Q: In this task, you are given a text of many news articles seperated by special token "|||||". Your task is to summarize them.
Associated Press 
  
 Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair spoke up this week, urging the West to use military force to intervene in Syria. He insisted it's "time we took a side," striking against the Assad regime that Blair said is responsible for "an assault on civilians not seen since the dark days of Saddam." 
  
 When I read this, I couldn't help but think about how little I care what Tony Blair thinks right now. After all, do credibility and accountability still have any meaning at all? 
  
 And then yesterday, we heard from one of the few voices who's even less reliable. 
  
 Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who ushered the U.S. into wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001 and 2003, said the Obama administration has not clearly justified an attack on Syria. "One thing that is very interesting, it seems to me, is that there really hasn't been any indication from the administration as to what our national interest is with respect to this particular situation," Rumsfeld said in an interview with Fox News's Neil Cavuto. 
  
 Now, I imagine there are plenty of fair-minded folks who may find the observation compelling. Does military intervention in Syria advance our security interests? Has President Obama presented a compelling justification for the use of force? 
  
 But sometimes the messenger is at least as important as the message -- and listening to Donald Rumsfeld complain about an administration failing to fully and persuasively justify a military attack makes the former Defense Secretary a first-ballot inductee in the Chutzpah Hall of Fame. 
  
 If Rumsfeld is out of the penalty box and welcome to appear in public again, at an absolute minimum, he should avoid claiming any degree of credibility on the use of force or the wisdom of military strikes. 
  
 That is, unless he wants to be laughed at. ||||| 11 months ago 
  
 (CNN) – Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who along with President George W. Bush helped send the United States military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, said in an interview Wednesday the White House has yet to justify potential strikes in Syria. 
  
 And he sharply criticized President Barack Obama’s administration for allowing details about that potential military action to become public before any decisions have been made. 
  
  
  
 “I can’t imagine what they’re thinking, why they would want the Assad regime to have crystal clarity with respect to what they intend,” Rumsfeld said in an interview on the Fox Business Network. 
  
 Obama told the "PBS Newshour" on Wednesday that he hadn’t yet made a final decision about U.S. military action in Syria, though U.S. officials have been cited widely in news reports pointing to cruise missile attacks on military facilities as a likely American response to alleged chemical weapons use by the Syrian regime. 
  
 Acknowledging it was difficult to fully ascertain the administration’s thinking as an outsider, Rumsfeld maintained it was puzzling the amount of information that’s made its way to the public. 
  
 "The idea of demystifying for the enemy what you're going to do is mindless,” he said. 
  
 Rumsfeld served a secretary of defense from 2001-2006, a period that saw the U.S. begin wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He said in the interview, however, that current statements from Obama and his aides haven’t met the threshold for intervention in Syria. 
  
 “There really hasn’t been any indication from the administration as to what our national interest is with respect to this particular situation,” he said. “When you think about what’s really important in that region – it’s Iran’s nuclear program and the relationship between Iran and Syria, the Assad regime, with respect to terrorists that go around killing innocent men, women and children, including Americans.” 
  
 He added that Secretary of State John Kerry, who left the U.S. Senate earlier this year for the top diplomatic post, had been “dealt a bad hand” by his predecessor Hillary Clinton and Obama, who he claimed had created a global leadership void. 
  
 “This administration has been in a withdrawal mode, an apology mode,” he said, adding: “That vacuum we’ve created is being filled by people that don’t have our values or interests.” |||||
A:
The architect of the Iraq war believes that President Obama hasn't given sufficient justification for military action against Syria. "There really hasn't been any indication from the administration as to what our national interest is" in Syria, Donald Rumsfeld tells CNN. He continues: "When you think about what’s really important in that region—it’s Iran’s nuclear program and the relationship between Iran and Syria, the Assad regime, with respect to terrorists that go around killing innocent men, women and children, including Americans." At the same time, Rumsfeld thinks the administration has said too much about what it might do. "I can’t imagine what they’re thinking," he said. "The idea of demystifying for the enemy what you're going to do is mindless." Of course, even if Rumsfeld had a point, he'd be a really terrible messenger for it, given his role in Iraq, argues Steve Benen at Rachel Maddow's blog. "If Rumsfeld is out of the penalty box and welcome to appear in public again, at an absolute minimum, he should avoid claiming any degree of credibility on the use of force," he writes.