Fog of War

McNamara was only a part of "a mechanism that in a sense reccommended" killing of 100,00 men women and children in Japan. He talked of the importance of "needing to think more about killing, about conflict" and if that's what we want in the 21st century. He admitted not being qualified for the position of Secretary of Defense.
And yet, somehow his recommendations to the President were to keep information from the American public. Wouldn't you think that being completely honest would be the best move, if your intentions really were best? Hiding details from the public didn't help his cause at all.
He said that he would only "answer the question [he] wished had been asked of [him]." So maybe the real questions had even been asked, but he answered them in a way as not to give his mistakes away. One of his lessons was to "be prepared to reexamine your reasoning," which was illustrated with bargraphs of men killed in action, wounded, tons of bombs dropped, images of dead bodies and burning villages, and rolls of images of soldiers in action.
He said that the war was the President's responsibility and never took credit for any of the wrongdoings of the war. He said that if Kennedy lived through it, the escalation would not have reached what it had. If he was really so opposed to the war, why didn't he speak out? He was in the perfect position to make a large impact of the direction that the war was taking and said nothing.
Even after his "resignation," McNamara chose not to say anything then either. Was he just being a coward? Or was there true evilness radiating from those actions (or lack of action)? Either way, he set an impressive precedent for administrations in the future. (sarcasm)