Rumsfeld Explains: “I Don't Think I Would Have Called It The War On Terror”...

Iraq was not run or ruled by Clerics, before you dead shits invaded and occupied Iraq,

Townhall.com December 12, 2006 02:49 PM

Transcript from Donald Rumsfeld's Townhall.com interview.

Cal Thomas: We meet on the 65th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor.People compare wars - Vietnam to Iraq - but there were lessons that came outof World War II. If you were to compare the public's attitude during WorldWar II and the public's attitude over Iraq, how would they compare?

Secretary Rumsfeld: It's dramatic. In World War II, the attack on PearlHarbor was stunning, but it followed a long series of (events) in Europe,and even in Asia, that were not stunning to the American people. The threat that was anticipated on the West Coast was real and palpable. Themobilization of the country, and declaring war, moved us to the next step.The large number of people who went to serve from almost every community inthe nation, was an example of the extent to which people were engaged.
---
CT: With what you know now, what might you have done differently in Iraq?

DR: I don't think I would have called it the war on terror. I don't mean tobe critical of those who have. Certainly, I have used the phrase frequently.Why do I say that? Because the word Œwar' conjures up World War II more thanit does the Cold War. It creates a level of expectation of victory and anending within 30 or 60 minutes of a soap opera. It isn't going to happenthat way. Furthermore, it is not a Œwar on terror.' Terror is a weapon of choice for extremists who are trying to destabilize regimes and (through) a small group of clerics, impose their dark vision on all the people they cancontrol. So 'war on terror' is a problem for me.

READ FULL STORY