US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC :
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
News ::
MEET THE PRESS: democracies do not wage aggressive wars-Richard Perle (english)
28 Feb 2003

You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses to frighten you.

- Eric Hoffer
the masses are asses

From NBC’s MEET THE PRESS - Feb. 23, 2003

Tim Russert: Our issues this Sunday: What are the risks, the costs, the consequences of a war with Iraq? Should we use military force to remove Saddam Hussein? Yes, says Richard Perle, the chairman of the Pentagon Defense Policy Board. No, says Ohio Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich. Perle and Kucinich square off.


Tim Russert: Do you believe the president of the United States would risk the lives of American men and women for oil?

Dennis KucinichI think that to answer that question would be to put a focus on a person, and I think the policy is what we have to talk about, that this policy to go against Iraq was promulgated even before 9/11, and the day after 9/11, the secretary of Defense in a meeting of the National Security Council said we could use this moment to go after Iraq, even though there was no connection. I think that when a president commits the young men and women of this country to battle, that it should only be when there is an imminent threat to this country, and that—I believe most sincerely that one of the motivating factors involved in this effort to strike against Iraq is the desire on the part of some to be able to control the oil interests in Iraq. I believe that.

Tim Russert: Mr. Perle, there’s been discussion about the role of Israel and the formulation of American foreign policy regarding Iraq. Let me show you an article from The Washington Times, written by Arnold DeBorograf: “The strategic objective is the antithesis of Middle Eastern stability. The destabilization of ‘despotic regimes’ comes next. In the Arab bowling alley, one ball aimed at Saddam is designed to achieve a 10-strike that would discombobulate authoritarian and/or despotic regimes in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Emirates and sheikhdoms. The ultimate phase would see Israel surrounded by democratic regimes that would provide 5 million Israelis—soon to be surrounded by 300 million Arabs—with peace and security for at least a generation. The roots of the overall strategy can be traced to a paper published in 1996 by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, an Israeli think tank. The document was titled ‘A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Security the Realm.’ Israel, according to the 1996 paper, would ‘shape its strategic environment,’ beginning with the removal of Saddam Hussein. Prominent American opinion-makers who are now senior members of the Bush administration participated in the discussions and the drafting that led to this 1996 blueprint.” Can you assure American viewers across our country that we’re in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?

Richard Perle: Well, first of all, the answer is absolutely yes. Those of us who believe that we should take this action if Saddam doesn’t disarm—and I doubt that he’s going to—believe it’s in the best interests of the United States. I don’t see what would be wrong with surrounding Israel with democracies; indeed, if the whole world were democratic, we’d live in a much safer international security system because democracies do not wage aggressive wars. But please allow me to say: I find the accusation that this administration has embarked upon this policy for oil to be an outrageous, scurrilous charge for which, when you asked for the evidence, you will note there was none. There was simply the suggestion that, because there is oil in the ground and some administration officials have had connections with the oil industry in the past, therefore, it is the policy of the United States to take control of Iraqi oil. It is a lie, Congressman. It is an out and out lie. And I’m sorry to see you give credence to it.


Although Tim Russert's linkage of American foreign policy regarding Iraq to the Zionist policy recommendations of A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm is inspiring, his failure to mention the fact that Richard Perle was the author is disingenuous. The fact that the chairman of the Pentagon Defense Policy Board was the primary architect of a preemptive strategy to re-mold the Middle East along Israeli lines is interesting...if not important. U.S and Israeli national interests are not ‘one in the same’ and disregarding Perle’s ‘conflict of interest’ undermines the national security of the United States.

the masses are asses
Add a quick comment
Your name Your email


Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.