Rumsfeld does play a big part in the Iraq war. The question is how much planning did we do for the Iraq war?
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/t01192003_t19sdabc.html
Rumsfeld: Well, the lesser important is the cost in dollars. Human life is a treasure. The Office of Management and Budget estimated it would be something under 50 billion dollars.
Stephanopoulos: Outside estimates say up to 300 billion.
Rumsfeld: Baloney. How much of that would be paid by the United States, how much by other countries is an open question. But if you think about it, September 11th, besides the 3,000 lives, cost this country hundreds of billions of dollars. So, yes, measure the risk of acting, but also the risk of not acting. And if we suffered a biological September 11th, the cost would just be many, many, many multiples of any conflict.
Here is a documentary done by the Frontline folks on PBS called Rumsfeld's War you can watch the program online.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/
watch it and make up your own mind.
Feb. 7 2003: "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
That tune quickly changed after the battle in Iraq was over.
reviewing the Republican party platform and other documents I think the plan was there all along before Bush even took office to make a war with Iraq. All they needed to find was a reason.
They just failed to make realistic plans for what happensed after the war. Seems as if the roses that were predicted have changed to bullets.
Rumsfeld for some reason seems to be attached at the hip to the idea that this war can be won with a certain number of troops on the ground. right now we seem to be shuffling soldiers from point A to point B as violence breaks out.
I am not for pulling out of Iraq, I just think its time for some new leadership in the Pentagon who understand how to fight this type of wafare and win.
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/t01192003_t19sdabc.html
Rumsfeld: Well, the lesser important is the cost in dollars. Human life is a treasure. The Office of Management and Budget estimated it would be something under 50 billion dollars.
Stephanopoulos: Outside estimates say up to 300 billion.
Rumsfeld: Baloney. How much of that would be paid by the United States, how much by other countries is an open question. But if you think about it, September 11th, besides the 3,000 lives, cost this country hundreds of billions of dollars. So, yes, measure the risk of acting, but also the risk of not acting. And if we suffered a biological September 11th, the cost would just be many, many, many multiples of any conflict.
Here is a documentary done by the Frontline folks on PBS called Rumsfeld's War you can watch the program online.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/
watch it and make up your own mind.
Feb. 7 2003: "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
That tune quickly changed after the battle in Iraq was over.
reviewing the Republican party platform and other documents I think the plan was there all along before Bush even took office to make a war with Iraq. All they needed to find was a reason.
They just failed to make realistic plans for what happensed after the war. Seems as if the roses that were predicted have changed to bullets.
Rumsfeld for some reason seems to be attached at the hip to the idea that this war can be won with a certain number of troops on the ground. right now we seem to be shuffling soldiers from point A to point B as violence breaks out.
I am not for pulling out of Iraq, I just think its time for some new leadership in the Pentagon who understand how to fight this type of wafare and win.