-- delve back into the morass, the abyss that is the iraq war? story but i feel like it's a really unanswered question in the modern history which is why we went to that war. i did a documentary a little more than a year ago about how we we lied to, the administration's case about why we had to go to war in iraq wasn't true and they sold us a false case? >> jon: what? >> it leads right away to the next question: if the case wasn't really why they wanted to go, why did they really want to go? two million americans lived there and 4,000 americans died there. we owe it to to them to know where they served there. now then it's ten years on there's a bunch of people that wouldn't talk before and a bunch of documents we now have. >> jon: what is it about that ten year period? i would think that ten years is still recent enough that these individuals typically like -- you imagine somebody writing a letter and going "when i die wait 25 years to open this." it's interesting they would put themselves out there for it. >> yeah, i didn't know when we started

when i was elected back in 2006 i became the first iraq war veteran to join congress. now there are 16 members who served in iraq and afghanistan. but the number of veterans in office has fallen dramatically over the years, and it's now just down to 20%. our nation's veterans are an important civic asset with skills and experience far beyond their years. so what are they doing to keep serving their country? joining me again, congresswoman and army captain tulsi gabbard, who served two tours in operation iraqi freedom and was just named one of elle magazine's ten most powerful women in d.c. congratulations. and john sultz, another two-tour iraq war veteran and co-founder and chairman of vote vets. congresswoman, you know, you're a bit of a prodigy in public office. you were elected to the hawaii legislature at age 21. u.s. congress at age 31. how did your military experience play a role in that? >> i've got to tell you, i'm getting a lot of flak from many of my soldier friends who saw that "elle" magazine article. they remember me in a very different kind of uniform. you

the united states. we were talking about what to do in iraq are of course the iraq war -- i'm sorry, in afghanistan. what to do in afghanistan in 2010 was an issue of major concern in the united states, and invariably the discussion default into what it happened in iraq and what happened during the surge and why the sectarian violence was reduced so much in that period. and and listening to what the various experts have to say, it was good to me that not one of them had a holistic understanding of the iraq war, and especially the surge your right then and i decided to put aside the research i was conducted on the liberation of the philippines in 1944-45, the subject of my next book. much nicer ready for the people who are thoroughly dead and, therefore, can't disagree with what you have to say about them. and i decided to write this book. this is three years in the making, and i understood where the forces were for it since we have developed, collected an archive of documents of general petraeus while the surge was ongoing with an eye toward history eventually. those documents which essential command

rayburn is leading a study for the iraq war and study for his phd and it is concerning the british experience in the iraq which is probably worst than the american experience. we are pleased to have both of you. >>> thank you for that introduction. i wasn't going to write this book. i retired from the military in 2008 and i knew there was a story to be told, i was going to take time to digest and develop and i was thinking 10-20 years down the road i would like a history of the iraq war. but a couple years later in the summer of 2010, i was at a conference with a who is who of experts in the united states and we were talking about what to do in afghanistan in 2010. it was an issue of major concern in the united states. and the discussion went to what happened in iraq, especially during the surge and why violence was reduced so much in that period. and in listening to the experts, it was clear not one of them had a holistic undering of the search or the war. so i decided to put aside the information i was studying at the time, which is going to be my next book, and i decided to write this book

the 9/11, why iraq rather than north korea? at the time north korea really was building a nuclear bomb. iraq wasn't. the case for war in iraq that was presented to the american people proved to be a smoke screen. there were no weapons of mass destruction. there was no reconstituted iraqi nuclear program. the case that was made publicly for that war turned out to be false. what was true? what was the reason for that war? we know that it wasn't the reasons they told us. so why did we really do it? newly obtained documents from both here and abroad as well as interviews with many of the key players in the war-planning process and in the invasion now provide an answer to that question. the question of "why we did it." watch. >> i will swear to not only uphold the laws of this land. >> summer of 2000. >> order to lift the spirit of this country when i put my hand on the bible. i will also swear to uphold the honor and integrity of the office to which i have been elected, so help me god. >> we love you, bush! >> as the presidential race heats up the turbo charged u.s. economy of the roaring '90s is threatening to stall. >

then there is the iraq war, as you mentioned. ill-conceived, sold to the american people on false pretenses. it cost us not only all those lives, tragically, but trillions of dollars, sapping the military strength that we might need now if we wanted to actually follow cheney's advice. and then in 2008, when the former soviet union, when vladimir putin threw his weight around in the former soviet republic of georgia, basically, carved that country up in 2008 while bush and cheney were still in power. did they do anything? did they ratchet up military options? did they put the squeeze on vladimir putin? absolutely not. they looked the other way. so this is an amazing incompetence and hypocrisy. that's what we're watching right now out of dick cheney. >> you know, david, it used to be there was a protocol. you left washington after you lost the presidency. you have eight years here, and then you get out of town. it's always been practiced by vp and president alike. he stays here. the shamelessness of the guy. and the way he gets trea

lieutenant colonel rayburn is leading an operational study of the iraq war for the u.s. army. he is also studying more his ph.d. at texas a&m university concerning the british experience in iraq which i think was probably worse than the american experience in iraq, i hope. and we're really pleased to have both of you here, so welcome to both of you. colonel monsoor's going to give his presentation at the podium now. thank you. >> well, thank you, peter, for that kind introduction, and thank you all for coming today. i really appreciate the new america foundation sponsoring this talk. i was not going to write this book. i retired from the military in 2008, and although i knew that there was a story to be told there, i was going to let it take some time to digest and develop. and i was thinking maybe 10, 20 years down the road i would write a history of the iraq war. but a couple years later mt. summer of 2010 -- in the summer of 2010 i was at a conscious with a veritable who's who of counterinsurgency experts in the united states, and we were talking about what to do in iraq. of

he sees the iraq war as a success. the fact that we went to war under false pretenses -- still a good thing. tavis: how is history going to regard him? now that what he says to you is a part of the history record, how is history going to regard donald rumsfeld? we regard vietnam. he was in the oval office when we pulled out of saigon. people clamoring onto the helicopters at the embassy. i asked him, what did you learn? he is in the oval office with gerald ford, henry kissinger. what did you learn? his answer -- some things work out. some things don't. that didn't. vietnam asook at unnecessary, a terrible mistake that cost the lives of 58,000 americans and millions of people in southeast asia. , i don't know how history is going to view any of us. my guess is that we will see this recent episode in american history, maybe not exactly the same but in a similar way. tavis: as hopelessly inarticulate as i have been tonight, -- >> you have been fine. tavis: as inarticulate as i have been, i do think that it is worth you see

the conversation. joyce, could you comment? you deployed twice to iraq. how did your perception of the warge and were do you feel iraq stands now? well, there are a lot of reasons why the war in iraq isn't over. obviously, there are still a lot of violence as a result of the u.s. invasion. but there's also a lot of toxic materials left over in iraq and and thoseols -- materials are challenged with a generation of children suffering from birth defects and also impacting your service members even years after the war is supposedly over. the service members are living with the health consequences of those materials for the rest of their lives, if they're lucky enough to continue to live. >> joyce, explain the right to heal campaign. >> the right to heal initiative is something that occurred when a sitter for constitutional rights began representing yanar mohammed paz organization as well as another iraq you organization and iraq veterans against the war. we're trying to hold u.s. government accountable for human rights violations in iraq. so the health impacts also for veterans come a poster m

rayburn is leading a study for the iraq war and study for his phd and it is concerning the british experience in the iraq which is probably worst than the american experience. we are pleased to have both of you. >>> thank you for that introduction. i wasn't going to write this book. i retired from the military in 2008 and i knew there was a story to be told, i was going to take time to digest and develop and i was thinking 10-20 years down the road i would like a history of the iraq war. but a couple years later in the summer of 2010, i was at a conference with a who is who of experts in the united states and we were talking about what to do in afghanistan in 2010. it was an issue of major concern in the united states. and the discussion went to what happened in iraq, especially during the surge and why violence was reduced so much in that period. and in listening to the experts, it was clear not one of them had a holistic undering of the search or the war. so i decided to put aside the information i was studying at the time, which is going to be my next book, and i decided to write this book

now, it is true that the iraq war was a subject of vigorous debate. not just around the world, but in the united states as well. i participated in that debate. and i posed our military intervention there. but even in iraq, america sought to work within the international system. we did not claim or annex iraq's territory. we did not grab its resources for our own gain. instead, we ended our war and left iraq to its people in a fully sovereign iraqi state that can make decisions about its own future. of course, neither the united states nor europe are perfect in adherence to our ideas. nor do we claim to be the sole arbiter of what is right and wrong in the world. we are human, after all. and we face difficult decisions about how to exercise our power. but part of what makes us different is that we welcome criticism. just as we welcome the responsibilities that come with global leadership. we look to the east and the south and see nations poised to play a growing role on the world stage and we consider that a good thing. it reflects the same diversity th

one harvard study estimates the iraq and afghanistan wars combined will cost the u.s. much as $6 trillion. we spend the rest of the hour looking at a key architect of the iraq war, former secretary of defense donald rumsfeld. he is the focus of a new documentary by oscar-winning director errol morris called "the unknown known." the title refers to a press briefing when rumsfeld faced questions from reporters about the lack of evidence of iraqi weapons of mass distraction. >> want me to read this? >> yes, please. >> all generalizations are false, including this one. there it is. possible vice residential running mate with president ford. >> questions about rumsfeld is whether he is too ambitious to play second fiddle to reagan. who wereople criticized and said oh my goodness, you are warmongers, we need to understand how we got to where we are. who do we want from the leadership in the world? >> when shakespeare wrote history, the motivating force was character defect, jealousy, etc. maybe shakespeare got it wrong. maybe he had it right. governor reagan decided to have

the iraq debacle. ten years after the iraq war with the us want to launch another military intervention with no formal proof. at the time the u n inspectors have yet to confirm the use of chemical weapons in iraq is that those hanging in the room obviously nobody wants to the same thing again and natural understandable suspicion given that the circumstances on the surface seem somewhat similar to squeeze in the pacific events were told is the current regional suspicion that is what i told mrs cain suspicion. yet that's what i told dr songs that's what i've told everyone at the time restore peace. the iraqi sin are in store has a uniqueness to represent the so called united nations and the so called international community that need to do so don't fall into the trap of being used shamelessly by syria's aggressors and pestle it's long been going i like the iraq war in syria the opposition and the government agreed on one thing chemical weapons were used on august twenty first and scores of series died in the attack. un inspectors confirmed that weeks later but did not see who had carried out the attack t

we want to turn to john saltz, veteran of the iraq war, chairman of votevets.org. good to have you on tonight. this dynamic between iraq and ukraine, it's totally different. the reasons are going to be different. do you think the american people would accept any kind of military advancement by the united states to protect nato's alliance. >> it's an interesting question. we say in the military we train to fight one war and we continue to train that way after the war's over and it doesn't prepare us for the next one. i think unfortunately here what i find ironic about the republican rhetoric out of cpac, how the president's been weak, their inability to deal with iraq and the public so against it over time and never found weapons is really hindering or would be the large effort hin rance this president has to any aggressive action against russia. the president is dealing with war fatigue in iraq and afghanistan, a war the republicans led us into and now they're hammering him. they doesn't have any support for any intervention whatsoever. >> moving military hardware,

the first iraq war veteran to make it to congress, where he used his time to congress to try to end thear and try to help people who served in it. now here is the first iraq war veteran in the senate, his name is john walsh, he's being sworn in a few weeks ago as the newest member of the united states senate at. he was appointed to take the seat vacated by max baucus. he was awarded a branz star, served in the montana national guard for three decades. john walsh was appointed to the senate seat. come november he's going to have to fight to keep it. karl rove's campaign started running ads against him the day he was appointed p.m. even though john walsh is the incumbent senator from montana the candidate running against him already has four times the money. john walsh doesn't have the luxury of just campaigning for what is going to be a hard fight to hold on to that seat. he's a brand spanking new serving senator, as such and as the first ever iraq war veteran to serve in the united states senate, he is introducing new major legislation tomorrow, it's a bill to up suicide prevention effo

back in time the iraq war, the run-up to the iraq war -- they develop into simple plot lines. they develop adversaries. let's take it to the case of iraq. remember the whole freedom fries thing. they were hammering out to zero, eric-based television network, anti-american. michael moore was a fox news enemy. they develop his tears who would be on the opposing side and then they would know that their characters on the pro side, george w. bush president as a hero. they developed these story lines and repeat them through the day said on fox and friends come and go through news hour and are continued in prime time. they discuss how the repetition of stories can be a powerful propaganda technique. >> host: if you watch msnbc and fox come ascendancy feel as if you're watching -- >> guest: fun house mirrors. >> host: parallel mirrors. often been about acorn or so under a working power. but what you say to people who say, let me just ask you, what is the difference between what msnbc is doing quite are they similar or how are they different? >> guest: msnbc has decided to dismiss as a

that they might be very happy inviting former secretary of state hillary clinton who voted for the iraq warcomfortable inviting the current secretary of state john kerry who voted for the iraq war. i suspect they might be very comfortable inviting nancy pelosi who not only knew about the enhanced interrogation techniques but briefed on them consistently as a member of the intelligence committee and of the democratic leadership in the house. i'm sure they would be very comfortable inviting her. now, look, this is the left wing views of, i hope of a minority of the rutgers faculty working out their angst in a childish, and i repeat, fraudulent way. shame on them. >> karl, always nice to see you. thank you, sir. >> great to see you, greta. >> and straight ahead, you won't believe what russian president putin might be getting. plus, there is alarming news out of ukraine tonight. ambassador john bolton is here next. marge: you know, there's a more enjoyable way to get your fiber. try phillips fiber good gummies. they're delicious, and a good source of fiber to help support regularity. wife: mmmm

the issue of war. this week is the anniversary of the u.s. invasion of iraq. that was 11 years ago this week. it was a war that lasted more than 8 1/2 years. it was a war that bill kristol confidently predicted would last two months, max. >> whatever else you can say about this war, let me make one point. george bush is not fighting this like vietnam. whatever -- we don't need to refight the whole history of vietnam. >> that's the danger of saddam -- >> it's not going to happen. this is going to be a two-month war. >> this is going to be a two-month war, he says there, not an eight-year war. in fact, it was an 8 1/2-year-long war but bill kristol said it would be a matter of weeks. bill kristol said it would only cost $100 million to have that war in iraq. try multiplying that by a lot. he said that saddam hussein has got weapons of mass destruction. saddam was, quote, past the finish line in developing nuclear weapons. bill kristol said when american troops freed the people of iraq, that would make us respected in the arab world. on march 1st, 2003, bill kristol said, "very few wars in americ

and the run-up to the iraq war. >> host: what do you mean by good guys, bad guys? >> guest: they develop adversaries to the case of iraq. fox news was hammering the united nations and remember the whole freedom thing they were handling the television network as hostile and michael moore was a fox news editor and they were on the opposing side and then they would build up the characters on the pro side that president bush was the hero. they repeat them and go through the news hour and they are continuing at prime time and they discuss how the repetition of the stories can be a powerful propaganda technique. >> host: since he watched msnbc and fox. >> host: user they've been about acorn or solyndra. what would you say to people what do you see is the difference between what msnbc is getting. are they similar or how are they different? >> guest: they decided that their business is it progressive liberal talk channel and that is an interesting marketing strategy. it's important to point out that was a business decision, not an ideological position. as i talked about it

one of the key books about the iraq war. and we have so much of the key events with the real history and an element. he was executive officer to general petraeus and he has a phd in military history at ohio state. so we are pleased to have you here. and as he gives his presentation we will have a part of this. and we will produce some responses with the operational studies with the u.s. army. he is studying for his phd at texas a&m and i think the part of the american experience and i'm really pleased to have both of you here. we're happy he's giving this presentation now. >> 10 or 20 years down the road i wrote yesterday about the iraq worker but a couple of years later i was at a conference with a veritable who's who in the united states and we are talking about what to do in iraq. the iraq war and in afghanistan, what to do there in 2010 was an issue of major concern and unbearably the discussion involved when it happened with sectarian violence. and in listening to what the various experts have to say, not one of them hav

chief among them the unnecessary war in iraq. w that the claims that bush, cheney and the others, the neo cons gave us for going to war were untrue. but there still remains the question of why. why the war? what was behind bush and cheney's laser focus on iraq from nearly their first day in the white house? my colleague rachel maddow seeks to answer that question in her brand-new one-hour documentary that airs this thursday at 9:00 p.m. on msnbc. it's called "why we did it." what a great question. here is a piece from rachel's work. >> 11 days into office, bush assembles his national security team for the first time. along with the vice president and national security adviser condoleezza rice, the principles include secretary of state colin powell, defense secretary donald rumsfeld, and treasury secretary paul o'neill. >> paul o'neill opened up everything for the book i wrote about him in the bush administration, including 19,000 documents. and in the first national security council meeting of the bush presidency, january 30th of

so, the iraq war, we know that it wasn't why they told us we were going. l reason. >> seth: mm hmm. >> but that begs the next question, "well, what was the real reason then?" and yeah, the iraq war is history now. it's over. but a, we've got two million people in this country who are veterans of that war. they deserve to know why they went. but b, as long as it's still going to affect how we talk to other countries and how we understand our own history about what's acceptable behavior, we ought to be honest about what we did. so, it's worth asking, it's worth figuring out why we did it. and letting the history about that be true rather than just some big floating question mark. seth: and you sort of tie the history almost entirely to this sort of energy policy of the early bush administration. >> yeah. >> seth: even before the bush administration started. >> yes. and the united states made clear before the bush administration and they have made clear since that we will happily use military force in order to get oil to market. and you can argue that. it's ju

the case. a member of iraq veterans against the war, welcome back.n you talk about the lawsuit and the settlement that you have now reached? yes, earlier in this week we reached a settlement with the .ity of oakland it was a long process. it took two and a half years to get to this point. we are going to announce further details at a press conference ,ater in the morning in oakland but i am happy with the way the lawsuit has turned out. it has been a very stressful experience, having to deal with it. for that reason alone, i am happy that it is over. scott, originally when you file the lawsuit, you said you were intent on bringing it to trial because he wanted the facts to come out, your decision to agree to a settlement and why you felt it was best to do it at this point? >> going to trial it would have meant even more stress and would have taken a lot more time. it could have taken an extra year or two. that is kind of a reality that i had to deal with. part of me does wish we had gone betrial, but this will better for me, i think, and hopefully, p

my idea of supporting the troops is you go out and support veterans against the war, afghanistan and iraq veterans against the war, vietnam vets against the war. [applause] they're all still out there. war can be stopped. war is a human invention. we invented it, and we can set it aside and, indeed, most of the world already has. except when the u.s., you know, coerces people into some kind of phony coalition. so, and this attitude that we are not tough enough if we do not resort immediately to some kind of military force, although we're now turning around and calling putin barbaric for trying to do the same thing. in this has got to go. this has really got to go. and if there are any lessons to be learned from the this war, i think that's it. we have to stop that nonsense. >> okay. we've only got a few minutes left, so right over here. >> yeah. several years ago i read a book called achilles of vietnam, i don't know if you know of it. it's about trauma, and somebody went through and looked at the parts ascribing achilles experience, and he ended up having classing symptoms of some kind o

by the way, that's a 24% drop from when the same question was asked soon after the start of the iraq warjanuary's gallup poll also shows us that the people think the government's number one priority should be jobs and the economy. translation. the g.o.p. electorate and a strong majority of americans have concluded that the iraq and afghanistan wars probably made us weaker, not stronger. overwhelmingly americans support and respect our military. they are not isolationists but they also want our attention and our money focused on the home front. remember, when the american people rose up against that idea of intervention in syria last year? if rubleio isn't careful, he will follow in the footsteps of john mccain who also staked his candidacy on a neo conservative, really muscular foreign policy. of course, mccain was roundly rejected by the voters for a man with zero foreign policy experience and who voted against the iraq war. today, according to the public policy polling outfit, mccain is the most unpopular senator in the united states. perhaps that's because people acquaint him with mor

another special touring exhibit is also serving as a memorial to one of the hardest hit units on of the iraq war a much bigger mission. >>> they are the faces of the american marine corp, summer 2005, they were part of the ohio based unit sent to western iraq. >> 22 marines and 1 navy corpman that we lost. >> it was crafted by an amateur artist that never knew any of her subjects. she got photos from grieving families and spent two years toiling with dramatic detail. >> the painng, the uniform, the gear is pretty rough and the face is not rough. it's perfect. >> he said that the eyes of freedom exhibit is designed to draw people in to the gaze of each marine's lives, to the smiles on their faces. this marine was 24. lance corpro chris ryans was the same age. >> i didn't know chris, i knew his parents and i know how it affected them. and they are very proud of him. >> as much as this tells a story, it's memorial, an opportunity for us to remember all who served. the lima company organization placed a pair of each marine's own combat boots at the base of the paintings. >> family members leave item

to a critical juncture in the war in afghanistan as being our decision to shift gears and open up a different front, which is the wake. up until that point, there -- war in iraq. up until then there was in pakistan, india and elsewhere, that we would in fact see through the afghan war enterprise in a much more effective way. when that happened, and we were very clearly distracted many resources shifteded over to the iraq war, then there were all kinds of new questions being raised inside of afghanistan, including among afghans about just how serious we were in this war and in this effort to rebuild this country. let me get r says your reaction to nato secretary general the former prime minister of denmark now overseeing operations in brussels. he spoke to reporters last wednesday. >> we all know the facts. if the bilateral security agreement between the united states and afghanistan is not signed, there will be no nato status of forces agreement with afghanistan. and if there is no agreement, there will be no nato troops in afghanistan after 2014. let me stress, this is not our preferred option. but these are the facts. facts that we need to take into account

the lessons of iraq. i would argue the people of syria are paying dearly and tragically for the catastrophe that was the iraq war. >> very quickly because this is an important point that comes up all the time. it's a fundamental analytical error to say we have two options. there are dozens of other options that can be used i can make a qualitative difference in shifting the tide of this war. one of them as we can armed the moderate syrian rebels with air cover or we can simply use our diplomatic skills and a much more meaningful way. if obama were example tomorrow to appoint a high-level ambassadors sent him to the high-level capitals and use the threat of force to say we are not going to stand aside and to this conflict unravel and were going to do it by mobilizing the war that would start things rolling. this argument that iraq is a thing completely distorting. if we get involved in syria means we have to go in with 200,000 troops and go through it we just experienced in the middle east. there are many other options we need to discuss. >> there is a gentleman right in the middle of the room there. >> hi good e

but even in iraq, america sought to work within the international system. we did not claim or annex iraq's territory. we ended our war and left iraq to its people. >>> still ahead on "way too early," more of the headlines including a fierce fire. >>> and stephen colbert weighs in on an ad in iowa. something you don't want to miss. that story when "way too early" comes back. stick around. >>> for the first time, he claimed he was part of the original hijacking plot that unfolded on 9/11. his role, one personally approved by bin laden was to fly a plane into the white house. nice morning, scott? aye, or...a mornin' of tiny voices crying out, "feed us -- we've awakened from our long winter's nap and we're peckish to the point of starvin'"!! i don't understand... your grass, man! it's a living, breathing thing. it's hungry, and you've got to feed it with scotts turf builder. that a boy, mikey! two feedings now...in the springtime strengthens and helps protect your lawn from future problems. [ scott ] get scotts turf builder lawn food. it's guaranteed. feed your lawn. feed it! ♪ ♪ [ female announcer ] with five perfectly

. >> during the iraq war, did senator obama criticize bush's policies? le go on the floor and say that bush lied to us about weapons of mass destruction. didn't harry reid go on the was lost? say that the iraq war- the point i'm trying to make is that there's been too many times in the last six months where the president has told people, if you don't do what i say, there will be consequences and nothing's happened. >> you are in the middle of a republican primary, back in your state? >> exactly. >> you say the word benghazi, it is red meat for the republican base. you know that. >> republicans and independents want it no more. >> this isn't about primary politics back home? >> everything i have done has been about what i think is best for the country. i think it's best to find the truth about benghazi. when my primary is over and i'm going to win, i'm going to still be on benghazi. >> what is fascinating is that despite the partisan divide you just heart there which is very deep over the reasons for the crisis in the ukraine, there's surprising similarity

the leadup to the iraq war, parroting exactly what the establishment said. i mean you can reflect the exact same criticism on all the corporate media channels. i can only speak for my show, i stay true to my moral compass. but r.t. chose a perspective of the russian foreign policy, just as the entire correspondent media apparatus chose the establishment. >> what is your specific criticism about the way r.t. america has covered this crisis? >> you know, i just saw the way that the entire media apparatus was covering it. i mean r.t. was covering it in a different way that i didn't agree with and then i saw the corporate media coverage almost wanting to revive the cold war. i felt like people were egging on obama to attack militarily. it's insane living in a time where we have corporate media actually supporting military intervention and action against russia. this is no joke here, we got to really take a step back and see how we can do thing peacefully and diplomatically and not come to warmonger, and tell the american people what's going on. >> and tell me th

the previous secretary of defense. >> stephen: bob mcnamara. okay "fog of war, "great movie. >> and i thought two really disastrous wars-- vietnam, iraq, why not other guy. >> stephen: we won iraq, though, we won iraq. ( laughter ) we didn't lose! ( laughter ) we didn't lose, my friend. we department lose. u.s.a. u.s.a.! u.s.a.! thank you. do you support our troops? >> i do, indeed. >> stephen: you do support our troops. well, i accept your apology. okaa, so, you wanted to know how rumsfeld won that war? >> indeed. >> stephen: how did he? >> by not really thinking too carefully about it. >> stephen: you also go after him about the so-called torture memos. we have a little clip here. jim show-- show this man's-- uh-- word twisting in action. ♪ ♪. >> well, there were whaa, one or two or three. i don't know the number, but there were not all of these so-called memos. they were mischaracterized as torture memos and they came not out of the bush administration per se. they came out of the u.s. department of justice. blessed by the attorney general, the senior legal official of the united states of america, having been nominated by a president and c

that's exactly the way they talked us into the iraq war. felt the whole atmospherics were. we have to get even by attacking iraq. >> this is a man who can say completely contradictory things in the space of, say, a half a minute or a minute or so and seemingly not even realize he's doing it. it's one of the scariest interviews i have ever done. >> okay. compare him to robert mcnamara. >> mcnamara, thoughtful, reflective, agonized about the past. rumsfeld completely unapologetic, pleased with himself. convinced absolutely in his own correctness, his own rectitude. they couldn't be more different than two people could possibly be. >> thank you so much. the film's called "the unknown known." it will drive you crazy, but you have to see it. thank you, errol morris and david corn for your expertise. the book is "hubris." the best book ever on that war. we'll be right back after this. ♪ oh-oh, oh, oh, la, la-la, la-la, la-la ♪ ♪ na-na-na, na-na-na-na-na some things just go together, like auto and home insurance. bundle them together at progressive

strike me, and i think a lot of americans, who have lived through all of the controversies over the iraq warplay that sound for you and get your response. >> but even in iraq, america sought to work within the international system. we did not claim or annex iraq's territory. we did not grab its resources for our own gain. instead, we ended our war and left iraq to its people. >> did it surprise you that the president used the iraq war as an example to sort of spur on his audience, regarding pushing back on russia? >> this is a standard metaphor for american presidents to say, we seek neither territory or sovereignty over people when we fight them in wars. of course, it's somewhat nonsense, because one of the reasons we didn't remain in iraq was because the iraqi government, which we allowed to be established, kicked us out. i suspect the same thing is going to happen in afghanistan. so it's a little bit disingenuous. but i understand his rhetoric and i understand what he's trying to do. he's trying to get europe and the west in general to stand up to what is, in his mind, and in his words, r