Posted on 06/10/2015 5:09:51 AM PDT by lbryce
Donald Rumsfeld, one of the leading architects of the Iraq war, reportedly said in a recent interview that then-President George W. Bush was "unrealistic" to pursue democracy in the country.
Rumsfeld, who served as Bush's defense secretary from 2001 to 2006, allegedly made the comments in an interview with the Times of London.
"I'm not one who thinks that our particular template of democracy is appropriate for other countries at every moment of their histories," Rumsfeld is quoted as saying.
"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."
However, Rumsfeld later pushed back against the Times article, telling Fox News' Greta Van Susteren that the article was inaccurate.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Yeah! Democracy! give me a "D" and "E" "M""O" "C" "R" "A" "C" "Y"! It the cure for barbarism, internecine destruction, a 2% literacy rate among a nation of 225 million, who have a GNP less than Holland if you remove the petroleum. And these are not my words. This is study that has come out of the UN for the passed for four years on the state of the Arab World.
Well Rummie, you certainly are a dummy. The emancipating power of democracy. It really comes across as nothing but hogwash. Democracy so powerful, that it can even transcend, the most backward, primitive, delusional people. And I'm not even talking about Islam. I mean, Bush and Wolfowitz and Krystal, and all those people with manic fantasies of the world turning into Disneyland.
We were warned. We were told. Beneath the fiery hot cauldron of the egregious enmity of the many groups within Iraq under Hussein. It may be the baddest of the bad but he's keeping these savages under control, and for all the shyte that Hussein was, he kept a pretty tight ship.
But no, Democracy, divinely inspired is going to turn the savage goat-butting beast into voting gentleman playing croquet.
But now, we get to see the laws of unintended consequences. An Iran nearly nuclear, the Middle East in turmoil, a godforsaken misbegotten group spawned under the very worst conditions that mankind has ever shown capable of. All because Bush needed some Crusade-type cause to invade Iraq. He actually did compare the current state of Axis of Evil as the "Crusades Redux" but he was quickly shut up.
So democracy, it ain't quite fighting for divine things like God, but it's the closest thing we've got these days.
I remember seeing the soldiers, no legs, body incinerated with third degree burns, all for what? Why the big "D" of course. Rumsfeld is just as cynical as the rest.
I read that in some lefty rag douchepaper that Rummmy is coming out now at this time and place to kind of make the Republicans seem more realistic and pragmatic notwithstanding the Iraq invasion that made things only 10,000 worse. The story that reminds me most of the war, the way it went, Some Neo-con, probably Wolfowitz, the most wide-eyed optimistic dreamer of the lot, talking about iraqi relations with Israel , which of course was a far gone conclusion right before 'Shock and Awe'. He responded with incredulity. What do you mean?If the US wants Iraq to have relations with Israel then that;s that.
You’re being absurd. You read something today, and assume that the thought hadn’t occurred to Rumsfeld earlier? You miss the point. How arrogant and logically bankrupt on your part.
The most stable counties in the mideast (aside from Israel) all have dictators. In the case of Egypt and Jordan there is even a certain semblance of religious freedom. Even in Syria the minority groups generally back Assad because he didn’t single them out.
No.I read something today that I’ve known for a very long time. But there was no way I was going to bring it up in the absence of any thing that facilitated it, to bring it out in the open without some cause for doing so. This was the perfect opportunity. Rumsfeld ever cynical, gave me the opportunity to speak my mind. Timing is everything you know.
Well, Bush gave them their shot at a better life. You have to give him credit for that. In retrospect it was wishful thinking on his part.
You miss the point...your comment is meaningless without the assumption that Rummie just now realized this. That’s the basis of your entire comment, and it’s absurd.
Rumsfeld was probably the smartest person in the Bush Administration, and he damned sure was the only one who would dish it back to the press. As such, weenie Rove and weenie Bush threw him under the bus in an attempt to get some good PR for their own sorry hides. Ever the good soldier, Rummy took it like a man.
To buy into the liberal definition of Rumsfeld has no place on a conservative forum. Rumsfeld can be called a lot of things, but dummy dadgummed sure ain’t one of them.
I hoped they could adopt democracy too but they’ve made it pretty clear that they can’t.
Sadly the middle eastern analysts are still talking about bringing the Sunnis back into the political process in Iraq.
Rumsfeld continues to remind me of another Defense Secretary, Robert McNamara. Both Ivy league know it alls, both know more than just about anyone else, both initiated a stupid strategy (Mac with bombing halts, Rumsfeld with not having a government in place after driving Saddam out of power), and both after they left office and found that the public did not favor the war and it did not turn out well, decide to turn on the policy they crafted, demean the leaders they served it to, and do all they can to get accepted once more at the Georgetown cocktail parties. I remember McNamara, after he wrote his odious, lying book about Vietnam, claiming “I was against it”!! He was “against it”?? He was the FATHER OF IT!
You have to define Democracy...and then take a real, good look at our country...where they want to take away your guns, will put you out of business for not baking a homo wedding cake, have you fired for saying "ho", force you to buy health insurance under penalty of a monstrous fine.
Now, explain Democracy to me again.
Look, You’re obviously not familiar with the nuances of the language. And seem hell bent getting your anger, jollies out of your systemn. To say, Rumsfeld took 12 years to finally conclude... is not a literal assessment of what he actually believed. It’s a figure of speech not to be taken literally. My God. To get up in the morning the way you have is kind of scary. You might try extra-strength Ex-lax.
No, he didn't. He gave oil companies and other globalist corporations a shot at better profits.
In the countries where the US masterminded the overthrow of heavy handed leaders, the people were living good lives, and were okay with their leadership. Put Syria with Assad on that list....Syria was doing just fine before the attempts to oust Assad.
And meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, our allies, have truly restrictive governance. Why are they our allies anyway, if we still pretend to defend freedom?
Bush Sr. just about begged W not to play these games in Iraq, from what I understand.
Save Reagan, there was no better man on the international scene than GHWB. Bush and Baker were a formidable pair, and ‘ROP George’ apparently never learned that sometimes father knows best.
W and Condi were the misguided ideologues.
Our success in Iraq is most clearly exemplified by the pictures of the people with the purple fingers they got as evidence that they voted.
Unfortunately, they are too tribal, too clannish, and too despotic for anything like the forms of republicanism and democracy that we take for granted in Western civilization to take root and flourish.
We compound that reality with the PC brainwashing of moral relativism and multiculturalism. That allows Western liberals/leftists/statists to pack up and leave saying, “They’ll be fine now. These are good, freedom-loving people and we better leave them alone to do things on their own. Who are we to tell them how to live their lives?” after we barely establish democracy.
If we had any sense of reality, we would have kept a sideline presence in that country with the explicit explanation, “Our sons and fathers died to give you something that looks like freedom. We’re maintaining a presence partially to make sure no others take that away from you but mainly to ensure that we have an unthreatened supply of oil for the next 50 years. We’ll pay you a fair price, but that easy flow of oil is your repayment for our services.”
But no, W. hands Obammie the Commie a victory on a silver platter. All Obammie the Commie has to do is take the prize (you know, like that Nobel Peace Prize) and make sure it doesn’t fall back into the hands of the tribal, clannish despots.
But of course, those tribal, clannish despots are Obammie the Commie’s friends, so he hands it over to them.
Now the people are losing what freedom they have and the Middle East, swamped with turmoil, no longer guarantees a free flow of oil.
Mission accomplished.
Anything about winning a war in this tripe?
“No, he didn’t. He gave oil companies and other globalist corporations a shot at better profits.”
It’s been written in a few places that prior to Pat Tillman’s death by ‘friendly fire’, he was writing letters home saying he was disillusioned with the war effort that the Iraq war was really centered around oil, and not battling terrorism.
It was unfortunate he was killed. Otherwise we might be able to hear first hand what he saw, heard, and experienced that caused Mr. Tillman to think that.
Yes. I hereby declare C. Edmund Wright the undisputed winner, universal champion for the benefit of everyone here at Free Republic.
I am angry about this, all the way back to when it was going on...when Rove and Bush and Cheney (maybe not Cheney) threw Rummy under the bus. Yes, I am, and have been.
As for your statement, sorry, there are certain things that mean certain things and you can’t hide behind the very weak “I didn’t mean it literally” bullshit. The statement you made does not lend itself to being non literal hyperbole.
Of course it was about oil, or at least in part. Every war in the history of the world since oil was being used has been about oil. Besides, oil and terror are part of the same issue in the Middle East.
And even before that, wars were about whatever the natural resources of the day were. Takes adults to admit this.
wow, you’re sounding liberal today.....slamming oil and corporations? Are higher costs for oil companies really good for you? does it help your cost of energy in your home?
Think about it.....
zero for that entire post....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.