This is the second part of Ayo Johnson's interview with US Consul General Denis Coleman, covering a possible US war with Iraq and international terrorism.

(Previous question asked about Iraq and the sharing of intelligence information with Britain)

Q: But Britain would need to know, wouldn't they…?

A: They would have to have enough confidence… They have their own MI5 so intelligence is something that is not new to Britain…

Q: But Britain is your strongest ally…?

A: They certainly are one of them. I'm not going to list them in terms of strength... But yes.

Q: They're not making the al Qaeda link argument.... ?

A: I can't assume. I can only speak for the US. I can't speak for Britain. I can't speak for what they assume or what the data is... I don't know what they are looking at.

Q: I understand that. But what I'm saying is if the evidence of al Qaeda links can't be shared with everybody at the very least it would be shared with your strongest ally, right ?

A: I can't confirm... I don't know. At the very least we're going to trip into supposition...

Q: But it makes sense, wouldn't it? wouldn't you agree?

A: Well it's not illogical. I mean let's put it this way. They have to have a degree of comfort to be contemplating what they are doing. What their degree of comfort is... you have to ask Britain.

Q: What they are not arguing is an al Qaeda link. Prime Minister Blair has effectively said that last week. Well let's move on then. Now you are saying that the regime change goal is not necessarily removing Saddam Hussein.

A: That's what the president has said. If he changes his behaviour...

Q: If he disarms? If he disarms genuinely in your eyes he can stay on as president of Iraq as long as the people want him ?

A: Yes. What's driving this discussion is a bifurcation between understandings of sovereignty. What is sovereignty? Many in Europe would like to get together and discuss this and work it out. Wouldn't everybody. But all those discussions are taking place under the security umbrella that the United States provides.

Q: So you are no longer concerned about Mr. Hussein's atrocious human rights record then?

A: I didn't say that. Of course we are concerned about that. Why wouldn't we be concerned about that. Of course we are concerned about that.

Q: That's not one of your goals...?

A: We're not running around the world trying to enforce human rights violations. Do we highlight them? Do we complain about them? Do we use other forms of economic, political and diplomatic influence? Sure. But going to war is a defensive measure. It's not an offensive measure. It was an offensive measure for imperialist powers. We've been here before. We left. We didn't take anything with us. We left. We left under the condition of resolution 687. What did we get out of the last Iraqi war?

Q: Can I ask...

A: No, seriously. What did we get?

Q: I'm not accusing you of getting anything.

A: No there is this thing about oil. We had the oil. If we wanted the oil we wouldn't have given it back.

Q: Can I stay on this point though...? The argument that it's a defensive measure. I'm still trying to understand that. Iraq hasn't threatened the United States...?

A: We think it has threatened the United States.

Q: When did it threaten the United States?

A: We think that its possession of weapons of mass destruction is a threat to the United States.

Q: The fact that it possesses weapons of mass destruction alone?

A: Yes. Because of the way it has conducted itself, its history of aggression of killing its own people with them, its use of them and we think the entire landscape has changed since 9/11.

Things that hitherto were unlikely are possible now and we're not going to wait until something terrible happens and then look back and say why didn't we take those weapons away from that dictator, why didn't we disarm him and the cost of disarming him goes up every day?

Q: Has he threatened the United States directly?

A: Has he called up the White House and said ‘I'm going to bomb you?' No. Not that I'm aware of. But the world is a little more nuanced than that.

Q: North Korea has.

A: North Korea has made statements, yes.

Q: That you consider threats ?

A: That we think are a problem. That we think are bad. But we are the ones that are providing ... the resources along with our allies... But primarily its our resources, our blood. I guess we get to choose the tactics.

Q: So why are the tactics so different...

A: One thing North Korea has weapons of mass destruction.

Q: And we know that?

A: By their own admission. So they have them. If Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons ...

Q: You would talk to him, wouldn't you? Like you' re talking to North Korea..?

A: I didn't say that. You see you lead up to a point and then you make a jump. I didn't say that. I said it would complicate it.

Q: What I'm saying is the United States, president Bush specifically, has labelled North Korea, Iraq and Iran the axis of evil. Only Iraq has been singled out for attack. North Korea has nuclear weapons, has withdrawn from the non-proliferation treaty and has actually threatened the United States, directly, more strongly than any threat Iraq has ever made.

A: They've said several things...

Q: Why is there a different policy towards Iraq?

A: Because all situations are different. The world is not black and white, it's full of all sorts of shades of grey.

Q: Right I'm asking what's the shade of grey here that's different?

A: Pragmatic. There is a different culture between Iraq and Korea. Iraq is a country that is an aggressor, an imperialist aggressor, i.e. the invasion of Kuwait, seeking to expand its influence and given the freedom to do so it has enormous resources to enable it to create great harm.

Q: And North Korea?

A: One of the differences with North Korea is that it doesn't have any resources. It has a bankrupt economy. And the aspirations and thrust of what North Korea is doing is totally different than Iraq. I'm not saying it's not serious. I'm not saying it's not dangerous, I'm saying it's different.

And to the extent that it's different you respond differently. There are also a number of other countries surrounding North Korea who are in a lot better position to respond as opposed to the countries surrounding Iraq. China has a vested interest in what happens in North Korea, Japan has a vested interest. So does South Korea. So all those parties in addition to the United States are engaged in the process, searching for a process. Those two cases, Iraq and North Korea are very different examples.

Q: They are also different in the sense that North Korea has threatened the United States.

A: It has said that if we attack, if we do certain things... But that's where you go out a little bit slower. There isn't one solution to all problems. And normally the way you deal with them is pragmatically.

You like to make weapons of mass destruction go away. So the way you make them go away in Iraq is different from the way you make them go away in Korea. There are certain trade offs you make. There are some points where you don't trade off. We're not doing blackmail. For the same reason we don't pay blackmail to one kidnapper.

Q: There are a number of countries in the world which would prefer a diplomatic solution to Iraq...

A: So would we. But when's enough? When does a diplomatic solution turn into appeasement which is analogous to sticking your head in the ground and having your fanny sticking in the air? Just like an ostrich.

Q: When it saves lives, perhaps?

A: And what's the saving of lives? I'm not cavalier about lives... I agree with you. I don't want to see people die. The president doesn't look forward to ordering people into harm's way. This isn't a video game. People get hurt. This man's playing with very dangerous weapons.

Q: Of which nobody's seen the evidence of...

A: We have the evidence. Where did they go? Where did they go? You're not going to see them until they go off. It's interesting. Some of the same people that argue that he doesn't have them at the same time they say what's going to happen if he uses nerve gas on the troops. How can he use weapons that he doesn't have ?

Q: Well the corollary to that is if, as the US believes, he does have them what is the risk...?

A: It's a risk and it will be greater tomorrow and it will be greater the following day and it will be greater in perpetuity until they are disarmed. And eventually the cost goes up each day.

Q: Obviously, you're saying the US has considered the cost in human lives, the humanitarian cost of a war against Iraq...?

A: Yeah, it's abhorrent.

Q: The United Nations says 500,000 people will be killed or injured...

A: I don't know... we had experts say 50,000 Americans are going to be killed in the Gulf war in 1991. We don't know...

Q: Access to basic requirements of life, food and clean water, will be severely restricted. Over one million refugees will be created - this is a UN document - and... Turkey and Iran has announced they will close their borders....

A: Okay listen. There's a difference between the UN document which is based on fact and the UN's document which is based on speculation and projection...

Q: So what does the United States think... How many lives are going to be killed... ?

A: I don't know... There is no number. I haven't seen the number...

Q: So there's no calculation as to the possible humanitarian cost...?

A: What's going to happen if he isn't disarmed? I don't know what the cost is. I can't put a value on a human life.

Q: But there has been no estimate?

A: I haven't seen it if we have one.

Q: But we agree that its going to be pretty tragic for many civilians...?

A: I think that innocent civilians will get hurt and that is awful. That is also something that Iraq could stop in the morning if it disarms. Where is Iraq's responsibility to its own people? We're protecting our people because we view this to be primarily an action for self defence. Have you ever tried to negotiate with someone who doesn't want to negotiate? You know what you're doing? You're negotiating with yourself.

Q: Let me tell you what the UN says and you might dismiss it as speculation but they say over 1 million refugees will be created. Turkey and Iran has said they will not accept any refugees and that effectively worsens the tragedy for the civilians trying to leave the country. The Iraqi leadership, as you pointed out, and no one will argue with that point, has been repressive toward its own people. So effectively, once an attack starts you might have a million people trapped in the country that could be sitting ducks for either American bombs dropping on their heads or Iraqi forces...

A: I don't know. The typical response is there might be. ...

Q: I'm going to ask the question then. Does the United States consider there's a reasonable possibility that the attack will precipitate a humanitarian disaster ?

A: There is planning... First of all I am not privy to the plans and all the conditional plans. But certainly there have been discussions which the president has directly said - the spokesman for the administration said - of dealing with a post Hussein Iraq.

Q: I'm talking about humanitarian relief during the war. Right now the country is dependent on humanitarian assistance, isn't it ?

A: Yes but why is it dependent ? It's dependent because it won't disarm and the billions of dollars it's realising from oil sales is not going to help its people. Because the resource that they have, that distinguishes them from North Korea is not being realized to help its people.

Q: What's the answer to the question then - does the United States consider there's a reasonable possibility the attack will precipitate a humanitarian disaster? I was reading Noam Chomsky, who says that anybody who takes an action that has a reasonable possibility of precipitating a humanitarian disaster is making an insane decision.

A: Then what is the threshold of when you can defend yourself? What is the threshold of going to war with Germany in the Second World War? Should we have just cut a deal with the Japanese and a non-aggression pact with the Germans? And where would Western Europe be today? The nice thing about that is it leads back to total isolationism. I mean it's circular reasoning because a true pacifist never would defend himself. He would rather suffer death than take an action which could be self defensive. We're not that. That line of reasoning...we're just not on that line of reasoning.

Q: So at the moment the humanitarian cost is well worth it?

A: What I don't like about that language is it reduces a human being or the quality of a human being's existence to being commensurable with financial models. I mean the dignity of a person is far more than that. What we're doing is we're not causing this, we're correcting this. The cause is in Iraq. The cause is in Baghdad. We may be the catalyst, at a point in time, but it's coming, it's coming anyway. And the condition of the people continue to deteriorate, as the condition of the people in Afghanistan continues to improve...

Q: So to put it crudely, broken down for the layperson then... what you're saying effectively is ‘yes people are going to die and suffer but it's Saddam Hussein's fault'...?

A:... No I'm not saying that... But without being glib, is life fair? You're doing the best - If you do that, just don't take that as a single quote, give it some context... That's a wonderful thing that jumps out but that's not the thing I'm saying.

Q: No. I'm going to try to report this as fully as possible.

A: We're focused on one thing - the disarming of Iraq. That's the goal. What goes along with it are a number of responsibilities which we are going to try to meet to the best of our ability. One is certainly the human dimension. And these are decisions that I would not look forward to making, but not to make them is equally or maybe even more irresponsible. Avoiding issues and decisions that are supposed to be made is also irresponsible. You're supposed to try to implement them in the most humanitarian manner that you can. It would be easy just to take it out, to take out Baghdad. If that was the goal to just irresponsibly do that, that's pretty easy. We could have done that with just one bomber. We didn't have to send all those resources.

The purpose of all those resources over there is to try to effect the disarmament in the least painful... we know what the most painful way is. We're putting our blood and our resources on the line in the least painful fashion.

Q: What's the most painful way then?

A: Blow the place up. (laughs) I mean that's also unacceptable. We're backing our words with our own blood.

Q: Is this then the least painful to Americans ?

A: The least painful would be something that's morally unacceptable. It's the least painful to the country that's involved, which is the citizens of Iraq.

Q: Going to war in the manner that it looks like you're going to war is the least painful to Iraq...?

A: I think so.

Q: How does that work... I'm not quite sure. We have the example of 1991 and there was enormous suffering after that...

A: Let's go back... and we stopped short of going into Iraq at the request of our allies and the surrounding countries - taking Hussein at his word that he was going to abide by the terms of the truce. And had he, then the suffering that happened in this country would have been greatly reduced and almost eliminated, I don't know. He's the guy. When is... When in your mind is justifiable action ?

Q: Now, when you talk about self defence. You said that there is evidence that he has links with al Qaeda...?

A: I cited some of the examples that the president or the spokesman for the president have mentioned.

Q: But he hasn't directly threatened the United States? He hasn't attacked the United States?

A: No he hasn't attacked the United States. I mean he's many things. He's diabolical but I don't think he's suicidal...

Q: So self defence implies a threat of imminent attack doesn't it?

A: Yes... and attack or harm. Attack can come in many forms. He doesn't have to be the delivery agent of these weapons of mass destruction. There's a lot of these agents out there dying to get their hands on some of them. That's... We've gone over this...

Q: So essentially it's an al Qaeda link that...

A: It's an al Qaeda or any terrorist... This man is a maniac. He's imperialist. He has proven that in occupying Kuwait. He has no moral boundaries. And everyday that goes by he gets his hands on progressively more dangerous weapons of mass destruction.

Q: Does he?... So he's today's Hitler, isn't he?

A: I'm not characterising it. I'm not drawing a direct comparison there. They both have levels reserved specifically for themselves.

Q: Isn't it true though that as long as the UN inspectors are there, if he has these weapons he can't move them. What can he do?

A: He can continue to develop them. He can enhance them. He can expand them...

Q: Develop them? So he has been developing...

A: I didn't say that. You said what can he do. I'm telling you what he can do. Because we don't know where they are over there. We don't know where the laboratories are? So wherever the materiel is... It's a dynamic process. I don't for a second assume... It's possible that he stopped trying to grow his array of weapons.

Q: You don't know if he has...?

A: Why should he? Why should he stop?

Q: If you don't know where they are, how are they going to be destroyed by an attack?

A:...No one said they are going to be... Disarmament comes after regime change. The regime has to change. Either he changes his attitude or we change the players.

And then this wasn't a process that was orchestrated by Hussein and his son. There were thousands of people involved in all of this.

Q: Let's talk about the global war on terrorism. This is part of the war on terrorism. One of the questions I was asked to ask you is America's army (military) is two and a half times the size of the next nine armies put together...

A: Does that include North Korea's million and two... I don't think so.

Q: Okay. That didn't succeed in preventing the 9/11 attacks. Isn't there a risk that the world might be more dangerous place with so many people that already hate America ?

A: There's a risk that terrorist incidents will occur which I would argue would occur in any event. You cannot hide from terrorism. Terrorists are like a fire. They want more fuel. You naively put out a firebreak and somehow they manage to go over that firebreak and go to the next part of the forest. Either put the fire out or you are going to be facing incidents that are more dangerous. Is it possible there are going to be further incidents? Sure. I don't think that's preordained. I think part of that depends on how we conduct ourselves throughout the process and how we are perceived throughout the process and how you are perceived throughout the process. If we do what we say we are trying to do. If those who think we are there for oil find out ‘oh my goodness, they didn't take any oil in 1991 and they didn't take it now'. If some of the opportunities are given to people, if some of their human rights are restored. People can, the human spirit can put up with a lot of things...

Q: So you think things will improve? Depending on America's behaviour after?

A: And also the way it is perceived. If we are arrogant... I don't think... This president is anything but arrogant. I don't think he is.

Q: A lot of people do think he is...

A: That's exactly why I said it.

Q: The Kyoto treaty, he said, is not worth the paper it's written on...

A: It's not...

Q: How can that not breed a perception of arrogance?

A: The people that signed that document aren't abiding by it now. That's hypocrisy. You know what it is? It's also honesty. People don't like honesty when it puts them in a position where there's a gap between the drum they have been beating and the land that they are standing on. The people that signed that document are in violation of their own document.

Q: There are many international documents that I know of that aren't being abided by many countries. It doesn't mean it's not worth the paper its written on. That's the kind of language that turns people off. And that's what the Germans and the French are complaining about and a lot of people in the world are complaining about for years.

A: Well the Germans and the French are complaining about a lot of things. I think some of what they say is interesting and I think they have multiple motivations. And I don't think there's anyone who will disagree with that. Certainly not the people in the European Community whom they presume to speak for.

Q: America's self defence rationale for attacking Iraq... If accepted by other countries makes the United States itself vulnerable to attack itself because they have weapons of mass destruction.

A: You're going to have to rephrase that question because I don't understand what you're saying.

Q: I'm saying it could be argued that the whole doctrine of pre-emptive strike is somehow bankrupt because what that means is other countries in the world could feel free to attack the United States because it has 15,000 or so nuclear warheads...? It has a lot of weapons of mass destruction, and it is the only country in the world which actually has used such weapons.

A: We have aggressively entered into agreements to reduce the stockpile of nuclear weapons. We have had a major contentious discussion when the president said that the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction, commonly referred to as MAD, is mad. And that the policy of the United States is shifting to defensive weapons. It's eliminating, it is taking down its arsenal of offensive weapons and from a policy point of view it is trying to implement a shield of defensive weapons. Since you can't go overnight from having whatever number of thousands of nuclear weapons we have to zero we have to have a concept in mind. So we are transitioning to defensive weapons and aggressively limiting our offensive capabilities.

Q: Disarming America will take a few years ?

A: It will take a few years.

Q: So America has a goal of disarming...?

A: I don't know we've articulated how low to go. It keeps on going down. It goes down every time a number is given. Frankly, my own belief is that our ability to develop defensive capabilities is what will accelerate that process. I mean look at the argument we have had for years. You want to talk about how out of sync we are. We pull out of a treaty because we want to have defensive weapons and the rest of the world is arguing ‘no let's keep our offensive weapons, so we can blow each other up'.

Q: What treaty was that... the Biological one?

A: The treaty with Russia. where we said we are going to start to build defensive weaponry - one of the SALT agreements. But look at the essence of what we're saying and people said ‘oh that's horrible... It's horrible to build defensive capabilities and taking down offensive capabilities. Would I like it to happen? Sure. Wouldn't you?

Q: Sure. I guess (what is being questioned is) the rationale or logic of saying ‘we're going to attack Iraq in self defence because we believe they have the capability and probably the willingness...'

A: First of all we believe under the UN resolution we're authorised to. In fact, I think, under probably 687 we're still authorised to. Forget that under 1441, we clearly believe we are and we have a number of allies that are probably with us.

Q: Not in the Security Council.

A: In the world. The Security Council hasn't played out yet. We'll see how that goes.

Q: Wouldn't it be better to convince everybody else? Because the last time around when Yemen voted against the 1991 Gulf War, it lost its entire aid budget. Are those tactics fair in your personal view...?

A: Why not? These are resources that people don't have... These are resources that we give out of our own pocket. And to the extent that we choose to give them or not to give them as a method of achieving or implementing the goals of the United States, why not ?

Q: To follow up on the same question. What is to stop, for example, Pakistan, a nuclear state, from attacking India? Russia from attacking Chechnya, saying ‘oh they've got weapons of mass destruction so we're going to take them out now'? Following the example of the United States now...?

A: You know I can't speak for all of them. I can certainly say that India and Pakistan have been a constant source of concern and the objective has been to try to get people who have weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons at this point, to reduce them and people that don't have them not to get them... We didn't start out with a purpose to get where we are. It was a quirk of history but it wasn't by design that the United States wound up in this position in the world.

Q: I'm just focusing on the rationale that the US can act in self defence right now. There are so many countries that can follow this example and start a war with neighbours.

A: Well, they are doing it anyway. Look at all that goes on... these civil wars that go on. Look at the lunacy... You've got Mugabe being invited by France. I mean you've got UN taking over one panel in the UN, Iraq taking over another one. One's doing disarmament and one's doing weapons. I mean hello... This is the model?

Q: I guess the argument is that the United States' behaviour or the rationale given by the United States isn't providing a better example...?

A: I would say we have. How many countries has Russia freed? How many countries has China freed? How many countries has anybody else freed? How many times have we gone into Europe and then come back with a Marshall plan and left? How many billions of dollars have we poured into many countries in the world?

Q: Some people say that the US, I'm quoting now ‘has no moral authority to talk about evil' considering it is the only country in the world which has actually used nuclear weapons. What is your response to that?

A: I think it is a very difficult question. First of all I reject the premise, but I respect the question...

Q: What is the premise ?

A: The premise is that if you use it you have no moral authority. That's the question. So I reject the premise. There's a serious part of the question that it's such an outlandish statement refuted by almost 60 years since the end of the Second World War, of moral behaviour. I mean you talk about the Berlin airlift. Where we're putting ourselves on the line for no other reason than to help other people. I didn't say we're perfect. I didn't say we haven't made lots of mistakes too. But by and large, the object of our actions has not been for an aggressive purpose. If you want to bring up Vietnam, I'm not going to try to defend that . I have great reservations on that... But our policy has never been one of occupation. And some of those people who ask that question, I would say that if Bermuda has a problem, those same people would be picking up the phone and calling London or Washington. How is that moral? What are those people who ask that question how are they helping to solve the moral issues of the world?

In other words... the person that asked you that question, because I'm not attributing that broadly to Bermudians, I would ask them, I would say, ‘well I know what they want to get from the party, what are they giving to the world?' They enjoy the benefits of this umbrella of liberty but what are they giving back to the world? And that's a question - you've got to be very specific about that - I'm directing that to the person that asked you that question. I'm not directing that to Bermuda. Because I think Bermuda... We've been here eight months and we've had a wonderful experience with the people of Bermuda.

Q: Nelson Mandela said something very similar...

A: I find it irreconcilable. I have enormous respect for this man. Any man that could rise above bitterness to make the positive contributions that he has, truly deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. On the other hand I can't fathom why he made those comments. They are so off base...

Q: To be fair he shares the conviction of a lot of people. It seems to be a problem of credibility or a lack of credibility. Or the perception that the US is not credible, in this regard and in the past hasn't been seen as a credible...

A: One of the reason why South Africa was successful, one of the contributing parties to the transition in South America is the same country that you are calling not credible which is the United States.

Q: I'm saying it's the perception.

A: He knows the reality so why is he fostering a perception. If there's a difference between reality and perception why is he fostering the perception.

Q: I'm just trying to understand it myself... he's saying.

A: I can't for the life of me understand why he made those comments.

Q: One of the things he said was ‘they don't care about human beings'.

A: He also made a racial statement which if anyone in the United States had made such stereotype comments like that, they would have been booed off the world stage. You tell me how he can reconcile his relationship with Libya.

Q: What's wrong with Libya ?

A: It's a country that happened to blow up an airliner over Scotland... He wants to defend Ghadaffi? And we're immoral? No... I find him to be a man who's suffered enormously, who's done tremendous good but I just categorically reject what he's saying. I find it illogical, I find it quite sad. I mean it's sad. Having been the beneficiary of the action of this immoral country to say that... Look at the implications of what he says - this wouldn't have happened if a white man were Secretary General of the UN. I mean that's a pretty broad brush... I mean this whole thing - stereotyping of people... One of the problems of racism is its stereotypes, right? Well isn't that stereotyping as well? Isn't that just as broad a brush? 300 million people, 280 million people in the United States are for racism. Come on. He's an 85 year old man... God bless him. That comment's off the wall.

Q: Are you saying he's a racist?

A: I didn't say that. You're putting words in my mouth. I've spent an hour and 35 minutes with you - trying to have a level of a conversation which is beyond cheap characterisations. I didn't say he's a racist. I bent over backwards to try and then I said that I just can't figure it out...

Q: You talked about the nature of racism and...

A: I'm saying he's stereotyped. I'm saying if someone else had done that they would have been blown out of the water. And because of what he's done and who he is, he wasn't. But it doesn't change the nature of the comment that he made. He grossly stereotyped the United States. I'm trying to respond to you in much more serious fashion than what an editor is going to grab out and give you a good punch-line on. I'm trying to be as balanced as I can...

Q: What happens if America goes and attacks Iraq in order to disarm it? If it attacks Iraq it will have to change the regime, effectively. So what are the plans, post-war ?

A: I can't speak to that.

Q: In the end though, without what could be considered to be a credible, consistent foreign policy based on respect for human rights for everybody, is the war on terrorism in your view actually winnable?

A: Can you ever eliminate every terrorist in a world out of nine billion people. It's winnable when the more people get to see that things can be better, that terrorism hurts everybody. It's winnable if we do what we say we are doing and we say what we do. And that's only actions that are yet to be taken. Will it be a process? Yes. And in Afghanistan we're just starting to see the formation of a national militia which is having some sort of successes in a couple of the southern districts of the country. First off it's being composed by Afghanistan people. They are working with the citizens. And in doing that the people are working with the militia to start to disarm some of the warlords, provide information, women have rights they didn't have two years ago. Does it have a long way to go? You betcha. Is the outcome guaranteed? No. But they didn't have a chance before. They didn't have a chance. We can help you but they've got to do it themselves too.

Q: I guess the criticism is... you know, that foreign policy hasn't been consistent and America has lost a lot of its credibility. That's why I'm asking you is it winnable without...

A: I think it's been... First of, is it perfect? No. Is it consistent? It's probably as consistent as you're going to get human beings to be which is why you have to go back to a