, saddam hussein more important than osama bin laden? i don't think so. >> ninety-second response, mr. president. >> my opponent looked at the same intelligence i looked at and declared in 2002 that saddam hussein was a grave threat. he also said in december of 2003 that anyone who doubts that the world is safer without saddam hussein does not have the judgment to be president. i agree with him. the world is better off without saddam hussein. i was hoping diplomacy would work. i understand the serious consequences of committing our troops into harm's way. it's the hardest decision a president makes. so i went to the united nations. i didn't need anybody to tell me to go to the united nations. i decided to go there myself. and i went there hoping that, once and for all, the free world would act in concert to get saddam hussein to listen to our demands. they passed the resolution that said, "disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences." i believe, when an international body speaks, it must mean what it says. saddam hussein had no intent

al-zarqawi and saddam hussein? >> i want to thank you and i want to thank the folks here at case western reserve for hosting this tonight. this is a very important event and they've done a superb job of putting it together. it's important to look at all of our developments in iraq within the broader context of the global war on terror. and after 9/11 it became clear we had several things to have a successful strategy to win the global war on terror, specifically that we had to go after the terrorists wherever we might find them, that we also had to go after state sponsors of terror, those who might provide sanctuary and safe harbor. and we also had to finally stand up to democracies afterwards because that was the only way to guarantee these states would not again become safe harbors for terror or development of deadly weapons. the concern about iraq specifically focused on the fact that saddam hussein had been for years listed on the state sponsor of terror, they had established relationships with a terrorist out

hussein saddam hussein's suppose a biological weapons program. and i mean. yeah i mean you know so the best case scenario is that they used it use it to ratchet up the fear to really get everyone on board with the iraq invasion and using that threat and they never really did come out and say that the anthrax was not the muslim terrorism they said it just kind of went under the radar robin but now that we know that members of the bush administration were on separate and also the targeted members that voted they were opposite to the patriot act i mean what do you think the worst case scenario is now that we know these kind of damning facts. what was the worst case scenario is that i mean the motive. the motives there are questionable i mean why would someone who's a terrorist who wanted to you know muslim terrorists why would they want to send anthrax letters to people who are opposing the patriot act. i mean you have to wonder you know i can only speculate with the worst case scenario is that someone who sent those letters and wanted to shut down

that, in fact, saddam hussein has no connection with 9/11. that, in fact, saddam hussein has little or no connection with al qaeda. >> senator edwards, new question to you and you have two minutes to respond. part of what you have said and senator kerry have said you're going to do in order to get us out of the problems in iraq is to internationalize the effort. yet french and german officials have both said they have no intention, even if john kerry is elected of sending any troops into iraq for any peacekeeping effort. does that make your effort, or your plan to internationalize this effort seem kind of naive? >> let's start with what we know. what we know is that the president and the vice president have not done the work to build the coalition that we need. dramatically different than the first gulf war. we know they have the done it and they can't do it. they didn't, by the way, just reject the also lice leading up into the war. they also rejected them in the effort to do the reconstruction in iraq. and that has consequences. what we bel

iraq was like a vast prison yard under saddam hussein. it was so suffocating that i can compare it to no place in the arab world but i could compare it to romania which i knew intimately. to go from saddam hussein's iraq to syria was like coming up for liberal humanists bare. we tend to say all dictators are bad and all democrats are good. we eliminate -- we e. race distinctions and it is distinctions that give us the complexity we need to understand the world and assad ran a brutal dictatorship but nothing like saddam hussein. i had my passport taken by the iraqi authorities when i was in iraq -- i was very nervous obviously. i only got back to the airport before i left. i was a journalist who got too close to my story and i was intent on eliminating saddam hussein. i believed like the lot of people, different western countries in the world and on both sides of the aisle that there were wm ds and i believe a regime this suffocatingly brutal you couldn't trust. you had to assume that it existed and the work turned out so miserably. had we

hussein. they were there were so many people in the bush administration who went in with the absolute goal of we're going to take out saddam hussein. and. the problem with that is you wind up with bad application of intelligence if you've decided upfront here's our threat this is what we're going to do with the intelligence comes in it doesn't say that ok we'll forget it we're going to look at it from that perspective we were going to have a proposal to invade iraq with whether there was a nine eleven or not and when you actually start looking at what was happening between january twentieth of two thousand and one and nine eleven of two thousand and one the conclusion is inescapable they wanted to have a war against iraq they wanted to have saddam taken out after nine eleven. you know one of the one of the things i found amusing these richard clarke who was the. white house terrorism czar for many years wrote a book in two thousand and four came out and said the day after nine eleven bush came

it also gave the green light to saddam hussein. to start this very destructive war against iran and poison gas, tremendous effect postmarked the green light because they thought america would support this. >> guest: well, he had seen iran is isolated. when saddam hussein invaded, he had no premise. the air countries in the region, with the exception of syria, the united states, other western countries, basically actively supported the iraq was some?? silence. in a shameful incident. i say this with all candor.??? even when saddam hussein used?? poison gas against the iranians. there was very little protest he?r? reaction. this was all a climate sent by people. we were willing before the embassy was taken, we were willing to continue some kind of a military relationship. with the iranians. maybe not as fast as it was under the shah, but vast quantities of military equipment, training, spare parts, all of these things. and we would have liked continue it. the embassy seizure obviously stopped on all of that. and iran was in a

, saddam hussein more important than osama bin laden? i don't think so. >> ninety-second response, mr. president. >> my opponent looked at the same intelligence i looked at and declared in 2002 that saddam hussein was a grave threat. he also said in december of 2003 that anyone who doubts that the world is safer without saddam hussein does not have the judgment to be president. i agree with him. the world is better off without saddam hussein. i was hoping diplomacy would work. i understand the serious consequences of committing our troops into harm's way. it's the hardest decision a president makes. so i went to the united nations. i didn't need anybody to tell me to go to the united nations. i decided to go there myself. and i went there hoping that, once and for all, the free world would act in concert to get saddam hussein to listen to our demands. they passed the resolution that said, "disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences." i believe, when an international body speaks, it must mean what it says. saddam hussein had no intent

we cozied up to saddam hussein? during? all this. this was all a climate set by this, why these events. we were willing before the embassy was taken, the united states was willing to continue some kind of a military to military relationship. maybe not as it was under the shah but we sold or had in the pipeline vast quantities of military equipment training, spare parts, all of these things. and we would have liked to continue it. the embassy seizure obviously stop all of that and iran consequential lee was a much weaker position in the invaders. >> iraq invaded september, 1980. you were not released until january, 1981. >> that's right. >> what did you know what that war? did you know anything and what did you remember about the release in coming back? >> here is the chronology as best as we can strike. this was after the shah died. late july. >> 1980. >> in august the ayatollah khomeini calls and his advisers and says we need to settle for hostage and a sign of people to do it i believe it was early september when did he secretary o

hussein in power today would mean the world would be less stable and more dangerous and twenty five million people a rack ears would be living under the thumb of a brutal ruthless dictator my point is the world better with him gone i don't think anybody intentionally misled is a wrong word do i think that we made a mistake there think we were wrong in our assessment they were wrong or saddam hussein deceived everybody this i'm going to say it turns out did not want people to know that he didn't have weapons of mass destruction including many people in his own administration wow so saddam wanted bush to think that he had weapons of mass destruction it was him who deceived this administration give me a break all right so what's next. torture during the bush administration there was a policy set at the top for torture and abuse a systematic policy of the legal methods of interrogation that violated the geneva conventions. that if you were to conduct a poll in this country right now and ask people whose waterboarding torture i think the best majority of people would tell you it is and i

hussein but the blowback that you could say is happening right now in iraq is that saddam hussein was actually the number one opponent or one of the number one opponents of iran and they actually did a really good job keeping a ron in check in the middle east is this possibly one of the consequences of us going into war in their eyes somebody out of power maybe we lost a little bit of balance in the region. well there are a bunch around was virtually the only country that gained from the horror of iraq i found some ironic it was. that the debate took place ten years to the day that the democratic controlled senate joining the of the republicans in the house in pushing through the of the resolution authorizing the use of force and biden played a central role as head of the senate foreign relations committee in making of bush's war a possible arms. concourses the house also supported the war resolution so i want to go. to bars posing for souness taking these extreme positions on. the record my voice i'm sorry for that matter the us constitution and i know that there's a lot going on rig

. >> the middle east is a safer place with sd saddam hussein off the table. do you think that's true? >> i think, people ask me all the time, it was worth it? the way i -- the way i, in my own head, have tried to resolve that question is it depends what iraq backs over tecomes the nexd that depends to a considerable extent, on what american influence can be brought to bear on the situation and there's been a decline in influence. and one point, by the way, on afghanistan, i don't think we should give every governor romney or vice president biden kind of a free pass on the claim that we are out of there in 2014 because that, in fact is not the plan that they are developing in nato now. the plan is to maintain a kind of enduring force, which is going to involve an american counterterrorism force, which will go after the al qaeda. it's going to involve nato advisers, some of whom will have to operate on the tactical level with the afghan troops. if you actually look at the planning, the last american to die in afghanistan will not have died in 2014. they are sti

hussein's threat to attack with chemical and biological weapons. at the very minimum, i think we should be very concerned about the people who are being killed and wounded, i think we should be outraged by that, and we should be helping regional allies like the turks and others to try to figure out ways to solve that problem. this is not insoluble, and the united states doesn't have a habit of standing on the sidelines watching, you know, for long periods of time innocent people getting killed. i think if we are not, we should be working very closely with our moderate arab friends who are very concerned about this. and -- >> rose: you mean the saudis and -- >> yes. uae, exactly. and that reinforces the leadership faction of the leadership coefficient of what the united states traditionally does. it doesn't mean you have to invade the country, but i quite agree with david that there are a lot of things that you could put together and not just do it union launilaterally but do it a collegial way with -- with countries who have not only the finances t

we provided mustard gas to saddam hussein. the reason we did not find weapons of mass destruction there is because they had a stamp made in usa on them. we destroy them. that is a fact. >> you might want rapine any other comments you would like to make as a wrap up as we will go to each of you. maybe we can start with dov. >> well, everybody is entitled to their opinion. you may have been in the middle of our shipping of mustard gas to saddam hussein, you may have been in the middle of our killing 25 million people, but that is not the country i know. it is as simple as that. it is not the country i have served. i would say this, it is true, we supplied the afghan rebels. no doubt about it. but they were doing the fighting. if we helped saddam hussein against the iranians, he was doing the fighting. so i stand by what i said. we sent troops into grenada. it was not exactly a ten-year old battle. we actually pull ourselves out of lebanon. i stand by what i said about mr. reagan. i do not believe that we are the evil empire. may

if it hadn't been for us, saddam huss if it hadn't been for us, saddam hussein would be sitting on top of three-fifths of the oil supply of the world and he'd have nuclear weapons. and the -- only the united states could do that. excuse me, carole. >> thank you. mr. perot? >> well, it's cost effective to help russia succeed in its revolution. pennies on the dollar compared to going back to cold war. russia's still very unstable; they could go back to square one and worse. still, all the nuclear weapons are not dismantled. i'm particularly concerned about the intercontinental weapons; the ones that can hit us. we've got agreements but they're still there. with all this instability and breaking in the republics, and all the middle eastern countries going over there shopping for weapons, we've got our work cut out for us so we need to stay right on top of that and constructively help them move toward democracy and capitalism. we have to have money to do that. we have to have our people at work. see, for 45 years we were preoccupied with the red army. i suggest now that our no. 1 preoccupa

if you compare that as i did in the first book in 2005, you know, with saddam hussein's son who basically threaten their teachers, who if they didn't give them a stay would put them in prison. at least that's the story i get there's no reason to doubt that. so this is one of the things that john was hopeful. you know, they try to get -- it was a privileged family. you can't be the son of a president cannot have a privileged lifestyle to some degree. but i interviewed his friends in a number of different people. and it wasn't orchestrated. it was pretty genuine but they were telling me. this is a pretty normal guy. he likes having friends. he enjoyed music that they like to go out. all these things that contribute to the profile that he was a fairly normal guy, good family man, all of these things. and that is what they tried to re-create. they live in a modest, upper-middle-class apartment building, where they live on one floor. mother lives on one floor right next door is the building. i put on shares because people next-door can look in the 90s the bathroom the bathroom and stuff like t

but after the bombing, saddam hussein's turn to developing a nuclear weapons program. if iran is bombed, is almost certain to proceed, just as saddam hussein did after the post-iraq bombing. >> mit professor and author, noam chomsky, continues in a moment. if you like a copy of today's show, go to democracynow.org. professor tom ski will next look at the nuclear-weapons raise as this marks the 50th anniversary of the cuban missile crisis, often referred to as the most dangerous moment in u.s. history -- in human history. back in a moment. ♪ [music break] >> this is "democracy now!," democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. we are on our 100-city tour, today, in portland oregon. as we continue our hour today with world-renowned political dissident, linguist, author, professor americas at the massachusetts institute of technology, known chomsky. his recent talk entitled, "who owns the world?" >> in a few weeks, we will be commemorating the 50th anniversary of the most dangerous moment in human history. those are the words of historian kennedy advise

secondly, to president obama's credit, he is no saddam hussein. which means that when saddam hussein made a decision, you either agree with it or you would die if you're inside the iraqi political establishment. saddam did not have to deal with a pesky congress nor did he have to do with an israeli prime minister. as a result, the iranians have the confidence that saddam had the strength to be able to live up to his end of the bargain. that is not the perception that the iranians have, rightly or wrongly, about president obama. can president obama promise the lifting of sanctions, most of these sanctions that really are hurting their rings have gone through congress and now to be lifted if there's a congressional district. can anyone here remember last time congress lifted sanctions in a swift manner? moreover, the principal level that establishes the principle of reciprocity. the idea that any reversible concession from the western and had to be matched by a reversible concession from the iranians. anything the reversible from the u.s. and has to

about 70% of the country thought that saddam hussein was personally responsible for 9-11. if i thought that, i would want to invade iraq, too but he wasn't! he wasn't! so the american people were deceived and who helped to deceive them? the american media by calling everything neutral. while the republicans say this and the democrats say that. and now we have one side that lies all the time. systematically and what does the media do? they say this and other guys say that. no. it's not true. the republicans lie professionally. they do it all the time. they do it on purpose! as will you sit there and you wonder my god, how could this race be 50/50 when you look at the national popular vote? it is because the american people never got the memo because the media didn't give it to them. an example of what's hannan -- happening in virginia. tim kane and then karl rove's group is running this ad against tim kaine. >> tim kaine left virginia for washington. was a cheerleader for massive spending. but it actually wasted money studying ants in africa. >> the stimulus is critically i

hussein and usama bin laden, the terror alert level stays elevated with the two lowest levels blue and green never having been used at all. is all of this pushing up the demand for psycho pharmaceutic pharmaceuticals? we put that question to our guest, but first here are their born, new york city, 29 years of age, single, jewish, democrat, wes leann university, con net cat, ba, english. late night with david letterman, cbs reports researcher, and altogether, six months. new york magazine, intelligencer intern. editorial assistant. book columnist. features writer. co currently author, working on her first book, female chauvinist pig, simon and schuster, free press. hobbies, cooking, traveling, extreme cooking, gym addict ariel levy, born boston, 62 years of age, wife margaret, three children, democrat, harvard college ba, english. ma gill university, montreal, m.d.. massachusetts mental health center, resident in psychiatrist, three years. u.s. army, pentagon major, two years. faculty appointments, harvard medical sister, assistant professor, four years. george washington medical school

hussein and the reason to go to war was the weapons of mass destruction, not the removal of saddam hussein. this president has made, i this president has made, i regret to say,

hussein they made up almost thirteen percent of the population what will happen to syria if we continue down this path the country might fall apart into emirates like libya into smaller hotbeds of instability like somalia sudan iraq or afghanistan. or do you think france fredricka is serious foreign policy. of course france should take a neutral stance and sees this policy of double standards remember the pussy riot case which started massive outrage in the west with western media calling russia a dictatorship similar to any sleep protests were raging in battering a tiny kingdom in the goal. seven protesters were sentenced to life in prison you see a life sentence is different to say the least from a two year sentence for pussy riot and all those bahrainis did was take part in a political protest but nobody in the west spoke of that because the u.s. fifth fleet is based in bahrain that country is protected by nato and this can no longer be tolerated and i believe that france should revert to its traditional policy of restoring justice in international relations this is the role we shoul

or arab nationalist energy after saddam hussein was brought down and got tough he was brought down so really it is a war over who controls the middle east if the nato and its allies when that are countries of the middle east will fall under western nato control for the because you just become and if syria is able to resist. this a blood drive on it that will be a setback for him a thaw and that i've been. in new york i had you jump in we have very different points of view. i have to partially disagree with flint and. there are undoubtedly foreign forces at play here. sees the continuation of the cold war in the middle east between iran and saudi arabia between sunni and shiite forces absolutely but i disagree with the point of view that this is just the foreign power struggle no it's not assad regime for many years as oppresses own people there's been distinct corruption in that country where many people around in the countryside have been marginalized they have been massive abuses of human rights. so over the years and the syrian people have basically been ruled by the barrel by the

hussein's experience he had it all troops and offensive capabilities that the end of his career was a disaster these people still believe that just like in the past iraq is still capable of meeting its neighbors concocting the specifics and attacking other countries like iran kuwait and saudi arabia or slaughtering people in its southern northern regions but today iraq is a different country it does not wage war in its own people the kurds who believe that iraq is taking up arms to fight them or seriously deluded in these talks and no more than political maneuvering used to make up for the mistakes and failures of the past these countries are aware that present day iraq has nothing in common with the dictatorships of the past it is a democratic country which is against the use of force set forth in the laws adopted by its parliament generally speaking army in principle is non interference in the fears of other states but we would like this to be a two way street but the reality is that iraq is located in an arms infested region all the neighboring states have impressive arsenals of

hussein's table they didn't make his family live any less large than they did they point to countries like burma zimbabwe you know top leaders there were not directly impacted by sanctions only the people are but you know why then is there so much support for this we talked about this legislation passing i think it was back in august in the house that vote was four hundred twenty one to six for further sanctions so why is there so much support for this method you know it seems like the only thing that washington in congress is able to do is pass the sections and the reason is that you know you have very powerful groups lobbying for these for these sanctions you have groups like a pac in the you know that against nuclear iran and foundation for defense of democracies and because there's not a very strong opposition who say hold on a second we've done the same since we've reached this inflection point there needs to be a real investment in diplomacy if we don't want this to go to war without that counter counter of voice members of congress people in the senate they all seem to think th

hussein was killed because of this was initially executed an attack because of his use of care chemical weaponry against the kurds in iraq there are parallels been made and a lot of questions being asked about the double standards that the western world is seemingly employing you have a lot of criticism today against the syrian president bashar assad there was a lot of criticism leveled against gadhafi and yet there was a lot of silence in the international news at the moment of what was happening in bani walid and i can tell you here from beirut talking to some people here that is the question why these double standards why is so much made of one aspect and some leaders so much is being kept quiet about another. our middle east correspondent paula slayer talking to us from beirut thank you paula. well spain's government is finding itself cornered from all saw its bread its giant movies slashes the score for of its region's looming cuts easing boil over also. to wind. up in the ignition next international space station crew blasts off what the team of first timers we report from the lau