tv Debate on American Foreign Policy CSPAN August 14, 2014 9:03pm-10:10pm EDT
>> come and talk at the mike let her talk at the mike. >> i like this audience. [laughter] >> you are a good audience. [applause] >> i was a student. it is always a delight. some were really extraordinary. >> tell us about the relationship of women's rights, feminism through schools and how you see it. >> well, i actually just showed that documentary misrepresentation of a teacher in lausd high-school and one of the students near the end of the day said that he does not want to see a woman as president and neither does his father. he is african-american. and it is so hard to a deconstructs when what you were saying quiet is hard to
deconstructs when they don't even have the academic language. and i'm not talking rhetoric. i'm talking about objectification, misogyny, you know, their mind is not even freud developed yet. so when you talk about juvenile justice, when you talk about why there are more people of color in prison, you know, he tried to given the historical context. you know, they are worried about what their will to on friday night and don't understand the lynchings and mississippi for brown versus board of education. so on top of that when we ask teachers are exhausted and we don't have time to get out of the street and rally about how they're being exploited or about how i worked without a contract after years of seniority because our superintendent
decided to put his far this towards evaluation. in the, you know, so this attack on teachers, i mean, there are some many complexities and nuances, you know. and when you throw in 72 percent of my school is at poverty level. i transferred from 95 percent. when you are reporting child abuse. march i have so sorry. we are giving -- >> we are over our time. thank you. it. >> my voice will live on. thank you so much for being here. please, if you want to continue this conversation, and that since many of you would like to, come to signing area number five. thank you so much. [inaudible conversations]
>> our special book tv programming in prime time continues tomorrow night with hillary clinton on her memoir hard choices. then shapiro discusses his book the people versus barack obama the criminal case against the obama administration. and you will hear from author when greenwald on no place to hide, edwards noted, the nsa and the u.s. surveillance date. book tv in prime time during august here on c-span2. next on book tv dinseh d'souza and daniel mccarthy on u.s. foreign policy. this is a little more than an hour.
>> we hope to discover whether it is the business of these united states to send our liberties and our way of life against enemies. in foreign lands. to spill our blood going after terrorists, dictators and the middle east and other countries outside our borders. should our military engage in pre-emptive strikes against authoritarian leaders who do not share our cultural or religious values caused america to be hated in many parts of the world? should we engage in regime change and nation-building like we did in japan after world war -- does the 9/11 terrorist attack by islamic fundamentalists justify the passage of the patriot act? and expanding dramatically the powers of surveillance and spying by the cia, in and say, an fbi. other agencies of the federal government that may be in violation of our sacred constitution and bill of rights.
we hope that we attendees in conference and our 12 unbiased citizens here tonight will determine their right and wrong of these political questions laid before you this beautiful evening. defending american foreign policy it is dinseh d'souza. a conservative political. let's hear it for the man. let's hear it for the man. [applause] [applause] he is a conservative political commentator, best-selling author, highly acclaimed award winning film maker who worked in aragonite ounce to five white house and the 1980's. a university president, hoover fellow, and prominent voice. he may expressed differences of opinion, tonight regarding foreign policies of the bush and obama administration. he has been a regular speaker at freedom fest and has never lost a debate in his ten year history here. [applause]
of very good record so far. last year on the republican party, it ended in a hung jury between he and steve more. our jury, perhaps, will be better informed and more courageous do you feel that? do you mind if i talk to you says it makes you feel uncomfortable? [inaudible] not reading you a bedtime story. this is a lot. next, please stand. a longstanding advocate who is a passionate admirer of american interests abroad you have been accused of supporting legislation and policy that is wasted thousands of live to our cost trillions of dollars that was unnecessary, supporting regime change, nation building, and a military industrial complex far beyond the requirements of u.s. constitution and acting in violation of our most sacred bill of rights
including our right to be left alone. it is in there somewhere. out you please? >> not guilty. >> it feels to say it, doesn't it? [laughter] >> it does. it does. [applause] >> we are going to have a five minute opening statement by each side. the first is going to be by the prosecuting attorney, mr. daniel mccarthy. [applause] he is the editor of the american conservative, a magazine that has been a longstanding critic of american foreign policy and an opponent of american interventionism abroad. his writing has appeared in a wide variety of publications including the spectator, reason, modern age, and some many we just don't have time to list them outside of journalism he has worked as an internet communications coordinator. you guys like ron paul?
that's what i thought. senior editor of isi box. a graduate of washington university where he studied the classics. don't you love the odyssey? oh, my gosh. isn't it sad when a busy as walks and. no one knew who he was. it's the saddest part. break my heart. i love the classics. so your first attempt to win a case against mr. dinseh d'souza. after the opening statements each of our undefeated attorneys, both of them undefeated, they will call two witnesses who will be subject to cross-examination and possibly cross dressing because it is vegas. you know what they say. that is 40 weeks later you are getting an epidural. i think your mom knows what i'm saying. the jury will rule on the case. if the defendants are found guilty and i will impose a very harsh judgment.
it might be naughty spanking friday. it's going to get a little while that year. let me give a few instructions. ladies and gentlemen, please listen carefully to the opening statement. use your listening years. at the end of the hearing you will be required to determine whether there's sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that mr. mr. dinseh d'souza and his foreign policy experts are guilty of a ruinous and unnecessary foreign policy. the decision will be based of a majority vote by the jury, and it does not have to be unanimous. is that understood? very good. all right. mr. daniel mccarthy, are you ready? >> i am. >> begin with your opening statement. >> your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury and audience, what we have is an open and shut murder trial. as you might expect, whenever there is crime there has to be a body of evidence that proves that something terrible has happened. otherwise you cannot
prosecute people because you imagine something. the proof of the crime, the proof of the murder is something that we have all experienced ourselves, seen in the news, we all know and our personal lives to be taking place. that is the erosion of the role of flour, the assault on our liberties by an overreaching executive power , the destruction of our prosperity which has come about in large part because of the terrible spending of the past decade on poor foreign policy, aggressive foreign policy. in fact, this has spread into a disastrous performance from conservative candid it's in political contests which has brought about the obama administration which, of course, has personified and brought into focus so many of these terrible dangers. this is a murder trial. who was a suspect? dinseh d'souza, our foreign policy in general?
james madison 200 years ago had a lineup. and james madison pointed to the suspect. he said, of all the enemies to public liberty were is perhaps the most of the dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. from these proceed debt and taxes. armies in debt and taxes are the nine instruments for bringing the many under the dominion of the few. it so that is the suspect. the continual warfare that has characterized our foreign policy of the past decade and i believe the defense will be attempting to support. we assume that there is in fact a murder weapon. it has been the patriot act and other legislation that has expanded executive power, the practice of what is called rendition, what is being called various euphemisms but is torture, policies which have violated magnet carter and
anglo-saxon law going back centuries such as indefinite detention without trial. that is the murder weapon that has attacked our liberty, prosperity by a different weapon. that is the unchecked spending that has characterized these wars. a study from brown university last year said that the iraqi war alone has cost almost one and three-quarters trillion not counting the additional outlays that will be necessary to care for veterans and come home broken in body and mind into many instances. they're is a murder weapon. we know who our suspect is. a final question becomes, do we have men's rare, a latin term which means criminal intent. can we prove this was not an accident, not what the military's call collateral damage that was something they could have predicted, knew what caused the death of liberty and prosperity. i believe we can and will tonight with our witnesses. you will hear from the defense probably that any
number of u.s. foreign policies have been beneficial. certainly u.s. intervention in world war ii was something that almost everyone will support. ronald reagan and other great presidents who have used foreign policy in ways that promoted liberty. but in both these cases he did not have the kind of nation building. in fact, ronald reagan won the cold war without firing a shot culinary firing a shot. he was able to inspire people through trade and moral example, and that is what brought down the berlin wall and the soviet union. as for world war ii, that was an outcome of the first world war, totally unnecessary intervention, similar to that which we have seen over the past decade. that is the prosecution's case, and we will now proceed. [applause] >> very good. thank you. just so you know, sometimes right before i have criminal intent i have read men's
array of symptoms -- sunburn fortunately i am not suffering from it tonight. no, he didn't. right? listening to that. all right. think you very much. now we will hear from mr. mr. dinseh d'souza, the defending attorney in this case. are you prepared to give your opening statement? >> i am. >> very good. >> so this is a debate about american foreign policy, not a debate about obama's foreign-policy, not a debate about the patriot act. it is a debate about the impact of this country and its actions in the world on the world and on nice. i want to start by talking about the impact of america on the world. a good way to ask that question is to simply ask this, what would the world look like if the influence of america were shrunken to zero? because that is basically
what it means for america to be non interventionist is for america to have zero impact on the world. that would be for america -- think of america as another canada. canada has zero impact on the world. things can happen all over the world. no one will come really cares. and america used to be like that. we have no influence and tell basically world war two. and then we started having an impact. what has that impact on the balance been? it is idiotic to do a microscopic scrutiny of this or that intervention. you have to look at the whole picture. you can't miss the forest for the trees. in retrospect it is always easy to say, we made a mistake over here and over there. churchill said in analyzing the war it is illegitimate to criticize people with the benefit of hindsight because they did not have that
hindsight at the time. you have to criticize them based on the information available to them than. in retrospect i do not think we should have gone in. in retrospect i think the vietnam war was stupid. but when i look at the overall picture of american foreign policy, you have to remember that power in the world is either going to be used by us or somebody else. if you took america's power right now and we gave it out it would go to russia, china, somebody else would have it. and they would use it far more heavy handedly and brutally. to take a single example, the reason why we have the commerce of the world falling freely right now across the oceans is because of the united states navy. there is no other reason. [applause] and if you would strew the united states navy somali pirates, pirates from other countries, powerful nations would be fighting for
control. this would not be good. even from the point of view of global capitalism america's power is at the very best a kind of silent custodian of keeping the world safe. when you think of american foreign policy, we always think of guns. we don't think about america's greatest foreign-policy, using our soft power to promote technological capitalism around the world. the fact of the matter is that right now hundreds of millions of people are being lifted out of poverty all over the world. why? they are adopting the american recipe of globalization, free trade, technology. that is america's gift to the world. and not into it -- not interventionist america would not be promoting freedom, trade, would essentially be saying that not all men are created equal, but all americans and that is it. if look at the last 50
years, if there was not an act of america in the world who knows what would have happened in world war ii. we certainly would not be around to win the cold war. and if america had not won the cold war of the world wide now might be choosing between two options, on the one hand islamic radicalism and the other hand soviet communism. now, american foreign policy at its best, i think, is a policy that a dollars the reagan doctrine. the reagan doctrine very simply is we do not fight for other people's freedom. they fight. we help. and this, i think, is a corrected not intervention on the one hand. preemptive for on the other. both of those have proven to be historical disastrous for america. if we believe in freedom it is not just ourselves but for the world. we should continue to be what we have been in the last half century, a great gift to the world. thank you very much.
[applause] >> thank you, mr. dinseh d'souza. it is all about debate this evening. any internal debate about wearing the pants? >> red, white, blue. >> lovely. i see some yellow and a little bit of green, but i still like him a whole lot. all right. mr. mccarthy, would you like to call your first witness? >> i call my first witness, mr. grover norquist. [applause] >> right here in the beautiful -- >> stand here for a moment before you sit down. would you place your right and the taxpayer protection pledge? do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth and to never pay more than your fair share of taxes so help you god? >> i do. [applause]
>> tell us about your involvement in washington politics and its relationship to foreign policy. >> sure. i run a taxpayer group concerned about the growth of the state of taxes and spending. and i know that as we go through history we have been involved in intervention stores, taxes go up as a result. they did not always come back down. the cost of intervention, not self-defense, but intervention is one that is paid not just by the people who are taxed at the time, and the taxes go up. the income tax put in to pay for the first world war was there long after the first round war was over. and the spending level with each of these go up. they're is a very real danger that whenever you have the government involved in wars that taxes and spending that are put in for that specific emergency will stay there for quite some time.
war is one big great government program. obamacare with bullets. and -- >> that's good. >> thank you. [laughter] >> it is expensive and not to be entered into without caution and those parts of america -- american foreign policy are would critique is where we have locked desk -- like that caution. >> how wars affect our civil liberties here at home? and i have worked with a number of civil libertarian groups. what kind of impact does war have on our freedom? >> yes, i am a board member of the largest and oldest civil rights association and the united states. thank you. [applause] i am very concerned. people get all excited about a war. it put in all sorts of restraints in terms of civil liberties. use of this. of world war one was particularly problematic. you end up with everything
from the draft to tremendous violations of people's civil liberty. the patriot act which was a collection of ideas that the clinton administration bureaucrats had in reaction to oklahoma and the republicans looked at it and said, no way we will give the executive this power. a few years later they did. it a terrorist organization, but when you give the people powers, the state hours it is not limited to a particular use. it can be used to collect taxes. >> it sounds like you are saying it -- and the sounds -- i think the obama administration might say you are paranoid here. the administration's like obama's might actually go after critics, use patriot act powers and other such things to persecute documentarians who make films that, perhaps, are critical of the demonstration. can we imagine such abuses
taking place? [applause] >> i am sure those things could not happen today. in world war when they certainly did. [laughter] >> thank you very much. your witness. >> well, you live in washington d.c. >> yes. >> would you describe that as a safe city? >> not particularly. >> all right. -- >> we don't have concealed carry. >> that's right. excellent point. in other words when they're is a danger in a place like washington d.c. it helps to have a gun, doesn't it? >> yes. [silence] -- it for our country. >> for self-defense. if you go over to your neighbor's house and share that and you have not necessarily made the world safer.
>> right. if a gang comes and roger neighbor you might install an alarm system in your house. >> why don't we go to world war one and a stupid thing that happened there that gave us world war ii and all the things -- that is a little more to the point. >> the reason is because i am asking questions. >> the point i was trying to make is that -- [laughter] the point was trying to make is that even though it might cost you money to put in a security system, you would still do it if he thought it was a prudent response to a burglary that occurred next door. >> i'm in favor of a strong national defense. that is not the same thing as an interventionist foreign policy creating new wars for the future. >> let's not look at which work you think is okay in which it you don't. we were attacked at pearl harbor. we right to respond? >> attacked at pearl harbor. if you can't start where you want to and then criticize the interventionism.
our participation in world war one and the peace treaty that was eventually signed was brutal and guaranteed the second. >> we were tough on the nazis, and this case than the fuel that causes them to much rice. and a stand. if you're the president and you are attacked regardless of the mistakes that led to it, you are sounding like you were looking at the root causes, and there are root causes. what do you do? >> to find yourself. >> exactly. and it could have defended itself by just attacking nazi germany or had a proportionate action calculated to do just as much damage as they did to pearl harbor, but we leveled and not to germany and leveled japan and dropped an atomic bomb. we went all out. >> i am not sure that the firebombing certain cities ended the war. i do think that dropping a nuclear bomb was better than
starving everybody in japan. that would have been all-out, and i think that would have been a mistake. >> so let's talk about the cold war. the united states fought the cold war. even though it was a cold war, it required lots of militarization, lots of military spending, the mx missile, b-1 bomber, strategic missile defense, the support of all kinds of action in afghanistan, somalia, nicaragua and also in supporting the measure had been in afghanistan. you supported all of those things if i recall. >> i certainly support it fighting against the soviet union because there were threatening the united states. the united states foreign policy is a broader subject and just one conflict and the decision to involve ourselves in the spanish-american war, the decision to involve ourselves in world war one, the decision to occupy iraq and afghanistan for a decade , the ones that laid the groundwork for future problems rather than solve
problems and cost a lot of lives and a lot of wealth. and we have seen erosion of civil liberty as a result. these are serious problems. >> we were directly attacked. should we have gone and knocked out the targets in afghanistan, eradicated the regime? were those the correct actions? >> i think -- it did not bother me we went out and knocked out the regime. it was the decision to stick around for ten years and try to the rerun those countries and organize them and try to turn them into kansas city. after the spanish-american war. we are significantly weaker in the world today than before because of decisions we made, not because of decisions our enemies made, but because of decisions we made economically, foreign policy. we strengthened pat regimes around the globe and it was expensive. >> i am trying to get a
sense of whether you're criticizing the specific actions of a particular foreign policy, ie bush in afghanistan or obama somewhere else or if you are actually criticizing the idea of america being active. you seem to be saying it would have been a good idea to go there and get out. you would have supported that? >> i would of been a big improvement. >> in other words or not against an interventionist foreign policy. you are against an interventionist foreign policy carried out bush obama style? >> i'm looking at what happened and yes. there are interventions were we trying to win and run other countries for them and try and spend a lot of lives and time and money and our own civil liberties sacrificed as wilson did in world war one and as we try to do in a ten year plus occupation of two countries that did not -- it got us in a worse position after the
occupation and before. and the people who are pointing this out at the time -- this is not something you did not see. it's something many people pointed out is exactly what would happen when ever we left. whether it is five years or 20 years. >> we to look at american foreign policy in the last 15 years from 1945 until now. >> your leaving world war one out. >> i understand that you have a beef with world war one. i might agree with you on that one. >> what to avoid. critiquing american foreign policy, the big mistake, you leave out people on death row only made one mistake. >> right. let me ask you this, on the balance of you have to give a yes or no answer has america and its foreign policy and by this i mean it's hard power and soft power get for the world yes or no?
>> he is putting words in the witness's mouth. >> i'm asking him yes or no. >> yes are no are words to our right. that is what you are requiring him to say. >> we have to wrap it up here. you know, i've overruled the objection. >> i think the objection is itself very telling. [laughter] >> thank you. >> very. >> you may step down. thank you. >> thank you very much. [applause] yes. hello. >> i call my next witness mr. doug casey. >> that is of a fine idea. let's bring him out to the stage. he is going to do a paternity test, just like maury. >> calling doug casey. >> doug casey to the stand. there he is. let's hear it for him, ladies and gentlemen. let's get this party
restarted. [inaudible conversations] >> a copy of war what is it good for. would you please hold that? do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you doug casey? >> i always tell the truth. >> good. have a seat. >> some doug casey fans in the house. >> what is your name, rank command serial number? >> i don't believe in those things. [laughter] over the years i have come to despise the military and everything that it stands for. i view them as heavily armed versions of the post office. [laughter] >> tell us a little bit about your world experience. and i have lived in several countries, traveled extensively.
what is your impression of our foreign policy is changing the world right now and is it winning his friends are making as an unease? >> it is a complete disaster everywhere that the u.s. government sticks its nose and its tentacles. it destroys things. it used to be that people are around the world loved the idea of america. it represented freedom and a high standard of living. it represented individual liberty and the right to do what you want and go where you wanted. but now americans, soldiers, and overall combat soldiers of one size, degree or another in around 100 countries. we are despised. it is not that i approve of world war ii praetor think it was unnecessary for america to get into that. incidentally i don't even call it american any more.
america is an idea and an excellent idea, but unfortunately it has been replaced by the united states which is just another degraded nation's state 200 of which are covering the face of the world like a skin disease at this point. [applause] >> don't hold back. what do you really think? [laughter] >> so the enemy of the average american because of the enemies it is making around the world. no, it serves no useful purpose at all. >> you have extensive experience with investment paid to you find that u.s. foreign policy is making us more sensible investment for people? what is the effect? >> oh, yes. that is actually a big
thing. it is not just the people that are killed and the material that is destroyed around the country. it is bankrupting the u.s. i expect those talk to some aircraft carriers, 12 big ones and another dozen little ones that we have will wind up at the docks like the soviet navy 20 years ago or for that matter like argentina's sold destroyer recently. it actually sank in tilted 45 degrees at the dock. why is that? it takes tremendous economic power to project that kind of force, and it is going to bankrupt the country. this is actually -- i will go so far as to say that if it had not been for the united states stupid counterproductive military adventures we would be further -- more advanced over china today than we currently are over you gone up. we would already be colonizing the outer planets
. we have destroyed all of this capital. we destroyed it in a number of ways, even with these charitable things where we give food to starving countries. well, maybe that keeps some poor native person from starving today, but even when they do this supposedly beneficial things like that it destroys the local market farmers go bankrupt. and now there are on permanent welfare. so even the so-called good things that we do, forget about the overly bad and destructive things. more important, destructive to the people here. >> it sounds like this as a moral bankruptcy. i mean, are we seeing the american character changed by all of this? >> that is actually the worst part, the morality of this type of thing. it is completely corrupted the american character. and this is actually the most fundamental argument
against this in san policy, americans always have got to my don't know which kind. >> he is a good one. >> i'm not sure. i guess cheeses, i don't know. ala. all of these different kinds whichever one, we always have him on our side. now even the germans have gone on their side. >> they certainly did against brazil. right? yes. [laughter] >> no, but all of these wars which are often justified for more reasons have destroyed the moral character of the united states and the american people. so it is a horrible situation, and it is getting worse. as the economy turns down from as many of you know, a
gigantic economic hurricane that we entered in 2008 and nine. as we go into the trailing edge over the next few years , government -- and it is going to be very bad, much worse than 2008 and nine, much different the government never blamed himself for all of the things. it will look to blame other entities. it is going to blame those horrible arabs for putting the price of oil at $110 a barrel. it is going to blame those horrible chinese for filling walmart full of affordable goods. it is going to blame everyone and anyone. you can count on their finding a foreign enemy to unite the people and distract attention from themselves. >> i think we have to wrap it up. >> thank you. i think mr. dinseh d'souza may have some questions for you.
>> soap let me ask you this. do you agree that the successful life you have lived as an entrepreneur is only possible because it occurred in america? >> that is a ridiculous statement. >> you could've done it in afghanistan or somalia? >> it is a ridiculous and stupid question. >> what is the answer. >> and you know that. alyssum. you are a specialist in populous arguments that set up straw men. nope. you can't do it in and free countries like of kurdistan. the fact is is that since americans peaked in the late 50's, the greatest economic progress or the greatest amount of wealth that has been created has been created in places like the orient and now africa is even building. so i could have done it anywhere. >> okay. i am noting something you said, which i am not popularizing. you cannot do it in and free
countries. >> of course. >> now do you realize the reason -- >> you can, but i prefer to do it honestly as opposed to -- >> right. to you agree that the united states is and remains a free country in part because of those lower middle-class white and black kids to sign up for the u.s. military and protect us from being invaded by house firepowers, in other words, the security and freedom of the united states is made possible by the very people you despise. protecting our freedom. >> again, you are absolutely incorrect. first of all, speaking to the military, and there are nice, intelligent people there, but the fact of the matter is most of the u.s. military is made up of refugees from the bar area, get up, and a trailer park. >> not really. >> that me ask you this, how about if we replace them
with upper-middle-class white guys like you? [laughter] >> i don't believe -- i don't -- i don't believe -- are think that the biggest danger to the united states and the world is the u.s. military today. it is a parasite sucking the blood of the country. i would say at least 95 percent of it should be abolished. if you car really like those kids in the military, nothing against them personally, they should come back here and find productive labour. >> let me ask you this. it is easy to say these things in the abstract. the policeman in a city are also the domestic equivalent of a military because they're supposed to keep us safe from domestic ducks. would you be in favor of abolishing 95 percent of the police? >> i believe in abolishing the state. and state police. >> that is very modest. >> the police in this country are becoming
militarized. most of them today are ex soldiers trained in military techniques now with military equipment. the answer to your question is that anything that the police do in the united states could be done better and cheaper and more safely by private security. [applause] >> why don't you tell us your private security response? >> all right. that is a very good question. to start with, if the u.s. have not been sticking its nose in foreign countries. >> we cost? [applause] >> no. it was a response to something that we started. let me explain why. it was said several times, there are three things as he once the u.s. to do. to stop supporting the local dictators, to get our troops out of their country's and to stop interfering in their
affairs. we did not. and so this was in some ways a criminal but logical response. and i would handle it has a criminal act, a large criminal act. but not a military act. in. >> even the criminal act requires police. tell what 5% of police go &? >> to start with, what they did in afghanistan going in there and helping to our bankrupt of the u.s., we have to borrow money from the chinese in order to attack afghanistan. i would say that if he was responsible he could have been tracked down by mercenaries who would do it for the money. then he should have been tried for the crime. it not a kangaroo court like this, but a real court. >> the russians have about 15,000 nuclear warheads.
many countries have a clear weapons. if we abolish the state would we abolish unilaterally our own nuclear arsenal? >> i would suggest doing that. >> no nuclear bombs. the russians with the 1500, the chinese 300. >> let me say something that may shock you. at that point there would be no more reason for any of them to attack this geographical area called the united states then there would be for them to attack the geographical area called the zealander canada. yes. >> because we would be just as powerless and defend the -- defenseless. therefore we would be just as vulnerable. >> i am an advocate of every american having weapons so that if the chinese armies landed on the coast of california after they overcame our first line of defense which would be the surfers. [laughter] the chinese general -- >> don't discount the surfers, my friend. it toes on the nose, broke.
>> then let the chinese general ask somebody, take me to your leader. i am sure the guy with taken home to his life. and the invading chinese -- listen to my people out engaged countries in the more. this is not the days of the roman empire. that is not the nature. >> the whole world has gone through a kind of technological enlightenment where innovation along and make sense to anybody. >> if the chinese invaded the west coast and started confiscating property and hurting people in 30 days half of them would have deserted to open up mcdonald's franchises and the other half would disappear because the citizens would take them out at night. >> thank you. >> very good. you can step down what did you think of that? who won that exchange?
[applause] >> i didn't -- it is very interesting. i got a rise out of you all when i spoke badly against the u.s. military. you all had this thing where your soldiers are defending you, but at this point they are a hired mercenary army. >> above the waistline. to you have any further witnesses? >> the prosecution rests. >> very good. thank you very much. that means you can call your first witness. >> i call to the stand general michael meese. [applause] general, would you like to swear, take your oath on this 400 page monstrosity that is the patriot act for this 30 page beauty that is the constitution of the
united states? >> i will do both and always put the constitution on top of the patriot act or anything else congress passed. >> do you swear to tell the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> please be seated. >> i am just a refugee, as mr. casey said. i had nothing else to do, retired after 32 years of defending mr. casey. [applause] >> order. who needs a gavel. proceed. >> tell us a little bit about your qualification to be here and to make your case. >> thirty-two years in the army, 31 months overseas and iraq and afghanistan during the search in iraq and then
14 months in afghanistan. also, my son right now is serving in the region of the country outside of canada are in the country today. [applause] >> any prior service? >> no. >> you heard mr. casey talking about a country that would essentially dismantle the state's that would have little or no military, relying on the fact that the chinese don't actually believe in conquest anymore and neither does anyone else in the world. none of it makes any sense. how accurate do you think this is a vague description of human nature or the actual world we live in today? >> it clearly is not the world that anyone with a good sense of reality lives in today.
[laughter] and, in fact, when you look at the influence that america has had in the world especially since world war ii, the positive influence of the military working in career, working in japan, working throughout europe has been extremely good on rebuilding those nations and, in fact, rebounding that benefit back to us. >> so if we celebrate the fact that south korea is a capitalist example verses north korea, doesn't some of that credit go to the u.s. military for securing the freedom of south korea? >> absolutely. and it would not have happened if we had not left troops there. yes, it is expensive and we can talk about the cost and the exaggerations that mr. grover norquist had, but having troops there as ambassadors of the united states, representatives of all of us and free people everywhere has actually been positive.
just looking at the contrast between south korea and north korea is a great example of what america can do that is good for the world using all of its instruments of american foreign policy. [applause] >> now, the $200 billion deficit that reagan ran up in the 1980's was a product of tax cuts but a strong increase in military spending that seems to have contributed to the end of the cold war. was that a worthwhile investment? is the world better off, including mass, because there is no soviet union and eastern europe is free? >> caution, someone is lobbing softballs. >> my witness. >> obviously that is a positive move. what is interesting is what has happened both then and since then in contrast to what mr. grover norquist
said. in fact, we are about to in about two years have the smallest military since 1939. a country with a population three times the size. the amount of spending has gone down by well over 50% from when ronald reagan increase that, and the increased from about 4% to 6% of gross domestic product >> let me take a risk as an attorney and ask you a more problematic scenario. looking back in retrospect on iraq what if bush had not invaded, not gone into nation-building but done something like this, that there are some very bad guys in the world that have done this to us and we don't know exactly who they are but we do know they have come out of the middle east and motivated by islamic radicalism, so we will go grab are really bad guy, saddam hussein to man beat his head repeatedly into the ground after which we will
then leave. if we had done that, not making this decade-long investment in iraq but essentially sent the message that there is a new sheriff in town and we will put up with this kind of nonsense, would that be a better way to go that what we did? which it could have been. it probably would have if you look at it. the pottery barn analogy. when you break if you buy it. >> stupid analogy. >> no because what what had happened at that point, we would have depose saddam hussein, the war that is breaking out now because we have abandoned our relationship with iraq would have broken out in 2004 and the united states and the entire -- the united states would have been planned by not only the muslim world but by the chinese and europe for destroying that regime and leading to what would have been a regional conflagration that we're seeing today. >> answer more succinctly
the question that cave grover norquist so much trouble. on the balance of force for good or bad of the world. >> absolutely, yes. >> thank you. [applause] >> your witness. >> in his opening remarks he said he thought the vietnam war should not have been fought, do you agree? >> i would probably on balance on do that. i would have done what president eisenhower did which was not intervene. >> it sounds as if you are in favor of a more restrained foreign policy than the one we actually have today. >> yes. >> tell me, what was in your experience the mission in iraq? >> the mission was to depose saddam hussein and then provide the opportunity to rollback the forces of civil war that we're seeing come forth and provide the opportunity for iraq to be
able to be safe and govern itself. it is important to note that most of the press does not cover this because they're covering britney spears or something else more important. >> she was playing tonight right here. >> iraq freed 30 million people that have voted four times in free and fair elections. they have elected a not terribly good prime minister which is having difficulties he was the second place candid, but those are people that had never boat -- never voted before that have started their way toward democracy which we should have continued to support in 2011. >> you would say that the mission was accomplished. >> no. i would say that the mission move forward toward accomplishment and should have been continued in 2011. >> to the moving forward of the mission toward accomplishment, added that
make the people in this audience more prosperous or free? how is the american national interest in those -- >> welcome another violent dictator in the same area decided to abort his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction which was immediately after the deposing of saddam hussein and was an indication of the kind of influence that the united states has in the world, respect for the united states, the coalition we put together. forty-nine nations continue to fight alongside us in afghanistan. that kind of global lead makes a significant impact on the united states trade cannot foreign-policy, and diplomatic policy in the world. >> enhanced the liberty of anyone in this audience? >> just look at the advent of global trade and the global economic opportunities that i am sure the following witness that
follows me will be able to expand on in great length. >> you don't think we would have had a global trade if we had not had the iraq war? >> i think we would not have had a substantial amount of influence that we have throughout the world. >> you don't think we have substantial influence on the world before the iraqi war? >> i think we did. again, like vietnam the 20 / 20 hindsight would have been -- we did not have weapons of mass destruction there as people thought we did. and probably would not have intervened. unfortunately foreign-policy leaders did not have that ability to undo decisions that can make. >> are you are aware of the libertarians, conservatives, and others who critique the war before it began? you sang no one had foresight? >> there were a lot of people who have foresight, including those in the military who debated this significantly. my boss in fact testified to
congress. >> he did a good job. [laughter] >> thank you. >> okay. >> thank you very much, general. you may step down. [applause] would you like to call one more witness to the stand? >> i called mr. steve forbes. >> yes. [applause] i have here a copy of a soon-to-be best-selling book money how the destruction of the dollar threatens the global economy and what we can do about it. would you please place your right hand on it. ..
that on the balance that's a very good thing. >> what the world needs, we have had an explosion of capitalism arms by the crisis of 2008 and thousand nine but there's no question since the early 1980s until the financial crisis, we in the world went through in the most extraordinary periods in human history. never before had so many people, so many parts of the world advance so quickly in economy. the world that america helped shake me -- shape made that possible and it wasn't until the 1990s that we achieved terms of flows of capital, terms of
trade as a portion of the global economy that we have before world war i. only in the 90s did we proportionately get back to what we have before 1914. >> i'm going to zoom in to the specific case of india because prior to the liberalization and the capitalist opening in india it seems that india may be looked to gain mainly at the loss of pakistan or china. there was an ongoing military rivalry between india and pakistan in both countries were looking to gain essentially by taking from the other. would you agree that the united states is playing an important role in preventing a conflict from taking place and enabling the capitalist revolution to seek india? >> united states didn't prevent sadly three wars between india and pakistan. i think what kind of botched what happened in 1970 and 71.
i understand the old pakistan broke up but the united states is winning the cold war. i think it's possible for india to get over the soviet union and that is a counter to what china focused internally -- internally a bold and he had to go from from a stagnant nation you know it's a democracy to becoming a high-tech power in the world. >> there seemed to be in the world. one is taking it from someone else in the other's wealth creation. >> we have one minute left with this witness. >> very well. you think the chinese and russians other large powers in the world even though they benefited from the ethic of wealth creation have given up the epic of conquest? >> sadly in the case of russia it does not appear to be the case. their economy could start to show promise in early 2000 as
john mccain pointed out the gas station based solely on oil revenues and they do think grabbing territory is the way to make themselves a great power. this was by the way the grave mistake germany made in 1914 which was then as it is today the dominant power in europe when it was fearful about france having military and fearful of russia having military and they thought the least the militarist thought from prussia that war would solve their problems. whereas we know germany just let things flow with would have been the dominant powers of europe that did not lead to rifle the navy and did not need to add 50% to its army. their power would have come from the power of its economy. unfortunately elements in china and certainly elements in russia still have the old feeling of to get rich enough to conquer. >> the last question steve on the balance has america been a
force for good or for bad in the world? >> there's no question about it. it's a powerful force for good. [applause] >> thank you very much. your witness mr. mccarthy. >> mr. forbes mr. d'souza said in retrospect he thinks the iraq war and the vietnam war are dubious exercises. do you agree with him on that? >> you that? >> agonized look back and point out the mistakes made in the past. the vietnam war for example the first war that we lost. another way to look at vietnam is there was a terrible loss in the cold war. there was a huge battle lost. these were lost battles in world war ii but we won the cold war. given human history the sad fact is yes in retrospect we can say we shouldn't have done this and we should not duh but when you are fighting these things you will make mistakes. the key thing is are you trying to win the big one do it right in the cold war has supposedly
not receive democracies don't have the sticktoitiveness that the dictatorships have. we have that sticktoitiveness even though we had rough times in the 70s especially in the aftermath of vietnam and we won the cold war. ronald reagan had the vision to see, we didn't have to have stalemate we could have victory and we got the victory. [applause] >> mr. forbes i would be interested to hear the fine distinction between ronald reagan's foreign policy in the foreign policy lyndon johnson or george w. bush or interventionist militaristic president's? >> while in terms of the effect of foreign-policy ronald reagan because he was seen as strong putting missiles in germany which did not prevent the soviets from intimidating but we then called west germany and western europe. he sent troops into granada. the first time a communist regime was actually overthrown from the outside and even though
it was a small operation that sent the signal to the world that the u.s. was becoming a major player again. it had run down the military in the 70s but by the time the first iraqi war came along it was completely transformed and in terms of lyndon johnson if you look at vietnam, books have been written about this. if that had been treated as an insurgency with a handful of people instead of trying to re-create a world war ii battlefield in vietnam, there would have been a very different result. even so by 1972, the north vietnamese undertook a major offensive, south vietnam, the south vietnamese army beat them. we threw that away and we should have been there in the first place but having achieved what we set out to achieve we threw it away. >> you have approximately one
minute. >> up the question. we did see a counterinsurgency strategy in iraq but hasn't that fail to reduce -- produce the results we would have liked it seemed? >> the counterinsurgency when we got our act together in 2006 in and 2007 at iraq that so-called surge was when i sent 20,000 more men and we fought the war it should have been fought. having been there that's counterinsurgency war worked. we beat the guerrillas which went against everyone's expectations with the u.s. army did there. working with locals and learning to fight at night. it worked and that's why the sudanese militias came on our side because they realized we now know what we are doing that again like vietnam we threw it away. >> thank you very much. mr. forbes you can step down. thank you gentlemen both.
[applause] let's hear it for all of our witnesses. [applause] great job, and now here's what we are going to do. ladies and gentlemen of the journey you have heard the expert witness testimony and the statements from the prosecution and the defense at the beginning of the trial. it's now up to you to decide the guilt or innocence of mr. dinesh d'souza and the supporters of american foreign policy. it's her job to determine whether preponderance of evidence supports the prosecution, that is on balance american foreign policy has failed to achieve its goal of creating stable democracies around the world and it has resulted in two failed wars in unpopular america abroad and a loss of more liberties. we will tally the votes and announce the verdict decision by the jury by majority vote. it does not require a unanimous decision. is that clear? are there any questions jurors?
>> witness we are totally running out of time. >> you can find yourself some sort of decision and the marshal will lead you. [inaudible conversations] >> how are you guys doing? are you guys good? are you having fun? that's great. dinesh they have stolen your pen and your freedom. [laughter] does anyone want to play heads