White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer gestures as he speaks to reporters at the White House briefing room April 2, 2003 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Oct 15, 2002
Russell Mokhiber: You have said the President wants regime change in Iraq, by which I take it to mean the President wants to overthrow the government in Iraq. Why don't you just say the President wants to overthrow the government in Iraq?
Ari Fleischer: Russell, I think you need to address your question to the hundreds of members of Congress who in 1998 voted for regime change as America's policy under President Clinton, who signed it into law.
Mokhiber: If I could follow up, Ari.
Fleischer: Go ahead.
Mokhiber: You use the term regime change. Why don't you just say, we want to overthrow the government of Iraq?
Fleischer: Because I describe the law as the law was described when it passed and as it's been commonly referred to.
Mokhiber: Okay, the second question, Ari.
Fleischer: Third.
Mokhiber: Second. That was a follow-up. If India adopted the Bush administration's policy on preemptive attack, vis a vis let's say Pakistan, or if China adopted the Bush administration policy on preemptive attack, vis a vis Taiwan, would you consider that a lawful policy under international law?
Fleischer: Well, I think what's different is the unique history of Iraq and the irrationality of Iraq. Different policies work in different regions of the world, and different doctrines work at different times and in different regions because of the local circumstances. Policies of containment work more with a rational figure than with an irrational one. That's why the policy of containment worked vis a vis the Soviet Union.
Iraq, on the other hand, given its military history, given the amount of weaponry that Iraq has acquired that they have actually used to invade their neighbors, to attack their neighbors, to launch missiles against their neighbors, has not been deterred by such policies in the past. Given the fact that an irrational leader who has a history of military force and military use and military aggression and domination may acquire a nuclear weapon, the question is, should it be the policy of the United States to do nothing, and allow such a leader to acquire a weapon that he could then use to blackmail the world and blackmail the region, and even use it to harm us.
Why Your Ongoing Support Is Essential
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Russell Mokhiber
Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime Reporter. He is also founder of singlepayeraction.org, and editor of the website Morgan County USA.
Russell Mokhiber: You have said the President wants regime change in Iraq, by which I take it to mean the President wants to overthrow the government in Iraq. Why don't you just say the President wants to overthrow the government in Iraq?
Ari Fleischer: Russell, I think you need to address your question to the hundreds of members of Congress who in 1998 voted for regime change as America's policy under President Clinton, who signed it into law.
Mokhiber: If I could follow up, Ari.
Fleischer: Go ahead.
Mokhiber: You use the term regime change. Why don't you just say, we want to overthrow the government of Iraq?
Fleischer: Because I describe the law as the law was described when it passed and as it's been commonly referred to.
Mokhiber: Okay, the second question, Ari.
Fleischer: Third.
Mokhiber: Second. That was a follow-up. If India adopted the Bush administration's policy on preemptive attack, vis a vis let's say Pakistan, or if China adopted the Bush administration policy on preemptive attack, vis a vis Taiwan, would you consider that a lawful policy under international law?
Fleischer: Well, I think what's different is the unique history of Iraq and the irrationality of Iraq. Different policies work in different regions of the world, and different doctrines work at different times and in different regions because of the local circumstances. Policies of containment work more with a rational figure than with an irrational one. That's why the policy of containment worked vis a vis the Soviet Union.
Iraq, on the other hand, given its military history, given the amount of weaponry that Iraq has acquired that they have actually used to invade their neighbors, to attack their neighbors, to launch missiles against their neighbors, has not been deterred by such policies in the past. Given the fact that an irrational leader who has a history of military force and military use and military aggression and domination may acquire a nuclear weapon, the question is, should it be the policy of the United States to do nothing, and allow such a leader to acquire a weapon that he could then use to blackmail the world and blackmail the region, and even use it to harm us.
Russell Mokhiber
Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime Reporter. He is also founder of singlepayeraction.org, and editor of the website Morgan County USA.
Russell Mokhiber: You have said the President wants regime change in Iraq, by which I take it to mean the President wants to overthrow the government in Iraq. Why don't you just say the President wants to overthrow the government in Iraq?
Ari Fleischer: Russell, I think you need to address your question to the hundreds of members of Congress who in 1998 voted for regime change as America's policy under President Clinton, who signed it into law.
Mokhiber: If I could follow up, Ari.
Fleischer: Go ahead.
Mokhiber: You use the term regime change. Why don't you just say, we want to overthrow the government of Iraq?
Fleischer: Because I describe the law as the law was described when it passed and as it's been commonly referred to.
Mokhiber: Okay, the second question, Ari.
Fleischer: Third.
Mokhiber: Second. That was a follow-up. If India adopted the Bush administration's policy on preemptive attack, vis a vis let's say Pakistan, or if China adopted the Bush administration policy on preemptive attack, vis a vis Taiwan, would you consider that a lawful policy under international law?
Fleischer: Well, I think what's different is the unique history of Iraq and the irrationality of Iraq. Different policies work in different regions of the world, and different doctrines work at different times and in different regions because of the local circumstances. Policies of containment work more with a rational figure than with an irrational one. That's why the policy of containment worked vis a vis the Soviet Union.
Iraq, on the other hand, given its military history, given the amount of weaponry that Iraq has acquired that they have actually used to invade their neighbors, to attack their neighbors, to launch missiles against their neighbors, has not been deterred by such policies in the past. Given the fact that an irrational leader who has a history of military force and military use and military aggression and domination may acquire a nuclear weapon, the question is, should it be the policy of the United States to do nothing, and allow such a leader to acquire a weapon that he could then use to blackmail the world and blackmail the region, and even use it to harm us.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.