Debating the Invasion of Iraq on the Brink of War (2003)

Transcript

Hide -

course is to act decisively now, but even so, I think it was a good speech. Howard Zen, what did you think of the president's case for war? Well, it's, as Robert Dalek says, it's the usual case, but the one thing that is missing in so much of the discussion is that we are going to kill a lot of people in this operation. It's all well and good to talk about the promise of a different Iraq, a democratic and free Iraq, a promise, which is very dubious considering the history of the United States in a history in which it has not been very good at creating democracy or history in which it has rather supported dictatorships around the world. But we are going to kill and think of it this way. We talk about Saddam Hussein and what he's doing to the people of Iraq. We are going to kill the victims of Saddam Hussein. The civilians of Baghdad are going to be living under terrorism. We are concerned about terrorism. War is terrorism. The people of Baghdad are going to be terrorized.

It's shock and awe. We are going to unleash enormous numbers of bombs on the cities and villages of Baghdad. Now we can't, that is certain, what is uncertain is the future. When you face certain horrors in war and uncertainties about the outcome, morally you cannot go along with this war. And I think that's why most of the world is outraged at what the United States is about to do. They are right. The present bush is right now the greatest danger to world peace. He's also the greatest danger to our young men and women whom he is sending into combat. Those who die, not just those who die in Iraq, but those people in our armed forces who die. They will die because President Bush has grandiose ambitions for American power in the world. They will die because of oil.

They will die because of politics. They will die because of the need of the United States government to expand its power. Those are not good reasons for people to die there or here. I take it and you disagree with what Walter Mead just said that over time, the public opinion throughout the world will swing to the Bush position and the American position. Nobody knows how public opinion will work. Predicting the future and predicting public opinion, we don't know what is going to happen in the future. We do know what is going to happen immediately. And what is going to happen immediately is that the United States is going to be really endangering the people of the United States, not just the people of Iraq, because even the CIA has said that the threat of terrorism will grow if we go to war. The United States government, by going to war, is making the American people less safe, is putting us in greatest danger, and for Bush to talk about national security doesn't

make any sense. He is endangering the security of the United States just as he endangering the security of the people in Iraq. I might say one more thing. Let me get you. Iraq was a real danger. One just one more sentence. If Iraq was a real danger to the world, then why is it that all the countries around Iraq? And why is it that the countries of the rest of the world do not want to go to war? Why is it that the most powerful military country in the world with oceans on both sides is going to war against Iraq? No, the reasons are not- Let me ask. Given by President Bush. We only have a couple minutes left. Let's go to Diane Lins and see if she would like to answer that question. How do you see? How would you answer Howard Zenz's question? Well, the first point I'd like to make is the reason there's going to be a war in Iraq if there will be one, will be Saddam Hussein. It is Saddam Hussein who, for 12 years, has refused to disarm, who's refused to get rid of weapons of mass destruction. He still has an opportunity to leave.

And so to say that it is the American government's fault that there may be a war in two days or five days or whenever is just ludicrous. Moreover, I think what President Bush made the point today, and I hope he makes it more clear, is that the preeminent issue for the next 20 years is how many countries will have weapons of mass destruction and how many individuals will be able to get those weapons of mass destruction illegally. And what President Bush is trying to do, I believe, is to make it very clear that the price for the proliferation of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons will be extremely high. And in this way, he is definitely safeguarding American and world security. What about Howard Zenz Point, though, that meanwhile some Iraqis and possibly some Americans are going to die? Well, this is the impasse to which Saddam Hussein has brought us. And when we ask the slogan war is not the answer, well, it depends on the question.

And right now, if the United States backs down, we will have sustained, as Winston Churchill said, after Munich, defeat without war. And that is the worst case scenario.

Debating the Invasion of Iraq on the Brink of War (2003)

When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan within weeks of the September 11 attacks in order to seek Osama bin Laden and replace the Taliban with a new government, the U.S. public and international community offered widespread support. However, the U.S. invasion of Iraq in early 2003 was far more controversial. The Bush Administration argued that Iraq’s authoritarian leader Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and that there were links between his government and al-Qaeda. However, relatively few allies joined the U.S. in the Iraqi military campaign, and a significant, outspoken minority of Americans opposed the invasion. In this panel discussion, aired on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer just days before the U.S. launched its invasion, various commentators debate the morality and wisdom of the war in Iraq. In this clip, historian and left-wing activist Howard Zinn spars with diplomatic historian Diane Kunz.

The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer | NewsHour Productions | March 17, 2003 This video clip and associated transcript appear from 25:01 - 30:18 in the full record.

View Full Record