"Bush was wrong on Iraq, says Rumsfeld" (Update: Rumsfeld denies he said this)

  • metta

    Posts: 39089

    Jun 08, 2015 8:18 PM GMT
    Bush was wrong on Iraq, says Rumsfeld


    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/americas/article4462278.ece


    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/donald-rumsfeld-george-w-bush-was-wrong-about-iraq

    http://atimes.com/2015/06/rumsfeld-bush-was-wrong-about-democracy/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2015 9:06 PM GMT
    metta8 saidBush was wrong on Iraq, says Rumsfeld


    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/americas/article4462278.ece


    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/donald-rumsfeld-george-w-bush-was-wrong-about-iraq

    http://atimes.com/2015/06/rumsfeld-bush-was-wrong-about-democracy/


    Who is he (author) talking about here?

    "Whatever Donald Rumsfeld might be thinking, his desultory takedown of Bush 41’s blunders offers an opportunity to rethink a failed foreign policy."
  • Lincsbear

    Posts: 2603

    Jun 08, 2015 9:52 PM GMT
    It`s one of the usual political procedures: dissociate from failure, whatever you did supporting it in the past.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2015 10:07 PM GMT
    Lincsbear saidIt`s one of the usual political procedures: dissociate from failure, whatever you did supporting it in the past.


    Although, 41 had little to do with it.

    I blame Rummy for much of the trouble that they had up until 2007 at the time of the surge. It was Rummy's idea to go in with 1/4 of the number of troops really needed, not to just win the war, but to also keep the peace.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Jun 08, 2015 10:15 PM GMT
    Lincsbear saidIt`s one of the usual political procedures: dissociate from failure, whatever you did supporting it in the past.


    This precisely. EVERYONE wants to launch, attend and manage the war.....but NOBODY wants to clean up the inevitable mess such a destabilizing act causes, nor take responsibility for the foreseeable consequences (we knew there'd be tens-of-thousands of civilian 'collateral damage' casualities, we knew there'd be a power vacuum, we knew the Sunnis and the Shities hated each other, we knew terrorists would seek to exploit these factions and the rich oil resources, etc.).

  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Jun 09, 2015 12:46 AM GMT
    Lincsbear saidIt`s one of the usual political procedures: dissociate from failure, whatever you did supporting it in the past.


    yep, and usually right before death, which is not soon enough for this guy
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jun 09, 2015 12:56 AM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    Lincsbear saidIt`s one of the usual political procedures: dissociate from failure, whatever you did supporting it in the past.


    Although, 41 had little to do with it.

    I blame Rummy for much of the trouble that they had up until 2007 at the time of the surge. It was Rummy's idea to go in with 1/4 of the number of troops really needed, not to just win the war, but to also keep the peace.


    Keep the peace? They assumed it would be automatic and that it would not turn into what it did. We would be greeted by the Iraqis "with flowers." Remember that?
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Jun 09, 2015 1:38 AM GMT
    ^^Unfortunately, more like greeted with exploding flowers, am I right?:

    tumblr_n8a6haQFUd1r8mlkno1_500.gif
  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1980

    Jun 09, 2015 1:57 AM GMT
    Rumsfeld tries to blame anyone but himself for the Iraq disaster.
    Bush is equally guilty, but they should all be sitting in prison for lying to the Americans and cooking up a phony case for war.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 09, 2015 2:12 AM GMT
    KissTheSky saidRumsfeld tries to blame anyone but himself for the Iraq disaster.
    Bush is equally guilty, but they should all be sitting in prison for lying to the Americans and cooking up a phony case for war.




  • metta

    Posts: 39089

    Jun 09, 2015 2:33 AM GMT
    Rep. Bernie Sanders speaks out in opposition to the War in Iraq on October 9, 2002 before a key vote.




  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1980

    Jun 09, 2015 3:08 AM GMT
    It's also worth noting that today Republican front-runner Scott Walker said he "wouldn't rule out" another war with Iraq if he is elected president.
    Just what our country needs, right? icon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gif
  • metta

    Posts: 39089

    Jun 09, 2015 5:23 AM GMT
    KissTheSky saidIt's also worth noting that today Republican front-runner Scott Walker said he "wouldn't rule out" another war with Iraq if he is elected president.
    Just what our country needs, right? icon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gif


    Well, just know that anyone that Sheldon Adelson supports is also supporting war with Iran.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Jun 09, 2015 7:46 AM GMT
    metta8 said
    KissTheSky saidIt's also worth noting that today Republican front-runner Scott Walker said he "wouldn't rule out" another war with Iraq if he is elected president.
    Just what our country needs, right? icon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gif


    Well, just know that anyone that Sheldon Adelson supports is also supporting war with Iran.


    Republican, Walker, Adelson, President......I almost vomited icon_cool.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 09, 2015 8:03 AM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    Lincsbear saidIt`s one of the usual political procedures: dissociate from failure, whatever you did supporting it in the past.


    Although, 41 had little to do with it.

    I blame Rummy for much of the trouble that they had up until 2007 at the time of the surge. It was Rummy's idea to go in with 1/4 of the number of troops really needed, not to just win the war, but to also keep the peace.

    Agree. With vehicles not properly armored for that theatre of war. Rumsfeld can say this now, but he sure was enthusiastic about attacking Iraq back then. I don't recall him having any reservations, he wanted us all to get on the war bandwagon.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 09, 2015 12:42 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    freedomisntfree said
    Lincsbear saidIt`s one of the usual political procedures: dissociate from failure, whatever you did supporting it in the past.


    Although, 41 had little to do with it.

    I blame Rummy for much of the trouble that they had up until 2007 at the time of the surge. It was Rummy's idea to go in with 1/4 of the number of troops really needed, not to just win the war, but to also keep the peace.

    Agree. With vehicles not properly armored for that theatre of war. Rumsfeld can say this now, but he sure was enthusiastic about attacking Iraq back then. I don't recall him having any reservations, he wanted us all to get on the war bandwagon.


    And they 'won' the war far quicker than they thought they would and then they all stood around (especially Rummy) and then said 'now what'.

    Can't effectively manage the aftermath with the number of troops Rummy had recommended.

    Given the age of these guys you'd think they'd know better. Hell we're still in Japan, Germany and Korea after 60 and 70 years. Didn't they think there'd be some requirement for a substantial number of troops for substantial time to stabilize the situation?

    Bush 41 did things differently with 4x the number of troops in Gulf War I than what we had in Gulf War II.

    Rummy said: "The idea that we could fashion a democracy in Iraq seemed to me unrealistic. I was concerned about it when I first heard those words."

    That's not what you were saying then, Rummy. However, what he says today rings true. We tried. I do wish we would have tried in a slightly different manner with far more boots on the ground for the aftermath, and then if we failed, we would know it can't be done with those savages.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jun 09, 2015 10:47 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said I do wish we would tried in a slightly different way with far more boots on the ground for the aftermath, and then if we failed, we would know it can't be done with those savages.


    We added more boots on the ground with the troop surge in 2007. And note that you're already calling them "savages," which implies that it naturally cannot be done, even if you added more troops now that exceeds the amount of total troops as a result of the surge.

    Another thing is that we were confident that the Iraqi Army and National Police were trained well enough to keep the country stable and that in comparison, that the Afghan army and police don't even compare. So what is going on in Iraq now has huge implications for Afghanistan.
  • Lincsbear

    Posts: 2603

    Jun 10, 2015 10:28 PM GMT
    I doubt what Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc. argued for in Iraq in 2002-3 would ever have worked, even if there had been a much larger army/armed forces of occupation, colonization, and reconstruction, all the attendant logistics, a budget running into trillions of dollars(or more), and an indefinite stay there to try and resurrect a functioning country. For a start, the US electorate would never have countenanced it.
    All of the many mistakes made along the way, the under funding of the operation, the disbanding of the Iraqi army, the failure to win the hearts and minds of the people there, to build alliances, simply accelerated the disaster ahead a few years.
    The whole plan was a misreading of Iraqi, Middle Eastern, and Islamic history; a lethal mix of ignorance and arrogance. Iraq is a tribal society, not one on the edge of a western style democracy. All of the latter have grown slowly, from the bottom up, with many diversions along the way. Iraq was not going to do that, especially from the top down, or any time soon.
    The tragedy is that so many lives have had to be lost for the likes of Runmsfeld to 'learn' this rather obvious truth.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 10, 2015 11:44 PM GMT
    This thread incorrectly states that Rumsfeld said that Bush was wrong on Iraq. Rumsfeld stated that the author of the article fabricated that "quote" of his.

    "It's nonsense. The article was not accurate," Rumsfeld said. "We have a transcript of the interview I had with the London Times and it's unfortunate that people do that but that's life."

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/09/rumsfeld-unrealistic-for-bush-to-pursue-democracy-in-iraq/

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4064621
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2015 3:01 AM GMT
    socalfitness saidThis thread incorrectly states that Rumsfeld said that Bush was wrong on Iraq. Rumsfeld stated that the author of the article fabricated that "quote" of his.

    "It's nonsense. The article was not accurate," Rumsfeld said. "We have a transcript of the interview I had with the London Times and it's unfortunate that people do that but that's life."

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/09/rumsfeld-unrealistic-for-bush-to-pursue-democracy-in-iraq/

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4064621


    I don't see the OP in any hurry to correct the oversight?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2015 3:54 PM GMT
    Lincsbear saidI doubt what Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc. argued for in Iraq in 2002-3 would ever have worked, even if there had been a much larger army/armed forces of occupation, colonization, and reconstruction, all the attendant logistics, a budget running into trillions of dollars(or more), and an indefinite stay there to try and resurrect a functioning country. For a start, the US electorate would never have countenanced it.
    All of the many mistakes made along the way, the under funding of the operation, the disbanding of the Iraqi army, the failure to win the hearts and minds of the people there, to build alliances, simply accelerated the disaster ahead a few years.
    The whole plan was a misreading of Iraqi, Middle Eastern, and Islamic history; a lethal mix of ignorance and arrogance. Iraq is a tribal society, not one on the edge of a western style democracy. All of the latter have grown slowly, from the bottom up, with many diversions along the way. Iraq was not going to do that, especially from the top down, or any time soon.
    The tragedy is that so many lives have had to be lost for the likes of Runmsfeld to 'learn' this rather obvious truth.


    Very well said. But then, Bush was more interested in settling scores than anything else, which is never a sound basis for military intervention.
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Jun 13, 2015 2:55 PM GMT
    At most, GW was interested in "settling scores". I think he was pretty much just a figurehead in an administration that was really run by neo-cons whose main purpose was to expand US global military presence, and needed a Pearl Harbor-like attack to put the PNAC plan in motion. If it hadn't been Afghanistan and Iraq, it would have been somewhere else.

    Rummy, one of the neo-cons, was certainly wrong on Iraq, or at least he made a lot of wildly false claims during the build-up. It will cost less than 50 Billion, in and out in five months or less, we know where the weapons are, etc., sounded like bullshit at the time but somehow people bought it. Unless it's on the stand testifying in his own trial, I have no interest in what he has to say today.

    The list of those who signed on to PNAC's principles reads like a who's-who of both Bush administrations. Interestingly, the only Bush who signed it was Jeb. If he sounds somewhat moderate compared to his brother and father, don't be fooled.

    http://www.publiceye.org/pnac_chart/pnac.html
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Jun 13, 2015 3:21 PM GMT
    Physiqueflex saidAt most, GW was interested in "settling scores". I think he was pretty much just a figurehead in an administration that was really run by neo-cons whose main purpose was to expand US global military presence, and needed a Pearl Harbor-like attack to put the PNAC plan in motion. If it hadn't been Afghanistan and Iraq, it would have been somewhere else.

    Rummy, one of the neo-cons, was certainly wrong on Iraq, or at least he made a lot of wildly false claims during the build-up. It will cost less than 50 Billion, in and out in five months or less, we know where the weapons are, etc., sounded like bullshit at the time but somehow people bought it. Unless it's on the stand testifying in his own trial, I have no interest in what he has to say today.

    The list of those who signed on to PNAC's principles reads like a who's-who of both Bush administrations. Interestingly, the only Bush who signed it was Jeb. If he sounds somewhat moderate compared to his brother and father, don't be fooled.

    http://www.publiceye.org/pnac_chart/pnac.html


    Amen. Spot on analysis. Thanks for the link, I hadn't viewed this.