two i m asking you yeah, but it s not the same question. but that s the question i m asking you. it was not a mistake for the president to decide to go into iraq, because at the time i m not asking you that. i m asking you in hindsight? yes. the world is a better place because saddam hussein is not there. it s hard for me to figure out some of these guys, because i don t think they ve done much homework on this. they re out raising money and being candidates and covering all their bases on common core and everything else and immigration and they don t really put too much study into what happened or the evidence that was there or the evidence that wasn t there. they don t seem to keep up to date. what do you make of marco rubio, because he seems to be the hotshot on the republican side right now. i still want to hope that he s learned some lessons from watching this, because it s obviously been an ugly experience. he s in a tough political spot, you and i k
really put too much study into what happened or the evidence that was there or the evidence that wasn t there. they don t seem to keep up to date. what do you make of marco rubio, because he seems to be the hotshot on the republican side right now. i still want to hope that he s learned some lessons from watching this, because it s obviously been an ugly experience. he s in a tough political spot, you and i know that. one more thing senator rubio may have said you know in addition to the misuse of intelligence, there was some other big problem happening at the time which is that the administration was deliberately underplanning for the difficulty of the operation. this is where we could also be critical. if you want to learn from history, you can say anytime you go to war, you better be prepared for it to be a lot more ugly than you might first hope. and mr. rumsfeld and others at the pentagon did not have a plan that allowed for that possibility. that s where i ve been the most crit
accurate. actually, it didn t. parts of it turned out to be accurate. ultimately there was no protest. and ultimately the narrative from the government is that it wasn t something that had been planned for a month. it was something that had been planned for a few days. so this certainly shows the type of confusion and the type of information that was flowing in. yeah i just don t see the nefarious aspect of this yet. again, you re seeing the sort of thing that comes out. the worst sources of intelligence, the better. you have the public sources of intelligence, you have people sending out letters, you go through all of this and somebody, somewhere, has to troll through them and decide this is what s actually happening. i think that focus group is fascinating. it seems to me there is something franklin roosevelt, probably the best president we ve ever had, was very secretive and manipulative and we still thought he was a good president. if hillary clinton is secretive, we know
doesn t matter. it doesn t matter that their claims of a nuclear iraq or an al qaeda-connected iraq were bogus. the u.s. invasion wasn t to end the idea they say, even if it s left over $4,000 americans and over 100,000 iraqis dead. another group says that now, because the case made for the u.s. invasion was bogus, you can t blame the people who came up with those bogus claims. i know. this is hard to follow. a third group is similar to the first. it says okay we should have never invaded iraq but it s still cool because we got rid of saddam hussein. well, the fourth argument catch this, sort of covers all the bases. it doesn t think through the horror of the war or the dishonesty that led to it it simply lumps it all together and blames it all on guess who, president obama? let s start with those who say, we should have gone in, no matter what. bill kristol writes we were right to invade iraq in 2003 and to remove saddam hussein and to completely the job we started in