SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Ari & I: October 15, 2002
Russell Mokhiber questions White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer
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.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
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.