Daniel Ellsberg's Crusade Against The Abuse
Of Presidential Power, From Nixon To Bush

Greg King: Columnist Anthony Lewis for the NYT fears that the Bush administration is catapulting our nation into a series of "endless wars," which Lewis contends "is already having profound consequences for th American constituional system."

Daniel Ellsberg: I think the Bush administration does have in mind a series of wars. I don't think the president and his advisors want to be at war so much as they want the fruits of war, which currently include control of oil in the Middle East. There's more than one reason for any war, but to deny that oil is a major factor, as the pundits do, is totally unrealistic.

I think the neocons, like Security Advisor Richard Perle, John Bolton in the State Department, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Vice President Cheney himself [I woke from a dream this morning in which Cheney resigned -Ed.], have their eyes on the oil fields of southern Iran and eastern Saudi Arabia next. They've indicated that they'd like to have US troops permanently occupying both of those countries, with Syria as a bridge between them.

US control of Middle Eastern oil does not serve the interests of the people of the United States, except those who want to be rulers of the world. And the neocons' goal is to run the world. They don't think in multilateral terms. They think in terms of a single, unchallenged superpower, an enlarged version of the British Empire, which at one time controlled a third of the world's people. The Bush administration has in mind two-thirds or more.

If you really want to run the world, having your hand on the tap in the Middle East -- and thus controlling other countries' oil supplies -- is even more important than having access to it for domestic use. It's a base of power and source of great profit for a limited number of huge corporations...

King: The majority of dissenters called for the US to allow the weapons inspectors (in Iraq) to finish their job, and to get the UN on board for any military action. Were you in this camp?

Ellsberg: I personally went beyond that. I said we should not have attacked even if Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was trying to get nuclear weapons. Certainly we should not have attacked without UN authorization, but there should not have been UN authorization. The risks of war in Iraq were far too great, and the danger that Saddam posed was virtually negligible. Attacking Iraq only increased the likelihood of terrorism, as we saw in Spain. It helped al-Qaeda, and our country and other will pay the price for that...

The case for preventive war is never strong, war being war. The uncertainties and human costs make a very, very heavy argument against it. With a preventive war, you're not facing a situation in which war is imminent. You're putting an end to peace. Under those circumstances, it's very hard to make the case that there's no better alternative to war...

King: Do you think Bush can be defeated this year?

Ellsberg: I think there's a good chance Kerry will win a popular vote, the way things are going [This interview was done in the summer -Ed.]. But I don't think Bush and the rest intend to allow themselves to be voted out of office. That means two things. It means voting fraud, and it means another terrorist attack, whether Osama bin Laden is behind it or not. It could well be a Bush terrorist attack, because it would help him get elected...

We have to be aware that any terrorist act on US soil will almost certainly be intended to keep us in Iraq. And there's a strong potential that the Bush administration will bring about such an attack, because it would serve them so well. That is where al-Qaeda's and the Bush administration's interests converge. All Bush has to do is get out of the way, which may be what happened on 9/11...

King: You have been addressing these issues for a long time. Are you at all disillusioned now? Can you be optimistic?

Ellsberg: Our efforts can be and have been effective in postponing catastrophe, but you can look only so far ahead. I know people who do not think we have a chance. Their position is a respectable one, but nothing is that certain. I'm an optimist in the sense that I think we do have a chance.

The Sun, Oct 04