NATIONAL PRESS CLUB VIDEOCONFERENCE LUNCHEON ADDRESS BY IRANIAN PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD

JERRY ZREMSKI, PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB
THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB, WASHINGTON, D.C.12:12 P.M. EDT, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2007
FULL TEXT:
(Note: The president's remarks are provided through interpreter.)
MR. ZREMSKI: Good afternoon, and welcome to the National Press Club for our luncheon today with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
My name is Jerry Zremski, and I'm president of the National Press Club and Washington bureau chief for the Buffalo News.
I'd like to welcome our club members and their guests who are joining us here today, along with the working press and the audience that's watching us on C-SPAN.
We're looking forward to today's speech and afterwards I will ask as many questions from the audience as time permits.
I'd now like to introduce our head table guests and ask them to stand briefly when their names are called. From your right, Ron Baygents, Washington correspondent for the Kuwait News Agency; Lucie Morillon, Washington representative for Reporters without Borders; Ken Mellgren, manager of affiliate relations at Associated Press Broadcast; Hiroki Sugita, Washington bureau chief of Kyodo News Agency of Japan; Donna Leinwand, correspondent for USA Today and treasurer of the National Press Club; Clarence Page, columnist and member of the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune; Dr. Kaveh Afrasiabi, professor of international relations at Bentley College, author of books on Iran's foreign and nuclear policies, and a guest of the speaker.
Skipping over the podium, Angela Greiling Keane of Bloomberg News, the chair of the National Press Club Speakers Committee; Myron Belkind, a member of the Speakers Committee and the member of the committee who organized today's luncheon; Greta Van Susteren, anchor of Fox News's "On the Record"; Jon Allen, correspondent for Congressional Quarterly; Eleanor Clift, contributing editor to Newsweek and a regular panelist on "The McLaughlin Group"; and Tom Baldwin, Washington bureau chief for the Times of London. (Applause.)
For nearly a century now, the National Press Club has brought the world's leading newsmakers to this stage. Yasser Arafat, Golda Meir, Nelson Mandela and Nikita Khrushchev are just a few of the notables who have all addressed the world from the National Press Club. And today we are hosting one of the most newsworthy heads of state in the world, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Here at the National Press Club, it's our job to facilitate the news, to help bring newsmakers and journalists together. That's exactly what we're doing here today. We're not endorsing anything the president has said or will say, just as we didn't endorse what Fidel Castro said when he spoke at the National Press Club. We simply arranged for this opportunity for President Ahmadinejad to share his thoughts with us.
One thing is different and historic about this National Press Club luncheon. This is the first videoconference luncheon in the 100- year history of the National Press Club. We invited President Ahmadinejad to join us via video from New York where he is attending the U.N. General Assembly.
President Ahmadinejad, welcome to the National Press Club.
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: In the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful --
INTERPRETER: The president is reciting verses from the holy Koran in Arabic.
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: -- I am very glad to sit down and meet with members of the press and congratulate a 100th year of your activities.
At the outset, I would like to raise a fundamental question on a key issue. I'd like to invite all to look at world events. When we take a look around us, we're not happy with what we see. Indeed it is the most unsatisfactory state of affairs; insecurity, discrimination and threats of war and security concerns have affected everyone. Continuous wars have, in fact, hurt the human spirit. I believe if we look at the root cause of some of these problems, we will be able to think of how to build a better future, a more prosperous future based on peace and security for all humanity. I believe we all believe strongly that it is possible to create a better world for humanity, and to realize this sublime and beautiful goal, we need to take a look and revise how we view the world around us.
In looking for the root causes of the world problems today, we first look -- confront (deviations ?) on how mankind is viewed and how the world is viewed through the prism and point of view, in fact, of some politicians and statesmen. I would say we believe in the sublime value of humanity.
The Almighty God has replaced man on -- has replaced his position with man's position on Earth. As his representative, He gave dignity to him and respect and called on mankind to make every effort to move towards a prosperous life and to walk on the sublime path that will help achieve it. God placed man on Earth has His representative, and to guide him, He sent His prophets. God placed the world in man's hand and helped man control it, gave man talents with the ability to grow those talents, and placed no limits on man's progress in that respect.
God created man above material being and placed that material being into man's hands for his possession. What this means is that God placed man on a high status and respected him, so to God, man is a unified truth, beyond geographical borders, colors or ethnicity. God and all his prophets have addressed all human beings from all segments of life. The greatest harm to mankind is to prevent him from pursuing education, to prevent him from moving on the sublime, divine path.
The nature of mankind is imbued with God's spirit. God's spirit helps man pursue science and wisdom and love and beauty and kindness and to render service to other mankind. That's what it invites man to do, so no one should prevent the pursuit of science and knowledge by man; no one should prevent love and kindness from flourishing in mankind and turn that into hostility, enmity and all forms of grudges that we now hold against each other. No one should distort the beauty of thought and the beauty of feeling in emotion from man. Family is the center of love and beauty; fathers, mothers and children is our center for giving love.
Peace and tranquility is based in the family. No one has the right to take away the divine gift from humanity.
The result of love and kindness is the (ability to ?) render service, to sacrifice oneself for other people. That should not be prevented. Kindness and love also gives the result of forgetting about oneself for others. This is a realization of the sublime beauty of mankind that must not be denied to him. The security of thought and of being is a right and is a necessity.
Security can happen within the realm of God and the belief in God. Those who believe in God seek His assistance and depend on Him, the God who is the absolute power, who is the absolute knowledge, the absolute knowledge, and who loves his beings, the God who upholds the rights of those defenseless people. And those who believe in this God will believe in peace and will achieve peace. Those whose seek the approval of this God will never have fear or concerns.
Most certainly, to seek God's approval, one must follow him. Following God means to respect the rights of others, to render respect and kindness to others, to engage in pious acts and behaviors, to remember God. Following God means wanting the best for all others, to invite them to good and to tell them to refrain from bad.
Insecurity happens when remembrance of God and following Him is weakened. When a group are not satisfied about their rights, they will become aggressors. And when the rights of another group of people and another land and other people's resources are usurped, insecurity arises.
When the boundaries of people is broken and security is robbed from them, that's when the threat of arms and nuclear arms overshadows the tranquility that mankind had before; insecurity prevails. And when security is taken away, the talents are no longer flourished, the happiness and joy of life is replaced by fear, insecurity prevents man's progressive development, and it distorts man's vision from achieving its sublime path -- goal.
My friends, man is a divine creature. It has the talent to move towards the indefiniteness of beauty, of joy and greatness. The human path is a movement from darkness to light. The truth of the world, of this universe, is pure, and the creator of the world is -- has no -- is free of all forms of lies and deceits and oppression.
The right path is the path to piety. Lies are incompatible with the truth of mankind and with the adjectives that the divine Lord has given us for humanity. Lies are an incorrect reflection of the reality and reflection of those behaviors of the liars and the way they think. Lies have nothing to do with the divine spirit of mankind. Lies deviate thoughts and lead to judgments that weaken the truth and deviate man's path.
Therefore, lies and deceits are in fact a form of oppressing mankind, and we are all against that form of oppression, of oppression of all sorts. Powers or human beings who create insecurity and impose it on the world, who threaten this divine creature and disable him from flourishing his talents, commit the highest forms of oppression by disallowing that man -- not allowing man to move from this material world up to the divine, to the heavens.
So from a divine perspective as well as from a humane perspective, insecurity, violence, terror are not all simple challenges or perhaps one of oppression or deviation from the collective rights of individuals and people, so that that is not just simply the case; rather, it goes broader. That level of insecurity is oppressing mankind in its totality.
Tribal violence and ethnic violence is imposed by the powerful groups, by the oppressors is in fact a form of oppressing mankind altogether. Of course insecurity does not arise only through security activities or through police activities or through indirect means but -- principally, the mind should not be marred by things that prevent it from thinking clearly and finding the true path, the correct path. Materialism, hedonism, engaging in immoral behavior mars the heart, spirit and thought of mankind and prevents it from thinking about pureness and piety and prevents man's joyous movement towards progress. This, too, is insecurity of the mind.
In the teachings of the divine prophet, these are what prevent man from growing. In this logic, there are no principles; rather, there is a propensity to engage in corruption and all that it represents, and that all hurts man's movement towards the sublime path and the final branch of insecurity of the mind and of the thoughts. We disagree with that. We do not like to see that prevail. And I think that to have a better world, our vision of how we look at mankind must change. We have to look at the rights of man, the needs of mankind and the dignity of mankind.
I believe in setting up a prosperous future, the role of the press is very important. The press plays a connecting role, and it provides information and promotes -- can serve as a channel for promoting correct thinking. The role of the press is to disseminate moral behavior, to disseminate goodness, purity, honesty, peace, security and all positive messages that arise from that. And this role is extremely significant; God forbid -- they must prevent the dissemination of hatred and impurity and insecurity, for in that sense, too, they play a very sensitive role.
The press can be the voices of the divine prophets or, God forbid, the voice of those who seek the worst and those who oppress humanity. Time will pass and join history, so it is best for all of us to seek peace, security and purity and let that remain for posterity.
There are some powerful groups that do not allow that. Their interest rests in belittling mankind. Their interest rests in the unawareness of mankind. Their interest rests in controlling the free flow of information. Their interest rests on attacking and aggressing other nations and the rights of other people. Their interest rests on producing weapons and to sell those weapons and arms. But our human responsibility requires us to reflect on the reality and truth as it is, and bring the message of peace and friendship for all humanity. I hope that we will all succeed in our efforts.
I'm very glad to meet with all of you again today. I look forward to receiving your comments and views.
MR. ZREMSKI: Thank you very much, President Ahmadinejad. Can you hear me?
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Yes.
MR. ZREMSKI: Yes. Okay, great.
We have many, many questions, starting with this, which directly relates to your speech. How important do you think that the worldwide spread of Islam is to creating the sublime and beautiful world that you envision? And is there room for other religions?
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: We think that all religions and all divine religions have the same message. They all come from the same place. They have several clear messages: to invite man to worship God, which is the root of all goodness; to invite man to justice, which guarantees love, friendship and viable security; to invite man to dignity and to respect of mankind; to invite man to love the rest of mankind.
These messages are set in the religion of Christ -- of Moses and Christ as well as the holy passage of Islam. These prophets have all given the same messages. They never had differences in that respect. There was never a conflict there because their root goes back to the same -- (word inaudible) -- and their message was the same as well.
MR. ZREMSKI: Does that mean there is room for Christianity --
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: They all believe in beauty and goodness --
MR. ZREMSKI: -- (off mike) -- that you're describing?
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: They're all brothers. They all want the same thing, justice and friendship, and this is the common ground for all religions. True pious people have no differences with other --
MR. ZREMSKI: Yes, but do those religions have a place in the world you described?
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: They're all human beings and followers of different religions, and all of their views should be respected. We should all build a prosperous community together, and we must all move hand in hand. This is a responsibility for all.
MR. ZREMSKI: We have many questions regarding the Baha'i religious minority in Iran. Many of our questioners say that the Baha'i minority has been deprived of their human rights. What would your response be to that?
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: In our constitution, Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Zoroastrianism are recognized as the official religions. When we speak of religion, we refer to divine religions. In our country we follow that law, a law that is based on the majority vote of the people.
MR. ZREMSKI: The 2007 Amnesty International Report on Iran said the following:
"Freedom of expression and association were increasingly curtailed. Internet access was increasingly restricted and monitored. Journalists and bloggers were detained and sentenced to prison or flogging, and at least 11 newspapers were closed."
Why?
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: I think people who prepared the report are unaware of the situation in Iran. In our country law prevails. Freedom is flowing at its highest level.
You know that the newspaper that also -- you know that a government newspaper was actually shut down because it was engaging in illegal acts, a newspaper that was reflecting the views of the head of the state, but because it insulted a figure and disrespected the rights of the people by insulting -- (inaudible) -- it was shut down. You know that on a daily basis we have many, many newspapers or the presence of newspapers in our country, and the number of those newspapers that are against the government in place right now are perhaps 10 times larger than the newspapers that are pro-government.
In our country, there are tens of millions of people who are connected to the Internet, they have access to it. So if you're talking about immoral, like acts of perhaps immoral sites, well, you would agree with me that the sites are harmful for society. Nobody can really allow access to those. But our people are the freest people in the world, the most aware people in the world, the most enlightened, so to say.
So the person who prepared this report, I would say, had he had the chance to walk in Iran -- in Tehran and other cities and visit them in Iran, and to really sit down with people and speak with them would have understood that people in Iran are very joyous, happy people and very free and very much aware of all world developments on -- as it continues every minute, every second. And they're very free in expressing what they think.
Last year in the university, a minority group of a hundred people stood against over 2,000 people, students who were -- who supported the president, and they were screaming and they tried to disrupt a session. There were lots involved, and the president sat down for two hours and listened to all of them. And right now they're free, they're walking freely.
I think the people who give this information should seek what is the truth and sort of disseminate what's correct.
So I invite everyone present in this meeting to come and visit Iran for themselves, to come freely and visit the country all over, to speak with the people there. Then their point of view will change.
MR. ZREMSKI: Two of the journalists that have been arrested in Iran have been sentenced to death simply for doing their jobs. Mr. President, can you give us your word that you will do everything in your power to keep this sentence from being carried out?
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: The news is fundamentally wrong. This is incorrect. This is not correct at all about Iran, what's happening.
Which journalist has been sentenced to death? I'm sorry that some press here disseminates what's untrue. Why should we insist on propagating what's untrue?
MR. ZREMSKI: This report comes from Reporters without Borders.
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: (Off mike.) Well, this is incorrect. Who are these people? Can you let me know who they are, so at least I can be aware of who they are too?
MR. ZREMSKI: I will certainly do that.
Moving on, Iranian women are --
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: I would be certainly grateful. That would be very helpful to me.
MR. ZREMSKI: Okay, I've just been handed a report from Reporters without Borders, and it names the names Adnan Hassanpour and -- forgive me, this is a little difficult -- Abdolvahed Hiva Botimar.
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Where were they involved in as a journalist and where were they arrested? I don't know people by that name. I think that what you received was incorrect information.
You have to sort of rectify the information channel you have. On a daily basis, over 30 newspapers currently are filled with pages and pages of basically criticizing the president and the administration in Iran and even sometimes insulting our policies and what we do. All the journalists and newspapers also receive loans from the -- actually not loans but grants from the government.
MR. ZREMSKI: Okay, I think we should move on from that question to the following.
Iranian women are campaigning for an end to discrimination. You have charged them with acting against national security. Some women leaders have been beaten and tortured. How do you justify such violations of human rights?
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Can you again tell me where you get this report from?
(Laughter.) The freest women in the world are women in Iran. You should look at our women. They're active in every level of society, as researchers, in social groups, in university, in parties, in the press, in the arts, in politics, in political associations. They're one of the most active women in the world, and they're free. On the anniversary of the victory of the revolution, 22nd of Bahman, Iranian calendar year, over 20 million women come to rally in support of the revolution.
And many of them hold key positions. There are two female vice presidents in our country; in very high specialized fields they're involved as well. Over 60 percent of university students are female, and especially in the, you know, very specialized fields, as I said. Women have won medals in international sort of athletic championships.
So who said that Iranian women are being tortured in Iran? I think again that we --
(Cross talk.)
MR. ZREMSKI: (Inaudible) -- been making those points for years.
But again, let's move on to another series of questions. We've got so many topics that we would like to cover. I'm going to try to move quickly.
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Well, human rights groups say what they want -- they say, and we tell them that they're wrong. They have to keep their independence.
MR. ZREMSKI: Okay, moving on to the topic of Iraq. You recently said that Iran was, quote, "prepared to fill the gap", unquote, as American influence wanes in Iraq. How, precisely, would you fill this gap?
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Well, again, this too is one of those distortions by the press. I said our region will soon face a power vacuum, and Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia and regional countries are able to fill in that vacuum.
And I also analyzed what I meant. I said that nations -- countries in the region are able to establish security themselves and they do not need the presence of others in the region in order to arrive at security. This is what I said very clearly and will say again. I am surprised by the words are distorted and what is said is sort of a distortion from what was initially said.
MR. ZREMSKI: What role, then, do you see Iran playing in the future of Iraq?
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: For hundreds of years we've lived in friendship and brotherhood with the people of Iraq. We want an independent powerful Iraq, a developed Iraq which will benefit the entire region. That's what we believe in. We are the ones harmed most by insecurity in Iraq. We would like to see peace, tranquility and progress in Iraq because people in Iraq have historical ties with us. Annually, millions of people from the two countries travel to the other country. There are a lot of intermarriages. There are many Iranians who are born in Iraq and many Iraqis who are born in Iran. We are two nations interconnected. We are brothers and friends. We want nothing but goodness and progress for the Iraqi nation, but we think that regional countries themselves can know how to run the affairs of the region best. They don't need a guardian from outside to tell them how to do it.
MR. ZREMSKI: The U.S. military yesterday accused Iran of smuggling surface-to-air missiles and other advanced weapons into Iran -- or into Iraq for use against American troops. Is that true or will you categorically deny this allegation?
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: We will allow the U.S. military there to basically take what it confiscates, whatever these missiles or whatever these weapons it claims it has or sees in Iraq. We think, in fact, the military should seek an answer to defeat in Iraq elsewhere, in the misguided policies that it has led and the wrong perspective that it has had towards Iraq and its people. Regretfully, they are standing against the Iraqi people.
MR. ZREMSKI: Are those Iranian weapons going into Iraq?
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Because Iraq's security means our security. We want --
MR. ZREMSKI: So is that confirming that those weapons are going in?
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: No, this does not exist. Are you telling me that the U.S. military is defeated as a result of two or three weapons here and there? There are two problems here looking at it like this.
MR. ZREMSKI: No, I'm simply --
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: First of all, it undermines the power of the U.S. military by making statements like this -- (inaudible). And second of all, U.S. politicians will not be able to make the right decision on matters about Iraq.
The problem of the U.S. military lies elsewhere. They need to change their methods.
MR. ZREMSKI: Why will Iran not agree to a civilian nuclear partnership with other countries? Why must Iran enrich its own uranium when doing so raises suspicions that it intends to develop nuclear weapons?
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: First of all, that's not right. We are a member of the IAEA, and the powers of the IAEA explicitly grant us that right. Secondly two years ago, I made the same proposal you just referred to in the United Nations. But those selfish groups that didn't want to listen to it did not embrace it.
And secondly why should a nation tie its future to another group, another nation? Is the U.S. government willing to engage in partnership with us and advance its nuclear activities in partnership with us? If they're willing to do that, we're willing to do it, too. Are they willing to divide their rights with us?
Why do you think the U.S. administration, the government, which is a member of the IAEA, should have more rights over Iran, which is also a member of the IAEA? If there is law, international law, it's equal for everyone. Why is it that some people want more rights for themself?
MR. ZREMSKI: Bernard Kouchner, the new French foreign minister, recently said that the world should prepare for war with Iran if negotiations fail. Is Iran willing to go to war with the West to protect the Iranian nuclear program?
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: First of all, he took back what he said and revised it. And secondly the United States and France are not the world, don't speak for the world. And fundamentally I think this way of talking and looking at things is wrong. It's really bad whenever a man fails logic, when logic fails, basically, to engage in military threats.
We're working under the inspection of the IAEA system, and our activities are legal and for peaceful purposes. We have -- we don't want anything --
MR. ZREMSKI: Would you be willing to go to war to defend your program?
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: We think that the talk of war is basically a propaganda tool. Why is there a need for war?
People who talk about it have to bring a legal reason for going to war. Why should they threaten another country? Why should they create more insecurity? I think officials who talk this kind of talk should really be pressured and warned to know what to say and when not to say something. They cannot endanger world security. And if they haven't learned the lesson, then the international community has to tell them how to learn that lesson.
Of course, the foreign minister of France revised what he said, and I don't think that the French nation is the kind of nation who would want that kind of war. They're a very cultured society, a very cultured group of people, people who have good relations with the Iranian people.
I think, of course, give the foreign minister to gain more experience in his new position, too, and then I'm sure he'll talk from a level with more higher maturity.
MR. ZREMSKI: Very well. Is there any circumstance in which the Islamic Republic of Iran and the state of Israel can coexist in peace?
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: (In Farsi.)
MR. ZREMSKI: Excuse me. We're not getting your translation, Mr. President.
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: We do not recognize that regime because it is based on discrimination; ethnic discrimination, occupation, usurpation. And it consistently threatens its neighbors. Last week or so, it attacked Syria. And last year it attacked Lebanon. And when they talk about their goals, they speak about taking over the area between -- (inaudible) -- the Euphrates. This is occupation and expansionism in the true sense of those words.
And they discriminate between people. They kill people. They displace people. They kill young people in their own homes. How is it possible to recognize this? I am surprised why members of the press don't raise voices of objection to the policies there.
MR. ZREMSKI: Would you be willing to meet with Holocaust survivors who wanted to discuss their experiences with you? And why or why not?
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: What do you want to happen from this?
MR. ZREMSKI: I don't -- I'm just asking the question that was handed to me.
MR. ZREMSKI: I raise two questions about the Holocaust. I said if the Holocaust happened and is a reality -- well, granted that the Holocaust is a reality, then why don't we allow more research to be done on it?
Why are European researchers sent to prison when they question some major aspect of it?
Assuming that it -- the Holocaust, well the reality of the Holocaust is here, it saddens us when any human being is killed; Jews, Christians, Muslims, no difference. But let us remember, then, where did the Holocaust happen to begin with? It happened in Europe. And given that, why is it that the Palestinian people should be displaced? Why is it affecting them? Why are they paying the damage by giving up their land? Why?
That's what our question is based on. It's a very right question to ask. It's very transparent. It doesn't need me to sit down and meet with anybody, although, of course, I would welcome any meeting. But my questions remain the same. They're very clear. And I want answers that are as clear.
MR. ZREMSKI: Okay, we have about five minutes left before the president will have to leave, so we have time for just a couple of last questions.
I just wanted to ask you, Mr. President, about your thoughts and your feelings about the reaction to your visit -- your proposed visit to Ground Zero and your visit later this afternoon at Columbia University. Why do you think both of those proposed visits have caused such controversy in New York City?
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Last year I wanted to go to Ground Zero as well. I was interested in expressing my sympathy to the victims of that tragedy. And I think that it is the responsibility of all of us to also understand the root causes of events like 9/11. And that was on my plan and agenda this year, as well.
Columbia University has invited me to be there. It is an official invitation. And there are some pro-government members of the press that were -- that objected to it very severely. They've provoked the people, so to say. And this is sad to watch.
I think we should all have the capacity to listen to everything. I announce explicitly and clearly here, we oppose the way the U.S. government tries to manage the world. We believe it's wrong. We believe it leads to war, discrimination and bloodshed. And that we propose more humane methods of establishing peace.
We think that the world can be led in more humane ways than it is now, through peace, brotherhood and friendship and through justice.
We say this very clearly. Why is it that some people don't want to hear anything -- people to hear another point of view? It goes against the grain of freedom of speech and freedom of information here. All voices should be heard.
Last year, a reporter asked me about what the president of the United States had said to the Iranian people about addressing them. And I welcomed it. I said, we want him to talk to our people every day. Whatever comes to his mind, he should tell our people. I will encourage people to hear what he has to say, as well. I'm surprised, in a place where they claim that they have freedom of information, they are trying to prevent people from talking. That's not good.
MR. ZREMSKI: Okay. In 1979, during the Islamic Revolution in Iran, Iranian students captured more than 50 American hostages and held them captive for 444 days. Do you believe this was morally justified? And if so, why? Or was it wrong?
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: I propose we don't return to the past, because then we'd have to talk about records of 25 years of measures taken by the U.S. administration inside Iran and that history as well, from the coup in 1953 to its support of a dictatorship and the humiliation of the Iranian people and efforts to divide Iran and to insult Iranian people, robbing Iran of its resources and defending Saddam during an eight-year war against Iran.
I think everything should be examined within its own time period (and frame ?). And instead of the past, we must now begin to think of the future. Let the future be a bright future.
MR. ZREMSKI: Last question is about the future and kind of reflects upon the fact that here in the United States, we have very long presidential campaigns. And it would prompt an American reporter to ask, do you plan on running for reelection in two years?
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: What do you think?
MR. ZREMSKI: (Laughs.) I think I'll listen to what you have to say. That smile would seem to indicate --
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Well, I want to see what you have to say for once, too.
MR. ZREMSKI: (Laughs, laughter.) I have no opinions on Iranian politics.
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: (The press if I ran ?) and became as candidate again.
MR. ZREMSKI: (Laughs.)
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Because every day, you will be -- you will have news about peace, good news coming.
MR. ZREMSKI: Great. Thank you very much, President Ahmadinejad, for joining us here today. I'd also like to thank National Press Club staff members Howard Rothman, Tina Creek (sp), Melinda Cooke, Pat Nelson and Jo Anne Booze for organizing today's event. Also, I'd like to especially thank NPC General Manager Bill McCarren and our former General Manager John Bloom for all that they've done to make today's event happen, and thanks to the NPC Library for its research.
In addition, I would like to thank Mohammad Mir Ali Mohammadi of the Iranian mission to the United Nations and Javad Zarif, Iran's former ambassador to the U.N., for their extraordinary efforts to make this event happen today.
Thank you. We're adjourned. (Strikes gavel.) END.

Ahmadinejad questions 9/11, Holocaust
By NAHAL TOOSI, Associated Press Writer

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad defended Holocaust revisionists and raised questions about who carried out the Sept. 11 attacks in a tense showdown Monday at Columbia University, where the school's head introduced the hard-line leader by calling him a "petty and cruel dictator."
Ahmadinejad portrayed himself as an intellectual and argued that his administration respected reason and science. But the former engineering professor, appearing shaken and irate over he called "insults" from his host, soon found himself drawn into the type of rhetoric that has alienated American audiences in the past.
He provoked derisive laughter by responding to a question about Iran's execution of homosexuals by saying: "In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country ... I don't know who's told you that we have this."
Columbia's president, Lee Bollinger, set the combative tone in his introduction of Ahmadinejad: "Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator."
Ahmadinejad retorted that Bollinger's opening was "an insult to information and the knowledge of the audience here."
"There were insults and claims that were incorrect, regretfully," Ahmadinejad said, accusing Bollinger of falling under the influence of the hostile U.S. press and politicians.
Ahmadinejad drew audience applause at times, such as when he bemoaned the plight of the Palestinians. But he often declined to offer the simple answers the audience sought, responding instead with his own questions or long statements about history and justice.
Ahmadinejad has in the past called for Israel's elimination. But his exact remarks have been disputed. Some translators say he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map," but others say that would be better translated as "vanish from the pages of time" — implying Israel would disappear on its own rather than be destroyed.
Asked by an audience member if Iran sought the destruction of Israel, Ahmadinejad did not answer directly.
"We are friends of all the nations," he said. "We are friends with the Jewish people. There are many Jews in Iran living peacefully with security."
Ahmadinejad's past statements about the Holocaust also have raised hackles in the West, and were soundly attacked by Bollinger.
"In a December 2005 state television broadcast, you described the Holocaust as the fabricated legend," Bollinger told Ahmadinejad said in his opening remarks. "One year later, you held a two-day conference of Holocaust deniers."
Bollinger said that might fool the illiterate and ignorant.
"When you come to a place like this, it makes you simply ridiculous. The truth is that the Holocaust is the most documented event in human history," he said.
Ahmadinejad said he wasn't passing judgment on whether the Holocaust occurred, but that, "assuming this happened, what does it have to do with the Palestinian people?"
He went on to say that he was defending the rights of European academics imprisoned for "questioning certain aspects" of the Holocaust, an apparent reference to a small number who have been prosecuted under national laws for denying or minimizing the genocide.
"There's nothing known as absolute," Ahmadinejad said. He said the Holocaust has been abused as a justification for Israeli mistreatment of the Palestinians.
"Why is it that the Palestinian people are paying the price for an event they had nothing to do with?" he asked.
Asked why he had asked to visit the World Trade Center site — a request denied by New York authorities — Ahmadinejad said he wanted to express sympathy for the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks.
Then he appeared to question whether al-Qaida was responsible, saying more research was needed.
"If the root causes of 9/11 are examined properly — why it happened, what caused it, what were the conditions that led to it, who truly was involved, who was really involved — and put it all together to understand how to prevent the crisis in Iraq, fix the problem in Afghanistan and Iraq combined," Ahmadinejad said.
Bollinger drew strong criticism for inviting Ahmadinejad to Columbia and had promised tough questions in his introduction. But the stridency of his attack on the Iranian leader took many by surprise.
"You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated," Bollinger told Ahmadinejad about the leader's Holocaust denial. "Will you cease this outrage?"
Bollinger's introduction was "very harsh," said Hamid Dabashi, a professor of Iranian studies at Columbia University.
"Inviting him and then turning around and alienating and insulting an entire nation whose representative this man happens to be is simply inappropriate," said Dabashi, who also criticized Ahmadinejad.
Instead of addressing most of Bollinger's accusations directly, Ahmadinejad offered quotes from the Quran and criticism of the Bush administration and past American governments, from warrant-less wiretapping to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan.
He closed his prepared remarks with a terse smile, to applause and boos, before taking questions from the audience.
In Iran, Ahmadinejad's appearance at Columbia could be seen on Arabic satellite channels and state television's Arabic-language service, but it did not appear on channels that broadcast in Farsi, the language of Iran.
Asked about his country's nuclear intentions, Ahmadinejad insisted the program is peaceful, legal and entirely within Iran's rights, despite attempts by "monopolistic," "selfish" powers to derail it. "How come is it that you have that right, and we can't have it?" he added.
President Bush said Ahmadinejad's appearance at Columbia "speaks volumes about, really, the greatness of America."
He told Fox News Channel that if Bollinger considered Ahmadinejad's visit an educational experience for Columbia students, "I guess it's OK with me."
But conservatives on Capitol Hill were critical. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, said he thought the invitation to Ahmadinejad was a mistake "because he comes literally with blood on his hands."
Thousands of people jammed two blocks of 47th Street across from the United Nations to protest Ahmadinejad's visit to New York for the opening of the U.N. General Assembly session. Organizers claimed a turnout of tens of thousands. Police did not immediately have a crowd estimate.
The speakers, most of them politicians and officials from Jewish organizations, proclaimed their support for Israel and criticized the Iranian leader for his remarks questioning the Holocaust.
"We're here today to send a message that there is never a reason to give a hatemonger an open stage," New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn said.
Hundreds of protesters also assembled at Columbia. Dozens stood near the lecture hall where Ahmadinejad was scheduled to speak, linking arms and singing traditional Jewish folk songs about peace and brotherhood. A two-person band nearby played "You Are My Sunshine."
Signs in the crowd displayed a range of messages, including one reading: "We refuse to choose between Islamic fundamentalism and American imperialism."
The auditorium itself was packed, and students waited hours to be allowed in amid tight security. While the audience booed and applauded several times, it was largely silent as the Iranian leader delivered his point of view.
___

Deceptive or Delusional?
Bush's appalling Iraq speech.By Fred (SLATE)

President Bush's TV address tonight was the worst speech he's ever given on the war in Iraq, and that's saying a lot. Every premise, every proposal, nearly every substantive point was sheer fiction. The only question is whether he was being deceptive or delusional.
The biggest fiction was that because of the "success" of the surge, we can reduce U.S. troop levels in Iraq from 20 combat brigades to 15 by next July. Gen. David Petraeus has recommended this step, and President George W. Bush will order it so.
Let's be clear one more time about this claim: The surge of five extra combat brigades (bringing the total from 15 to 20) started in January. Their 15-month tours of duty will begin to expire next April. The Army and Marines have no combat units ready to replace them. The service chiefs refuse to extend the tours any further. The president refuses to mobilize the reserves any further. And so, the surge will be over by next July. This has been understood from the outset. It is the result of simple arithmetic, not of anyone's decision, much less some putative success.
It is true that Bush is ordering the withdrawal of 5,700 of those troops—one Army brigade and a Marine expeditionary unit—before Christmas, a few months earlier than they need to go home. This is clearly in response to a request by Sen. John Warner, the ranking Republican on the armed services committee. The Republicans need political cover on the war; they need to show they're bringing some troops home soon; they hope that doing so will defuse the war as an election issue. Bush hopes this will be enough to keep them on his side—and limit the support for Democrats' proposals of speedier withdrawals.
But by acceding to this political compromise—and by selling the larger withdrawal as a decision instead of as an inescapable fact of life—Bush undermined his case that the fight for Iraq is the central fight for civilization. If this claim is true, why pull any troops out earlier than necessary?
His showcase example of success was the recent alliance between U.S. troops and Sunni insurgents to join forces against jihadist terrorists in Anbar province (an alliance, by the way, that was formed before the surge). Yet even so, the president said in tonight's speech, "In Anbar, the enemy remains active and deadly." Again, under the president's own assumptions, what's the substantive case for letting any troops leave?
The speech was rife with evasion and fantasy from the outset.
"In Iraq," he declared, "an ally of the United States is fighting for its survival." This sounded as if some well-established government were under attack from an outside force. In fact, a U.S.-installed regime is racked with divisiveness as a result of sectarian clashes within its own society. That is a very different thing. As Gen. Petraeus has said many times, there is only so much U.S. military force can accomplish under such circumstances.
Back to the speech: "Terrorists and extremists who are at war with us around the world are seeking to topple Iraq's government, dominate the region, and attack us here at home." Even if it were true that the movement called al-Qaida in Mesopotamia is one and the same with the larger al-Qaida organization (a point that the U.S. intelligence community disputes), AQM accounts for only 5 percent of the attacks inside Iraq—some of the deadliest 5 percent, but it is misleading to suggest that they are the biggest obstacle to Iraqi unity, much less the greatest threat to regional peace.
The rationale for the surge was to improve security in Baghdad and thus give Iraq's national political leaders the "breathing room" to reconcile their differences, pass key legislation, and form a unified government. The recent debates over conflicting charts and statistics—some showing a decline in civilian deaths and sectarian attacks, others showing an increase—are beside the point. The point is whether life in Baghdad has improved enough to allow for political progress on a national level. As Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker conceded several times in congressional hearings this week, no such progress has been made.
President Bush tonight tried to suggest otherwise. He correctly outlined the premise of the surge strategy: "For Iraqis to bridge sectarian divides, they need to feel safe in their homes and neighborhoods. For lasting reconciliation to take root, Iraqis must feel confident that they do not need sectarian gangs for security. The goal of the surge is to provide that security and help Iraqi forces to maintain it."
But then he said: "As I will explain tonight, our success in meeting these objectives now allows us to begin bringing some of our troops home." (Italics added.) Does he really think, whatever the advances toward these goals, that we have reached "success in meeting these objectives"?
As he himself admitted, those goals haven't yet been achieved in Anbar, much less in Baghdad, much less in national Iraqi politics. He could not evade today's news—that Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, leader of the Sunni tribes' revolt against al-Qaida in Anbar province, has been assassinated.
He admitted that the Iraqi government "has not met its own legislative benchmarks" of success. But he then returned once more to the promise of Anbar and proclaimed, "As local politics change, so will national politics." This adage isn't nearly always true in the United States. It certainly isn't true in a country like Iraq, which is fissuring into at least three separate countries.
The president then turned to long-term U.S. policy in Iraq, and his attempts at assurance were anything but.
He cited Gen. Petraeus' testimony recommending not only a reduction in troops but a gradual change in their mission. "Over time," Bush said, "our troops will shift from leading operations, to partnering with Iraqi forces, and eventually to overwatching those forces. As this transition in our mission takes place, our troops will focus on a more limited set of tasks, including counterterrorism operations and training, equipping, and supporting Iraqi forces."
However, the chart that Gen. Petraeus presented in this part of his testimony gave no dates—not even a projected range of dates—for when this shift in mission would take place. Many Democrats, some Republicans, and a fairly large number of Army and Marine generals would like to see this shift begin now. That is the debate that Congress will be taking up. Bush's speech is an evasion.
Then Bush muddied the waters further. On the one hand, he has a "vision for a reduced American presence" in Iraq. On the other hand, he foresees a need for "U.S. political, economic, and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency," and he talked about building "an enduring relationship" between the United States and Iraq.
What is this enduring relationship? What does it require, in the way of troops, bases, and other resources? What other countries or international agencies will be involved? Do the relationship's elements include stepped-up diplomacy with Iraq's neighbors? None of these vital questions was broached, much less answered.
Finally, he presented a series of pleas under the guise of compromise.
He asked the Congress to "come together" and support Gen. Petraeus' recommendations on troop cuts—not seeming to recognize that a mere return to pre-surge levels (which will be inevitable by next summer), with no change in direction, is no basis for a sustained consensus.
He asked "the Iraqi people" to "demand that your leaders make the tough choices needed to achieve reconciliation"—not seeming to recognize that "the Iraqi people" is a tenuous concept and that many of Iraq's Shiites, Sunni Arabs, and Kurds themselves have very different, possibly irreconcilable, demands about their futures.
Oddly, he thanked "the 36 nations who have troops on the ground in Iraq." At the peak of the "coalition," back in the fall of 2004, only 31 countries besides the United States had any troops in Iraq. They amounted to 24,000—fewer than one-fifth of America's numbers—and one-third of those were contributed by Britain. Now, according to the most recent official report (dated Aug. 30, 2007), just 25 countries have troops there; they number fewer than 12,000 (an average of fewer than 500 per nation), and more and more, including Britain, are leaving every month.
The question could be asked throughout the speech, but particularly at that point: In what world is the president of the United States living?Fred Kaplan writes the "War Stories" column for Slate. He can be reached at war_stories@hotmail.com.

Bush Iraq speech: Full text
US President George W Bush has announced plans for a partial withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. The following is the full text of his televised address:
Good evening. In the life of all free nations, there come moments that decide the direction of a country and reveal the character of its people. We are now at such a moment.
In Iraq, an ally of the United States is fighting for its survival. Terrorists and extremists who are at war with us around the world are seeking to topple Iraq's government, dominate the region, and attack us here at home.
If Iraq's young democracy can turn back these enemies, it will mean a more hopeful Middle East and a more secure America.
Our success... now allows us to begin bringing some of our troops home
This ally has placed its trust in the United States. And tonight, our moral and strategic imperatives are one. We must help Iraq defeat those who threaten its future and also threaten ours.
Eight months ago, we adopted a new strategy to meet that objective, including a surge in U.S. forces that reached full strength in June. This week, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified before Congress about how that strategy is progressing. In their testimony, these men made clear that our challenge in Iraq is formidable.
Yet they concluded that conditions in Iraq are improving, that we are seizing the initiative from the enemy and that the troop surge is working.
'Diplomatic surge'
The premise of our strategy is that securing the Iraqi population is the foundation for all other progress. For Iraqis to bridge sectarian divides, they need to feel safe in their homes and neighbourhoods.
We kept the pressure on the terrorists
For lasting reconciliation to take root, Iraqis must feel confident that they do not need sectarian gangs for security. The goal of the surge is to provide that security and to help prepare Iraqi forces to maintain it.
As I will explain tonight, our success in meeting these objectives now allows us to begin bringing some of our troops home.
Since the surge was announced in January, it has moved through several phases. First was the flow of additional troops into Iraq, especially Baghdad and Anbar province. Once these forces were in place, our commanders launched a series of offensive operations to drive terrorists and militias out of their strongholds.
Finally, in areas that have been cleared, we are surging diplomatic and civilian resources to ensure that military progress is quickly followed up with real improvements in daily life.
'Return to normal'
Anbar province is a good example of how our strategy is working.
Last year, an intelligence report concluded that Anbar had been lost to al-Qaeda. Some cited this report as evidence that we had failed in Iraq and should cut our losses and pull out.
The changes in Anbar show all Iraqis what becomes possible
Instead, we kept the pressure on the terrorists. The local people were suffering under the Taleban-like rule of al-Qaeda, and they were sick of it. So they asked us for help.
To take advantage of this opportunity, I sent an additional 4,000 marines to Anbar as part of the surge. Together, local sheikhs, Iraqi forces, and coalition troops drove the terrorists from the capital of Ramadi and other population centres.
Today, a city where al-Qaeda once planted its flag is beginning to return to normal. Anbar citizens who once feared beheading for talking to an American or Iraqi soldier now come forward to tell us where the terrorists are hiding.
Young Sunnis who once joined the insurgency are now joining the army and police. And with the help of our provincial reconstruction teams, new jobs are being created and local governments are meeting again.
'A decent life'
These developments do not often make the headlines, but they do make a difference.
During my visit to Anbar on Labor Day, local Sunni leaders thanked me for America's support. They pledged they would never allow al-Qaeda to return. And they told me they now see a place for their people in a democratic Iraq.
The Sunni governor of Anbar province put it this way: "Our tomorrow starts today."
The changes in Anbar show all Iraqis what becomes possible when extremists are driven out.
They show al-Qaeda that it cannot count on popular support, even in a province its leaders once declared their home base. And they show the world that ordinary people in the Middle East want the same things for their children that we want for ours - a decent life and a peaceful future.
'Success replicated'
In Anbar, the enemy remains active and deadly.
Ordinary life is beginning to return
Earlier today, one of the brave tribal sheikhs who helped lead the revolt against al-Qaeda was murdered.
In response, a fellow Sunni leader declared: "We are determined to strike back and continue our work."
And as they do, they can count on the continued support of the United States.
Throughout Iraq, too many citizens are being killed by terrorists and death squads. And for most Iraqis, the quality of life is far from where it should be.
Yet General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker report that the success in Anbar is beginning to be replicated in other parts of the country.
'Killings down'
One year ago, much of Baghdad was under siege. Schools were closed, markets were shuttered, and sectarian violence was spiralling out of control.
Today, most of Baghdad's neighbourhoods are being patrolled by coalition and Iraqi forces who live among the people they protect. Many schools and markets are reopening.
Iraq's national leaders are getting some things done
Citizens are coming forward with vital intelligence. Sectarian killings are down. And ordinary life is beginning to return.
One year ago, much of Diyala province was a sanctuary for al-Qaeda and other extremist groups, and its capital of Baqubah was emerging as an al-Qaeda stronghold.
Today, Baqubah is cleared. Diyala province is the site of a growing popular uprising against the extremists. And some local tribes are working alongside coalition and Iraqi forces to clear out the enemy and reclaim their communities.
One year ago, Shia extremists and Iranian-backed militants were gaining strength and targeting Sunnis for assassination.
Today, these groups are being broken up and many of their leaders are being captured or killed.
'Getting things done'
These gains are a tribute to our military, they are a tribute to the courage of the Iraqi security forces and they are a tribute to an Iraqi government that has decided to take on the extremists.
Now the Iraqi government must bring the same determination to achieving reconciliation. This is an enormous undertaking after more than three decades of tyranny and division.
The government has not met its own legislative benchmarks and in my meetings with Iraqi leaders, I have made it clear that they must.
Yet Iraq's national leaders are getting some things done.
For example, they have passed a budget. They are sharing oil revenues with the provinces. They are allowing former Baathists to rejoin Iraq's military or receive government pensions.
And local reconciliation is taking place. The key now is to link this progress in the provinces to progress in Baghdad. As local politics change, so will national politics.
'Increased co-operation'
Our troops in Iraq are performing brilliantly.
As terrorists are defeated, civil society takes root
Along with Iraqi forces, they have captured or killed an average of more than 1,500 enemy fighters per month since January.
Yet ultimately, the way forward depends on the ability of Iraqis to maintain security gains. According to General Petraeus and a panel chaired by retired General Jim Jones, the Iraqi army is becoming more capable, although there is still a great deal of work to be done to improve the national police.
Iraqi forces are receiving increased co-operation from local populations. And this is improving their ability to hold areas that have been cleared.
Five-brigade reduction
Because of this success, General Petraeus believes we have now reached the point where we can maintain our security gains with fewer American forces.
He has recommended that we not replace about 2,200 marines scheduled to leave Anbar province later this month.
In addition, he says it will soon be possible to bring home an Army combat brigade, for a total force reduction of 5,700 troops by Christmas.
And he expects that by July, we will be able to reduce our troop levels in Iraq from 20 combat brigades to 15.
Training plan
General Petraeus also recommends that in December, we begin transitioning to the next phase of our strategy in Iraq.
As terrorists are defeated, civil society takes root, and the Iraqis assume more control over their own security, our mission in Iraq will evolve.
Over time, our troops will shift from leading operations, to partnering with Iraqi forces, and eventually to overwatching those forces.
The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is 'return on success'
As this transition in our mission takes place, our troops will focus on a more limited set of tasks, including counterterrorism operations and training, equipping, and supporting Iraqi forces.
I have consulted with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, other members of my national security team, Iraqi officials, and leaders of both parties in Congress.
I have benefited from their advice, and I have accepted General Petraeus' recommendations.
I have directed General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker to update their joint campaign plan for Iraq so we can adjust our military and civilian resources accordingly.
I have also directed them to deliver another report to Congress in March.
At that time, they will provide a fresh assessment of the situation in Iraq and of the troop levels and resources we need to meet our national security objectives.
'Return on success'
The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is "return on success".
The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home.
The success of a free Iraq is critical to the security of the United States
And in all we do, I will ensure that our commanders on the ground have the troops and flexibility they need to defeat the enemy.
Americans want our country to be safe and our troops to begin coming home from Iraq. Yet those of us who believe success in Iraq is essential to our security, and those who believe we should bring our troops home, have been at odds.
Now, because of the measure of success we are seeing in Iraq, we can begin seeing troops come home.
'Enduring relationship'
The way forward I have described tonight makes it possible, for the first time in years, for people who have been on opposite sides of this difficult debate to come together.
This vision for a reduced American presence also has the support of Iraqi leaders from all communities.
At the same time, they understand that their success will require US political, economic, and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency.
These Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America. And we are ready to begin building that relationship in a way that protects our interests in the region and requires many fewer American troops.
'We must succeed'
The success of a free Iraq is critical to the security of the United States.
America has a vital interest in preventing chaos and providing hope in the Middle East
A free Iraq will deny al-Qaeda a safe haven. A free Iraq will counter the destructive ambitions of Iran. A free Iraq will marginalize extremists, unleash the talent of its people, and be an anchor of stability in the region.
A free Iraq will set an example for people across the Middle East. A free Iraq will be our partner in the fight against terror and that will make us safer here at home.
Realizing this vision will be difficult, but it is achievable. Our military commanders believe we can succeed. Our diplomats believe we can succeed. And for the safety of future generations of Americans, we must succeed.
'Humanitarian nightmare'
If we were to be driven out of Iraq, extremists of all strains would be emboldened.
Al-Qaeda could gain new recruits and new sanctuaries.
Iran would benefit from the chaos and would be encouraged in its efforts to gain nuclear weapons and dominate the region.
Extremists could control a key part of the global energy supply. Iraq could face a humanitarian nightmare.
Democracy movements would be violently reversed. We would leave our children to face a far more dangerous world.
And as we saw on September 11 2001, those dangers can reach our cities and kill our people.
Whatever political party you belong to, whatever your position on Iraq, we should be able to agree that America has a vital interest in preventing chaos and providing hope in the Middle East.
We should be able to agree that we must defeat al-Qaeda, counter Iran, help the Afghan government, work for peace in the Holy Land, and strengthen our military so we can prevail in the struggle against terrorists and extremists.
Message to Congress
So tonight I want to speak to members of the United States Congress: Let us come together on a policy of strength in the Middle East.
I thank you for providing crucial funds and resources for our military. And I ask you to join me in supporting the recommendations General Petraeus has made and the troop levels he has asked for.
We encourage all nations to help
To the Iraqi people: You have voted for freedom, and now you are liberating your country from terrorists and death squads.
You must demand that your leaders make the tough choices needed to achieve reconciliation. As you do, have confidence that America does not abandon our friends, and we will not abandon you.
To Iraq's neighbours who seek peace: The violent extremists who target Iraq are also targeting you.
The best way to secure your interests and protect your own people is to stand with the people of Iraq. That means using your economic and diplomatic leverage to strengthen the government in Baghdad.
And it means the efforts by Iran and Syria to undermine that government must end.
To the international community: The success of a free Iraq matters to every civilized nation. We thank the 36 nations who have troops on the ground in Iraq and the many others who are helping that young democracy.
We encourage all nations to help, by implementing the international compact to revitalize Iraq's economy, by participating in the neighbours conferences to boost cooperation and overcome differences in the region, and by supporting the new and expanded mission of the United Nations in Iraq.
'Extraordinary sacrifices'
To our military personnel, intelligence officers, diplomats, and civilians on the frontlines in Iraq: You have done everything America has asked of you. And the progress I have reported tonight is in large part because of your courage and hard effort.
You are serving far from home. Our nation is grateful for your sacrifices, and the sacrifices of your families.
Earlier this year, I received an e-mail from the family of Army Specialist Brandon Stout of Michigan. Brandon volunteered for the National Guard and was killed while serving in Baghdad.
His family has suffered greatly. Yet in their sorrow, they see larger purpose.
His wife, Audrey, says that Brandon felt called to serve and knew what he was fighting for. And his parents, Tracy and Jeff, wrote me this: "We believe this is a war of good and evil and we must win even if it cost the life of our own son. Freedom is not free."
This country is blessed to have Americans like Brandon Stout, who make extraordinary sacrifices to keep us safe from harm.
They are doing so in a fight that is just, and right, and necessary. And now it falls to us to finish the work they have begun.
Some say the gains we are making in Iraq come too late. They are mistaken. It is never too late to deal a blow to al-Qaeda. It is never too late to advance freedom. And it is never too late to support our troops in a fight they can win.
Good night, and God bless America.

FROM THE BBC

"A President Humbled"
Andrew Sullivan

He seemed almost broken to me. His voice raspy, his eyes watery, his affect exhausted, his facial expression almost bewildered. I thought I would feel angry; but I found myself verging toward pity. The case was so weak, the argument so thin, the evidence for optimism so obviously strained that one wondered whom he thought he was persuading. And the way he framed his case was still divorced from the reality we see in front of our nose: that Iraq is not, as he still seems to believe, full of ordinary people longing for democracy and somehow stymied solely by "extremists" or al Qaeda or Iran, but a country full of groups of people who cannot trust one another, who are still living in the wake of unimaginable totalitarian trauma, who have murdered and tortured and butchered each other in pursuit of religious and ethnic pride and honor for centuries. This is what Bush cannot recognize: there is no Iraq. There are no Iraqis. There may have been at one point - but what tiny patina of national unity that once existed to counter primordial sectarian loyalty was blown away by the anarchy of the Rumsfeld-Franks invasion. The president's stunning detachment from this reality tragically endures - whether out of cynicism or delusion or, more worryingly, a simple intellectual inability to understand the country he is determined that the United States occupy for the rest of our lives.
The low-point was his almost desperate recitation of a poignant email that posited that this war is one between "good" and "evil". I don't doubt the sincerity of the sentiment; I don't doubt either that the murderous extremes of sectarian hatred or religious fanaticism are, at some level, evil. I know that the motives of many people who supported this war - and many who still support it - are honorable. And I know that America is ultimately a force for good in this world. But that doesn't mean that America is incapable or error or immorality. And to reduce the immense complexity of Iraq to such a binary moralism is a sign of a president reaching for comfortable, Manichean abstractions as a replacement for strategic judgment and knowledge. The American people deserve better from a war-president: more honesty, more candor, more realism. Even now; even in the face of the horror we have witnessed for four years; even in the face of the failure that is still staring at us, he still cannot see what he has done or what is still unfolding in the Mesopotamian morass. And he has no policy that effectively matches the crisis with adequate resources. Short of a draft, we don't have them.
None of us wants to lose this war in Iraq; no one wants defeat.
It rips many of us apart to think of the pleasure that some vile human beings may draw temporarily from our retreat. But they gain far more pleasure by America's permanent entrapment in a quicksand from which there is no escape and which has already replenished the ranks of the enemy. I supported this war for a long time; but I cannot honestly blind myself to the reality of failure out of pride or sheer wishfulness. We need a president able to acknowledge this reality, to tell us how to salvage what we can from the wreckage of a broken country, how to disengage in a way that maximizes our interests and weakens our enemies. Only on those grounds can we unite again and find a way forward. Not on these grounds; not with this president; not without many, many more troops for many, many more years.
But it seems he will get his way; and his party will live with the consequences. So, alas, will all of us. If the Democrats and adult Republicans cannot stop this slow march to an even lower circle of hell, then we have only one recourse yet: to pray that we're wrong, that a miracle can happen, and that the enormous sacrifices of so many good, brave and brilliant men and women are not ultimately in vain.

(Photo by Paul Richards)

From The Times
September 7, 2007
Amputations, torture, brutal cruelty: the bloody reality behind the statistics
Martin Fletcher in Baghdad
The medics had 20 minutes’ warning. A soldier badly wounded by a roadside bomb was coming in. It was only after the helicopter landed at the 28th Combat Support Hospital inside Baghdad’s green zone that they realised quite how badly.
As they cut away his blood-sodden bandages in the trauma ward they found that all four limbs had either been severed or were attached by little more than skin. He had 70 per cent burns to what was left of his body.
They worked frantically to keep him alive. All his remaining limbs were amputated except for the top of one arm. Within hours he was air-borne again – this time bound for Germany and an onward flight to the Brooke Army Medical Centre in Texas.
There, some time soon, he will wake to realise that life as he knew it is over.
The root of the strain is that Britain is incrementally taking its forces out of Iraq while the US is stuck in an increasingy desperate situation with no exit stratigty yet acceptable to the US electoriate.

He is 19. “They were devastating injuries,” said Lieutenant-Colonel Bill Costello, the officer in charge of the Emergency Treatment Section. “I’ve seen so many of them.”
For Western publics this is a sanitised war. Iraq is too dangerous for news teams to record properly the daily shootings, bombings and executions.
Next week’s long-awaited congressional debate on President Bush’s war strategy will be driven by abstract figures. But to glimpse the human agony behind those figures, it helps to spend two days with the 28th CSH – the China Dragons – a model of American medical excellence and generosity of spirit.
Two hours after the 19-year-old soldier arrived, another helicopter delivered a blindfolded, heavily sedated Iraqi detainee from Camp Bucca in southern Iraq. The medics removed the blindfold to find his eyeballs bulging out.
At first they thought his eyelids had been cut off by his fellow prisoners. Then they realised that both eyeballs had been gouged from their sockets and were hanging loose.
His fellow prisoners had also cut off his tongue.
They had beaten him so severely that all four limbs required faschioto-mies – the slitting of the skin – to release the pressure caused by internal swelling. “It was a stunning degree of cruelty,” said Major Won Kim, the ophthalmologist who removed the eyeballs.
Other victims arrived in quick succession – a seven-year-old Iraqi boy caught in a gunfight and hit in the abdomen; a two-year-old girl from Kalsu, south of Baghdad, with a bullet in her brain who survived; a 62-year-old Sunni elder from Doura, south Baghdad, with at least five bullet holes in his back – the target of a drive-by shooting for apparently crossing a criminal oil-smuggling syndicate.
A 22-year-old woman US soldier who had attempted suicide by overdosing on aspirin was flown to Germany for dialysis. An Iraqi gunner whose Humvee had hit an improvised explosive device (IED) was admitted with shrapnel wounds to his head and a fractured skull. Another young Iraqi boy named Mustafa, 8, had been shot in the head when his family’s car was waved through one end of a check-point just as a US convoy was entering the other. One of the convoy’s gunners opened fire. Mustafa will be brain-damaged for life.
“Who can prepare you for this?” asked Major William White, 43, the nurse manager of the emergency room. “I’ve been doing this 24 years and I’ve never seen this kind of stuff.”
What The Times saw in two days scarcely begins to cover the extraordinary range of patients treated by the 28th CSH – not least insurgents who injure themselves while attempting to kill US soldiers. “We’ve had guys suspected of being the trigger men for IEDs being treated next to the victims of those IEDS,” said Lieutenant Tom Waters, 25, a nurse. Each month the CSH treats half a dozen boys aged 10 to 15 who have been maimed while planting IEDs for the terrorists.
Occasionally, the medics find themselves treating a suicide bomber who has blown himself up but survived. More often, they find bits of them – a thumb, a fragment of bone – embedded in a victim.
Not all US soldiers understand why the CSH tries to save America’s enemies. “You’ll get soldiers coming up and saying ‘Way to go, Doc. You saved that guy’s life. He just killed Sergeant so-and-so’,” said Captain Sean Meadows, 39, a doctor.
The medics counter that they cannot decide in the heat of the moment who is and who is not an insurgent, and that those who are might later provide valuable intelligence. “We’re not judge or executioner. Our mission is extremely simple. We treat everyone who comes in here. We treat them the same and we try to save lives,” says Major White. The CSH even provides insurgents who cannot be saved with a Koran, an interpreter and someone to sit beside them until they die.
In the past 11 months, the 28th CSH has also treated escaped hostages, including one women who was severely beaten by her kidnappers and jumped from a three-storey window to escape; victims of chlorine gas attacks in Anbar province and numerous Iraqis hit by celebratory gunfire – ten alone on the night that the Iraqi football team won the Asia Cup in July.
Major Kim, the ophthalmologist, joined the 28th CSH in Baghdad six months ago. In the first two months he treated a spate of Iraqis from the US detention camps Cropper and Bucca who had been blinded by rubber bullets fired to quell riots. Since then he has removed a dozen eyeballs of detainees who have been stabbed or bludgeoned by other detainees.
“Sometimes it takes your breath away. They call this a holy war, and for this to be done in the name of God appals me,” said Major Aiken, the nursing supervisor of the 500-member unit.
Each medic has his own way of dealing with such horrors. Captain Meadows, a doctor straight out of M*A*S*H, hits a punchbag. Lieutenant Waters smokes Cuban cigars. Colonel Costello jogs around the helipad. Major Aiken photographs flowers, birds, sunsets – “things of beauty”.
Mostly they are able to remain dispassionate – until they find themselves treating someone they know. On July 10 a mortar exploded near by. Many were injured. Major White was called to a trolley and found himself staring down at one of his nurses, Captain Maria Ortiz.
“We’d been talking an hour before,” he recalled. “She told me, ‘I’ve just got my wedding dress. I’ve got to lose two sizes. I’m going to the gym to work out’. She was coming back from the gym when the mortar hit.”
She died, and her portrait is now stuck on walls all around the hospital.
The CSH has two mortuaries, one for Iraqis and one for the coalition. The bodies of Americans are taken away by helicopters on what are known as Angel Flights.
Is the war worth this price? “If Iraq turns around, if you give these people an opportunity to succeed and become a country that’s not oppressed any more then maybe it is worth it,” says Major White.
“You have to be optimistic. There’s no way you can watch all these people die and do all these amputations and not believe it’s going to work.”
Captain Meadows recalled a fellow medic rushing to help two wounded soldiers in the field and stepping on an IED. He was killed: “I loved that guy. I want this to be worth it. I can’t see us slinking away and saying it was all for nothing. You want it all to be for something.”
Survival rates
–– Improvements in US battlefield medicine have greatly increased survival rates. In the Second World War, 30 per cent of the Americans injured in combat died. In Vietnam, this dropped to 24 per cent. In the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, about 10 per cent of those injured died
–– Soldiers of the American Expeditionary Force in the First World War were the first to be accompanied by purpose-trained mobile medical units, the innovation of Joseph Marshall Flint, a Yale Professor of Surgery
–– The rapid evacuation from battlefield by air was pioneered by the US during the Korean War, as helicopters were first used to fly the wounded to Mobile Army Surgical Hospitals (M*A*S*H)
–– Decreased casualty evacuation times, from an average 45 days in Vietnam to four days or less today, has resulted in 90 per cent of casualties surviving during Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, compared with 76 per cent in Vietnam

So Many Men's Rooms, So Little Time
By Christopher Hitchens Sept. 1, 2007
I knew it was all over for Sen. Larry Craig when he appeared with his long-suffering wife to say that he wasn't gay. Such moments are now steppingstones on the way to apology, counseling, and rehab, and a case could be made for cutting out the spousal stage of the ritual altogether. Along with a string of votes to establish "don't ask, don't tell" and to prohibit homosexual marriage, Craig leaves as his political legacy the telling phrase "wide stance", which may or may not join "big tent" and "broad church" as an attempt to make the Republican Party seem more "inclusive" than it really is.
But there's actually a chance—a 38 percent chance, to be more precise—that the senator can cop a plea on the charge of hypocrisy. In his study of men who frequent public restrooms in search of sex, Laud Humphreys discovered that 54 percent were married and living with their wives, 38 percent did not consider themselves homosexual or bisexual, and only 14 per cent identified themselves as openly gay. Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Personal Places, a doctoral thesis which was published in 1970, detailed exactly the pattern—of foot-tapping in code, hand-gestures and other tactics—which has lately been garishly publicized at the Minneapolis-St Paul airport men's room. Theword "tearoom" seems to have become archaic, but in all other respects the fidelity to tradition is impressive.
The men interviewed by Humphreys wanted what many men want: a sexual encounter that was quick and easy and didn't involve any wining and dining. Some of the heterosexuals among them had also evolved a tactic for dealing with the cognitive dissonance that was involved. They compensated for their conduct by adopting extreme conservative postures in public. Humphreys, a former Episcopalian priest, came up with the phrase "breastplate of righteousness" to describe this mixture of repression and denial. So it is quite thinkable that when Sen. Craig claims not to be gay, he is telling what he honestly believes to be the truth.
However, this still leaves a slight mystery. In the 1960s, homosexuality was illegal in general and gay men were forced to cruise in places where (if I can phrase it like this) every man and boy in the world has to come sometime. Today, anyone wanting a swift male caress can book it online or go to a discreet resort. Yet people still persist in haunting the tearoom, where they risk arrest not for their sexuality but for "disorderly conduct." Why should this be?
In my youth, I was a friend of a man named Tom Driberg, a British politician who set the bar very high in these matters. In his memoir, Ruling Passions, he described his "chronic, lifelong, love-hate relationship with lavatories." He could talk by the hour about the variety and marvel of these "public conveniences," as Victorian euphemism had dubbed them. In Britain, they were called "cottages" in gay argot, instead of "tearooms," and an experienced "cottager" knew all the ins and outs, if you will pardon the expression. There was the commodious underground loo in Leicester Square, which specialized in those whose passion was for members of the armed forces. There was the one at the Institute of Contemporary Arts, much favored by aesthetes, where on the very foot of the partition, above the 6-inch space, someone had scribbled "beware of limbo dancers." (The graffiti in cottages was all part of the fun: On the toilet wall at Paddington Station was written: "I am 9 inches long and two inches thick. Interested?" Underneath, in different handwriting: "Fascinated, dear, but how big is your dick?") On Clapham Common, the men's toilet had acquired such a lavish reputation for the variety of lurid actions performed within its precincts that, as I once heard it said: "If someone comes in there for a good honest shit it's like a breath of fresh air."
Perhaps I digress. What Driberg told me was this. The thrills were twofold. First came the exhilaration of danger: the permanent risk of being caught and exposed. Second was the sense of superiority that a double life could give. What bliss it was to enter the House of Commons, bow to the speaker and take your seat amid the trappings of lawmaking, having five minutes earlier fellated a guardsman (and on one unforgettable occasion, a policeman) in the crapper in St James' Park. Assuming the story about the men's room in Union Station to be true, Sen. Craig could have gone straight from that encounter to the Senate floor in about the same amount of time.
Driberg was a public campaigner for gay rights and carried on as such even after being elevated to the House of Lords (where I am pretty sure he told me there was more going on in the lavatory than most people would guess). But it was with a distinct hint of melancholy that he voted for the successful repeal of the laws criminalizing homosexuality. "I rather miss the old days,"he would say, wistfully. Well, the law legalized homosexual behavior only "in private," so he could (and did) continue to court danger in public places. The House of Lords actually debated the question of whether a stall in a public lavatory constituted "privacy": the reason being that in Britain you have to put money in a slot in order to enter such a place, and this could be held to constitute rent. Private Eye printed a poem about the learned exchange on this between two elderly peers of the realm: "Said Lord Arran to Lord Dilhorne, a penny/ should entitle me to any/ thing I may choose privately to do. Except you."
Thus, without overthinking it or attempting too much by way of amateur psychiatry, I think it's safe to assume that many tearoom-traders have a need, which they only imperfectly understand, to get caught. And this may be truest of all of those who are armored with "the breastplate of righteousness." Next time you hear some particularly moralizing speech, set your watch. You won't have to wait long before the man who made it is found, crouched awkwardly yet ecstatically while the cistern drips and the roar of the flush maddens him like wine.Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair

An Earth Without Us By Alan Weisman

(From Scientific American July 2007
It’s a common fantasy to imagine that you’re the last person left alive on earth. But what if all human beings were suddenly whisked off the planet? That premise is the starting point for The World without Us, a new book by science writer Alan Weisman, an associate professor of journalism at the University of Arizona. In this extended thought experiment, Weisman does not specify exactly what finishes off Homo sapiens; instead he simply assumes the abrupt disappearance of our species and projects the sequence of events that would most likely occur in the years, decades and centuries afterward.
According to Weisman, large parts of our physical infrastructure would begin to crumble almost immediately. Without street cleaners and road crews, our grand boulevards and superhighways would start to crack and buckle in a matter of months. Over the following decades many houses and office buildings would collapse, but some ordinary items would resist decay for an extraordinarily long time. Stainless-steel pots, for example, could last for millennia, especially if they were buried in the weed-covered mounds that used to be our kitchens. And certain common plastics might remain intact for hundreds of thousands of years; they would not break down until microbes evolved the ability to consume them.
If human beings were to disappear tomorrow, the magnificent skyline of Manhattan would not long survive them. Weisman describes how the concrete jungle of New York City would revert to a real forest. “What would happen to all of our stuff if we weren’t here anymore? Could nature wipe out all of our traces? Are there some things that we’ve made that are indestructible or indelible? Could nature, for example, take New York City back to the forest that was there when Henry Hudson first saw it in 1609?
“I had a fascinating time talking to engineers and maintenance people in New York City about what it takes to hold off nature. I discovered that our huge, imposing, overwhelming infrastructures that seem so monumental and indestructible are actually these fairly fragile concepts that continue to function and exist thanks to a few human beings on whom all of us really depend. The name ‘Manhattan’ comes from an Indian term referring to hills. It used to be a very hilly island. Of course, the region was eventually flattened to have a grid of streets imposed on it. Around those hills there used to flow about 40 different streams, and there were numerous springs all over Manhattan island. What happened to all that water? There’s still just as much rainfall as ever on Manhattan, but the water has now been suppressed. It’s underground. Some of it runs through the sewage system, but a sewage system is never as efficient as nature in wicking away water. So there is a lot of groundwater rushing around underneath, trying to get out. Even on a clear, sunny day, the people who keep the subway going have to pump 13 million gallons of water away. Otherwise the tunnels will start to flood.
There are places in Manhattan where they’re constantly fighting rising underground rivers that are corroding the tracks. You stand in these pump rooms, and you see an enormous amount of water gushing in. And down there in a little box are these pumps, pumping it away. So, say human beings disappeared tomorrow. One of the first things that would happen is that the power would go off. A lot of our power comes out of nuclear or coal-fired plants that have automatic fail-safe switches to make sure that they don’t go out of control if no humans are monitoring their systems. Once the power goes off, the pumps stop working. Once the pumps stop working, the subways start filling with water. Within 48 hours you’re going to have a lot of flooding in New York City. Some of this would be visible on the surface. You might have some sewers overflowing. Those sewers would very quickly become clogged with debris—in the beginning the innumerable plastic bags that are blowing around the city and later, if nobody is trimming the hedges in the parks, you’re going to have leaf litter clogging up the sewers.
“But what would be happening underground? Corrosion. Just think of the subway lines below Lexington Avenue. You stand there waiting for the train, and there are all these steel columns that are holding up the roof, which is really the street. These things would start to corrode and, eventually, to collapse. After a while the streets would begin cratering, which could happen within just a couple of decades. And pretty soon, some of the streets would revert to the surface rivers that we used to have in Manhattan before we built all of this stuff.
Many of the buildings in Manhattan are anchored to bedrock. But even if they have steel beam foundations, these structures were not designed to be waterlogged all the time. So eventually buildings would start to topple and fall. And we’re bound to have some more hurricanes hitting the East Coast as climate change gives us more extreme weather. When a building would fall, it would take down a couple of others as it went, creating a clearing. Into those clearings would blow seeds from plants, and those seeds would establish themselves in the cracks in the pavement. They would already be rooting in leaf litter anyhow, but the addition of lime from powdered concrete would create a less acidic environment for various species. A city would start to develop its own little ecosystem. Every spring when the temperature would be hovering on one side or the other of freezing, new cracks would appear. Water would go down into the cracks and freeze. The cracks would widen, and seeds would blow in there. It would happen very quickly.”
How would the earth’s ecosystems change if human beings were out of the picture? Weisman says we can get a glimpse of this hypothetical world by looking at primeval pockets where humanity’s footprint has been lightest.
“To see how the world would look if humans were gone, I began going to abandoned places, places that people had left for different reasons. One of them is the last fragment of primeval forest in Europe. It’s like what you see in your mind’s eye when you’re a kid and someone is reading Grimm’s fairy tales to you: a dark, brooding forest with wolves howling and tons of moss hanging off the trees. And there is such a place. It still exists on the border between Poland and Belarus. It was a game reserve that was set aside in the 1300s by a Lithuanian duke who later became king of Poland. A series of Polish kings and then Russian czars kept it as their own private hunting ground. There was very little human impact. After World War II it became a national park. You go in there and you see these enormous trees. It doesn’t feel strange. It almost feels right. Like something feels complete in there. You see oaks and ashes nearly 150 feet tall and 10 feet in diameter, with bark furrows so deep that woodpeckers stuff pinecones in them. Besides wolves and elk, the forest is home to the last remaining wild herd of Bison bonasus, the native European buffalo.

I also went to the Korean DMZ, the demilitarized zone. Here you have this little stretch of land—it’s about 150 miles long and 2.5 miles wide—that has two of the world’s biggest armies facing off against each other. And in between the armies is an inadvertent wildlife preserve. You see species that might be extinct if it weren’t for this one little piece of land. Sometimes you’ll hear the soldiers screaming at one another through loudspeakers or flashing their propaganda back and forth, and in the middle of all this tension you’ll see the flocks of cranes that winter there.
“But to really understand a world without humans, I realized I would have to learn what the world was like before humans evolved. So I went to Africa, the place where humans arose and the only continent where there are still huge animals roaming around. We used to have huge animals on all the other continents and on many of the islands. We had enormous creatures in North and South America—giant sloths that were even bigger than the mammoths; beavers the size of bears. It’s controversial as to what actually wiped them out, but a lot of indications point the finger at us. The extinctions on each landmass seemed to coincide with the arrival of humans. But Africa is the place where human beings and animals evolved together, and the animals there learned strategies to avoid our predation. Without humans, North America would probably become a giant deer habitat in the near term. As forests would become reestablished across the continent, eventually—in evolutionary time—larger herbivores would evolve to take advantage of all the nutrients locked up in woody species. Larger predators would evolve accordingly.”
Thinking about an earth without humans can have practical benefits. Weisman explains that his approach can shed new light on environmental problems.
I’m not suggesting that we have to worry about human beings suddenly disappearing tomorrow, some alien death ray taking us all away. On the contrary, what I’m finding is that this way of looking at our planet—by theoretically just removing us—turns out to be so fascinating that it kind of disarms people’s fears or the terrible wave of depression that can engulf us when we read about the environmental problems that we have created and the possible disasters we may be facing in the future. Because frankly, whenever we read about those things, our concern is: Oh, my God, are we going to die? Is this going to be the end? My book eliminates that concern right at the beginning by saying the end has already taken place. For whatever reason, human beings are gone, and now we get to sit back and see what happens in our absence. It’s a delicious little way of reducing all the fear and anxiety. And looking at what would happen in our absence is another way of looking at, well, what goes on in our presence.
“For example, think about how long it would take to wipe out some of the things we have created. Some of our more formidable inventions have a longevity that we can’t even predict yet, like some of the persistent organic pollutants that began as pesticides or industrial chemicals. Or some of our plastics, which have an enormous role in our lives and an enormous presence in the environment. And nearly all of these things weren’t even here until after World War II. You begin to think there’s probably no way that we are going to have any kind of positive outcome, that we are looking at an overwhelming tide of geologic proportions that the human race has loosed on the earth. I raise one possibility toward the end of the book that humans can continue to be part of the ecosystem in a way that is much more in balance with the rest of the planet.

“It’s something that I approach by first looking at not just the horrible things that we have created that are so frightening—such as our radioactivity and pollutants, some of which may be around until the end of the planet—but also some of the beautiful things that we have done. I raise the question, Wouldn’t it be a sad loss if humanity was extirpated from the planet? What about our greatest acts of art and expression? Our most beautiful sculpture? Our finest architecture? Will there be any signs of us at all that would indicate that we were here at one point? This is the second reaction that I always get from people. At first they think, This world would be beautiful without us. But then they think, Wouldn’t it be sad not to have us here? And I don’t think it’s necessary for us to all disappear for the earth to come back to a healthier state.”