Rummie is the one who, when asked "do we know where the WMDs are?" after we had been in Iraq for a while without finding any, he answered "oh, yes! We know exactly where they are! They are East and West of Tikrit, and North and South somewhat" - this is an actual quote.
Yes, this man is the biggest phony of them all. A wolf in sheeps clothing. Around the time of 911, or rather just days before, he was claiming that the USA couldn't explain why it had a trillion dollar deficit, and a few days later after the attack he was all smiles and laughing and exclaiming that it had just been an accounting error. He looked like the cat who had just swallowed the canary and struck many people as totally unsympathetic when millions of people lost all of their retirement funds , stocks and bonds, etc when the towers went down. These are unequivocally the most evil men to have ever run our government by far and I'm not certain we will ever recover from the sheer robbery and murder they committed that day.
@@yw9113 they used it as an exeuse to invade iraq and Afghanistan witch they wanted before 9/11. Weather they did it or not is irrelevant at this point
Rumsfeld is a moron but religion is the real reason the middle east is a mess and the same in Afghanistan..the Kurdish region of Iraq was relatively peaceful and the Kurds were happy to be free of Saddam
@@marky1974 I'm from Germany . After WW2 a lot of german Militaries were severly punished because Germany started several Wars of Conquests . Russia , Poland , France ... I think that they deserved their Punishment , but i don't understand why my Country supports european and american Resource Wars , till this day . And all the Media supports that and lies to us .
@@marky1974 Read who supported Saddam Hussein in the 70s and 80s . Read why the american Goverment supports Terrorists in the Middle East , Operation Sycamore .
@@squamish4244 So no one died from 2008-2016 during "regime change" season? What about in N Africa, and Syria? What was the body count? And suddenly no deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is that what you are saying. Such partisan blindness is staggering. Lots of blame to go around.
People like Rumsfeld going scot free are the reason why nobody respects the US throughout the world.. long before you guys voted for that orange clown. Oh sure, they fear your military and ruthlessness but nobody actually respects you. And why should they? You people don't even respect yourselves....
+LittleGreyBag THAT'S IT! That explains that one stupid write-in comment n the ballot for the 2008 election for U.S. Senator in Minnesota - the one that showed the hand-written words "Lizard People" in 6 of 7 spots (every single one except the Clean Water ballot initiative, where the person - or creature - filling out the ballot unarguably voted in favor a small state-wide sales tax increase into 2034 to support, AOT, preserving Minnesota's water clean enough to drink and for fish to live in). In 5 of the 6 contests to fill a state office, the creature's PREFERRED choice of "Lizard People" (or "Lizard people"; in 1 of those 5 instances, the first letter of both words was capitalized, but in the other 4 only the first letter of the first word was in caps.) was rejected because the contest was for a one-person job. Only the vote for U.S. Senate was confusing, because there the creature had filled in the circle for "AL FRANKEN", but then ALSO wrote in "Lizard people, yet had not, as with the other 5 offices being contested, also filled in the circle for "write-in, if any". So, now we know: that ballot was pretty obviously filled out by a creature from the same clad as Rumsfeld, possibly even Rumsfeld himself, and that Rumsfeld, or other Rumsfeld clad member creature who filled out the ballot, took extra care to ensure that it was clear there was NO vote for "NORM COLEMAN' or any other candidate for the U.S. Senate OTHER than "AL FRANKEN".
This statement by Rumsfeld is very troubling to me: "[...] the conflict between the Sunnies and the Shia is something that generally people had not anticipated." The Sunni/Shia conflict has been going on for a millennium and is common knowledge. If Rumsfeld is speaking the truth, then either US intelligence was dumb as f#*k, or the decision makers were so eager to move forward with their plan that they lost track of something so obvious... Needless to say, neither is acceptable...
Yeah, I saw that coming well before Bush went in there. You can't just knock of a tyrant, look at Iraq and Libya for recent examples. There were many more mistakes of this nature in our country's history than most people are aware of at this time. A more salient example would be the United States, where you have an incompetent President protected by a criminal organization called the Republican Party. We can't just knock off TRUMP, or even TRUMP and Pence. That would leave criminals like Mitch McTurtle and Paul (Eddie Munster crossed with weird kid from leave it to Beaver) Ryan in place to continue to expose our population to Capitalist plunder. We don't need to feed these Capitalists, they will behave just like any other humans when given more power than they can be trusted to use properly. We need to reign them in, as we have done before with Teddy Roosevelt or we could let them run rampant for a while longer. I don't think that anyone really wants that though. If the Republicans are able to usurp just a little more power, we might lose our democracy. Then the only solutions will look similar to the French, Chinese and Russian revolutions. Or maybe even Syria if the Russians really are involved. I'm at a loss as to how to stop this immense power grab by TRUMP and his Republican co-conspirators. I do know that the last time we had significant movement towards the left, suddenly all the great leaders were assassinated. I hope it doesn't come to that again, by either side. My main purpose is just to challenge people to think about the consequences of the actions, not each individual one, but all of them taken together that TRUMP, Pence, McTurle, and Ryan and their cronies, lackeys, and superior officers in the Russian KGB, have committed to this point. Politics is not magic, but like magic, politics always has a cost. TRUMP is just trying to have his (wall, golf outing, world tour) and make us pay for it. And the Republicans are cheering him on (did you see their all-white beer bash?)! This ain't normal and there will be hell to pay for someone. Let's make sure it is TRUMP, his family, and all Republicans that continue to support after today and not everyone else.
Those two have been fighting each other for ages. To think , hey, we'll go in there, "liberate " them and everyone will get along hunky dorey, yeah right.. B.S. they were worrying so much about the Kurds either, they were worrying about oil and their pockets that's all.
I’m from Scotland and proud to be yet I do love America but this era of politicians are war criminals the decisions they made where based on economic interests. 9/11 was 100% an exterior attack but was an opportunity for those in power to pursue their gains. The fact the US dollar standard went from the gold standard to oil standard, the only country to do this to this day?? Oil in areas that where controlled and sourced where depleting so eventually the us had to act to save their economy. Also as someone who studies architecture and have personally studied those towers it’s numbing to say they did collapse from the fires.
The truth - missunderstood. 'The adversary plans to buy 2000 more tanks', true or false? 'The President of the adversary could consider to renegotiate part 7 of the existing contract' - true or false? If we knew, it wouldn't be intelligence, R. is right.
And we all know, the reasons for the Iraq war lies deeper. Clinton left a well balanced budget, and the US military Industrial complex needed new orders (1). The reasons for the Florida counting mess with the vote-vounting-machines and the counting lie there as well. US conservatism wanted to win this election more desparately than others, because there was potentially so much money to spend. Out of a balanced budget i can drain 20 trillion. But there had to be a reason to start draining - and in the right direction. Extend the Empire and use the people. And the money was just the transmission belt between both of them. Poor Iraq, at the wrong time in the wrong place. And just bad leadership there - looking at the US psychologicly correct, they could've been placing themselves different. 1 - use existing, potentially outdated cruise missiles in stock, produce new ones, extend superiority (of the few)
Bush, Jr. in his first 6+ month in office, in bright light in front of the curtain, 'doing nothing but playing golf', may as well just be seen as part of a play - to distract the general public inside and outside the US (as well as the adversary) from the fact, that conservative parts of administration and defense industry, unseen behind the scene, were already working very hard and overtime to prepare for war 'and future turnover creating action'. And some thought 'for the common good'.
You do understand that intelligence in the military does not mean the same thing as intelligence in a denotative sense. Rumsfeld makes perfect sense to me
I respect Colbert a lot for having guests like this on a show that is generally and unabashedly liberal. He'd like to hear other's views and wants his audience to do the same.
+Winston Platt Probably what makes Colbert in my opinion one of the best if not the best talk show hosts we have had these past years. The rest are usually just so consumed with the entertainment aspect that they ignore their real duty as representatives of Media.
+Thewindyfan Exactly. That's what sets colbert apart from the rest. No other network late night show would ever have interviews like these, which is what I think is sorely needed.
+Winston Platt "generally and unabashedly liberal..." It's kind of hard to be conservative nowadays considering what "conservative" has become. Shit, even Nixon would be considered Liberal at this point.
Rumsfeld asked that question in a press briefing on 9.10.2001. On 9.11 a passenger plane(?) slammed into the "accounting" wing of the Pentigon making it impossible to track the missing 2.3 trillion dollars... or so they say. And the Black Budget was allowed to survive scrutiny yet again! And I ask... Who cares about Social Security at retirement, or feeding the hungry, or housing the homeless... America is no longer a "Christian values" country. We'd much rather be the most militarily powerful nation on the planets! WWJD? ... Ha!... Who cares! *Yes, that's sarcasm.
vonsuthoff America was never founded on Christian values ! And countries that where for the most part never respected human rights! Unless they went along with their religious beliefs!
+Ecthelion008 Incidentally, what's the smart way? "Nothing we know is for certain, so let's invade a country to be on the safe side"? The whole "nothing can be known for certain" is a metaphysical red herring that, while technically an accepted view, doesn't justify reckless decisions. That's the very reason why we have statistics and evidence; while our uncertainty is never going to be zero, we minimize our uncertainty to a reasonable degree before we take the risk of making the decision.
+Ted Kord Now the questions is and i know that america (like the rest of the world) was comprehensible desperate for an answer after 9/11. But nonetheless are you allowed to invade a country based on assumptions especially if that country was not involved in the attacks on 9/11? It's the same stuff that happens now in Syria even though that France is now pulling the trigger. We invade Syria and eventually destroying ISIS but once we leave another group of terrorist will arise. And the reason why is simple since it was the same after the Iraq war. We leave the country completely destabilize, people of said country are pissed off because we came to bomb their cities, killing their loved ones (collateral damage) and then leave without helping to rebuild their country, without helping to bring back a stable economy. And as long as we don't do that we will get terror attacks over and over again.
I believe this was one of Stephen's best interviews. I love how he tailored the strength of his personality to properly get his point across and not allowing his guest to use his comedy as a scapegoat to ignore answering the question in a straight forward manner. Colbert still had funny moments in a serious discussion, but they were relevant to the topic and didn't cause the attention to stray from it's intended path. Absolutely fantastic interview. Stephen is such an interesting man with great talent and I hope to be able to meet him one day. I can't say it enough, truly fantastic job Stephen!
وَلَقَدۡ جِئۡتُمُوۡنَا فُرَادٰى كَمَا خَلَقۡنٰكُمۡ اَوَّلَ مَرَّةٍ وَّتَرَكۡتُمۡ مَّا خَوَّلۡنٰكُمۡ وَرَآءَ ظُهُوۡرِكُمۡۚ Today you have come back to Us all alone as We created you the first time-leaving behind everything We have provided you with. Quran 6:94 *Rot In Hell*
And then Colbert has him on his show and asked him questions which painted him in the best possible light and gave him cover. Unfuckingforgivable, I always knew he had sold out but goddamn, this is some next level soullessness.
He was defense secretary. His job was to win the War. That decision was made with or without Rumsfeld. He had no impact on the decision to go to War. This man is an American Patriot who served his president. And he actually did a good job. He’s no more to blame than the troops.
@@justinmichaeltarot Are you naive? He was one of the main architects behind the war. Him, Wolfowitz, and Cheney were egging Bush to go to war in Iraq. They were so bloodthirsty for regime change that they conjured up lies over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. Under Rumsfeld, the United States violated international law by invading Iraq without UN approval. The invasion itself was a war crime since it was based on lies. 200k-2 million Iraqi civilians died because of his lies. I haven't even mentioned the torture at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay. Rumsfeld approved the torture and encouraged it. Torture is a war crime. Rumsfeld is a profoundly evil human being. He's a war criminal and what you're doing is no different than what the Nazi and Soviet sympathizers did after WW2. If we can't hold our war criminals accountable, who are we to hold other countries' war criminals accountable.
"I can't imagine how Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump can pull crowds of twenty thousand people....." And I can't imagine how Donald Rumsfeld and Dick(less) Cheney can avoid being charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity. There I said it.
Tricky8oy1 I can't imagine how Obomber and Killary Clinton can avoid being charged with war crimes, crimes against humanity and creating ISIS trust me they did a lot more damage than Don and Richard
I can see how Bernies gets a crowd and the GOP helped elevate trump with their lousy policies, like how the Weimar Republic's ineptness helped to elevate the Nazis.
It's easy to imagine. No people from a nation winning a war, and not being at the mercy of the international community, have ever been charged or prosecuted for war crimes. Woe to the vanquished indeed
+fernidad135 Yes, but even after everything has been revealed nothing will happen. He goes "oooops" and makes a few jokes and suddenly all is back to normal. Same with Bush II, he just joked "the WMDs gotta be here somewhere" and people laugh and don't actually care enough about it.
+fernidad135 Donald Rumsfeld is an evil chameleon monster. Though, I want to add is we did find WMD in Iraqi. The reality is it was reported in 2014, which this interview took place in 2016........
Back when the Late Show was reminiscent of the Colbert Report. Now this show has become blatant sensationalism, and cheap jokes. A true shame. I know Colbert can do better.
Really its like beating on dead horse no pun intended. There are worst crimes being committed now that have long lasting effects on Societies all around the world.
@@sukhmaidickoff great that you have hatred towards a man that did what he needed to do in order to protect the citizens of his country, after his country was attacked first.
Ian Cameron - typical comment from a coward opposition, when most of his prominent leaders approved the budget to go to war. The intelligence agreed with UK, Italy and Russia’s. You don’t bluff and threat a sitting leader who his country just got attacked from a worst terrorist group in the region. Monday morning quarterback never undid the loss the night before.
Does having respect for his "service" mean that I cant acknowledge the illegal war he created through intentionally misleading the American people. The war we're in buddy...we've been there 15 years...over 1 million civilians have died. Oh...and I forgot to mention the torture network he created...
+TheStanishStudios This was one of my favorite parts on the Colbert Report. It feels great to have substantive, rational, policy discussions and learn about opposing viewpoints just like on the old show. I wish Stephen interviews as many politicians as possible.
+Tyler Lewis I wholeheartedly agree. My only regret is that he's rather unlikely to ever have any Canadian politicians on. Oh well, more scientists instead, perhaps?
+TheStanishStudios People today dont understand the importance of a great interview or speech. only go few years back really in the years 30-40 and up ... for an exemple when a predisent was doing a speech even if it was for and hour you could ear the wind blowing between the lines... in other words complete silence. Versus today Obama says "Yes we can" and crowds go nuts.
Never before have I been confronted with an image of completely normal looking old man having a regular talk-show conversation only to actually listen to what he says and realize I can't believe a single word that comes out of his mouth. It's mind boggling how he can sway a crowd with such grace and eloquence handing out lies. EDIT: Let's not forget the Sunni/Shia conflict is centuries old and there's no way in heaven or hell they where unaware of it and also that those chemical weapons were sold to Saddam by Rumsfeld in '83
Look up this book by Hannah Arend “ Adolph Eichmann on trail/ The Banality of Evil”. The author talks about this High ranking nazi official who killed millions, but at his trial he was just a boring old man, like a desk worker. She couldn’t believe that he was a killer, and all he kept saying to the judge was “ I was just following orders”
@@lauridsjensen7757 Eichmann wasn't just following orders either, that was just his excuse. His planning was crucial for making the holocaust possible and he did it all just to promote himself in the apparatus.
Wow. Went to write it. You already did. Thank you. 3 moms I saw cry at their Iraq war dead sons' funerals at home here was , and is, 3 too many for me and my lifetime.
and so is Hamas... and the PLO.... and Kim Jong Il .... and leadership of Iran ... and warlords in Africa .. Al'qieda, ISIS ..... Putin and the Russians, ...... and on and on and on....
Death toll under Rumsfeld was a couple hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers..... plus collateral damage as well. while not pretty its no-where near a million.
Cheney and all those other war criminal fucks have no problem sleeping at night. And when they die its going to be at home surrounded by family... Unlike the THOUSANDS of US soldiers there and then the others that came home and are killing themselves @22 a day. Then there are the millions of Iraqis and others in the region that have been killed and will be killed in the coming decades. All for being born on land with oil under neath it. A Sociopath is someone who cannot feel empathy for others. A psychopath is someone that enjoys hurting others. Take your pick with these fuckers.
It's easy to judge the outcomes, after the fact, of extremely difficult decisions made on behalf of the wealthiest and most powerful nation on the planet. MOST people wouldn't want that responsibility, because MOST people can't sleep at night if they made a decision that fucks over even just one person. A president has to make many of those decisions that can affect up to the millions of people over the course of just one day. I'm not at all excusing the things that have happened, but I think a little perspective is needed for some arm chair critics that post critical comments on youtube and don't actually do anything themselves to change the situation in which we all live in.
“If it were a fact, it wouldn’t be called ‘intelligence!’” Colbert’s reaction was similar to mine but I started laughing, which then quickly degraded into sobbing
It makes sense though. Intelligence reports are given with the notion that they could be incorrect. You're not going to get intel reports on well-known facts. President Biden will never get an intel report that states that there were no WMDs in Iraq because it's a fact of today. Intel reports can be found to be factually correct, but at the time of the initial report, there's a percentage of uncertainty. If have a good hand in a poker game, I can estimate on intelligence that I have a 75% chance of winning the round. If I do win that round it becomes a fact and thus no longer intel.
It wasn't really a gotcha moment. Fact: We see a surprise factory built in the desert! Fact: there are trucks going in holding chemicals Fact: the factory is well guarded Fact: it's the right size to make chemical weapons Intelligence: "this is a war chemical factory! We need to bomb it!" Fact: it was an aspirin production factory and the guards were to protect the employees from being taken hostage by nearby warlords.
Oh, l love the way he passed the blame/responsible on the American people. It was their fault innocent people died not government. People like him and Tony Blair makes me wonder how they can live with themselves
+gerald kohl Because this is the US, where we don't have the guts to put our highest ranking politicians through the justice system. Taiwan's former president is in jail for corruption. China's current president is on a crusade to stamp out corruption from his party. Meanwhile, our former politicians get to retire in luxury.
+Belz Zebuth They're equally despicable. They've been buddies since before Gerald Ford and have done their best to try and worm their way to the top. They did, and they accomplished exactly what they wanted. War and devastation.
Tim Arthur Let's just say that I find the deliberate murder of millions more despicable than the collateral death of hundreds of thousands. Mind you, they are still war criminals and guilty of crimes against humanity.
And a lot of us in the East are against Islamic fascism and Jihadists. There are plenty of us who are realizing how evil and fundamentally flawed their own religion is and are working hard to spread the word and put an end to Islamic fascism. However, the US has been involved in wars against the Middle East for the last 70 years. The US has invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Before that, the US and other European countries have fought alongside Israel in 4 wars against the Arabs since 1948. Before that, European imperialists had been occupying the entire region for centuries. The US continues to wholeheartedly support Israel and its right to exist as a JEWISH state. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Jews and their right to live in present-day Israel. But as someone who is pro-secularism and democracy and is against nation states founded on religion, I can't support Israel in its current form. I applaud the Israeli society and its very progressive attitudes in many walks of life. But I would rather see Palestinians AND Israelis live together in a modern, secular state. To be honest, the damage caused by terrorist attacks pales in comparison to the damage done by US militarism + US and Western unabated, relentless backing of Israel for the past 70 years. Islamic fascism is real and MUST be fought. It must be fought intellectually, not with war machine. That is what many people like me who have left this evil cult are doing. But we can't absolve the US and the West of their role in creating Islamic terrorism.
@@tonitoni2045 wmd ,9/11 his speech before 9/11 about the defense department missing billions of dollars the day before the 9/11 attacks hes part of the establishment what we call a rhino do your research and you'll find all you need to know
This is one of the best interviews ever performed on the subject of the Iraq War. Stephen addressing Rumsfeld's most famous quote about "known knowns, known unknowns, and unknowns unknowns," then addressing the most common unfair question, "if you knew then what you know now..." then shredding the standard and setting the bar ever-higher by extracting "the fourth option: unknown knowns," and pressing him to deliver the most perfect answer ever: "if it was a fact, it wouldn't be called intelligence."
+Beorn Borg He's more likely continuing spinning the web of lies he himself created. The chemical weapons that were *actually* found in Iraq couldn't even have been used past 1997 or so, because they were in super poor condition, broken, incomplete and well... decommissioned as demanded from Iraq way before after the Gulf war. They also did not really possess the means to reliable remake anything they previously had either, nor did they kidnap any people who could change that. Saddam actually did do what the international community wanted sometime 1998, meaning getting rid of any weapons of mass destruction. Keep in mind, Operation Desert Storm actually ended in november of *1995*. And while they left Saddam in power, they already made sure then any weapons of mass destruction were essentially gone so Iraq wouldn't present a threat for the region. *This is exactly why Egypt, Syria, Morocco,United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Oman and Qatar helped out in the first Gulf War as being officially part of the coalition forces, yet refused to move even a single finger in the 2003-2011-ish conflict in Iraq.* None of those countries believed Iraq still posed a real threat. Hans Blix couldn't find weapons of mass destruction in 2002 because they were already decommissioned as early as 1995. Yes, Saddam loved him some trash talk just like the North-Koreans do, but we shouldn't take that seriously. We should be more worried about Iran instead.... Oh and when it comes to the Iraqi nuclear reactor that actually once existed (Osiraq), got damaged by Iran in 1980 and destroyed by the Israeli Air Force in 1981. There wasn't even nuclear fuel in that reactor, let alone how Iraq at that time was literally many decades away from making any kind of nuclear weaponry. Not a 'couple of years'. In fact, their switch from plutonium based weapon design to highly enriched uranium design was doomed to fail from the start. Again, this was known in *1995*. It was utterly ridiculous for the US to claim Iraq had nuclear weapons, let alone other types of weapons of mass destruction. Even the CIA, who for some reason or another had this insane mission of finding (or fabricating?) evidence for weapons of mass destruction, couldn't find anything pointing in that direction based upon the reports from Hans Blix, which for some reason didn't trust Hans Blix no more. It's pretty obvious today the US needed simply an excuse to invade Iraq, with the real motivation being rather unknown. Was it really just for securing the oil? Probably. But it definitely had zero to do with nuclear weapons. I've said it before, but it's ironic how the US doesn't invade Iran, a country far more likely to *already* possess weapons of mass destruction, ie. nuclear weapons. I think, like North Korea, the only thing they really lack is the missiles to send these weapons half way across the globe....
+300096586 Or what about the depleted uranium bullets used as armour-piercing rounds? The radiation itself might not be a killer, but direct internal contact has inevitable chemical toxicity effects on nervous system, liver, heart, kidneys, let alone causes DNA mutations / RNA transcription errors of uranium dust absorbed in vitro. Honestly, it's a real killer when you consider the huge amounts of people wounded and also the civilian casualties on Iraqi side.
+PHeMoX In addition, a lot of our people who handled those depleted uranium munitions are now suffering very serious and often life threatening effects. It amazes me how few people are aware of this.
@@thatotherkid9210 outstanding movie, I only understand it didnt win all awards because this guys are paying off to buried it, but the film is INCREDIBLE, MUST SEE IN SCHOOL
@@abdulaziz.9471 I saw too, and I think its absolutly brillant, it just having ther worst press to sink it in the oblivion, but its a really great movie, you all should know who that people running USA was
I just watched Vice (2019) and remembered i had seen this interview, had to come back and see it again. The movie is super interesting, definitely recommend it. It's basically The Big Short but about Dick Cheney and the Iraq war, and I think Steve Carell played a very accurate depiction of Rumsfeld.
“If it were a fact, it wouldn’t be called intelligence” I’ve seen this video a few times, but this line went over my head until now. When I heard this again, I just said “holy shit” out loud. The fact Rumsfeld was so continuously nonchalant about the mistakes in the lead up to and during the Iraq War, as well as his adamant, albeit distanced, endorsement of it for the rest of his life is simply jarring.
Intelligence is never concrete. Rumsfeld wasn't perfect, and was very strategic and tactical. He was probably the perfect man if we ever fought the Russians in a conventional war. But dealing with the Middle East he wasn't.
@@Frisbieinstein there are no possibilities removing saddam was a mistake bred from the feeling that the gulf war didn't go far enough. The war hawks in bush seniors cabinet pushed to fully remove saddam but bush senior being a former director of the CIA pushed back on the idea knowing it would only destabilize the region
We they decide to vote for Crooked Bill Clinton rather than Ross Perot. You thought Bush Sr. actually better than Ross Perot in 1992, or it just a misunderstanding?
Wow, Colbert did a great job at pinning the old man with the de-classified memo. It took balls though, and how cliche that he saved the most dangerous question for the end. I understand why he did it because if Rumsfeld walked out, they would have no footage. However, how sad how we have another interview with one of the Architects of the Iraq War, where the big elephant in the room is not brought up. How everything they're saying is total bull shit. The "legitimate" reasons for going into Iraq aren't reasons. They're excuses. Barely legal loopholes to make a war that they wanted to make. In fact, they had to make legislation changes to even allow this invasion to occur. They wanted to secure that oil and open it up to foreign investment. Saddam has that oil industry nationalized and US didn't like it. We bullied them and blew up their country and killed innocent women and children in the process.
Don't present Saddam's regime as the bullied. They were the bully, responsible for far more deaths than the Iraq War caused, especially against Iran, their disgusting treatment of the Shia minority and the Kurds, as well as their blatant attempt to annex Kuwait unilaterally. That being said, our decision to invade without a proper plan of a replacement government destroyed the entire cohesion and power balance of the region, condemning it the situation it is today. That power vacuum is now filled by jihadis, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Russia.
This is a great ten minutes. Colbert is brilliant here. Rumsfeld, while providing some insight, was the same as he was in 2002; elusive and secretive (at best, and sketchy as heck).
@@bellyomful What Jeff meant was that Stephen isn't treating him like a saint. The live audience isn't either. Stephen is trying to get some answers which he could use to ridicule Don's belief that he did the "right thing" by lying to get the war started.
That was a top quality interview that I'm grateful to have seen. Thank you to Rumsfeld and thank you to Colbert and his colleagues for setting this interview up
Colbert is such a great interviewer, doesn't ask loaded questions due to political party affiliations and actually manages to get answers from interviewees.
Quite telling about American culture and society that this person can go on late-night shows after what he's been a part of. Imagine von Ribbentrop or Rosenberg going on a German chat show after the war.
+TheSpiritOfTheTimes Ribbentrop and Rosenberg were executed so hard luck getting any chat show material out of them. Albert Speer on the other hand was extensively interviewed following his release from prison and he provided invaluable historical information as to the motivations and the inner workings of the Nazi party from the point of an insider. Like it or not, Rumsfeld is a historical figure and his views on looking back to his time in office, regardless of authenticity or ethics will be considered of great value far into the future.
fludblud You can understand the difference though right? Albert Speer was trialed, convicted and imprisoned for his crimes and publicly repented for them. Which of these things apply to Rumsfeld- trial, remorse?
+TheSpiritOfTheTimes - +TheSpiritOfTheTimes - Well let's look at that. In Rumsfeld we have an important government official who served in a democracy that went to war with a dictatorship based on evidence, albeit faulty evidence, that they truly believed told them that said dictatorship carried active WMDs. Now let's compare that to two high ranking officials within a tyrannical fascist government that waged war on the free world, had plans for world domination with other Axis collaborators, and executed mass murder on an industrial scale to literally exterminate various groups of people, in particular the Jews. I love it when people try and compare the Bush administration to Nazis. It shouldn't make a lick of sense to any rational mind.
+John Parlor Again, very telling. There were 4 categories of crimes von Ribbentrop and Rosenberg were indicted for at Nueremberg. 1. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace. 2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace. 3. War crimes. 4. Crimes against humanity. That Rumsfeld is guilty of the first two is self-evident. The third, difficult for me to say, but definitely would be charged, for Fallujah he would probably be found guilty, and crimes against humanity he'd probably be found innocent. From the Nueremberg trials we have a person who was found guilty of the first two charges but innocent of the third and fourth. Rudolf Hess, imprisoned for life. So yes, if the US weren't a rogue aggressive state and followed the same legal principles it charged the Nazis with, and not flaunt them like a gangster state, it would give up the likes of Rumsfeld to an international tribunal and he'd spend the rest of his life in prison. That is in fact self evident.
+DarKMaTTeR They said jet fuel burnt away quickly... we all seen the fireball. The say paper burning paper took those buildings down. wtc7 had the smallest fires and burning paper took that down.
@Dave Scott Invading a souvereign country and killing 100.000 civilians based on a lie? How is that *NOT* a war crime? People need to hang for doing something like that.
5 to 10 years from now, Trevor Noah will be interviewing Donald Trump or one of his many children and laughing about the "good times" they had with COVID and BLM. Mark. My. Words!
June 2001: Rumsfeld changes intercept protocol for fighter jets so that they need approval of Rumsfeld first before a scramble. On 9/11 nobody at the pentagon answered to the military asking to scramble the jets. September 12 2001: He changes it back to how it was, meaning they can go immediatly without approval of Donald Rumsfeld. If that doesn't make you suspicious, I don't know what will.
How abouts, that, (yikes) 'Terrorism clause', implemented into the new ownership contract, by the owner, of, and profitable one at that, of and by the owner, of, the two now-dropped and dead, Twin Towers, right before, that fateful, Tuesday morning (on a bitch)... As, mas, food, for, thought (on a, paisan's hat)...
What he said about chemical weapons is only a half truth. Yes, Saddam used them, but here's a crucial point. He used them with US support. After the attack on the Kurds, the US put pressure on the UN to not blame Saddam for the attack. They didn't entirely get what they want but blame was split between Iraq and Iran. The US did not care about the Kurds then and I doubt they cared about them in 2000.
+Maxvk1000 Support continued until the day he completely invaded Kuwait. After that, they used those chemical attacks as a justification to attack him, but not before. The US might not have openly supported the attack, but they didn't exactly do much condemn Saddam. Also, Saddam wasn't a madman as such. Very violent, certainly, and not always with the best political or military insight (actually his military insight is rather poor) but he didn't just do things. He wanted to get things done quickly and the quickest way to deal with a problem is to kill the problem, at least, usually. But he would also come to the bargaining table if it was clear that he couldn't beat his enemies into submission.
+Maxvk1000 Iran/Iraq wasn't about the Cold War either. It was just about maintaining U.S. interests in the Middle East and that's certainly not limited to the Cold War. Iran and Saudi-Arabia used to be the big powers on which the US could rely to maintain it's power in the region. After the Iranian revolution however the U.S. could no longer rely on them so they shifted to Iraq. Besides, no need to veto sanctions completely. If Saddam's sanctioned then he has more need of the US for illegal support (illegal both from a UN point of view and a domestic point of view seeing as there was an embargo on Iraq from the senate). Yes, Saddam was a bit paranoid, but I thought you meant madman in the sense that he was just insane and did things for no reason and that's not an accurate description of the guy.
+Maxvk1000 US foreign policy makes you very cynical. Practical considerations, yes, moral, no. They didn't care when it looked like he would invade, they basically gave him the green light and to quote April Glaspie, the ambassador to Iraq, ''We didn't think he would take all of it (Kuwait).'' Arms deals were made with Iraq, through France because France didn't have an embargo on Iraq. The Kurds were basically twice abandoned by the US. First during the chemical attacks, later during the uprising which the US initially supported but later backed out off. The hope was at the time that the uprising, and later the bombings of Iraq, would lead to one of Saddam's generals to make a coup and take over. Ironically, the uprisings and bombings made the army stick with Saddam because they didn't want a regime change during that chaos. And the reason I don't think the Cold War was important is because even after the Cold War ended, basically the same policy of regime change was in place. As is the policy of maintaining power in the region through Saudi-Arabia and Israel.
+Maxvk1000 I don't presuppose evil intentions, I presuppose rational self-interest on the US part. If I was the Us, I would not veto those sanctions, partly because it would look bad, partly because I don't want Iraq to be too independent. However, I also don't want Iraq to be too severely influenced by these sanctions because they'd be too weak to be of any value then. And they wanted regime change probably because they couldn't let Iraq have complete control over Kuwait as they'd then rival Saudi-Arabia and they could expand much further, thus allowing them independence from the US, but they also couldn't just keep dealing with Saddam after the Gulf war. Regime change can be and is used for self-serving gain.
+Maxvk1000 Not very speculative really, it's basically what they did. If you're interested, the Iraq War Reader is a very interesting book which offers lots of different perspectives on the situation. By no means the only book on the subject, but it's a nice place to begin. And there have been a few attempts which worked for a while. Iran for example, before the Iranian revolution that is.
@@TheLocalLt because that wasn't directly impacting you. So you were happy. Ask the Iraqis the same thing. Now that your door is burning you are feeling the heat. America is paying for its past evil deeds.
@@immammuddin5019 Iraqis were the ones ambushing Americans with car bombs not the other way around. America screwed up by not giving the new Iraqi regime control immediately, as in Afghanistan, which made the jihadi terror take on an anti-colonial character. That being said, said regime is still in place today, even if subject to Iran’s influence, and successfully kicked out the Islamic State and defeated it’s Kurdish rebels, all while granting it’s citizens 100x the personal freedom’s of Saddam’s regime.
@@TheLocalLt lol did they come to America and ambush Americans?? You had no business being there. You went on a false WMD shit. As for ISIS it was Iranians and Kurds that kicked them out not Americans. I can't get your comment. Your defending America or exposing??
@@immammuddin5019 the Iraqi regime was a longtime enemy of America, and not only that but a traitor to America and Britain who backed Saddam all through the 80s only to watch him stab one of Britain’s oldest allies (Kuwait) in the back. The WMD stuff was real intelligence, Saddam had been kicking out UN weapons inspectors, and invading Iraq had been considered since at least 1998 and possibly earlier, the false leaks exaggerating the case in 2002 and 03 only came because the American people were not supportive of the idea. The one that had been considered beyond the pale was Afghanistan, also in the American crosshairs since 1998 when Osama Bin Laden declared war on America after he found shelter with the Taliban regime. However 9/11 made that operation in Afghanistan real and once that was done, Iraq was seen as a natural next target and the potential cornerstone of the newly expanded pro-America bloc in the Middle East.
I was in the audience for this show. They cut a big segment where Colbert says Rumsfeld has won a trip to stay at the Ramada in Ramadi - basically a bombed-out husk. Donald looked sour and I guess CBS cut it since it referenced Rummie's failed Iraq policy.
Colbert really softballed this interview. Just compare this to Jon Stewart's interview of Judith Miller - and Miller was just a journalist Stewart excoriated for not trying harder to debunk the administration's narrative, Rumsfeld is literally the architect of the Iraq War
"If it were a fact, it wouldn't be called intelligence." Wow. How does he do it... This guy is an endless source of doubtfully useful aphorisms EDIT: R.I.P. Donald Rumsfeld
jemert96 Definitely not a fact! This crook is a slippery double talker.Thinks he's super intelligent and can confuse people with Orwellian style doublespeak. HE WOULD SELLOUT HIS OWN BLOOD TO STAY ON TOP BELIEVE IT!.
You don't get to those positions of power in several administrations without those qualities and not only in goverment, private companies work in a very similar way...been like that since the age of ancient Rome and will continue that way as long as humanity exists
He should be up on trial in the international criminal courts.
For criminal negligence at the very least.
+libert1ne # Thank you for the succinct response.
+libert1ne #, I think you made his point which was this guy should be on trial
+FilmKiln Don't you know the International Criminal Courts is only for African dictators.
Then YOU do it, if you care so much. Quit talkin', or start WALKIN. TAKE HIM TO JAIL, YOU GAS BAG.
dan25 Why?
Now try imagine Jimmy Fallon interviewing Rumsfeld
Seani Wu Fallon: "hahahahahahahahha Mr. Rumsfeld can I touch your hair hahahahahahahahha hahahahahahahahha Omg... Hahahahahha"
It would be a disaster
I want to see Greg Gutfeld do it
FAKE LAUGHING BETWEEN STUPID LEFT WING QUESTIONS
Law of Perspective they’ll never let him on national tv, he’s too dangerous to the establishment
Rummie is the one who, when asked "do we know where the WMDs are?" after we had been in Iraq for a while without finding any, he answered "oh, yes! We know exactly where they are! They are East and West of Tikrit, and North and South somewhat" - this is an actual quote.
I wish Colbert had asked him that question.
Yes, this man is the biggest phony of them all. A wolf in sheeps clothing. Around the time of 911, or rather just days before, he was claiming that the USA couldn't explain why it had a trillion dollar deficit, and a few days later after the attack he was all smiles and laughing and exclaiming that it had just been an accounting error. He looked like the cat who had just swallowed the canary and struck many people as totally unsympathetic when millions of people lost all of their retirement funds , stocks and bonds, etc when the towers went down. These are unequivocally the most evil men to have ever run our government by far and I'm not certain we will ever recover from the sheer robbery and murder they committed that day.
@@kslovak2000 and he's still spitting feathers out of this mouth :D
@@kslovak2000 pls don't tell me you think they planned 911?
@@yw9113 they used it as an exeuse to invade iraq and Afghanistan witch they wanted before 9/11. Weather they did it or not is irrelevant at this point
So many innocent people have died Iraqi and American, due to this evil liars action.
Rumsfeld is a moron but religion is the real reason the middle east is a mess and the same in Afghanistan..the Kurdish region of Iraq was relatively peaceful and the Kurds were happy to be free of Saddam
THIS WAR CRIMINAL WILL BURN FOR ETERNITY
@@marky1974
GOOD TECHNIC TO JUSTIFY THE WAR CRIMES OF THESE CULTS
@@marky1974 I'm from Germany .
After WW2 a lot of german Militaries were severly punished because Germany started several Wars of Conquests .
Russia , Poland , France ...
I think that they deserved their Punishment , but i don't understand why my Country supports european and american Resource Wars , till this day .
And all the Media supports that and lies to us .
@@marky1974 Read who supported Saddam Hussein in the 70s and 80s .
Read why the american Goverment supports Terrorists in the Middle East , Operation Sycamore .
Part of the Colbert Interviews War Criminals Series.
That would be a dope series see if he can get Tony Blair next or gen Alexander of the NSA
does a better job than most journalists
When is Hillary's turn.
Hillary was not in Bush's cabinet when 100,000+ people died in Iraq and Afghanistan.
@@squamish4244 So no one died from 2008-2016 during "regime change" season? What about in N Africa, and Syria? What was the body count? And suddenly no deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is that what you are saying. Such partisan blindness is staggering. Lots of blame to go around.
The greatest war criminal of the century, just below Cheney.
Phil Rabe thanks for mentioning Chaney! Bush wasn’t innocent either 😡
and carl rove
Tim Starkes Absolutely!
Henry Kissinger
People like Rumsfeld going scot free are the reason why nobody respects the US throughout the world.. long before you guys voted for that orange clown.
Oh sure, they fear your military and ruthlessness but nobody actually respects you. And why should they? You people don't even respect yourselves....
"I don't know if anybody asked you directly sir, but are you...are you a lizard?" - Louis CK
One of the best OandA Louis ck appearances ever
+LittleGreyBag THAT'S IT!
That explains that one stupid write-in comment n the ballot for the 2008 election for U.S. Senator in Minnesota - the one that showed the hand-written words "Lizard People" in 6 of 7 spots (every single one except the Clean Water ballot initiative, where the person - or creature - filling out the ballot unarguably voted in favor a small state-wide sales tax increase into 2034 to support, AOT, preserving Minnesota's water clean enough to drink and for fish to live in).
In 5 of the 6 contests to fill a state office, the creature's PREFERRED choice of "Lizard People" (or "Lizard people"; in 1 of those 5 instances, the first letter of both words was capitalized, but in the other 4 only the first letter of the first word was in caps.) was rejected because the contest was for a one-person job.
Only the vote for U.S. Senate was confusing, because there the creature had filled in the circle for "AL FRANKEN", but then ALSO wrote in "Lizard people, yet had not, as with the other 5 offices being contested, also filled in the circle for "write-in, if any".
So, now we know: that ballot was pretty obviously filled out by a creature from the same clad as Rumsfeld, possibly even Rumsfeld himself, and that Rumsfeld, or other Rumsfeld clad member creature who filled out the ballot, took extra care to ensure that it was clear there was NO vote for "NORM COLEMAN' or any other candidate for the U.S. Senate OTHER than "AL FRANKEN".
+LittleGreyBag Was looking for this comment. That shit was gold.
+LittleGreyBag My favorite CK moment, ever.
***** And eats Mexican babies.
This statement by Rumsfeld is very troubling to me: "[...] the conflict between the Sunnies and the Shia is something that generally people had not anticipated." The Sunni/Shia conflict has been going on for a millennium and is common knowledge. If Rumsfeld is speaking the truth, then either US intelligence was dumb as f#*k, or the decision makers were so eager to move forward with their plan that they lost track of something so obvious... Needless to say, neither is acceptable...
Never underestimate greed. OIL=💵
Exactly... I mean I am Sunni and my teacher is Shi'a, and we have no differences whatsoever... Everyone is entitled to have a faith however they want
ua-cam.com/video/dj5SZHr9aj0/v-deo.html
The Sunni Shia conflict was seeded by western imperialists lol he knows this
That or he’s lying and the violence in the Middle East was always intended. But they would never do that.
“You can’t embarrass me, I am a comedian!” Just brilliant!
I love Stephen's plethora of guests. Even war criminals!
"Nobody would have thought a conlfict between sunnis and chias would emerge after the war."
That's right, except for every single person living there.
And everyone who has even a basic understanding of the religion.
Yeah, I saw that coming well before Bush went in there. You can't just knock of a tyrant, look at Iraq and Libya for recent examples. There were many more mistakes of this nature in our country's history than most people are aware of at this time. A more salient example would be the United States, where you have an incompetent President protected by a criminal organization called the Republican Party. We can't just knock off TRUMP, or even TRUMP and Pence. That would leave criminals like Mitch McTurtle and Paul (Eddie Munster crossed with weird kid from leave it to Beaver) Ryan in place to continue to expose our population to Capitalist plunder. We don't need to feed these Capitalists, they will behave just like any other humans when given more power than they can be trusted to use properly. We need to reign them in, as we have done before with Teddy Roosevelt or we could let them run rampant for a while longer. I don't think that anyone really wants that though. If the Republicans are able to usurp just a little more power, we might lose our democracy. Then the only solutions will look similar to the French, Chinese and Russian revolutions. Or maybe even Syria if the Russians really are involved.
I'm at a loss as to how to stop this immense power grab by TRUMP and his Republican co-conspirators. I do know that the last time we had significant movement towards the left, suddenly all the great leaders were assassinated. I hope it doesn't come to that again, by either side.
My main purpose is just to challenge people to think about the consequences of the actions, not each individual one, but all of them taken together that TRUMP, Pence, McTurle, and Ryan and their cronies, lackeys, and superior officers in the Russian KGB, have committed to this point.
Politics is not magic, but like magic, politics always has a cost. TRUMP is just trying to have his (wall, golf outing, world tour) and make us pay for it. And the Republicans are cheering him on (did you see their all-white beer bash?)!
This ain't normal and there will be hell to pay for someone. Let's make sure it is TRUMP, his family, and all Republicans that continue to support after today and not everyone else.
Makanek Malek this old creep belongs in jail,makes me nauseous 😖
Makanek Malek 7
Those two have been fighting each other for ages. To think , hey, we'll go in there, "liberate " them and everyone will get along hunky dorey, yeah right.. B.S. they were worrying so much about the Kurds either, they were worrying about oil and their pockets that's all.
Donald's face when he realized he might have been honest to America for the first and only time still gives me goosebumps.
I’m from Scotland and proud to be yet I do love America but this era of politicians are war criminals the decisions they made where based on economic interests. 9/11 was 100% an exterior attack but was an opportunity for those in power to pursue their gains. The fact the US dollar standard went from the gold standard to oil standard, the only country to do this to this day?? Oil in areas that where controlled and sourced where depleting so eventually the us had to act to save their economy. Also as someone who studies architecture and have personally studied those towers it’s numbing to say they did collapse from the fires.
Chill
😳
Eliminate the border
"If there were facts, then it wouldn't be intelligence." That explains everything. lol
The truth - missunderstood. 'The adversary plans to buy 2000 more tanks', true or false? 'The President of the adversary could consider to renegotiate part 7 of the existing contract' - true or false? If we knew, it wouldn't be intelligence, R. is right.
And we all know, the reasons for the Iraq war lies deeper. Clinton left a well balanced budget, and the US military Industrial complex needed new orders (1). The reasons for the Florida counting mess with the vote-vounting-machines and the counting lie there as well. US conservatism wanted to win this election more desparately than others, because there was potentially so much money to spend. Out of a balanced budget i can drain 20 trillion. But there had to be a reason to start draining - and in the right direction. Extend the Empire and use the people. And the money was just the transmission belt between both of them. Poor Iraq, at the wrong time in the wrong place. And just bad leadership there - looking at the US psychologicly correct, they could've been placing themselves different.
1 - use existing, potentially outdated cruise missiles in stock, produce new ones, extend superiority (of the few)
Bush, Jr. in his first 6+ month in office, in bright light in front of the curtain, 'doing nothing but playing golf', may as well just be seen as part of a play - to distract the general public inside and outside the US (as well as the adversary) from the fact, that conservative parts of administration and defense industry, unseen behind the scene, were already working very hard and overtime to prepare for war 'and future turnover creating action'. And some thought 'for the common good'.
@@JamesBrown-ux9ds- True! The actual 'presidenting' was the nefarious duty activity of Cheney and Rumsfeld.
You do understand that intelligence in the military does not mean the same thing as intelligence in a denotative sense. Rumsfeld makes perfect sense to me
If Colbert did more interviews like this, I'd actually watch him more. This was good.
His interviews are always intelligent and thought-provoking.
☝🏻☝🏻☝🏻😭😭😭😭 الله اكبر حق الابرياء الان سوف يؤخد ومحاكمتك بدأت الان ⚰⚰⚖⏳🕧 احترق وتعذب يا من قتلت الالاف في العراق وافغانستان
This was before the Trump and anti-Russia hysteria sadly
Idk about that. This is a light hearted conversation with a war criminal. This is just as hollow as an interview with any other given celebrity
@@lauridsjensen7757 Saddam was a war criminal. He was removed.
I respect Colbert a lot for having guests like this on a show that is generally and unabashedly liberal. He'd like to hear other's views and wants his audience to do the same.
+Winston Platt Generally and unabashedly -- what? I think you skipped a word....
+Arpa de Lluna Whoops! Meant to say liberal. Thanks.
+Winston Platt Probably what makes Colbert in my opinion one of the best if not the best talk show hosts we have had these past years. The rest are usually just so consumed with the entertainment aspect that they ignore their real duty as representatives of Media.
+Thewindyfan Exactly. That's what sets colbert apart from the rest. No other network late night show would ever have interviews like these, which is what I think is sorely needed.
+Winston Platt
"generally and unabashedly liberal..."
It's kind of hard to be conservative nowadays considering what "conservative" has become. Shit, even Nixon would be considered Liberal at this point.
Another Churchill quote: Golf is a long walk ruined.
Another Churchill quote: “If it’s so bad, why isn’t Ghandi dead?”
(Churchill on the million dead as a result of British occupation in India)
@@fightme8859 that quote was never verified
Where is the $2 Trillion dollars you said was missing MR.Rumsfeld??
Hé should be in cubain prison for the next 50 years
When I saw Reply !... I was thinking oh boy he’s going to answer where it is !
Nice try!!🙃
Rumsfeld asked that question in a press briefing on 9.10.2001. On 9.11 a passenger plane(?) slammed into the "accounting" wing of the Pentigon making it impossible to track the missing 2.3 trillion dollars... or so they say.
And the Black Budget was allowed to survive scrutiny yet again!
And I ask... Who cares about Social Security at retirement, or feeding the hungry, or housing the homeless... America is no longer a "Christian values" country. We'd much rather be the most militarily powerful nation on the planets! WWJD? ... Ha!... Who cares!
*Yes, that's sarcasm.
vonsuthoff America was never founded on Christian values !
And countries that where for the most part never respected human rights!
Unless they went along with their religious beliefs!
@@greatdaneacdc ... Oh yes, I hear you... And as my final sentence stated... I was being sarcastic.
"If it was a fact, it wouldn't be called intelligence ", Donald Rumsfeld
+Ted Kord Best excellant answer and good point from Rumsfeld, no matter one's views on him.
As someone going into Naval Intelligence, I'm definitely going to remember that quote.
+Ecthelion008 Incidentally, what's the smart way? "Nothing we know is for certain, so let's invade a country to be on the safe side"? The whole "nothing can be known for certain" is a metaphysical red herring that, while technically an accepted view, doesn't justify reckless decisions. That's the very reason why we have statistics and evidence; while our uncertainty is never going to be zero, we minimize our uncertainty to a reasonable degree before we take the risk of making the decision.
+Ted Kord Now the questions is and i know that america (like the rest of the world) was comprehensible desperate for an answer after 9/11. But nonetheless are you allowed to invade a country based on assumptions especially if that country was not involved in the attacks on 9/11?
It's the same stuff that happens now in Syria even though that France is now pulling the trigger. We invade Syria and eventually destroying ISIS but once we leave another group of terrorist will arise. And the reason why is simple since it was the same after the Iraq war. We leave the country completely destabilize, people of said country are pissed off because we came to bomb their cities, killing their loved ones (collateral damage) and then leave without helping to rebuild their country, without helping to bring back a stable economy. And as long as we don't do that we will get terror attacks over and over again.
+Ted Kord
Audience: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA CLAPCLAPCLAPCLAP
BUYS AMERICAN FLAGS
I believe this was one of Stephen's best interviews. I love how he tailored the strength of his personality to properly get his point across and not allowing his guest to use his comedy as a scapegoat to ignore answering the question in a straight forward manner. Colbert still had funny moments in a serious discussion, but they were relevant to the topic and didn't cause the attention to stray from it's intended path. Absolutely fantastic interview. Stephen is such an interesting man with great talent and I hope to be able to meet him one day. I can't say it enough, truly fantastic job Stephen!
He got away with his evil crimes in this world but will be being punished and facing the consequences of his actions as we speak.
Amen
وَلَقَدۡ جِئۡتُمُوۡنَا فُرَادٰى كَمَا خَلَقۡنٰكُمۡ اَوَّلَ مَرَّةٍ وَّتَرَكۡتُمۡ مَّا خَوَّلۡنٰكُمۡ وَرَآءَ ظُهُوۡرِكُمۡۚ
Today you have come back to Us all alone as We created you the first time-leaving behind everything We have provided you with.
Quran 6:94
*Rot In Hell*
And then Colbert has him on his show and asked him questions which painted him in the best possible light and gave him cover. Unfuckingforgivable, I always knew he had sold out but goddamn, this is some next level soullessness.
He was defense secretary. His job was to win the War. That decision was made with or without Rumsfeld. He had no impact on the decision to go to War. This man is an American Patriot who served his president. And he actually did a good job. He’s no more to blame than the troops.
@@justinmichaeltarot Are you naive? He was one of the main architects behind the war. Him, Wolfowitz, and Cheney were egging Bush to go to war in Iraq. They were so bloodthirsty for regime change that they conjured up lies over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
Under Rumsfeld, the United States violated international law by invading Iraq without UN approval. The invasion itself was a war crime since it was based on lies. 200k-2 million Iraqi civilians died because of his lies. I haven't even mentioned the torture at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay. Rumsfeld approved the torture and encouraged it. Torture is a war crime.
Rumsfeld is a profoundly evil human being. He's a war criminal and what you're doing is no different than what the Nazi and Soviet sympathizers did after WW2.
If we can't hold our war criminals accountable, who are we to hold other countries' war criminals accountable.
"I can't imagine how Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump can pull crowds of twenty thousand people....."
And I can't imagine how Donald Rumsfeld and Dick(less) Cheney can avoid being charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity.
There I said it.
Tricky8oy1 I can't imagine how Obomber and Killary Clinton can avoid being charged with war crimes, crimes against humanity and creating ISIS trust me they did a lot more damage than Don and Richard
Nipun Sharma oh fuck off
I can see how Bernies gets a crowd and the GOP helped elevate trump with their lousy policies, like how the Weimar Republic's ineptness helped to elevate the Nazis.
It's easy to imagine. No people from a nation winning a war, and not being at the mercy of the international community, have ever been charged or prosecuted for war crimes. Woe to the vanquished indeed
Yes you said it, but you have that right so its completely fine. And you are so right
Jon Stewart once said his biggest regret on The Daily Show was letting Donald off the hook. Good on you, Stephen, for making this guy sweat.
I'm sure Jon Stewart was reminded of that once more when he saw this. Lol
+fernidad135 Yes, but even after everything has been revealed nothing will happen. He goes "oooops" and makes a few jokes and suddenly all is back to normal.
Same with Bush II, he just joked "the WMDs gotta be here somewhere" and people laugh and don't actually care enough about it.
Yeah it was in an interview With Good Morning America if I recall, u could see how much he regrets letting him off the hook.
+fernidad135 Donald Rumsfeld is an evil chameleon monster. Though, I want to add is we did find WMD in Iraqi. The reality is it was reported in 2014, which this interview took place in 2016........
+fernidad135 Sorry, how did giving a war criminal prime time air and finishing off with a joke and a few chuckles make him sweat?
Colbert was impressive.
Mr. Beat He May be a comedian, but he nailed the slippery bastard!. King Colbert!.
Hes a loser.
nice to see you watching the same things I do Mr. Beat
Back when the Late Show was reminiscent of the Colbert Report. Now this show has become blatant sensationalism, and cheap jokes. A true shame. I know Colbert can do better.
Really its like beating on dead horse no pun intended. There are worst crimes being committed now that have long lasting effects on Societies all around the world.
Devil's come to claim his due.
You don´t think he went to heaven? 🤣😂😜😉
Is Steve dead? I had no idea! Let me know.
@@sukhmaidickoff Is that a question?
@@jroth7915 Great that you have sympathies towards a war criminal. You must be American
@@sukhmaidickoff great that you have hatred towards a man that did what he needed to do in order to protect the citizens of his country, after his country was attacked first.
Donald Rumsfeld is so accustomed to lying he doesn't even appear to notice that he is doing it.
If you lie, but you don't know or notice that you're lying, that's called intelligence, then...? 🤔
Psychopath.
Ian Cameron - typical comment from a coward opposition, when most of his prominent leaders approved the budget to go to war. The intelligence agreed with UK, Italy and Russia’s. You don’t bluff and threat a sitting leader who his country just got attacked from a worst terrorist group in the region. Monday morning quarterback never undid the loss the night before.
Him and Cheney are used to living in their lies. They might have actually forgotten what they really did.
@@foto21 the costanza strategy
he's my favorite war criminal who does speaking tours
hahahaha, he almost sounds fucking coherent here!
Does having respect for his "service" mean that I cant acknowledge the illegal war he created through intentionally misleading the American people. The war we're in buddy...we've been there 15 years...over 1 million civilians have died. Oh...and I forgot to mention the torture network he created...
Joseph Brown its not his fault that Iraq flew planes into the towers while also making WMDs!
Octavian Caesar Hourigan
IF THERE WAS AN OSCAR FOR STUPIDITY, YOU'D DEFINITELY DESERVE ONE. I HOPE YOU ARE KIDDING.
fairplay I mean if you can tell without making then it only show are stupid you are,to be fair.
Are you Irish?
Fantastic interview, Stephen does not let up for anything.
Although the audience laughing felt intrusive halfway through
Agreed, the laughter was too distracting
+TheStanishStudios This was one of my favorite parts on the Colbert Report. It feels great to have substantive, rational, policy discussions and learn about opposing viewpoints just like on the old show. I wish Stephen interviews as many politicians as possible.
+Tyler Lewis I wholeheartedly agree. My only regret is that he's rather unlikely to ever have any Canadian politicians on. Oh well, more scientists instead, perhaps?
+TheStanishStudios People today dont understand the importance of a great interview or speech. only go few years back really in the years 30-40 and up ... for an exemple when a predisent was doing a speech even if it was for and hour you could ear the wind blowing between the lines... in other words complete silence. Versus today Obama says "Yes we can" and crowds go nuts.
+TheStanishStudios Well to be fair, when someone says "If it were a fact, it wouldn't be called intelligence", it's really hard NOT to laugh.
Never before have I been confronted with an image of completely normal looking old man having a regular talk-show conversation only to actually listen to what he says and realize I can't believe a single word that comes out of his mouth. It's mind boggling how he can sway a crowd with such grace and eloquence handing out lies.
EDIT: Let's not forget the Sunni/Shia conflict is centuries old and there's no way in heaven or hell they where unaware of it and also that those chemical weapons were sold to Saddam by Rumsfeld in '83
Look up this book by Hannah Arend “ Adolph Eichmann on trail/ The Banality of Evil”. The author talks about this High ranking nazi official who killed millions, but at his trial he was just a boring old man, like a desk worker.
She couldn’t believe that he was a killer, and all he kept saying to the judge was “ I was just following orders”
@@abrahamel-gothamy6472 difference is, Rumsfeld wasn’t following orders. He was giving orders
Richard Nixon said that Rumsfeld had strong potential to be President but "you don't konw how to lie." I guess he learned.
@@lauridsjensen7757 Eichmann wasn't just following orders either, that was just his excuse. His planning was crucial for making the holocaust possible and he did it all just to promote himself in the apparatus.
@@TheNavalAviator just to be clear, I was putting down Rumsfeld, not excusing Eichmann
300.000 people dead. thank you sir, it was a real honor to talk to you.
adje oh no way over1 million dead.many christians living peaceful among the Muslims until the usa destabilize the middle east.
Steing Groburf insults always means more credibility, always..
Wow. Went to write it. You already did. Thank you. 3 moms I saw cry at their Iraq war dead sons' funerals at home here was , and is, 3 too many for me and my lifetime.
Thank Israel, their the 1s pulling all the strings
What a disgrace this man was involved with 911.
this rumsfeld guy is a stone cold killer
08:50 he laughing gleefully at the fact that he killed millions of innocent people, no remorse at all..
and so is Hamas... and the PLO.... and Kim Jong Il .... and leadership of Iran ... and warlords in Africa .. Al'qieda, ISIS ..... Putin and the Russians, ...... and on and on and on....
Death toll under Rumsfeld was a couple hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers..... plus collateral damage as well. while not pretty its no-where near a million.
De-stabilization and mismanagement in 3rd world countries have far greater implications than death toll in military conflicts
CRAZYBABIES1934
The sanctions they put in Iraq (medical supplies etc) alone killed one million Iraqi babies.
Over half a million dead. If i fucked up that bad. I'd never be able to sleep at night.
in no way did that ever impact his wealth or his way of life,that's why he sleeps soundly!
Cheney and all those other war criminal fucks have no problem sleeping at night. And when they die its going to be at home surrounded by family... Unlike the THOUSANDS of US soldiers there and then the others that came home and are killing themselves @22 a day. Then there are the millions of Iraqis and others in the region that have been killed and will be killed in the coming decades.
All for being born on land with oil under neath it. A Sociopath is someone who cannot feel empathy for others. A psychopath is someone that enjoys hurting others. Take your pick with these fuckers.
He doesn't sleep at night, he's an alien lizard.
but you're not a soulless warmonger like Cheney
It's easy to judge the outcomes, after the fact, of extremely difficult decisions made on behalf of the wealthiest and most powerful nation on the planet. MOST people wouldn't want that responsibility, because MOST people can't sleep at night if they made a decision that fucks over even just one person. A president has to make many of those decisions that can affect up to the millions of people over the course of just one day.
I'm not at all excusing the things that have happened, but I think a little perspective is needed for some arm chair critics that post critical comments on youtube and don't actually do anything themselves to change the situation in which we all live in.
This is what happens when Emperor Palpatine and Michael Scott have a kid together.
Funny when you remember who played Rummie in "Vice" :D
“If it were a fact, it wouldn’t be called ‘intelligence!’”
Colbert’s reaction was similar to mine but I started laughing, which then quickly degraded into sobbing
It makes sense though. Intelligence reports are given with the notion that they could be incorrect.
You're not going to get intel reports on well-known facts. President Biden will never get an intel report that states that there were no WMDs in Iraq because it's a fact of today.
Intel reports can be found to be factually correct, but at the time of the initial report, there's a percentage of uncertainty.
If have a good hand in a poker game, I can estimate on intelligence that I have a 75% chance of winning the round. If I do win that round it becomes a fact and thus no longer intel.
It wasn't really a gotcha moment.
Fact: We see a surprise factory built in the desert!
Fact: there are trucks going in holding chemicals
Fact: the factory is well guarded
Fact: it's the right size to make chemical weapons
Intelligence: "this is a war chemical factory! We need to bomb it!"
Fact: it was an aspirin production factory and the guards were to protect the employees from being taken hostage by nearby warlords.
Oh, l love the way he passed the blame/responsible on the American people. It was their fault innocent people died not government. People like him and Tony Blair makes me wonder how they can live with themselves
Perhaps theyre narcissistic sociopaths, just dumb enough, or both
@@pacotaco1246 definitely the first one they’re not stupid just evil
How come Rumsfeld is not on trial as a war criminal?
+gerald kohl Because this is the US, where we don't have the guts to put our highest ranking politicians through the justice system. Taiwan's former president is in jail for corruption. China's current president is on a crusade to stamp out corruption from his party. Meanwhile, our former politicians get to retire in luxury.
good luck
+ZhangtheGreat
China is enslaving 500,000,000 people, llol.
+gerald kohl Because he isn't ....
cos the un is corrupt
Stephen is the man! He is gracious and kind to a warmonger in order to carry on a civil and informative interview.
Stephen, you may be a comedian, but damn can you ask a good question.
Sherman Thompson I think that is actually a big part of what a comedian does
Not quite as despicable as Dick Cheney.
+Belz Zebuth Slightly....
Third most evil person ever as opposed to second most evil person
Linus Glenhaber I don't know. I know a lot of worse ones just from history. Hitler, Stalin and Mao come to mind.
+Belz Zebuth They're equally despicable. They've been buddies since before Gerald Ford and have done their best to try and worm their way to the top. They did, and they accomplished exactly what they wanted. War and devastation.
Tim Arthur Let's just say that I find the deliberate murder of millions more despicable than the collateral death of hundreds of thousands. Mind you, they are still war criminals and guilty of crimes against humanity.
+Argumemnon They're both hawkish neocons who should be in prison for war crimes.
If the actions of this guy had been carried out by any other, specially if by a Muslim, it would be considered an international crime to host him.
And a lot of us in the East are against Islamic fascism and Jihadists. There are plenty of us who are realizing how evil and fundamentally flawed their own religion is and are working hard to spread the word and put an end to Islamic fascism. However, the US has been involved in wars against the Middle East for the last 70 years. The US has invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Before that, the US and other European countries have fought alongside Israel in 4 wars against the Arabs since 1948. Before that, European imperialists had been occupying the entire region for centuries.
The US continues to wholeheartedly support Israel and its right to exist as a JEWISH state. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Jews and their right to live in present-day Israel. But as someone who is pro-secularism and democracy and is against nation states founded on religion, I can't support Israel in its current form. I applaud the Israeli society and its very progressive attitudes in many walks of life. But I would rather see Palestinians AND Israelis live together in a modern, secular state.
To be honest, the damage caused by terrorist attacks pales in comparison to the damage done by US militarism + US and Western unabated, relentless backing of Israel for the past 70 years. Islamic fascism is real and MUST be fought. It must be fought intellectually, not with war machine. That is what many people like me who have left this evil cult are doing. But we can't absolve the US and the West of their role in creating Islamic terrorism.
Bin Laden WISHES he could kill as many people as Rumsfeld has.
Biggest takeaway:
"Unknown knowns" : "If it were a fact, it wouldn't be called intelligence"
War criminal this guy is
One of the worst people in history. No hyperbole.
Absolutely!!
I'm not a Donald Rumsfeld fan by no means but the fact that he agreed to be interviewed by Stephen Colbert blows my mind.
Brent Stone They are on the same team
That's what happens when you get dementia you forget what you've done.
@@paulrevere7213 I'm sorry but I don't know why you would say that...please explain as I would like to consider why you would think that
@@tonitoni2045 wmd ,9/11 his speech before 9/11 about the defense department missing billions of dollars the day before the 9/11 attacks hes part of the establishment what we call a rhino do your research and you'll find all you need to know
Brent Stone, I imagine the terms of the interview were hammered out in advance. Stephen treats him with kid gloves . . .
This is one of the best interviews ever performed on the subject of the Iraq War. Stephen addressing Rumsfeld's most famous quote about "known knowns, known unknowns, and unknowns unknowns," then addressing the most common unfair question, "if you knew then what you know now..." then shredding the standard and setting the bar ever-higher by extracting "the fourth option: unknown knowns," and pressing him to deliver the most perfect answer ever: "if it was a fact, it wouldn't be called intelligence."
They'd used chemical weapons (3:15) ...is he talking about decades before?
let's not forget who gave them the green light to use those chemical weapons
we, uh sold it to them in the 80s or so to fight the proxy war against Iran. but continue.
+Beorn Borg He's more likely continuing spinning the web of lies he himself created. The chemical weapons that were *actually* found in Iraq couldn't even have been used past 1997 or so, because they were in super poor condition, broken, incomplete and well... decommissioned as demanded from Iraq way before after the Gulf war. They also did not really possess the means to reliable remake anything they previously had either, nor did they kidnap any people who could change that.
Saddam actually did do what the international community wanted sometime 1998, meaning getting rid of any weapons of mass destruction. Keep in mind, Operation Desert Storm actually ended in november of *1995*. And while they left Saddam in power, they already made sure then any weapons of mass destruction were essentially gone so Iraq wouldn't present a threat for the region. *This is exactly why Egypt, Syria, Morocco,United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Oman and Qatar helped out in the first Gulf War as being officially part of the coalition forces, yet refused to move even a single finger in the 2003-2011-ish conflict in Iraq.* None of those countries believed Iraq still posed a real threat.
Hans Blix couldn't find weapons of mass destruction in 2002 because they were already decommissioned as early as 1995. Yes, Saddam loved him some trash talk just like the North-Koreans do, but we shouldn't take that seriously. We should be more worried about Iran instead....
Oh and when it comes to the Iraqi nuclear reactor that actually once existed (Osiraq), got damaged by Iran in 1980 and destroyed by the Israeli Air Force in 1981. There wasn't even nuclear fuel in that reactor, let alone how Iraq at that time was literally many decades away from making any kind of nuclear weaponry. Not a 'couple of years'. In fact, their switch from plutonium based weapon design to highly enriched uranium design was doomed to fail from the start. Again, this was known in *1995*.
It was utterly ridiculous for the US to claim Iraq had nuclear weapons, let alone other types of weapons of mass destruction. Even the CIA, who for some reason or another had this insane mission of finding (or fabricating?) evidence for weapons of mass destruction, couldn't find anything pointing in that direction based upon the reports from Hans Blix, which for some reason didn't trust Hans Blix no more. It's pretty obvious today the US needed simply an excuse to invade Iraq, with the real motivation being rather unknown. Was it really just for securing the oil? Probably. But it definitely had zero to do with nuclear weapons.
I've said it before, but it's ironic how the US doesn't invade Iran, a country far more likely to *already* possess weapons of mass destruction, ie. nuclear weapons. I think, like North Korea, the only thing they really lack is the missiles to send these weapons half way across the globe....
+300096586 Or what about the depleted uranium bullets used as armour-piercing rounds? The radiation itself might not be a killer, but direct internal contact has inevitable chemical toxicity effects on nervous system, liver, heart, kidneys, let alone causes DNA mutations / RNA transcription errors of uranium dust absorbed in vitro. Honestly, it's a real killer when you consider the huge amounts of people wounded and also the civilian casualties on Iraqi side.
+PHeMoX In addition, a lot of our people who handled those depleted uranium munitions are now suffering very serious and often life threatening effects. It amazes me how few people are aware of this.
This was an exceptionally well navigated line of questioning.
He could've asked "did Saddams decision to nationalize the oil influence your decision? How about his anti-American protectionist economic policies?".
Nah you're wrong, in 2002 Saddam offered American companies special access to Iraqi oil fields
Economic matters had nothing to do with it
@@yw9113 You're right, Rumsfeld just needed to quench his infernal bloodlust
The world exposed the weakness of the United States due to the Iraq war
Since this interview aired, Rumsfeld has died. No one misses him. He was responsible for so much damage.
Steve Carell will play him well.
And you were correct. Spectacular movie.
@@thatotherkid9210 outstanding movie, I only understand it didnt win all awards because this guys are paying off to buried it, but the film is INCREDIBLE, MUST SEE IN SCHOOL
@@pablocarroucheok The performances are great, but the movie itself is flawed and average at best.
@@abdulaziz.9471 I saw too, and I think its absolutly brillant, it just having ther worst press to sink it in the oblivion, but its a really great movie, you all should know who that people running USA was
Oh yes, Steve Carrell looked exactly like Rumsfeld and the movie was awesome.
8:30 Rumsfeld was involved in Vietnam, too. he got it wrong twice.
Yeah, he is a NIxon throwback.
And used chemical weapons on civilians.
You know John D Rockafella goes back to world war 2, aswell as 911. he winked at Peron to get Argentina into conflict. pulling strings.
@@jketcham9004 we could not know that because he was dead long before....alas check your spelling of your favorite devil....
I just watched Vice (2019) and remembered i had seen this interview, had to come back and see it again. The movie is super interesting, definitely recommend it. It's basically The Big Short but about Dick Cheney and the Iraq war, and I think Steve Carell played a very accurate depiction of Rumsfeld.
@Mike Knight - Have you once again overdosed on your Naivete Disorder prescription?
@Mike Knight - LOL! Thank you Mike. Your sense of humor is appreciated however I meant no insult, just a bit of sarcasm.
Uh huh, based on a true story. LOL.
Managed to get a straight answer out from Rumsfeld without any mumbo-jumbo is a superb achievement for Stephen , a job well done! 😁
Not a straight answer he's a demon
why is this war criminal allowed to sit on a couch on a talk show? He belongs in jail.
@Fnord Fnordington what's wrong with Colbert?
Holy fuck. He's a war criminal and completely gotten away with it.
War criminal.
“If it were a fact, it wouldn’t be called intelligence”
I’ve seen this video a few times, but this line went over my head until now. When I heard this again, I just said “holy shit” out loud. The fact Rumsfeld was so continuously nonchalant about the mistakes in the lead up to and during the Iraq War, as well as his adamant, albeit distanced, endorsement of it for the rest of his life is simply jarring.
It wasn’t a mistake.
He was simply saying that “intelligence” gathering is, and always will be, an imprecise science. It never equals absolute fact.
Consider the possibility that they weren't mistakes.
Intelligence is never concrete. Rumsfeld wasn't perfect, and was very strategic and tactical. He was probably the perfect man if we ever fought the Russians in a conventional war. But dealing with the Middle East he wasn't.
@@Frisbieinstein there are no possibilities removing saddam was a mistake bred from the feeling that the gulf war didn't go far enough. The war hawks in bush seniors cabinet pushed to fully remove saddam but bush senior being a former director of the CIA pushed back on the idea knowing it would only destabilize the region
"The Americans people ultimately decide..."
That's a load of crap and we all know it.
We they decide to vote for Crooked Bill Clinton rather than Ross Perot.
You thought Bush Sr. actually better than Ross Perot in 1992, or it just a misunderstanding?
Wow, Colbert did a great job at pinning the old man with the de-classified memo. It took balls though, and how cliche that he saved the most dangerous question for the end. I understand why he did it because if Rumsfeld walked out, they would have no footage. However, how sad how we have another interview with one of the Architects of the Iraq War, where the big elephant in the room is not brought up. How everything they're saying is total bull shit. The "legitimate" reasons for going into Iraq aren't reasons. They're excuses. Barely legal loopholes to make a war that they wanted to make. In fact, they had to make legislation changes to even allow this invasion to occur. They wanted to secure that oil and open it up to foreign investment. Saddam has that oil industry nationalized and US didn't like it. We bullied them and blew up their country and killed innocent women and children in the process.
Perfectly stated.
Don't present Saddam's regime as the bullied. They were the bully, responsible for far more deaths than the Iraq War caused, especially against Iran, their disgusting treatment of the Shia minority and the Kurds, as well as their blatant attempt to annex Kuwait unilaterally. That being said, our decision to invade without a proper plan of a replacement government destroyed the entire cohesion and power balance of the region, condemning it the situation it is today. That power vacuum is now filled by jihadis, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Russia.
Great interview, Rumsfeld is awful quick to pass responsibility onto other people.
This is a great ten minutes. Colbert is brilliant here. Rumsfeld, while providing some insight, was the same as he was in 2002; elusive and secretive (at best, and sketchy as heck).
Oh yeah, he reads a good script.
It's amazing. We are talking to a mass murderer here as if he is a saint.
You seem like you don't know what you're talking about.
@@jeffhext keep watching fox news, you might just get there.
bellyom Are you suggesting Fox News is enlightening in some way?
@@GHound420 Yeah, like looking at dirt.
@@bellyomful What Jeff meant was that Stephen isn't treating him like a saint. The live audience isn't either. Stephen is trying to get some answers which he could use to ridicule Don's belief that he did the "right thing" by lying to get the war started.
That was a top quality interview that I'm grateful to have seen. Thank you to Rumsfeld and thank you to Colbert and his colleagues for setting this interview up
Lol why are you thanking Rumsfeld? This dude had a hand in orchestrating 9/11 and everything as a result.
@@Mahatheyew cry
@@Mahatheyew If you believe that then you're absolutely delusional
@@demon_hawkeye5269 ua-cam.com/video/MfMjdKElgqY/v-deo.html
@@kalebfitzgerald9102 what does that prove?
There is no statute of limitation on prosecuting this war criminal.
Wow, when Stephen had a functioning brain. Seems like so long ago.
Colbert is such a great interviewer, doesn't ask loaded questions due to political party affiliations and actually manages to get answers from interviewees.
Quite telling about American culture and society that this person can go on late-night shows after what he's been a part of. Imagine von Ribbentrop or Rosenberg going on a German chat show after the war.
+TheSpiritOfTheTimes A chat show like this? That would have been great. Jimmy Fallon? Not so much.
+TheSpiritOfTheTimes Ribbentrop and Rosenberg were executed so hard luck getting any chat show material out of them. Albert Speer on the other hand was extensively interviewed following his release from prison and he provided invaluable historical information as to the motivations and the inner workings of the Nazi party from the point of an insider.
Like it or not, Rumsfeld is a historical figure and his views on looking back to his time in office, regardless of authenticity or ethics will be considered of great value far into the future.
fludblud You can understand the difference though right? Albert Speer was trialed, convicted and imprisoned for his crimes and publicly repented for them. Which of these things apply to Rumsfeld- trial, remorse?
+TheSpiritOfTheTimes - +TheSpiritOfTheTimes - Well let's look at that. In Rumsfeld we have an important government official who served in a democracy that went to war with a dictatorship based on evidence, albeit faulty evidence, that they truly believed told them that said dictatorship carried active WMDs. Now let's compare that to two high ranking officials within a tyrannical fascist government that waged war on the free world, had plans for world domination with other Axis collaborators, and executed mass murder on an industrial scale to literally exterminate various groups of people, in particular the Jews.
I love it when people try and compare the Bush administration to Nazis. It shouldn't make a lick of sense to any rational mind.
+John Parlor Again, very telling.
There were 4 categories of crimes von Ribbentrop and Rosenberg were indicted for at Nueremberg.
1. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace. 2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace. 3. War crimes. 4. Crimes against humanity.
That Rumsfeld is guilty of the first two is self-evident. The third, difficult for me to say, but definitely would be charged, for Fallujah he would probably be found guilty, and crimes against humanity he'd probably be found innocent.
From the Nueremberg trials we have a person who was found guilty of the first two charges but innocent of the third and fourth. Rudolf Hess, imprisoned for life.
So yes, if the US weren't a rogue aggressive state and followed the same legal principles it charged the Nazis with, and not flaunt them like a gangster state, it would give up the likes of Rumsfeld to an international tribunal and he'd spend the rest of his life in prison. That is in fact self evident.
WoW his bigotry is amazing.
Also notice how he is distancing himself from what happened
bigotry isnt the word. lack of basic humanity
"When the PRESIDENT made that decision..."
No, this conversation should have been in the visitors centre of a federal prison
Colbert, you beautiful genius I wanna hug your brain for this kick ass interview!!
If nothing else, Stephen is a great diplomat.
This interview is more thought out than we'll ever know
This Rumsfeld is the reason for the chaos in the world today
Gone to Hell now
this is a better interview than you'd ever find on an actual news network.
You gave the Iraqis chemical weapons
Literally thought the same thing
something something jet fuel steel beams bush conspiracy something where are my likes
+Esai Leanos Nine Hundred nd Eleven Likes to your post, Sir. The all 9 11 of them! (!x911, that is)
+Esai Leanos Steel beams can't melt jet fuel.
+Esai Leanos True, because something, something, something, dark side...
+Esai Leanos
They're being unofficially detained in a Slovenian prison.
+DarKMaTTeR They said jet fuel burnt away quickly... we all seen the fireball. The say paper burning paper took those buildings down. wtc7 had the smallest fires and burning paper took that down.
Hope this man will be brought to justice one day for the war crime he did.
@Dave Scott Invading a souvereign country and killing 100.000 civilians based on a lie? How is that *NOT* a war crime? People need to hang for doing something like that.
Excellent interview Stephen
Very effective interview. Humanizes a profoundly evil person
5 to 10 years from now, Trevor Noah will be interviewing Donald Trump or one of his many children and laughing about the "good times" they had with COVID and BLM. Mark. My. Words!
@@patricktsai2303 That's America. Constantly sanitizing evil
@@fishfrogdolphin2799 Trump has kept us in all 7 of the wars Bush and Obama started and has escalated drone strikes by 420%
@@fishfrogdolphin2799 that's a lie.
Troop escalation increased in Syria and Afghanistan under Trump
@@fishfrogdolphin2799 BBC left wing? Bruh
and still real criminals get interviews on tvs instead of being behind bars or at least end up like sadam
@Winston Galt sorry to break to you bud, but both parties have war criminals
this is a war criminal, he should receive the same treatment that the Iraqi people got from him!
Colbert knocks another political interview out of the park. Thanks, Rumsfeld, for participating in a fantastic conversation.
Colbert just performed
psychology waterboarding
humiliation on Roomy
@BIFF NAKED Why are you watching him, or was it just to see Rumsfeld? I thought it was interesting
He couldn’t even if he tried his hardest
@BENNY MOHAWK Yeah I can see what you're saying. I don't love everything he says.
Worst. haiku. ever.
Funny thing is that the U.S. gave them chemical weapons
Jaime Quintana Rumsfeld is living in the 90s when you could get away with lies of omission like that.
Genocide. Rest in Pain.
Never forget Rumsfeld's interview with Louis CK. One of his greatest works.
Hilarious
Sheddup Lizard
June 2001: Rumsfeld changes intercept protocol for fighter jets so that they need approval of Rumsfeld first before a scramble. On 9/11 nobody at the pentagon answered to the military asking to scramble the jets. September 12 2001: He changes it back to how it was, meaning they can go immediatly without approval of Donald Rumsfeld. If that doesn't make you suspicious, I don't know what will.
Hmm and also about those millions billions and trillions right before...
How abouts, that, (yikes) 'Terrorism clause', implemented into the new ownership contract, by the owner, of, and profitable one at that, of and by the owner, of, the two now-dropped and dead, Twin Towers, right before, that fateful, Tuesday morning (on a bitch)... As, mas, food, for, thought (on a, paisan's hat)...
Really? Source of this information?
Maybe he changed it back on September 12th because there was some sort of terrorist attack, and the circumstances were completely different.
What he said about chemical weapons is only a half truth. Yes, Saddam used them, but here's a crucial point. He used them with US support.
After the attack on the Kurds, the US put pressure on the UN to not blame Saddam for the attack. They didn't entirely get what they want but blame was split between Iraq and Iran. The US did not care about the Kurds then and I doubt they cared about them in 2000.
+Maxvk1000 Support continued until the day he completely invaded Kuwait. After that, they used those chemical attacks as a justification to attack him, but not before. The US might not have openly supported the attack, but they didn't exactly do much condemn Saddam.
Also, Saddam wasn't a madman as such. Very violent, certainly, and not always with the best political or military insight (actually his military insight is rather poor) but he didn't just do things. He wanted to get things done quickly and the quickest way to deal with a problem is to kill the problem, at least, usually. But he would also come to the bargaining table if it was clear that he couldn't beat his enemies into submission.
+Maxvk1000 Iran/Iraq wasn't about the Cold War either. It was just about maintaining U.S. interests in the Middle East and that's certainly not limited to the Cold War. Iran and Saudi-Arabia used to be the big powers on which the US could rely to maintain it's power in the region. After the Iranian revolution however the U.S. could no longer rely on them so they shifted to Iraq. Besides, no need to veto sanctions completely. If Saddam's sanctioned then he has more need of the US for illegal support (illegal both from a UN point of view and a domestic point of view seeing as there was an embargo on Iraq from the senate).
Yes, Saddam was a bit paranoid, but I thought you meant madman in the sense that he was just insane and did things for no reason and that's not an accurate description of the guy.
+Maxvk1000 US foreign policy makes you very cynical. Practical considerations, yes, moral, no. They didn't care when it looked like he would invade, they basically gave him the green light and to quote April Glaspie, the ambassador to Iraq, ''We didn't think he would take all of it (Kuwait).''
Arms deals were made with Iraq, through France because France didn't have an embargo on Iraq.
The Kurds were basically twice abandoned by the US. First during the chemical attacks, later during the uprising which the US initially supported but later backed out off. The hope was at the time that the uprising, and later the bombings of Iraq, would lead to one of Saddam's generals to make a coup and take over. Ironically, the uprisings and bombings made the army stick with Saddam because they didn't want a regime change during that chaos.
And the reason I don't think the Cold War was important is because even after the Cold War ended, basically the same policy of regime change was in place. As is the policy of maintaining power in the region through Saudi-Arabia and Israel.
+Maxvk1000 I don't presuppose evil intentions, I presuppose rational self-interest on the US part. If I was the Us, I would not veto those sanctions, partly because it would look bad, partly because I don't want Iraq to be too independent. However, I also don't want Iraq to be too severely influenced by these sanctions because they'd be too weak to be of any value then.
And they wanted regime change probably because they couldn't let Iraq have complete control over Kuwait as they'd then rival Saudi-Arabia and they could expand much further, thus allowing them independence from the US, but they also couldn't just keep dealing with Saddam after the Gulf war.
Regime change can be and is used for self-serving gain.
+Maxvk1000 Not very speculative really, it's basically what they did. If you're interested, the Iraq War Reader is a very interesting book which offers lots of different perspectives on the situation. By no means the only book on the subject, but it's a nice place to begin.
And there have been a few attempts which worked for a while. Iran for example, before the Iranian revolution that is.
I know how Trump and Bernie draw crowds like they do. Everyone who goes remembers what things were like when Rumsfeld was in office.
Way better than they are now… I’d take Iraq war divisiveness a million times over Communist vs fascist rhetoric of today
@@TheLocalLt because that wasn't directly impacting you. So you were happy. Ask the Iraqis the same thing. Now that your door is burning you are feeling the heat. America is paying for its past evil deeds.
@@immammuddin5019 Iraqis were the ones ambushing Americans with car bombs not the other way around. America screwed up by not giving the new Iraqi regime control immediately, as in Afghanistan, which made the jihadi terror take on an anti-colonial character. That being said, said regime is still in place today, even if subject to Iran’s influence, and successfully kicked out the Islamic State and defeated it’s Kurdish rebels, all while granting it’s citizens 100x the personal freedom’s of Saddam’s regime.
@@TheLocalLt lol did they come to America and ambush Americans?? You had no business being there. You went on a false WMD shit. As for ISIS it was Iranians and Kurds that kicked them out not Americans. I can't get your comment. Your defending America or exposing??
@@immammuddin5019 the Iraqi regime was a longtime enemy of America, and not only that but a traitor to America and Britain who backed Saddam all through the 80s only to watch him stab one of Britain’s oldest allies (Kuwait) in the back. The WMD stuff was real intelligence, Saddam had been kicking out UN weapons inspectors, and invading Iraq had been considered since at least 1998 and possibly earlier, the false leaks exaggerating the case in 2002 and 03 only came because the American people were not supportive of the idea.
The one that had been considered beyond the pale was Afghanistan, also in the American crosshairs since 1998 when Osama Bin Laden declared war on America after he found shelter with the Taliban regime. However 9/11 made that operation in Afghanistan real and once that was done, Iraq was seen as a natural next target and the potential cornerstone of the newly expanded pro-America bloc in the Middle East.
I like that this show does big boy interviews.
This pleased me.
Only show where I can enjoy laughing hysterically and be this informed. Keep on being great Colbert,
"So do you think we'll get prosecuted?" - Donald Rumsfeld after Dick Cheney fired him
“If it were a fact, it wouldn’t be called intelligence”. Line of the century.
I was in the audience for this show. They cut a big segment where Colbert says Rumsfeld has won a trip to stay at the Ramada in Ramadi - basically a bombed-out husk. Donald looked sour and I guess CBS cut it since it referenced Rummie's failed Iraq policy.
That "known" question is a fucking masterpiece and should be studied in universities all around the world.
Two variables, with two levels each leads to four possible combinations. Very clever question indeed
@@joeo5533 Ikr.. why are they not teaching this?
War criminals on TV shows. How nice.
Colbert really softballed this interview. Just compare this to Jon Stewart's interview of Judith Miller - and Miller was just a journalist Stewart excoriated for not trying harder to debunk the administration's narrative, Rumsfeld is literally the architect of the Iraq War
Judith Miller is a CIA agent, not a journalist. If Stewart doesn't realize that he's an idiot.
In short: It's not me, it's the president!!! We just gave him lego bricks and let him construct whatever he feels like making!
"If it were a fact, it wouldn't be called intelligence." Wow. How does he do it... This guy is an endless source of doubtfully useful aphorisms
EDIT: R.I.P. Donald Rumsfeld
jemert96 Definitely not a fact! This crook is a slippery double talker.Thinks he's super intelligent and can confuse people with Orwellian style doublespeak. HE WOULD SELLOUT HIS OWN BLOOD TO STAY ON TOP BELIEVE IT!.
You don't get to those positions of power in several administrations without those qualities and not only in goverment, private companies work in a very similar way...been like that since the age of ancient Rome and will continue that way as long as humanity exists
@Sathyajith Shankar Intelligence is based on facts and evidence.
@@CJ0101 Facts and speculation of possibilities.
Yah rest in piss
This is how you interview. This is how you ask intelligent questions. Thank you Stephen.
How can one watch Rumsfeld and NOT consider him a mass murderer?
What about Netanyahu?