Donald Rumsfeld Doesn't Think a Syria Strike is Justified

Donald Rumsfeld doesn't support a military intervention in Syria, yet, according to an interview with the former Defense Secretary scheduled to air later tonight on the Fox Business Network.

Donald Rumsfeld doesn't support a military intervention in Syria, yet, according to an interview with the former Defense Secretary scheduled to air later tonight on the Fox Business Network. Rumsfeld, who helped to sell the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions with predictions that didn't really pan out, told Neil Cavuto on Wednesday that "there really hasn’t been any indication from the administration as to what our national interest is with respect to this particular situation." He went on to indicate that if anything, we should be concerned more with Iran right now.

Rumsfeld, as you'll remember, is responsible for the most acrobatic of all justifications to a question on the lack of evidence for the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq — the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction:

As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know.

The Obama administration, meanwhile, justified the national interest of any military response towards Syria with Press Secretary Jay Carney's argument that a failure to retaliate could threaten our national security. The administration has promised to declassify intelligence demonstrating that President Bashar al-Assad's government is responsible for a devastating chemical attack last week near Damascus.

Earlier this summer, Rumsfeld criticized the administration's designation of a "red line" in Syria in the first place, claiming that the U.S.'s credibility was on the line if the administration did nothing in response to a series of earlier chemical attacks.