foreign correspondent Christiane Amanpour has been offered the ABC Sunday morning show This Week anchor job. She was initially thrown into the mix for the vacant role earlier this month. But thel hiring of Amanpour would signal a major direction shift for the future of This Week.
More TV headlines:
»Hardball Re-Air Finishes With Less Than 100K In Demo
»FBN Adds Another Business Personality: Former CNNer Gerri Willis
»MTV To Air Jersey Shore To Actual Italians, In Italy »1
»Surprise! Some People At Fox News Are Jealous Of Glenn Beck’s Success »58
»CNBC’s Steve Liesman Tells Rick Santelli: “You Were Wrong About Everything” »5
© 2010 Mediaite, LLC | About Us | Advertise | Newsletter | Privacy | User Agreement | Disclaimer | Power Grid FAQ | Contact | Archives
| Dan Abrams, Founder
| Hosting by Datagram
|
RSS





















