 Thank you. Thank you, Wendy. Thank you to the Fort Huffle. It is a real honor and a pleasure to be here tonight and Hopefully we'll have a quiet evening for the rest of the evening This is quite a venue, this is really gorgeous, so so thank you and thank you all for coming It is five years since September 11th and the daily news about the war is depressing But about a year ago many people you were euphoric with hope They were swept up in the excitement of the government's new strategy in the Middle East We saw an early milestone of the strategy in January of 2005 We saw the images of smiling you are keys displaying their ink stained fingers Having just cast a vote in elections and liberated Iraq Those images people said symbolized a momentous development Even opponents of Bush was swept up in New York Times editorial for example declared that the first three months of 2005 had been full of quote Hotening surprises each one remarkable in itself had taken together truly astonishing The Bush administration's Administration is entitled to claim a healthy share of the credit for many of these advances Commentators so reason to believe Bush's prediction of 2003 when he declared quote Iraqi democracy will succeed. It would be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution We all heard breathless news reports about a wave of democracy in the Middle East Indeed at the Arab League meeting in Tunis heads of state quote promise to promote democracy expand popular participation in politics and Reinforce women's rights in civil society The upshot of all of this we were told would be greater security for America The crusade to democratize the Middle East Was premised an idea to put Bush The security of our nation depends on the advance of liberty in other nations unquote Now this is Bush's Ford strategy of freedom The strategy calls for bringing democracy to other countries for their alleged purpose of making America safer The notion is the democratic nations are peaceful. They do not start wars Now indeed this sounds plausible Truly free nations have no interest in waging war except in self-defense free nations Free nations Prosper through trade not conquest or plunder It is also true that the more free countries they are in the world the better off we are So has the strategy moved us towards peace and freedom in the Middle East they have been elections But who won? The elections in Iraq were touted as an American victory But the new Iraqi government is dominated by a Shiite alliance led by skewer The supreme council for an Islamic revolution in Iraq The alliance whose spiritual leader is Ayatollah Sistani has Intimidized with the first nation to undergo an Islamic revolution Iran The fundamental principle of Iraq's new constitution is Islam and One of the most powerful men in Iraqi politics is the very popular warlord Muqtah el-Sadr He controls 32 seats the largest block of seats in Iraq's parliament, and he is fiercely anti-american pro-uranian and pro-theocracy Iraq has become what it never was before a hotbed of Islamic Shiite and Sunni terrorists I'll consider the Palestinian authorities Palestinian territories for years Bush has begged Palestinians to elect quote new leaders not compromised by terror and Finally in the elections of January 2006 the Palestinians did turn their backs on the cronies of Yasser Arafat They elected even more militant killers Hamas an Islamist group notorious for suicide bombing It won a landslide and now rules the Palestinian territories This summer the Iranian back Hamas and Hezbollah kidnapped and killed Israeli soldiers and Precipitated a war in the region Hezbollah remember Took part in US and those elections in Lebanon and for the first time became part of Lebanon's government They actually have two ministries Consider as a final example of the trend election in Egypt In the Arab world's most populous country Which group scored major gains? The Muslim Brotherhood whose offshoots include Hamas and parts of al-Qaeda The group's founding credo is Quote Allah is our goal. The Koran is our constitution. The Prophet is our leader Struggle is our way and death in the path of Allah is our greatest aspiration The Brotherhood's success was considerable It won about 20% of the seats in Egypt's assembly becoming the largest opposition bloc That the bad body has ever had All this despite government interference at the polls The Brotherhood would have won even more power without that interference The Muslim Brotherhood Hamas Lebanon's Hezbollah The Islamist regime in Iran al-Qaeda These are all parts of an ideological movement Islamic totalitarianism This movement seeks to enslave the entire Middle East and then the rest of the world Under a totalitarian state ruled by Islamic law The totalitarians will use any means to achieve their goal terrorism If it proves to be effective All out war If they can win and politics If it can bring them power over whole countries And the totalitarians Are encouraged By its promotion of elections Bush's forward strategy has paved the road for Islamists to grab political power Across the Middle East the totalitarians have a renewed sense of purpose Hezbollah's war against Israel this summer is one major symptom Of their confidence The situation today is worse for America than it was right after 9 11 Deadly attacks have continued Among many attacks remember the suicide bombings in london last year Four Islamists blew themselves up on underground trains. It was a bloodbath Remember the train bombing in madrid in 2004 Remember the countless plots that were foiled like the recent plot to blow up airliners crossing the Atlantic Americans are not safer The issue now is not if there will be another catastrophic attack But only when Iraq is a disaster the situation in the greater middle east is worsening People have lost confidence in Bush's forward strategy What went wrong? Well, the so-called realists in foreign policy argue The forward strategy was hopeless on the start The strategy they say is idealistic And therefore impractical They add that it is not America's job to judge other regimes To be practical they claim we should broker diplomatic deals with anyone at any cost Regardless of whether they are dictatorships or free nations But history demonstrates That appeasing and cozying up with hostile regimes is a suicidal strategy Other observers accepting the ideal of spreading democracy Criticize the application of the strategy for example, they claim we didn't send enough troops to Iraq There were not enough guards along the Iraqi border with Syria Iraqi police forces got insufficient training, you know, et cetera, et cetera, there are lots of these These critics focus on the concrete means of the strategy But the problem in my view is the goal driving the strategy The strategy had to fail Not because it is idealistic But because of the particular ideal that it ultimately advances An ideal we will see is corrupt My thesis tonight is that this strategy could not make us safer because making us safer was never its real purpose So let us begin our examination of my thesis with the immediate aftermath of 9 11 Suppose that on September 12th, Housh's strategist had asked this question What must America do to defend itself against the lethal threat of Islamic terrorism? What steps are necessary to protect our lives? Well, the rational answer is America must defeat the enemy Defeating the enemy entails The permanent elimination of the threat The complete restoration of the protection of individual rights in America The return to normal life without endless terrorist alerts and the dread of another 9 11 Now this is the objective meaning Of success in war the return to normal life the threat is over We call for example our last successful war World War II The Allied powers fought to defend themselves Their goal was to defeat the enemy Their combat achieved victory over Japan and Germany and restored peace By 1945 when the war ended the Germans and Japanese were defeated People in the west returned to their normal lives the threat Was over. How was such a victory accomplished? The Allied powers committed themselves to crushing the enemy They understood that the enemy was Nazism and Japanese imperialism And that the political manifestations of these ideologies had to be stopped The Allied powers also understood at least in some terms That merely assassinating Hitler or the Japanese emperor would not be enough Because the people of Germany and Japan Supported the goals of their regime. Remember Hitler was elected democratically crushing the Nazis Required stopping the German war machine and demoralizing the supporters of the world This is why the allies carpet bombed German cities pulverized its factories and railroads Devastated its infrastructure As Winston Churchill explained quote The severe the ruthless bombing of Germany on an ever-increasing scale Will not only cripple her war effort But will create conditions intolerable to the mass of the German population Crushing Germany Demonstrated that the Nazi cause was doomed And made the many supporters of Nazism personally Feel the pain of war Likewise with Japan The united states firebombs Japanese cities On one day of particular fierce combat US forces dropped 500 pound firebombs over tokyo every 50 feet Over 80 000 Japanese died that day About 267 000 buildings were destroyed A million homeless Yet to thoroughly defeat Japan Ultimately the US had to drop two nuclear bombs Those bombs killed thousands of Japanese The bombs demonstrated that if Japan continued threatening America Thousands more Japanese would suffer and die The bombs it is worth remembering Spared the lives of probably hundreds of thousands of US troops who would otherwise have died and continue fighting Germans and Japanese were made to see that supporting the political expression of Nazism and imperialism Would result in mass destruction to their homes To their factories to themselves to their families They would die They were defeated they were demoralized and they gave up today American self-defense requires the same kind of military action Our enemy today is the ideology of Islamic totalitarianism As the Nazis sought to dominate Europe and then the world So the Islamist movement seeks to subjugate the west under a borderless islamic regime The supposedly faceless Stateless terrorists are part of the totalitarian movement They fight for the political vision of islamic domination They are inspired to fight and able to kill Because they are armed and inspired by regimes that back this movement Islamic totalitarianism has political representation in Saudi Arabia and Iran As well as in various political and military organizations like the Muslim brotherhood Hamas Tizbala Islamic jihad, etc Following the successful model of world war two victory today entails Smashing regimes that provide logistical and moral support for islamic totalitarianism and as in world war two victory entails making the supporters of the totalitarian ideology Suffer the pain of war Islamic warriors Are able to train to buy arms To hide their explosives to plan their attacks Only because many Muslims agree with their goals These supporters of jihad against the west who cheer when americans die Who protect support and encourage the terrorists coming to kill our children These supporters must learn That the inevitable outcome of their aggression is their own destruction They must be made to abandon all hope all hope of achieving the ideal of a global islamic regime They must see any action towards that goal as suicidal Now there are tactical options in prosecuting such a war But such a war is necessary to defeat the enemy and end the threat to our lives Victory in the war on islamic totalitarianism requires no less than it did in world war two It requires the destruction and demoralization Of the enemy But at no point has bush been prepared to inflict serious damage on our enemies in the middle east Not even in the meat in the immediate aftermath of 9 11 Such a self assertive war was deemed unthinkable Bush insisted that we have no quarrel with ordinary uwakis afghans Only with their leaders What alternative did the bush administration offer? All the forward strategy of freedom The plan was to replace the Taliban and Saddam Hussein with democratic regimes Then somehow democracy would flower throughout the middle east and then supposedly we would all be safer President bush claimed that quotes We're advancing our security at home By advancing the cause of freedom across the world because in the long run The only way to defeat the terrorists is to defeat the dark vision of hatred and fear By offering the hopeful alternative of human freedom The security of our nation depends on the advance of liberty in other nations And what this essentially means is that we have two options We can bring elections to poor uwakis and be safe Or we don't spread democracy and we will be attacked Either we bring them democracy or they destroy us with more attacks like 9 11. That's the truth Imagine that this had been the strategy in world war two Imagine that instead of fighting the enemy until its unconditional surrender We somehow deposed hitler and the emperor of japan and then set up elections for the liberated people What do you think would have happened? Why would they not have elected another hitler? Now because this was not the approach taken world war two was won decisively within four years after pol harbor We are entering the sixth year of this war and there is no end in sight Things are indeed getting worse What's the strategy rejects the goal of defeating the enemy? The strategy cannot protect us because it leaves the enemy undefeated The enemy is encouraged to believe that its ideal is more viable than ever before But maybe the strategy was okay But just honestly mistaken about who would win the elections You know bush hoped to see pro-democracy pro-american leaders win in the middle east But could such leaders be elected in a culture that is dominated by primitive tribalism by mysticism By resentment towards any ideas that challenge islam The widespread content for individualism is apparent in the deep-seated worship of the family the clan the tribe the group Its members will cure to preserve family honor Brothers will murder a sister merely suspected of disgracing the family name The content for reason is apparent in the resentment to any ideas Challenging islam we call the brutal response 17 years ago to the satanic verses a novel by salam and rushdie that allegedly insulted islam Very few very few of any muslims bothered to read the book to judge it firsthand But they demanded rushdie be executed and of course the danish cartoons is another example Most muslims in the middle east love neither freedom nor america To believe otherwise is to evade the dancing palestinians egyptians iraqis who celebrated the collapse of the twin towers It is to evade the overwhelming anti americanism in the region Given the opportunity it is clear who they would have voted in into political office But the administration wanted to believe That iraqis are just like freedom loving americans except for the misfortune of living under a dictator The idea that liberated iraqis would embrace western values with open arms That idea is pure fantasy It was wishful thinking in defiance of reality This evasion was used to sell the notion that defeating the enemy was unnecessary We just needed to topple saddam and deliver the ballot boxes But the results of the elections have exposed this idea for the fantasy it always was Given the opportunity a majority of muslims in the middle east elected to office how worst enemies the islamists So was bush seeking us of the fence but honestly mistaken about who would win the elections No, this was an evasion a woeful negation of the fact Indeed now that the election results are in As the administration repudiated the strategy Absolutely not The forward strategy is not an alternate means of achieving victory Because victory is not its purpose It is a substitute for defeating the enemy So if it cannot bring us victory, why was it embraced? What is the ultimate goal of the forward strategy if not victory? Now to answer that let's begin by considering the nature of the strategy It is called The forward strategy of freedom But this is a vicious fraud It has nothing to do with freedom In reality, it is the forward strategy of democracy Of unlimited majority rule Now there is a fundamental and I think revealing difference between advocating for freedom And for democracy Now what is freedom? In a political context, it means the absence of physical coercion It is a profound value Because in order to eat and earn a living to build cars and perform surgery in order to live Man must think and act on the judgment of his own rational mind To do that man must be left alone Left free from the interference of the government and of other men Freedom is premised on the individual's moral right to exist And his right to pursue his happiness That right also includes self-defense To defend us from criminals, we have the police To defend a nation from foreign aggressors, we have the military To fight a war for U.S. self-defense means to defend the individual freedom of each American It means securing the right of each American to live free from the threat of foreign aggression The founding fathers recognize that freedom rests on the individual's right to life and happiness That's why they created a constitutional republic Protecting individual rights, the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness Our constitutional framework prohibits the majority of voting away the rights of anyone The founders firmly rejected democracy Democracy is not freedom, but literally unlimited majority rule Under democracy, the rights of the individual are not paramount The desires of the group, the majority are supreme If your gang is large enough, you can get away with whatever you want Sacrificing the life and wealth of whoever stands in your way Now this is a form of tyranny It puts the wishes of the majority first Above the individual, above all else Now this is the corrupt political ideal that this administration is trying to bring to the Middle East This strategy puts the whims of Iraqi and Afghan mobs first The strategy is to politically empower Muslims of the region to assert their desires, their wishes As we've seen, this clearly subverts U.S. security If one's goal was to achieve U.S. self-defense Then we would decide the political makeup of a defeated regime How it is made permanently, non-threatening to us But Washington disavowed any intention of deciding this issue Bush proclaimed all along that America would never determine the precise character of Iraq's new regime The decision was entirely theirs Whether whatever the Iraqis chose, America would endorse One scenario is that elections might bring to power an Iranian-style militant theocracy in Iraq When asked if the U.S. would accept such a result Bush said, yes Why should America sit back and accept a new hostile regime in Iraq? A worse threat to our security than Saddam Hussein was Because Bush explained, quote, democracy is democracy Now this is what the forward strategy seeks To make the will of the Iraqis of our enemies paramount Now to see how seriously Washington takes this, let's see how they conducted the war From the altar, the war was pitched as a war of liberation Just as we toppled the Taliban to liberate the Afghans So we toppled Saddam to liberate the Iraqis The campaign in Iraq, after all, was called Operation Iraqi Freedom, not Operation Secure America Shock and all, the supposedly merciless bombing of Baghdad never materialized That's because, as Washington demanded, the military's goal was not to devastate Iraq's infrastructure But to provide welfare services Bush had promised that America will, quote, stand ready to help the citizens of liberated Iraq We will deliver medicine to the sick And we are now moving into place nearly 3 million emergency rations to feed the hungry The fighting was hardly begun when Washington launched the so-called reconstruction Our military was ordered to commit troops and resources Which were needed to protect our own personnel To the tasks of reopening schools, printing textbooks, fixing up hospitals For the Iraqis, Washington laid on food and medicine It opened schools and sewers, but it tied the hands of our military Washington commanded the military tiptoe around Iraq Troops were coached in all manner of cultural sensitivity training So they would not offend the customs of the locals The welfare of Iraqis was placed above the lives of our soldiers Who were put in line in a line of fire but prevented from using all the necessary force necessary to win U.S. troops died as a result Washington treats the lives of our military personnel as expendable Their blood is spilled for the sake of serving Iraqis, a people overwhelmingly hostile to America We should commit an America to the selfless mission in the one up to the war Speaking in early 2003. He said quote The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people themselves They live in scarcity and fear under dictator who has brought them nothing but war and misery and torture Their lives and freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein But Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us And their lives did matter greatly to Washington. They mattered far more than the lives of security of americans Before its strategy dictates that we serve the needs of Iraqis for food medicine textbooks It demands that we bring them elections even if it means the death of our troops It demands all this with the open admission that elections could empower our worst enemies The horrendous disaster in Iraq is more than most americans can stomach But Bush and other advocates of the strategy believe that Iraq should be just the beginning America he has stated is quote committed to an historical long-term goal To secure the peace of the world We seek the end of tyranny in our world unquote This global crusade for democracy is allegedly america's destiny For bush, this is a religious mission that god has conferred upon us quote History has an author who feels who fills time and eternity with his purpose We did not ask for this mission yet. There is honor in history's call it is The calling of our time What would such a campaign mean in practical terms given the nightmare that you want that you walk has become Well hundreds of thousands of years troops have fought in the war Since 9 11 and you walk at the peak as many as 300,000 of our military were involved Nearly 140,000 troops are stuck in the quagmire there today The war effort since 9 11 has cost us about $370 billion With the rock costing about 260 billion About 2700 americans have come home from iraq dead in body bags Nearly 20,000 have come home burned blinded and limping The casualties of the war of the war are largely unseen But they are real And for what? What are the democracy crusaders calling for? It is not just one nightmare like you are Which is awful in itself But thousands of conflicts that grind up american troops and drain our nation's life blood Not for a few months, but indefinitely as we fulfill the open ending open ended calling of our time Now this is morally obscene Now why are advocates of the fourth strategy so committed to spreading democracy? Notice that bush and other advocates believe that assertively pursuing us self-defense is somewhat illegitimate To them It is unimaginable that america would fight a war against islamic totalitarianism with the intensity and righteousness That we did 60 years ago against germany and japan It is unimaginable that the us would seek to demoralize the enemy that we could That we would as church will put it quote create conditions intolerable to the mass of the enemy population It is unimaginable That the us would seek victory for its own self-defense All this is off the table. It is not the goal of the strategy But notice that bush and others believe it is legitimate to shed u.s blood for the sake of others To send young american men to risk their lives and die so we can bring ignorant hostile iwaki's the vote Advocates of the strategy dispense with the goal of defending america and instead doggedly promote democracy Even as they admit that that might make us less safe They regard this as noble as virtuous But why why do they regard promoting democracy as legitimate but self-defense is illegitimate? Now the answer lies in a certain moral code Advocates of the forward strategy are guided by their moral principles The implicit principle that shapes their thinking is this Selfless service to others is good for pursuing values for your own benefit is evil This is the morality that holds self-sacrifice as a virtue This is the same moral code that dominates our culture From secular and religious authorities left and right We are urged that to be moral is to give up our values selflessly to others Put other people first we are told and don't be selfish According to this creed mother teresa is a moral hero But a productive businessman like bill gates is not well unless he repents by giving away his billions Whom must we serve or whoever is needy Whoever lacks a value like liberty or wealth? And on this standard the oppressed impoverished primitive iwaki's are definitely have not They have no food no electricity no freedom nothing But isn't this self-destructive doesn't this contradict the needs of your security? Yes, it certainly does and that is partly why it is supposedly noble As bush has stated We americans know how to quote sacrifice for the liberty of strangers Now sacrifice is universally misunderstood It does not mean giving up something trivial for the sake of a big reward at the end Like saving up money today in order to buy a car next year To sacrifice means to give up a value for the sake of a lesser or a non-value Sacrifice means renouncing benefits now but for no greater benefit It means saving up money today and handing it over to a stranger It means sending american soldiers to iraq not to defend their own liberty and ours But to ensure iraqis have functioning sewers It means a net loss to us The cardinal value that america must sacrifice is its own national security the defense of our lives from islamic terrorists On this small code, we have no right to exist or to defend our freedom Our duty is to renounce our own interest Our right for need for security And instead sacrifice for strangers all across the globe wherever tyranny rules The democracy crusade is driven by the morality of self-sacrifice the moral code of altruism Ultimately This is not this is not a time for comments This is a presentation. There will be question and answers and if they can be presented civilly You're welcome to stay if not, please leave now Leave now if you can't be civil Ladies and gentlemen, we will extend the program. None of this will stop anyone's right to speak There's a difference between freedom of speech and disruption I would ask you if you are not involved in this to please take your seats It gets very difficult for us to tell who's disrupting and who's not if you're standing up in the aisles So if you're planning to stay and ask questions civilly, please take your seats Anyone who disrupts this event will be removed because that is not evidence of freedom of speech Thank you I have good voices. It's it's really a shame The democracy crusade is driven by the morality of self-sacrifice the morality of altruism Ultimately, the goal of the crusade is not to end the threat rate against us But to bring unearned benefits to our enemies The forward strategy logically fits With the general approach to foreign policy Although there is a shortage for example, there's a shortage of military recruits US troops remained a so-called peacekeepers in dozens of countries where no US interest is at stake They remain for the sake of strangers Moreover America funnels huge amounts of money in foreign aid Recall the US response to last year's terrorist attacks in London It was not a commitment to destroy the enemy that had struck At the g8 meeting held at the same time as the attack happened the g8 meeting was held in scotland Bush held a press conference in which he pledged to ramp up american foreign aid Promising 50 billion dollars to the poor and oppressed of africa and the middle east But americans are not yet a people who respond favorably to blatant calls of self-sacrifice They expect some benefit at the end That is why self-sacrificial policies are almost always packaged with a deceptive veneer The veneer makes them seem like sensible practical self-interested policies This is why bush insists that helping yuakis is both quote the morally right thing to do And in our own national interest But you cannot escape the consequences of self-sacrifice You cannot have your cake and eat it too You cannot sacrifice your military for strangers and be stronger in the face of threats This contradiction is inevitable And because it becomes harder to ignore as more americans are slaughtered in yuak Notice how bush continues to voice tough sounding rhetoric How he strives to present his strategy as necessary for american interest This is meant to reinforce the crumbling veneer It is meant to fool americans and to help bush and the advocates of the strategy fool themselves They believe their own contradictions The need to slap a deceptive veneer of self-sacrifice on self-sacrifice Also explained why muslims in the middle east were portrayed as freedom loving friends of america It is easier to persuade oneself and others To sacrifice for a friendly freedom loving neighbor than to sacrifice american lives for the enemy The attempt to present self-sacrifice as beneficial preeminates permeates the forward strategy Thus we are told that squandering 50 billion dollars in africa and the middle east was somehow Triumph over terrorism as tony blaine bush did in the g8 meeting But it cannot We are told that sacrificing u.s. wealth and lives to bring democracy to others will somehow make us safer But it cannot We are told that a worldwide crusade to entourney a global forward strategy will somehow advance our moral calling and destiny as a nation But this is absurd It is nothing but crude nationalism of the kind spotted by fascists in the last century America is the land of free sovereign individuals Americans are master of their own life Not slaves to their nation or some mystical destiny The deceptive veneer of the forward strategy has fooled many people But the results of the strategy are unmistakable The sat strategy is self-destructive It is a disaster because it is faith a faithful application of the morality of self-sacrifice The forward strategy is suicide absurdly after five years of war America now faces a threat that we helped make stronger more dangerous This is precisely what the forward strategy must lead to given its moral premises and what its promoters evade This strategy means sacrificing american lives not merely for the sake of indifferent strangers, but for the sake of the enemy And it teaches our enemies a profoundly encouraging lesson That america will not seek victory. It does not stand for its own interests, but renounces them on principle America is a paper tiger No iran's glee at the events and how emboldened iran feels Morally the forward strategy of freedom is irredeemable It is self-destructive because it is an expression of the morality of self-sacrifice That is what dooms it The strategy for victory Needs to be based on a radically different moral principle The moral principle on which on which true freedom rests The principle that each individual has an inalienable right to his life to the pursuit of his happiness A strategy of real freedom A strategy for victory Must be based on iran's morality of rational self-interest Such a strategy is committed to defeating the enemy Because it's premises that man has a moral right to his own existence And that it is the government's obligation to protect the rights of its citizens This strategy is pro-freedom The freedom of americans to live unmolested and unharmed by foreign powers The strategy for victory is practical and idealistic It is a strategy committed to protecting american life Not merely in the range of the moment or in a given crisis But across the span of decades and in every single situation on principle It is a strategy that advocates for freedom Real freedom not majority war It is a strategy that provides support Primarily moral support to real freedom fighters To achieve victory in this war over islamic totalitarianism We need to wage as fierce and assertive a war as we did six decades ago Victory entails pounding the enemy until we crush its ability to fight and until we demoralize its supporters Our security requires stopping islamists from implementing their ideal of islamic world domination Jihadists are willing to kill and die for that ideal But they will not dare pursue it if they know If they know it is unachievable That it is a lost cause To accomplish this We must end the regimes in iran and Saudi Arabia These regimes are the ideological financial and logistical motor of the islamic totalitarian movement Iran in particular Symbolizes the power of totalitarian islam And inspires the jihadists Nearly 30 years after its islamic revolution Iran is now brazenly chasing nuclear weapons and threatening the world's most powerful nation Iran makes the movement's perverse ideal seem practical and achievable Ending iran's regime will help break the jihadist world to fight But if we devastate iran I get this question all the time will we make new enemies in the process? Not if we do it right Consider what happened in japan after the u.s. Victory Quoting general Douglas mccarthy The japanese suddenly felt The concentrated shock of total defeat They whole world crumbled It was not merely the overthrow of their military might It was the collapse of a faith It was the disintegration of everything they had believed in and lived by and fought for It left a complete vacuum morally mentally and physically That collapse disintegration and vacuum Is essentially what we need to create among muslims in the middle east If they are to be permanently non-threatening to us The people of the region must learn that the ideas of islamic totalitarianism Will bring them nothing but devastation What happens after the war should be determined by our rational self-interest It might be in our interest to impose a free political system As we did in japan We didn't let the japanese elect whoever they wanted rather we set the terms But if setting up a new regime does not advance our self-defense if it sacrifices us wealth and lives Then morally we must not pursue such a course Instead we should leave the country in as non-threatening a condition as possible And be clear on the consequences of becoming a threat to the u.s. Again Our potential enemies Know that the consequence of threatening us is their own destruction The world will be a peaceful place for americans It's such a strategy for victory has a crucial precondition We cannot march into battle We cannot drop bombs We cannot assert our right to self-defense unless we have the more confidence that we are in the right We need to know clearly That it is morally proper to destroy the enemy Because america is a free nation and an innocent victim fighting in retaliation We need to know and to declare boldly that our values of political freedom individualism and secular government are morally good Having certainty in our own moral superiority over the aggressor is indispensable to to the military task What we need fundamentally is the conviction that we have an absolute right To exist and to defend our freedom If we want to preserve our freedom We must pursue victory over the enemy If we want victory We must have moral confidence If we are to have moral confidence We must embrace the morality of rational self-interest We are in an ideological battle It is about it is a battle about the morality that guides american foreign policy Is it is a battle that comes down to this Do americans have a duty to sacrifice for strangers? Or do we have a moral right to exist and pursue our individual happiness? This is the battle that we must fight and win here in america if we are to be victorious Thank you. Thank you Thank you Thank you Now is the time we open the floor for a dialogue with you the audience I'm going to take a minute given the events of this evening to lay out some ground rules You are not required to agree with dr. Gray You are however required To be a part of this dialogue to be civil and to pose a question The audience there are many people who would like to ask questions. You need to be brief and to the point Anyone who is not who goes on at length? Who who I think is not being part of a civil dialogue. We will we will turn off the microphone and we will ask you to leave I hope however that we can have an interesting and spirited exchange of ideas I will call on people at the microphone one at a time Oh And we are dr. Brook has agreed to extend the program a little bit to make up for some of the time we lost earlier in the evening So I'm open with our first question sir. Thank you First of all, I would like to preface that I admire your speech and Agree pretty much with everything you said. However I still have some questions and the the main one that is nagging me is Given the climate the pervasive climate of Political correctness and moral relativism. How do you convince the majority of the americans? who appear historically not to have had the guts to Start a fight until there has been a calamity such as world war two to enter the fight because America has been isolationist traditionally. So how do you change that? Well, we've had the calamitous events. So I don't think even unfortunately I don't even believe today that if even more calamitous event happened The response would be different. I don't think that we You know learn from experience If we are dominated by an ideology that guides us To self-sacrifice. So the only way I think today To bring about change is educational I have very little hope I'd say no hope really for this war to go well In in in the near future. I just don't see that. I think that what we need to do is awaken The self-confidence the the sense of life Of the american people and arm it with a new moral code Arm it with a new philosophy arm it with better ideas and the first thing you have to do in that battle is to Eliminate the veneer of the strategy that is to show the strategy for what it really is to show What's really happening to show that we're not fighting to win to show that we could win easily And then provide the moral justification the moral reasoning for why We have a right to fight in self-defense and I think americans get that My experience is when you actually present americans with the fact present them with ideas They get it. They want to go out They they want to defend their own lives if they feel threatened they want to go get the bad guys But first you have to explain to them that what this administration is doing is not that That there is another way That the other way is doable and has been done before and that it is moral it is right Ultimately the americans americans want to do what's right And one of the things they have to learn is that acting in your own self-defense and acting Um in your own self-interest is right is good Is moral And that's you don't speak up. I mean the only way it's gonna happen is if we keep speaking if we keep educating if we keep having events like this Are you talk about rational self-interest right and being selfish And how you know the founders of the constitution provided that right for us now um Don't you think it was selfless of them to put their lives in the line to do that for us? Don't you see that as an irony? And also I wanted to ask you if you knew about how the japanese were surrendering through the vatican In this was it was the truman doctrine the birch and russell doctrine pre-emptive nuclear strike Right to put the populate to put the world in fear. They were trying to strike rusher All right, I mean did you know about that the japanese were surrendering because there was no need whatsoever for truman to bomb niggas i mean hereshima What f dr. Did was the most beautiful like he represented the thanks We have two questions for you. This is turning. Thank you. Hey the first one's a good question um Were the founding fathers selfless in um Signing the declaration of pendants which took an enormous amount of courage Because they were basically I mean they didn't know they would win and they certainly knew that if they would lose They would be labeled as traitors and they would be they would be hung their property destroyed and their families destroyed But that is not being selfless What the founding fathers understood which it's so few unfortunately people understand today Is that life as a slave? Is that life as an unfree human being? is not worth living When you can fight for your own freedom when you have the opportunity to bring about your own liberation your own freedom What the founding fathers did was fight for their own life For their right to life liberty and their ability ultimately to pursue happiness They fought for such a political system because it was in their interests and in the interest of their families their friends And for the interests of the people they interacted that they wanted to live in a society in a world as I do That is free With again, they can pursue happiness As to your second question um Yes about the revisionist history regarding uh truman and the nuclear nuclear bomb I am not a uh historical expert although there is there is one here in the room who knows this better than I do But my understanding is that is is just pure revisionism um indeed The the evidence I have seen is that after the first bomb was dropped um The japanese actually met to decide what to do at this point and decided they would not surrender Because they didn't believe the u.s. Had another one And they thought that if they Didn't surrender the u.s. Would still have to invade the island and they would be able to inflict millions of Of casualties and their assessment of internal american politics was that the american public would not stand for that Just the battles before japan and I can't remember the names exactly the tens of thousands of marines There's a movie now on two two gemas Where 25,000 marines died in one battle that lasted a couple of weeks Their estimation that the american public was fed up with the war and that they could cut a deal with the american If they just hung on long enough It took the second bomb to convince them That america had not lost its will to fight And that they would be devastated I mean they were already devastated that they would be devastated even more that they would lose everything that they had if they did not surrender Unconditionally immediately so that is my understanding of the history and i've yet to see any evidence that that is I'm somewhat of a follower of yours and also vine rands. I'd like to Situate my question in a hypothetical Just to do her justice So say we we did engage in a in a nuclear attack on the gun And this invoked say we didn't do it yet And this invoked a world war three type situation with russia china india etc And you created a set of circumstances Where the only two people on the planet Standing on a pile of nuclear debris was you and george schultz Do you think he would use lubricant when he was sodamizing you? Sir sir Because I doubt it. He's a sir. He likes it somewhat sir. Sorry you passed the balance of the taste. Thank you We're the next right next question sir. Please take sir. Please take your sir. Please take your seat now Tony cut the mic Tony just got it. Thank you. Please take your seat sir. You're accomplishing nothing at this point Don't bother. Just stop just stop sir Tony bring the mic back Sir, would you like to ask your question civilly, please? Well, I'll try to be civil even though No, please leave don't you don't need to touch it. He'll okay. They said you were from the an ran institute But it sounds more like you're from a george orwell institute Get ready. Tony. Okay. Yeah, I'll get ready Nothing nothing threatens individual freedom and democracy or collective freedom and democracy more than a course of military occupation So what can people in the middle east in around the world do to protect themselves from zionist terrorism and zionist utilitarianism? well, what what the what the Muslims of the middle east could do is establish free countries Establish regimes that actually were friendly to israel because they've got a lot to benefit and learn from israel They could establish free countries that were interested in trading with israel and with the united states They could copy our constitution and our principle of individual rights and set up Wonderful countries throughout the middle east and I'd be all for that I'm not for america occupying the middle east as I Stated i'm for making the middle east Non-threatening to the to the united states and for israel to make it not threatening for it to its to it The countries of the middle east many of the countries Are threatening the united states? They are trying to kill us 9 11 was just one Unfortunately, I fear small example of what they are capable of and what they will do to us if we don't stop them So the solution is to you know Take the solution take the example of the county fathers revolt against their dictatorial regimes and establish free country I will Next question, please Yeah But my question is You spoke of freedom of speech Now, can you enlighten the people on your audience? See the irony behind that since you're working with daniel pipes Fleming Rose david Horowitz lynn chaney and the people that are running a campus gestapo all over the nation right now How do you have the audacity to do that? Because it gives me an opportunity to defend campus watch, which I think is a is a wonderful organization Campus watch which as far as I know I I I don't have much involvement with campus watch, but it is run by daniel pipes Is an organization that scans? What is being taught in american universities identifies? things that are wrong that are Professors that distort history that misrepresents the truth about them at least the truth about what america stands for and about uh, you know american principles and they Describe that on the website and they let students know that these are students These are professors that if you're interested in the truth, you should probably avoid These are professors that Misrepresent in terms of what they teach Campus watch does not send out um you know a Thugs to disrupt the classes of these professors campus watch does not use force In order to force these professors not to be teaching what they're teaching all they do is provide information valuable market service to students and alma mater, you know Some of us who might give to our alma mater Former students about who's teaching what where whom we should support if we care about america if we care about the truth And who we shouldn't support if we care about america and we care about the truth So it is an organization dedicated to the truth and indeed it is a In doing so it is protecting and helping free speech. It is not just suppressing it is doing exactly the opposite I'm going to remind those in line that the questions don't have to agree with the speaker They must remain civil Thank you. Good afternoon, doctor. Uh, this evening this time. Good afternoon, doctor Brooks Now I took everything that you said into consideration and I don't entirely agree with everything that you have to say One thing that concerns me is you talk about escalating the violence in iraq right now And the thing that I comes to mind is the threat of a new cold war Now, please if you would you certainly have a very large democratic following here Can you say a few words just to ease our our worrying hearts to know that the threat of a thermonuclear confrontation with iran In in russia in china is is not in the cards and that once we do Annihilate and turn fallujah into dust as you told Chris matthew is the other night. Can you please reassure us that everything will be well It was bill o'reilly I want to do everything possible to prevent thermonuclear war in the middle age I've not advocated using nuclear weapons because I don't believe the necessary We are dealing with countries that are weak We are dealing with I mean just compare just compare this war to world war two In world war two, we were fighting two mighty industrial empire Or countries japan was an empire Countries that were building the best fighter planes the best tanks the best aircraft carriers the world had ever seen until america entered the world We were we were fighting countries that had committed had Tremendous resources at their disposal. They actually built the weapons. They were using against them Take a look at the countries. We're fighting today Not a single weapon used against american troops was built in any one of the countries in the middle east They are all imports primarily from the west Up they have no industry They have no economy other than industry and economy based on an in based on oil Which is an industry that we created for them american corporations Created those industries in the 20s 30s and 20s through the 50s By building by by drilling for oil building the pipelines building the the refining Just an interesting fact about iran Do you know that iran which sits on the second or third largest oil reserve in the world? And and produces huge quantities of oil Do you know that it imports 40 percent of its gasoline? It imports 40 percent of its gasoline because they don't refine it in you want So they ship the oil outside of iran get it refined and ship it back to you Because they don't have the technology the capacity to do it We are truly dealing with countries that are still in many respects in the middle age They have no wealth no economy other than that provided by oil or provided by the west the dams were built by Western or russian companies that power plants that the water plants that the water treatment sewage Is all built by us by by western technology? So defeating them is not hard. It is easy the risk of thermonuclear war is by is Created by not doing anything By letting the iranians develop nuclear weapons Because the iranian regime will not hesitate to use them and it won't hesitate them to use them against you because they Believe in ideology in an ideology particularly the leaders and the two primary leaders the the the supreme leader of iran and the president are both They were mystic They both believe in the coming of an armageddon and twelfth the mom and and all kinds of shia agnostic They don't mind if we nuke them In a in an it's part of a war because they go to heaven and there's a whole mythology about Virginians and the rest of it that comes with them And amorganic comes and you know, it's it's it's it's it's the it's the new world So they will not hesitate to use nuclear weapons I would like us to strike iran first before they develop those nuclear weapons in order to avoid the need to use them On the other hand if using nuclear weapons I'm not on the other hand saying we should never use them if that is the most effective Way in which to combat the threat that we should use them, but I don't see I mean I like to say that If we had a a general pattern Um, if we had a general shaman, um, you know three armored divisions and about three weeks to three months The whole conflict is over if we're willing to fight it the right way. This is not hard This is not rocket science. This is easy If you if you have the more confidence to execute the point Next question, please Doctor, could you elaborate a little on president bush's personal philosophy and religious conservatives in general and what effect it might be having on the progress of the war Yeah, so To elaborate on bush's personal philosophy is really his personal religious views and religious conservatives I'm not an expert on on bush I haven't read a lot about his personal philosophy, but from everything that I've read particularly as it relates to the war It is clear that he is heavily influenced by religion By evangelical christianity and he claims to be a born-again evangelical christian I've read articles about the influence of evangelicals in the administration and on the administration policies And and I I find the whole phenomena incredibly scary I think that president bush has allowed religion into politics In an unprecedented way I don't know of any other president who has who has brought religion into politics And has actively promoted the erosion and the separation of church and state as much as bush starting with faith-based initiatives and And in the way he talks again, you know, we have a mission To bring to enter any and to bring democracy to the world given to us by god It is the calling of a time and I don't think he means that in a In the sense that I think 19th century presidents talked about god I think he really means it. I think I think he really is a dedicated religious person Who if he got his way Would bring in a lot more religion to the politics, you know, you you can list the examples whether it's stem cells Or whether it's the morning after pill You know, I can't think of more examples right now But there's a whole list of examples on how religion has entered politics And and how the debate the debate has changed in america today to the point where democrats are competing now with republicans And who can be more religious because they're trying to get they've assumed now that this is the way to get elected is true religion Yeah, I again, I think bush's altruism comes from christianity I think there's there's some extent to which he believes that You know, you can't be too tough that turning the other cheek is appropriate um, I also think that his The fact that he is religious makes it inconceivable to him That islam leads to Too violent um He doesn't see his christianity his faith is leading to violence and he can't project that onto islam And as a consequence, you know, it's only recently that islam has even entered his vocabulary And then it's islamic fascism, which I think is a way to secularize You know, because fascism is a is a secular concept. It's to marginalize them again. It's these extremists that these outside of the realm Um, it's not it's to try to distance it as much as possible from islam But it's only recently there's even done that immediately after september 11th and for three four years after he talked about terrorists There was no mention of islam and indeed if you remember the day of prayer immediately after september 11th of the celebration of the ramadan in october 2001 A month after september 11th. There was a ramadan fast breaking dinner at the white house Um, so so So I think he has he would not acknowledge this notion that that A religion annually Can lead to uh to violence and not only that but I think it also affects his view of freedom um, I think bush and and uh, and I've read this out of bush and I've also read it from from some of the Neoconservative thinkers who who support with They believe that religion is essential to freedom That freedom comes from religion um, and michael novak has a whole book dedicated to this notion that Islam has to be for freedom That that it is truly that they just don't know it we just have to release this this spark and and freedom will just fly through islam because It's some convoluted idea that if there's one god and you're dedicated one god that promotes personal freedom I never got the exact logic of what but but he the whole book is premised on this idea that islam Has to be consistent with freedom. It's almost like he's trying to convince himself But that islam just like christianian and judoism have to lead to that and I think that's part of why they were so self deluded about The flowers in the streets when american soldiers would arrive in any walk and and the reception and the rest of the avid world Once we just freed up the the freedom impulse among the muslims So religion has played a very big role in how the strategy and you know everything i think bush has done I've been curious about something ever since I saw you speak at tufts the other night Um, you told us there that you were an atheist or you are an atheist rather Um, so I guess that means that you don't believe that any one of us has a soul but So But you keep talking about morality I'm wondering what your basis for that is. How do you judge morality? Great question. Thank you Thank you I think morality is is a science Um morality comes from a fundamental alternative That every that every human being faces It comes from the fact that all life Faces an alternative between existence and non-existent life and death if you will And that once human beings choose life We do not have Programmed into us how to be successful athlete Morality is about choosing values those values that promote your life That will enable you to live a successful and ultimately happy life Morality is objective. Is it about it is about looking out they into reality and saying What facts of reality what values do I need to pursue? What things do I need? You In order for me to be successful in my life in order to Be happy And if you look out and if you look at what those things are you find that Anything from you know from food and shelter and clothing to um, there's wonderful building we're in and the paintings around us so that kind of the spiritual values that you get from from uh Observing a painting all of it comes about through the use of human reason and therefore human reason observing reality Integrating the facts of reality conceptualizing them understanding them thinking Is the primary value? The rational is the primary virtue. That is how you attain life That is how you are successful in life And that is the fundamental value in in morality. So the standard is Your life because you know a plant is programmed To know exactly what to do to stay alive Uh, it needs light. It needs water. You put it in you put a plant in a in a uh In a garden where the where it can't where there's no water at the top level It'll send its roots down to seek Water it is pursuing its value not consciously not out of We don't have that we don't have the automatic knowledge of how to make clothes and how to build beautiful buildings and paint paintings and make cell phones and And and cook the great steak them We have to figure all that out. We have to reason that out and we need morality morality is provides us with the values and the virtues aimed at Preserving our life what the plant has automatically what an animal has automatically We need to think through and indeed. Let me just say a word about religion Religion to me that the notion that morality comes from religion to me is bizarre Because what does religion say about morality? It says that somebody a long time ago Talked to some entity called god and god said x and you're just supposed to do x And we're all supposed to a believe that And when god changes his mind and says why we're supposed to do what? It is the most and I highly recommend if you're really interested in this issue. I highly recommend you you go to our website There is I think on monday. I think tomorrow or later this week. There will be a free uh video a free lecture on morality and and morality and religion by dr. Onka gautay On exactly this topic. It is a brilliant talk and and it'll be available free on our website iron rand a y and r and d dot org We can't hear you from there and there are many other people waiting that aren't going to get a chance to ask a question So i'm going to move on to the next question. Thank you It's not up to you to judge that i'm sorry We're going to move on to the next question. You can get back in line in case we have time if you'd like I suspect we want but you can try Oh, um Yeah, there's there's no doubt that we're in a pretty bad situation right now and um one thing that hasn't really been discussed Is the economic crisis that we're in. I mean this housing bubble is blowing out We have hedge funds like amaranth that are blowing out and uh Now this concerns me because you know fascism in the 30s and 40s was directly related to certain economic measures that had to be taken Right and if we were to to go to war in the middle east, there would be a pretty bad economic collapse I don't know if people in this room are ready to deal with that But um, I mean I was just wondering are we kind of jumping the gun a little bit here pushing for war Isn't isn't their way in a way to peacefully develop together. I mean this actually has worked in the past It would be wonderful if there was I mean there's no question war is not counted to key and gene economists and others Was not a value added from an economic perspective. I'm not arguing to go to war in order to grow the economy um I would I would be happy if there was tomorrow revolution in iran And freedom-loving iranians came to power and we could establish a friendly trade Relationship what we want where we get oil we trade technology we would Build on that But the fact is that there is no negotiating There is no being peaceful and nice and reasonable with people dedicated to killing you and developing nuclear weapons to blow up your city There's nothing other than Pre-empting that through a military strike Pre-empting the the nuclear attack, but because they've already started the war you could argue I think I think you should argue that the war started in 1979 when they took over the american embassy in tehran And then they killed many americans and beiruts and in the kova towers and elsewhere So the war is ongoing. It's it's been going on for a while. You can negotiate with killers You don't do that domestically. You suddenly wouldn't do that In terms of prospective foreign policy now And I don't think a war with iran would cost a lot of money. I mean, I'm not for Bush's policy, which is to spend 260 billion dollars on the wacky reconstruction Somebody said I think earlier today. Maybe with peter schwarz that If you break it, we don't have to fix it. Maybe it was yesterday, you know, I don't believe that if you break it You have to fix it If we smash iran, I don't believe we have to pull hundreds of billions of dollars into fixing it I believe again, we make them as unthreatening as possible. They might involve helping them establish a free country It might not but you make them as unthreatening as possible and you get out of it You don't spend hundreds of billions reconstruction and while I am fairly pessimistic about the u.s economy long-term I think there are a lot of bad things going on. I'll just answer your other question kind of quickly A collapse is not imminent Next question, please the uh I guess the the outcome of the the war In iraq is obviously devastation or failure as you say uh, it's been concluded that We launched this war without the basis of any military threat against our nation and um, the idea to me of the really I mean the mass the mass murder the mass death of I guess hundreds of thousands of people right now civilians actually civilians in iran uh, when we face no military active military threat against us Is really abandoning the truce in the united states and that's to me. I mean, absolutely Disgusting and I would just say I mean if there's anybody in the audience that has any of the humanity Left in them really challenge the underlying axioms Upon which this man speaking because he really hasn't made the case Um, I mean it is bizarre to me that people don't see a threat 3000 americans died just september 11 There was just a plot to blow up airplanes over the atlantic which would have resulted in many many thousands of deaths every day There are organizations out there plotting to kill americans on a massive scale Uh and going back to iran iran is initiated force against america since 1979 systematically repeatedly Whether it's the 244 marines in the barracks in beirut the embassy in beirut's corba towers, etc So we are already at war. They are trying to kill us the question is when will we wake up? And even saddam Hussein who in my list of targets is fairly low Relative to a country like iran was still a threat to the united states. We had every moral right to go there My condemnation is how we went there and that it shouldn't be number one If you want to be number one and we've done what was right If we've done that war properly saddam Hussein would have faded you would have you would have stopped being a threat But to suggest that there are no threats the united states is to take your head and bury it in the same Before we take our next question I'm going to point out that we only have about six minutes left and there are five questioners So i'm going to ask people to keep their questions very brief and i'm going to ask dr Brooke to respond briefly so that we may have a chance to get through the line We may not make it to all of you and I apologize if that's the case We are already running over in order to give people a chance to speak So briefly please hello, um I'm not sure if you're aware of this but I've my organization has actually been in contact with a lot of Intelligence and military officials and there's really no proof That america has to even connect That you rock to what happened in 9 11 So, I mean going back. I know you spoke to some of my friends in the west coast He said that we should bomb 100 000 muslims including children families and and men Now my my question is how are you going to actually bring about peace? By destroying an area killing people so that doesn't make sense to me Thank you for your question Um, this is the uh, this is the question that I try to answer with the uh with the macaw the quote All I have to do I find it bewildering Because all you have to do is point to japan Where we killed hundreds of thousands of people In a uh in a virtuous war in a war where we were acting in our own self-defense and they held an evil ideology And yet today and very quickly after world war two the japanese have become our allies We have had 50 years of peace Uh, europe has gone through the most peaceful period in its history probably Certainly the freest period uh western Europe the non-soviet part um And I think it's because We won the war in such devastating manner during world war two So I think the way you bring peace is you destroy evil In the name of good and when you do that decisively The enemy succumbs changes its mind and actually there's a chance for long-term real peace to be established Keep your applause down so we can get to quest many questions as possible. We can applaud at the end. Go ahead, sir Um, I think your point about moral superiority is extremely important in this discussion I think it's safe to say that france marion when he led his guerrilla fighters against the british during revolutionary war Believed that he was operating in a morally superior fashion I think it's safe to say that when my father and my uncles fought in world war two against the japanese and the germans They were operating in what they believed to be a morally superior fashion I think when monaheem begon bombed the king david hotel He believed he was operating in a morally superior fashion. I think when we attacked afghanistan after 9 11 We believed you were operating in a morally superior fashion Where where was the moral superiority in attacking? iran There couldn't be moral superiority because in fact They didn't attack us. They posed no imminent threat. They had no nuclear weapons The concept of attacking iran is the same. They pose no imminent threat to us They may have nuclear weapons, but they don't have the capability of getting them here They haven't to get them to israel, but israel has outguns them Probably 20 or 30 to one so there's no moral superiority. I guess thank you for your thank you for your comment and your question Thank you, sir. That is just untrue in terms of american aid or All in germany Actually being the cause for the peace and the friendliness of those countries to towards the united states and just read what macabre had to say More extensively about japan and you will see that Moral superiority so i've already explained about iran plenty the fact that we already had war with them and so on Let me just say a few words about iraq quickly Again, I don't think iraq should be number one enemy. I don't think it should be the one number one threat But so now i'm saying you know little things like you try to assassinate the president of the united states That's a threat While it landed up that he didn't have weapons of mass destruction He certainly could have and all intelligence services around the world not just the u.s Not just the cia, but all of them believe that he did And there was no question about his willingness to use them And there was a real danger that he would give it to some islamists in order to attack the united states He's a brutal dictator on top of that and therefore has no right to sovereignty So totalitarian regimes any type of totalitarian regime doesn't have a right to sovereignty and then it's just an issue of Is it an america self-interest? To go and topple the totalitarian regime because it is somewhat threatening to the united states Iwak was somewhat threatening to the united states and we had reason to go there again I don't think he was the first target It should have been the first target But it certainly cannot be said that it was immoral to go to what it was if we would have done it right Next question, please I'm a little bit about i'm confused about the psychology involved in total defeat of the enemy. So Is it the case that It's simply because the japanese were so thoroughly defeated that they gave up their shintoism We can expect the same of the islamists Or is it because there's something about their ideology that tells them that they should be winning? And then they're completely defeated Well, yes, I think all these ideologies have a component that tells them that they should be winning Indeed, this is true of islam as well. And if you read the islamic totalitarians They talk about this they talk about the fact that Islam is the religion of Allah and Allah is on their side and they will win And that's a big part of their ideology is the fact that they will win In and the reason they're losing when they lose Is explained 100% in terms of the fact that they're not consistently following the ideology That is the excuse is always we want good enough muslim By crushing them in such a way as to show them That there is no chance ever That we would let them win That more that that we are indeed confident in our in our western values That we are superior to them culturally militarily And that we will stand up to them in every sense We are not just defeating them in a sense that we can't win But we're defeating the this fundamental aspect of their ideology They now have to question whether Allah is on their side And maybe hopefully question his very existence not that i'm Saying that they're all converted atheism, but they need to it really challenges them if if You know, they have to then Question the whole system of belief and come up with a new A new You know ideology or or just create the vacuum as described in japan, which I think is what happened And then it's a question of what fills it and I think one of the advantages of creating a vacuum Is that you are then in position to fill it not fill it You know sacrificially but fill it with the true ideology of freedom that you are advocating for that you that you can then present them with Just like Done imperfectly just like macArthur did in japan You know and again if you if you go read the japanese constitution, it's not ideal, but it ain't bad It's it's it's it's as good as any constitution a western country has out there and in the constitution It actually has a line that says That the japanese people in the constitution that the japanese people have a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness That's the kind of ideas you need to bring into that vacuum when you do they'll be open to them because the slum And their version of islam would have been completely discredited Allah's not on their side We're going to need to keep this very very brief because we are now out of time But i'm going to try to get these last two questions in if we can but i'm going to cut you off very quickly if it goes on I apologize Just real quick. I you you had identified your disagreement with the bush administration repeatedly um But and but my concern is that the recent i know you've been doing a lot of speaking recently around the country and what i fear Is that because because it's congruent with what the bush administration is saying on iran and the drum beat toward iran With many in the military are upset about my fear is that What this is going to be perceived Because this is what some people uh, I wouldn't want you to prove What larouche is saying? Right that you're you know a prostitute for the land and big changes I just want I want to actually make sure my suggestion and I want to know if you're going to reply to this But if you can actually cut off your speaking engagements Uh around the country so it's not to be perceived. That's creating a climate of fear around iran Oh, let me say let me just let me just make this point about iran and my my connection to the bush administration or lynx shania or whatever Three weeks after september 11 The iron man institute put a full page ad in the new york times in the washington post and you'll find it Well before anybody anybody in the administration outside of the administration was talking about iran our full page ad said That the number one target in this war before afghanistan even should be iran So this is being our issue from day one and to suggest i'm suddenly it just shows You know, I obviously haven't been visible enough, but i've been on the speaking tour since You know early, you know immediately after september 11 since january of 2002 Uh and have not stopped and don't intend to stop and will never stop as long Sir you've been waiting very patiently Please go ahead and ask your question, but make it brief as she's escorted out Excuse me, uh, I want I wonder if there's a possibility that bush's motivation may not necessarily be altruistic But might be coming from his involvement As an agent of the new as a new world order globalist And and I wonder if it also could be your uh Critical attitude towards religion might have led you to to ignore That thank you, sir Let me just say if you're interested in conspiracy theories, I recommend daniel pipe's book where he shows how ridiculous they are Um, what do you want? I think in 1997 Look, uh, I've given you the quotes. Um, I I don't think uh, I think that bush is quite clear about His agenda. I don't think there's any secrets here. I don't think it's mysterious You know, we can argue about interpreting a bush's statements, but there's no Global conspiracy here. There's no global anything There is a us foreign policy that in my view is wrong is corrupt and it needs to be changed And I think I've articulated a framework for a new foreign policy Which needs to be adopted by this country if we want to win and if we want to thrive in the future Thank you everybody You