Confrontation scripted years ago

[John Bryce]

Transcript from The National (http://www.cbc.ca/national/transcripts/transcript#2B3327-24) broadcast 17 March 2003.

Confrontation scripted years ago

PETER MANSBRIDGE: As the prospect of an attack on Iraq moves closer to reality, some people are still wondering whether it was all pre-determined. Tonight, Neil Macdonald presents evidence that suggests the answer is yes, that the current confrontation with Iraq was actually scripted years ago.

NEIL MACDONALD (Reporter): These words were once uttered by George W. Bush, presidential candidate.

GEORGE W. BUSH (U.S. President): (October 11, 2000): But I think one way for us to end up being viewed as the ugly American is for us to go around the world saying we do it this way so should you.

MACDONALD: Now, one of the President's more recent assertions.

BUSH: The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. By the resolve and purpose of America and of our friends and allies, we will make this an age of progress and liberty.

MACDONALD: So, what happened? Well, September 11th happened obviously and George W. Bush had to rethink. But for many of those around Bush, there was no rethink. There didn't have to be. Long before September 11th, a small influential group of neo-Conservatives here in Washington had wanted to see the United States transformed into a sort of benevolent ruler, unchallenged, astride the world. And long before George W. Bush was elected, they sat down and wrote down a manifesto.

JAY BOOKMAN (Deputy Editorial Page Editor, The Atlanta Journal Constitution): It basically saying the United States has to take responsibility to enforce peace around the world and enforce what they call American principles and American interests.

MACDONALD: The document was effectively a charter of the project for a new American century, a neo-Conservative think tank in Washington.

BOOKMAN: The founding members included Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, of the Defence Department, Richard Pearl, head of Defence Advisory Board, Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, John Bolton, under Secretary of State for arms control, Eliot Cohen, who's on the defence policy board.

MACDONALD: Much of what these men wanted is coming true. They urged U.S. abandon the anti-ballistic missile treaty. It has. They wanted establishment of more permanent U.S. military bases abroad. That is happening in the Philippines and in Georgia and will likely happen in Iraq. They urge regime change as a goal of foreign wars, not just in Iraq. They wanted the U.S. as a global constabulary - their word - unburdened by the UN or world opinion preventing any challenge to U.S. dominance. But, they wrote, a year before September 11th, such aspirations are unlikely to be realized without a catastrophic and catalyzing event, like in Pearl Harbour. William Crystal, a leading neo-Conservative and director of the project for a new American century believes such goals are good and right and he's delighted with all the success but he says there's more to do.

WILLIAM CRYSTAL: We haven't persuaded the Bush administration of everything. I think we need to spend more on defence. I think they need to rethink their policy towards Saudi Arabia. They kicked the can down the road on North Korea but obviously they're going to have to deal with that.

MACDONALD: The U.S. is Gary Cooper in High Noon, says critics, standing tall, all alone, building a new American empire in a new American century. Neil Macdonald, CBC News, Washington.

[Segnosaur]

Just a couple of notes:

- The station that plays this show is associated with the CBC, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which is government run. It tends to have a left-of-center bias
- Nothing in the transcript indicates that the U.S. would have invaded Iraq had they actually complied with U.N. resolutions

Every nation looks out for its own interests. Why should the U.S. be criticized for doing the same?

[Alaric]

Actually, ive seen this in several different places. The neatthing is the CBC is the first to say it "mainstream".
As for CBC being leftist.....well...its more about being "Liberal Party" and liberal means just about as much as Democrat vs Republican if you get my meaning. It still throws a tint on the subject..but its a lil better.

[BillyTK]

Pre-WTC attack, Colin Powell was gathering support for modified sanctions (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1192815.stm); post-WTC attack, Rumsfeld says he cannot rule out military action against Iraq in the US-led war on terrorism (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1625095.stm). I'm pretty sure Rumsfeld and pals always had the idea to attack Iraq; they were simply waiting for someone to run with it.

Btw, here's the Statement of Principles (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm) of the Project for the New American Century, if anyone's interested.

[Tony]

Cool, I hope thier plan is successful.

[John Bryce]

Here is a link to the "maifesto" (in PDF format)

Rebuilding America's Defenses (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf)

[Jim Lennox]

BUMP! - Anyone got anything to say that will assuage my concerns about an imperialistic US?

[treborf]

Jim:

I hope it's abundently clear that the viewpoint expressed in the "New American Century" is about as far right as you can get in American politics. To say the very least, virtually no Democrats would agree with that point of view. Half the population voted for Al Gore in the last election, and he would most certainly reject this approach to foreign policy.

That said, the fear generated by the attacks of September 11th makes many Americans more open to "getting tough" with people such as Saddam Hussein, who is clearly up to no good.

Regards,
treborf

[Lemastre]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Just a couple of notes:

- Nothing in the transcript indicates that the U.S. would have invaded Iraq had they actually complied with U.N. resolutions

Every nation looks out for its own interests. Why should the U.S. be criticized for doing the same?
The U.S. hasn't as of this writing invaded Iraq. But it's obvious to me that George Bush wants to finish what his daddy failed to do in letting Saddam and his regime survive intact. Even if Saddam and his boys are out of town by Bush's arbitrary deadline, U.S. troops are going to take over Iraq as best they can.

To excuse an invasion of one nation by another because it's in the invader's interest to invade is to excuse just about any conflict you can name. I'm sure Adolph Hitler thought it was in Germany's interest to take over Europe. Of course, the folks being taken over have a right to pursue their interests, too. This usually does not include being taken over by force. Do we want to live in a world where everyone is excused for attacking anyone and everyone just because he feels some of his interests will be advanced?

[Jim Lennox]

Allo Treborf - Aren't these the guys running the country?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Jim Lennox
BUMP! - Anyone got anything to say that will assuage my concerns about an imperialistic US?

Another coupla years and there'll be a presidential election? Sorry, that's about the best I can offer :(

[John Bryce]

Originally posted by Jim Lennox
BUMP! - Anyone got anything to say that will assuage my concerns about an imperialistic US?

From: Reaction to 'Bush's Real Goal in Iraq': Comparing America to Ancient Empires is 'ludicrous' (http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-100602.htm)

Ignorance and confusion

Bookman's article also misunderstands the view of America's role in the world presented by the report. He says that its authors seek "a full-fledged global empire." Conceding that we do not speak of any such thing, he says we "shy away from such terms as empire."

We did not shy away from the term, because we never thought of it. I think it would be a very bad idea and entirely inconsistent with the kind of nation the United States is and should continue to be. All comparisons between America's current place in the world and anything legitimately called an empire in the past reveal ignorance and confusion about any reasonable meaning of the concept empire, especially the comparison with the Roman Empire, which Bookman makes. The Romans acquired the greatest part of their empire by direct military conquest, subjected their people to Roman law, and imposed taxes and compulsory military service under Roman command. They deprived their subjects of freedom and autonomy. With variations, such arrangements characterized the many empires that have existed over the centuries.

U.S. doesn't dominate, it leads

To compare the United States with any such empire is ludicrous. It holds no land outside the 50 states without the consent of its people. Victorious in World War I, it withdrew from Europe entirely. Victorious in World War II, it liberated Western Europe, occupied defeated Germany until its democracy could take hold and pumped great sums of money into helping its allies and former enemies achieve unprecedented prosperity. Invited to lead them in defense against the menace of the Soviet Union, the United States spent its money and employed its forces far from home, not for conquest but to protect its allies. It has welcomed the formation of a European Union that is entirely independent of the United States, is a formidable competitor in the world economy and feels entirely free to criticize, remain aloof from and oppose American policies, with no fear of military reprisal. That is not how empires behave.

We do not believe in an American empire. That is why the report speaks of American leadership, not domination. Because of its superior military and economic strength, its leading role in defeating two great totalitarian threats to the world and its uniquely broad interests around the world, it cannot escape the burdens and responsibilities of taking a leading part in establishing and preserving a peaceful order in the world. Over the years, extended periods of peace have been rare in a world divided into multiple states. My study of history convinces me that unilateral disarmament, the avoidance of international commitments, and teaching and preaching of the evils of war are of no avail in preventing war. What seems to work best, even though imperfectly, is the possession by those states who wish to preserve the peace of the preponderant power and of the will to accept the burdens and responsibilities required to achieve that purpose.

What do you think about that? :)

[treborf]

John:

What do I think? I think that if the U.S. is an 'empire', it's certainly one of the most beneficent empires in human history. I will concede that questionable decisions have been made, and will probably continue to be made, by U.S. leaders. That's human nature. But it's a mistake to equate those errors with malicious intent.

While protecting the U.S. and its interests is undoubtedly his number one concern, I think George W. Bush genuinely believes he is helping the Iraqi people by deposing Saddam Hussein. I believe the U.S. military genuinely wants to minimize civilian casualties. That's strongly supported by the fact that they've invited a broad spectrum of media to "tag along" during this war. They didn't do that during the '91 conflict, a decision which led to all kinds of criticism and speculation about how that war was conducted.

'Intent' counts for a lot in my book, and I don't really question Bush's intent. Here's what I do question:

1. Bush's apparent disregard for world opinion. I care what the world thinks, and I truly believe that with a little more time and tact (on both sides), a U.N. resolution could have been reached, with specific requirements and deadlines for Iraqi cooperation, as well as specific consequences (including the use of force). 1441 was too ambiguous. Bush's decision to move unilaterally creates the impression that the U.S. is bent on having its way, the world be damned.

2. The administration's choice of rhetoric. From his frequent use of the word "evil" to label his enemies, to the tired presidential proclamation "may God continue to bless these United States of America", this is precisely the same kind of rhetoric used by anti-American Islamic extremists (just substitute the word "Allah"). I have enough trouble believing God exists at all, let alone blesses one population more than another. As for Rumsfeld, there's a guy who doesn't think before he speaks (or give a damn either way).

Seriously though, I believe the administration's public statements contributed greatly to the failure of diplomacy in the U.N. What kind of negotiation is possible when one of the participants makes clear from the outset (during the State of the Union speech, for example) that it's going to act on its own regardless of how the negotiations turn out? What's the point of negotiating when the outcome is already determined? Certainly that's how the U.S. felt when France declared that it would veto "any ultimatum". It's a completely incompetent approach to diplomacy. Both sides should be embarrassed.

Regards,
treborf

[edited for spelling]

[John Bryce]

Originally posted by treborf
John:

What do I think? I think that if the U.S. is an 'empire', it's certainly one of the most beneficent empires in human history. I will concede that questionable decisions have been made, and will probably continue to be made, by U.S. leaders. That's human nature. But it's a mistake to equate those errors with malicious intent.

I agree. I'm not saying The Bush administration has malicious intent, I just question what I perceive: an evangelical like, far right-wing political doctrine that , to me, is intent on changing the world by force to fit its own view of what the world should be like, and acting like, "To Hell with the rest of the world, we know what is best".

While protecting the U.S. and its interests is undoubtedly his number one concern, I think George W. Bush genuinely believes he is helping the Iraqi people by deposing Saddam Hussein. I believe the U.S. military genuinely wants to minimize civilian casualties. That's strongly supported by the fact that they've invited a broad spectrum of media to "tag along" during this war. They didn't do that during the '91 conflict, a decision which led to all kinds of criticism and speculation about how that war was conducted.

Again, we seem to agree. However, I do not believe this has anything to do with helping the Iraqi people, as Bush may lead us to believe. This is all about unfinished business from 12 years ago. That is the primary motivation behind this war as I see it.

[treborf]

Originally posted by John Bryce

I agree. I'm not saying The Bush administration has malicious intent, I just question what I perceive: an evangelical like, far right-wing political doctrine that , to me, is intent on changing the world by force to fit its own view of what the world should be like, and acting like, "To Hell with the rest of the world, we know what is best".

I can certainly understand why you see it that way. The Bush administration definitely has an agenda. The administration's biggest weakness (apart from being right-wing ;) ) is that it doesn't recognize how people will reflexively bristle at being coerced. No amount of good intentions will overcome the fact that getting things done by throwing one's weight around will not win many friends (not the kind you would want, anyway). It's not a good long term strategy.

In the case of Iraq, though, we're not talking about some alternative, benevolent form of government. Saddam Hussein's atrocities are well-documented. Removing him through force may plausibly be the only hope of a better life for most Iraqis. I don't see him leaving or mending his ways on his own.
Originally posted by John Bryce

Again, we seem to agree. However, I do not believe this has anything to do with helping the Iraqi people, as Bush may lead us to believe. This is all about unfinished business from 12 years ago. That is the primary motivation behind this war as I see it.

I agree that "unfinished business" is undoubtedly part of the equation. But I also know that the right-wing evangelism you cite is based on a fervent belief in individual liberty. I don't think it's a stretch to say that Bush, perhaps reflecting on his place in history, relishes the prospect of liberating the Iraqi people (as he sees it).

Great thread, by the way.

Regards,
treborf

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Just a couple of notes:

- The station that plays this show is associated with the CBC, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which is government run. It tends to have a left-of-center bias
- Nothing in the transcript indicates that the U.S. would have invaded Iraq had they actually complied with U.N. resolutions

Every nation looks out for its own interests. Why should the U.S. be criticized for doing the same?

and people are crticizing the UN for not being democratic. what is even more un democratic is for one country to have the right to be able to invade any one it likes to protect it's own interests.

[Pyrrho]

MACDONALD: The U.S. is Gary Cooper in High Noon, says critics, standing tall, all alone, building a new American empire in a new American century. Neil Macdonald, CBC News, Washington.


They don't understand the film. It wasn't about standing tall and all that...it was about people refusing to protect themselves and leaving it to someone else to do the dirty work, while giving him no support.

[John Bryce]

Originally posted by treborf

I can certainly understand why you see it that way. The Bush administration definitely has an agenda. The administration's biggest weakness (apart from being right-wing ;) ) is that it doesn't recognize how people will reflexively bristle at being coerced. No amount of good intentions will overcome the fact that getting things done by throwing one's weight around will not win many friends (not the kind you would want, anyway). It's not a good long term strategy.

I think that is the root cause of the opposition to the attack on Iraq. President W. Bush has failed to consider the importance of good diplomacy. Making statements saying you are with us or with the terrorists doesn't do much to bring your allies on side when they disagree with your position. Also, not allowing UN inspectors time to finished what they had started does not do any good. Regardless of the arguements on if the UN inspectors could have disarmed Iraq, many people see it as the US deciding to attack Iraq without giving the UN a fair chance to do its job. Perception is everything.

In the case of Iraq, though, we're not talking about some alternative, benevolent form of government. Saddam Hussein's atrocities are well-documented. Removing him through force may plausibly be the only hope of a better life for most Iraqis. I don't see him leaving or mending his ways on his own.

I agree that "unfinished business" is undoubtedly part of the equation. But I also know that the right-wing evangelism you cite is based on a fervent belief in individual liberty. I don't think it's a stretch to say that Bush, perhaps reflecting on his place in history, relishes the prospect of liberating the Iraqi people (as he sees it).

I certainly have no problem with seeing a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein go, but I question the method used. This goes back to my view that the US government is deciding for itself what kind of government the Iraqi people want, and deciding on its own how to bring that government about. I am sure the Iraqi people want freedom, but do they want a democracy based on American democracy? What if the people of Iraq want a government based on Islam? Would the US government allow that? Only time will tell, and we will have to wait and see what kind of governemnt the people of Iraq end up with.

Thanks for the comments.