war in iraq. it was a bad idea to start that war in iraq. we can say that now, right? is it controversial to say that the iraq war was a bad idea? aren't we sort of all on board with that now? at the outset of the iraq war john mccain, of course, was not alone. john mccain and chuck hagel both supported the iraq war initially, as did people like john kerry and hillary clinton and joe biden and dianne feinstein and chuck schumer and 24 other democrats in the senate and all but one of the republicans in the senate all voted yes. and yeah, there were democrats who were against the war from the beginning. and that one republican, lincoln chaffee. but there were enough democrats who said yes and went along with it. that's part of the reason the war happened. the difference over time is that republican chuck hagel and most of the democrats who were wrong about iraq, they figured out that they were wrong and they turned against the war and ultimately they tried to end the war because it had been a mistake. we can say mistake in the technical sense here, right? the war was started to go get weapons of mass destruction from saddam and to

the overall war of choice going into iraq? litigate that the decision to go into iraq was a disaster? yes, actually, yes. that is what this is all about, an effort to rehabilitate the iraq war in the american mind, to make it seem like it was success, or at least that it wasn't a bad idea, or at least that it wasn't the biggest foreign policy disaster since vietnam, or at least that it wasn't a scandal that ought to scar everybody associated with it in american politics for the rest of their careers. and because being wrong about the iraq war was not just an individual scandal, but a big scandal, this ends up being a big project, this revisionist history, until we come clean about this. until we get honest about it. until we can draw a line under it and say you know what? that was a bad idea. until we are able to do that cleanly, this kind of stuff really is going to drag around behind everybody who wants to be in public office in the future who was in public office then, or who was in a position to comment on it when it was al

you back here monday, monday night for the premier of the documentary, "hubris, the selling of the iraq war". that does it for us. brand-new documentary, "hubris:selling the iraq war." good night. >>> cruising for a bruising. let's play hardball. >>> good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. let me start tonight with this. as butch cassidy once asked "who are these guys," what a ratty bunch. they spend days holed up and bring down the president. they only have nasty words to spew about the people running it or hoping to. john mccain who's served the country so admirably has been angry. he's been saying enough of this when new allies gets out of hand. a combat vet at that. but the viciousness is something we haven't seen before because of its come by inbound nation of mccarthyism and weird connectedness, attacking chuck hagel because no one will give us info about the benghazi situation even though hagel wasn't in the government when it was happened. sick stuff and seems to be growing. the better he looks, the more these characters are determined to look. did you notice the smile, by t

what was the motive for cheney to take us into this war in it wasn't the evidence? >> it certainly wasn't the fact that iraq major wmd threat working with al qaeda against us. i think maybe some regrets over what happened with the first gulf war. i think -- but after 9/11, you know, sort of a fuse kind of popped for him and he said we have to go out against these guys again and again. he bought the neocon line that saddam hussein -- >> did he buy it or were they both -- >> i think they were of a similar mindset. >> cheney doesn't -- didn't consent to an interview bu doug five is in this film and he says some very revealing things. the purpose after 9/11 was to shock the upon sers of state terrorism to get them to change their policies. that's his quote in this film. now -- >> which isn't what they told the public. >> it's not what they told the public and it was not about changing policy as i think your last bite here will show because it's very clear this was never about changing policies. >> this is what they will want to watch tonight, michael. the documentary which you really were behind includes the ta

i do think we elected barack obama in part because he was on the right side of the iraq war debate. but the revisionist history on why we went to iraq and who got us there, that is an active campaign right now. >> david corn, what have we learned? >> well, i think rachel is right. the bar has been raised, because we learned that the government pulled what larry wilkinson in the film, he was chief of staff to colin powell at the time. he calls it a hoax. that's a pretty big word to use. that the campaign to convince this nation to go to war, a war that led to the loss of almost 5,000 american lives and over probably 100,000 civilian iraqi lives was a hoax. so i think we learned to be careful when people tell us there is a threat at hand. but at the same time to be a little less optimistic about it, a lot of people who got us into the war, a lot of the neo con drum majorettes and cheerleaders, dick cheney and others, when they come out today and say something, they're still accorded a fair degree of respect. they haven't been laughed out of town or tar and feathered and chased away bec

narrowly approved by the senate after coming under fire from fellow republicans for past criticism of the iraq war and the jewish lobby with some believing he could also be too soft on iran reports. chuck hagel was confirmed by the senate fifty eight votes for forty one vote against a narrow vote as you can see but he can find in louisville all that apologizing and repenting behind and he had to do a lot of that to get the job to go has been working very hard to tailor his views so as to please congress as a senator chuck hagel allowed himself to oppose the surge in iraq or to criticize israel's policies to oppose seeing war with iran as an option but as the president's nominee for the defense secretary position he backtracked on much of what he had said before and did it as as even his supporters noted in a rather clumsy way but in a way that showed how much he wanted the job and the whole confirmation process

the invasion of iraq. the invasion of iraq of course in march 19th, 2003. the invasion of iraq and the war in iraq are obviously a big deal and a specific thing that is worth examining in its own right. but what we did with "hubris" was not tell the story of the iraq war, but rather the story of what made us start that war. so we didn't peg to it the ten-year anniversary of the invasion, we pegged it earlier than that. we pegged it to the lying to us by our own government that made that invasion possible. and that irreducible truth, that we were told by our government that we had to go to war because of things they said were true about the world that were not true about the world, that irreducible truth is the most important thing about the presidency that preceded this one. and unless the revisionist historians get their way, that truth will be in the first line of the obituary of each of those senior members of the bush administration when they eventually depart from this earth. and that sets up a really interesting thing for us now in 2013 in terms of how that relatively recent politica

karl rove, the architect of the iraq war, the escape -- is thumping around the country right now like a wounded elephant threatening to crush the party's fringes. tea partiers look out, he may not be able to beat democrats but he has big bad you in his sights. the fight has begun. while steve king, tea party general, joe walsh, rish limbaugh, mark levin, paul brown, all the inhabitants of the could could nest because karl rove is drawing lines in the sand. want republicans to win, cut out the crazies. beat the democrats stop giving them easy targets, rape candidates and stop making the democrats look smart and reasonable by running stupid and crazy candidates. the joy is i have to say this, it's really quite funny, each of the right wing factions thinks they are the sane ones, the ones that have to protect the party from the others. tonight, the duel of the death drives deeper, do or die, fight to the death, winners run against hillary clinton. the losers say it's not their fault they lost. wait a minute. that doesn't make any sense and neither does this fight on the right for the rig

a little more optimistic about a second term he's a wise man and foreign policy and if the end of the war and iraq keas meander into words and the the war afghanistan and he's allowing the pentagon and you have to remember when you're looking at the pentagon you are looking at an institution that has defined motor skills and a dinosaur. if you take the pentagon a long time to put something together all but obama has to do and i know it isn't this simple but i would look at the gorbachev experience. he came out of 1985 he gave the secret speech in 1986 denouncing afghanistan to his fellow bureau colleagues as a bleeding wound he had the moxie secretly tell shultz we were getting out that the military was going to get one year to turnaround and the wouldn't feel to. they announced a timetable and they were gone. we need to do something similar. they had their chances we had 11 commanders and afghanistan in 11 years take a look at thomas rex book the generals that devotes a lot of attention to this isn't a war we can be successful and the kind of military we have. there is no military that had ever b

i am a little more optimistic with the second turn this is a wiser man and with the the fact he ended the war in iraq and meandering toward the war in afghanistan allowing the of pentagon, an institution of the fine motor skills of a dinosaur takes them a long time to put something together for withdrawal. all obama has to do is look at gorbachev. he came 1985, a secret speech 1986 denouncing afghanistan, he had them tell shultz they were getting out and then announce a timetable then were gone. we need to do something similar. he had 11 commanders in 11 years. take a look at the books the general that the votes attention to is this. that is not a war to be successful no military ever successful where they have a sanctuary. not only that but an ally in pakistan to provide billions of dollars of economic aid that makes the picture somewhat confusing how would you disengage from the situation you support vertically integrated criminal enterprise called the of course, i government? but we are finding our way as a resolution, i don't know how many years this will take. my optimism is the team that are to

karl rove the architect of the iraq war, the escapee from the cia scandal, who wasted fat cat money by the tens of millions, that karl rove is thumping around the country now like a wounded elephant threatening to crush the party fringes. so the fight's begun. while steve king, the infamous joe walsh, rush limbaugh, paul brown, all the inhabitants of the cuckoo nest are scrambling because karl rove is drawing lines in the sand. rape candidates, witches, second remedy amendment types. stop making the democrats look smart and reasonable by running candidates. the joy is that each of the right-wing fascists thinks they are the same ones. the ones who have to protect the party from the others. tonight the duel to the death drives deeper, it's do or die, fight to the death. the winners get to run against hillary clinton. the losers get to say it's not their fault they lost. that doesn't make sense. neither does the fight on the right. with me tonight are two msnbc political analysts. joy, it really is a joy to watch this. to watch rove running around as a new matt dillon cleaning up the par

turns to iraq, to saddam. >> i think the united states since desert storm has always had a various planning with respect to iraq. [ siren ] >> operation desert storm. also known as the first gulf war. in 1991 following iraq's invasion of kuwait, a u.s.-led coalition of 34 countries drives saddam's forces out of kuwait and decimates the iraqi army in six weeks. but despite that overwhelming victory, president george h.w. bush faces criticism at home for not going all the way to baghdad to rid the world of saddam hussein. >> i made very, very clear from day one that it was not an objective of the coalition to get saddam hussein out of there by force. >> dick cheney, his defense secretary at the time, supports the first president bush's restraint. >> i think we got it right. conversations i had with leaders in the region afterwards, they were concerned that we not get into a position where we were an imperialist power willy-nilly moving into capitalism in that part of the world. >> after the gulf wore, bush send planes to provide air cover for vulnerable populations in northern and southern iraq. the u.n. security council imposes harsh sanctions and sends in weapons inspectors to dig

. >> it's not that i don't think we can talk about the iraq war or the war in afghanistan for that matter, but the notion that you should have a yes or no answer to the iraq surge, which in many ways -- john mccain thinks the history books have been written on this. i believe -- >> no, it's still an open debate. absolutely. >> it's ongoing. we still -- >> people did vote against the iraq surge. that seems to be a totally relevant thing to talk about now. >> i think the iraq surge is relevant. i think asking for a yes or no answer on it seems particularly short-sighted. >> not defending that. >> in the "new york times" there is an op ed that says the senators, especially republicans, did a poor job of drawing substance out of the moment, but after his appearance it's clear that mr. hagel is very much in the mainstream of american foreign policy." your thoughts on that? >> i think it was difficult in watching the hearings to understand why the obama administration has expended as much capital on him, frankly. i mean, i think if i was trying to imagine if hillary clinton or michelle f

to question the iraq war the surge. many republicans felt he went too garbage then, now all of a sudden he has a plum job being secretary of defense which is better than senate, and they're angry that he has leapfrogged over him. >> john: here is a comment from john mccain. >> members of this committee will raise questions reflecting concerns with your policy position. they're not reasonable people disagreeing. they are fundamental disagreements. >> john: that's the man who thought sarah palin was qualified to be leader of the free world. are his position really far out from mainstream on capitol hill. >> the first thing bewildering was that it was not that long ago that john mccain was running for president and suggesting that chuck hagel would make a great secretary of defense. if there is anyone who has turned on his previous beliefs i don't think it's chuck hagel. the interesting thing hagel has been endorsed by dozens of retired generals admirals. the views of being an honest broker to find a solution to the two-st

i compare this to the iraq war which was very popular in public opinion polls early on, as is the droney, but by not being forthright and open and honest with the public, the iraq war obviously became a real albatross and the drone program could become the same way. so it's an argument not to do this in utter secrecy as they have been doing it to actually shine the light of day on it. >> in fact, you must be telepathic. as you know i read everything you write. this is what you say on the use of drones. the iraq war was initially popular before it took a disare a terous turn, and though a large majority of americans support the drone warfare program, it is far more skeptical of killings that target u.s. citizens. do you expect the use of drones to be perhaps scaled back if john brennan becomes director of the cia? >> i certainly don't think so, martin, because he's in many ways the architect of this program and has overseen the dramatic expansion -- >> so you don't think the more recent public scrutiny will actually affect the administration's use of drones? >> i don't think it will affe

last night i asked retired colonel larry wilkerson, lawrence wilkerson about the run-up to the war in iraq you believe the bush administration cooked the books to sell the war in iraq? >> i didn't know it at the time, and i fault myself for that. i'll go to my grave with that mass failing on my part. but, yes, in retrospect, having done all the research and work that my students and others have done, plus myself, i'm damn sure that the bush administration cooked the books. >> wilkerson is not alone. for the first time in ten years, top level insiders are going on the record about the bush administration's push for war. last night my colleague rachel maddow aired an hour-long documentary based on the book by michael isikoff and david corn called "hubris: selling the iraq war." the documentary compiled years of reporting to give us a fresh look at the flaws in the decision-making process. at one point, the film showed how personal the conflict with iraq had become for president bush. >> he got very animated. he used uncharacteristically profanity, and used the middle fingerer to demonstrate

on the selling of the war in iraq, the verdict is already in. under false pretenses. we went to war on manipulated, exaggerated, inflated and twisted intelligence. and the portrait that was presented to the american public was fundamentally false. and i think anybody who watches the documentary tonight will see that. think just that one clip you just played from lawrence wilkinson, who is colin powell's chief of staff. this is in november of 2002, and we already just have had the debate before congress in which all these assertions along the line of vice president cheney, no doubt, absolute confidence, massive weapons, and powell himself is privately saying to his chief of staff, i wonder what happens if we go in and find nothing, shows doubts about what was being said. >> one of the other chief architects of this year, defense secretary donald rumsfeld, i want to play a link. >> meeting notes from the afternoon of 9/11 showed donald rumsfeld tapping a top aide to find the best info fast, good enough to hit saddam hussein. he asks the aide to ge