|
'거짓말쟁이'는 워싱턴 정가에서 잘 안 쓰는 말입니다. 그건 워싱턴에 거짓말쟁이가 없기 때문이 아닙니다. 그 말뜻이 지나치게 분명하고 사탕발림이 전혀 없어서 나중에 주워담기 힘든 말이기 때문입니다. 그래서 워싱턴 정가에는 오래 전부터 그 말을 쓰지 말자는 암묵적인 동의가 있습니다.
제 얘기가 아닙니다. 24일자 <워싱턴포스트>에 실린 리차드 코엔의 칼럼 '반전과 비논리(Antiwar and Illogical)'의 첫머리입니다.
 | | | ▲ 워싱턴포스트 인터넷 메인면 | | | ⓒ w.post | |
코엔의 말대로 미국 정가에서 누군가를 '거짓말쟁이'로 비난하는 것 자체가 심각한 일입니다. 나중의 화해를 고려하지 않고 드잡이를 할 때 쓰는 '막말'이니까요.
그런데 그런 일이 벌어졌습니다. 코엔의 칼럼에 보니까 미기업연구소 안보정책위원회(Defense Policy Board, American Enterprise Institute)의 리처드 펄(Richard Perle) 의장이 미 NBC <언론과의 만남(Meet the Press)> 프로그램에서 데니스 쿠치니크(Dennise Kucinich) 민주당 하원의원을 대놓고 '거짓말쟁이'라고 몰아붙였다는군요. 좀처럼 보기 힘든 구경거리를 놓치고 말았습니다.
그러나 아무리 <워싱턴포스트> 칼럼이라도 일단 사실 확인은 해봐야 합니다. 그래서 NBC <언론과의 만남> 홈페이지에 가서 스크립트를 읽어 봤습니다. 펄이 쿠치니크를 직접 '거짓말쟁이(liar)'라고 부른 것은 아니더군요. 쿠치니크가 인용한 어떤 말을 '거짓말(lie)'이라고 했을 뿐입니다.
그럼, 도대체 이 사람들이 무슨 이야기를 하다가 '거짓말' 논쟁이 일어난 것일까요? 그것은 이라크 전쟁의 동기를 둘러싼 것입니다. 두 사람은 미국이 이라크와 전쟁하려는 이유가 '석유 때문이냐 아니냐'를 두고 논쟁을 벌였습니다. 사회자 러서트(Russert)가 쿠치니크에게 물었습니다.
@ADTOP5@
"지난 1월19일, 당신은 미행정부가 이라크를 목표로 하는 이유가 석유(oil) 때문이라고 했지요? 그렇게 주장한 근거가 뭡니까?"
쿠치니크의 대답입니다.
"이라크 땅에 5조 달러 상당의 석유가 매장돼 있다는 사실, 현정부 인사들 중에 석유산업에 관계해 온 사람들이 있다는 사실, 현정부가 이라크를 제압하면 석유산업이 혜택을 얻을 수 있다는 사실, 그리고 무엇보다도 대이라크 전쟁을 위한 다른 명분이 제시된 적이 없기 때문에, 이 나라가 이라크와 전쟁을 하려는 데에는 석유가 가장 큰 이유일 수밖에 없다는 사실이 바로 제 주장의 근거입니다."
러서트가 다시 물었습니다.
"미국 대통령이 석유 때문에 국민을 사지로 몰아넣으려고 하고 있다는 말이군요?"
싸움(논쟁)을 붙이려는 함정 질문 같기도 하고, 혹은 '아니오'라는 대답을 유도해주기 위한 배려 섞인 질문 같기도 합니다. 혹은 둘 다일지도 모릅니다. 어쨌든, 쿠치니크의 대답.
"그 질문에 액면 그대로 대답하면 인신공격이 되겠지요. 제가 얘기하고 싶은 것은 정책입니다. 이라크와 전쟁을 벌이려는 정책은 9.11사건 이전에 시작된 것입니다. 그리고 9.11사건 당일 국방장관은 안보자문회의에서 이라크가 이 사건과 관계는 없지만 이 사건을 이라크를 몰아낼 계기로 삼을 수 있을 것이라고 말했습니다. 대통령은 나라가 긴박한 위협에 처했을 때에만 젊은이들을 전쟁에 보낼 수 있습니다. 그러나 지금 이라크를 치려는 동기 중의 하나는 일부 미국인들이 이라크 석유 이권을 통제할 수 있다는 점이라고 나는 믿습니다."
이런 이야기를 들은 펄이 가만 있었겠습니까? 기회를 잡아서 쿠치니크를 반박했습니다.
"(이라크) 땅 속에 석유가 있고 일부 정부 관리들이 과거 석유산업에 관계해 왔다는 이유로 미국이 석유 때문에 이라크 제압 정책을 세웠다는 주장(suggestion)이 있었지요. 하지만 그건 거짓말이오, 의원 나리. 새빨간 거짓말입니다. 당신이 그런 말에 신빙성을 두다니 유감입니다."
사실 이 정도 직설적인 표현이면 펄이 쿠치니크를 '거짓말쟁이'로 몰았다는 코엔의 주장이 그다지 틀린 말이 아닐 지도 모르겠습니다. 표현이 좀 에둘러서 그렇지, 실제로 펄은 쿠치니크를 '거짓말쟁이'라고 부르고 있는 셈이니까요.
이라크 전쟁의 동기를 둘러싼 '거짓말 논쟁'은 이것뿐은 아닙니다. 이번에는 부시측이 거짓말쟁이로 몰렸습니다. <뉴욕타임스>의 칼럼니스트 토마스 프리드만(Thomas L. Friedman)은 2월 19일자 칼럼에서 부시 관리들을 "태도는 기고만장하지만, 전략에 약하고, 외교력은 형편없는" 사람들이라고 혹독하게 나무랐습니다. 그러면서 "제발 국민들에게 진실을 말해라"고 타이르더군요.
"부시 정부 관리들이 사담 후세인이 오사마 빈 라덴의 동조세력이거나 앞으로 곧 그렇게 될 것이라는 이유로 전쟁을 정당화하려는 걸 보면 심기가 불편하다. 그런 주장에 대한 증거가 전혀 없지 않은가. 그런 주장이 반복될 때마다 나는 통킹만 결의가 자꾸 생각난다. 거짓말에 편승해서 나라를 전쟁으로 몰아가서는 안 된단 말이다."
1964년 미국은 베트콩이 통킹만에서 미 구축함 두 척에게 어뢰공격을 해 왔다고 주장했습니다. 린든 존슨 당시 미대통령은 즉각 북베트남을 공습하도록 명령했고, 3일 후 미의회는 대통령에게 차후 피격을 방지하기 위해 필요한 모든 수단을 강구하라는 소위 '통킹만 결의안'을 통과시킵니다. 이 결의안은 이듬해 미국이 북베트남을 상대로 전면전을 벌이는 근거로 사용됐지요. 그런데 나중에 열린 의회 조사에 따르면 베트콩이 미 구축함을 공격했다는 애초의 주장은 거짓말인 것으로 드러났었습니다.
프리드만은 '통킹만 결의안'을 빗대어 부시 관리들에게 '거짓말 말라'고 직격탄을 날린 것입니다. 그는 이어서 "국민에게 진실을 말해라. 사담 후세인은 오늘날 우리에게 위협이 아니다. 그는 예방될 수 있다"고 덧붙였군요.
그뿐 아닙니다. 2월 25일자 칼럼에서는 뉴욕타임스의 다른 논객 폴 크루그만(Paul Krugman)이 부시의 신뢰성을 문제삼았습니다. 터키가 미국의 이라크 전쟁 지원 대가로 '크레딧 카드나 당좌 수표가 아니라 현찰'을 요구한 것은 그들이 부시를 못 믿기 때문이랍니다.
세계에서 부시를 못 믿는 것은 터키만이 아니랍니다. 비센테 폭스(Vicente Fox) 멕시코 대통령은 지난 대선에서 (멕시코계 미국인들을 부추겨서) 부시를 지원하는 대가로 멕시코계 불법 체류자들의 합법화를 약속 받았답니다. 하지만, 부시는 아직까지 그 약속을 지키지 않고 있습니다. 배신감을 느낀 폭스 대통령은 유엔안전보장이사회에서 부시의 이라크 전쟁안에 반대표를 던질 것이 확실하다는군요. 두 번 속겠느냐는 심정 때문이랍니다.
부시의 신뢰성은 국내에서도 의심받고 있답니다. 9.11사태가 나자 부시는 득달같이 뉴욕으로 달려와 소방관들과 사진도 찍고 TV 인터뷰도 했지요. 그 자리에서 부시는 피해복구 비용과 일선 소방관과 경찰관 지원비로 연방예산 35억 달러를 약속했었습니다.
그러나 지금까지 연방정부가 그 명목으로 뉴욕시에 전달한 돈은 땡전 한 푼(not a penny) 없다는군요. 생색은 있는 대로 내고, 지불은 되도록 미루는 전형적인 구두쇠 작전이지요. 돈 달라는 소리도 못하면서 속만 끓이는 뉴욕시 당국자들의 표정이 눈에 선합니다.
그런데 이것 참 재미있습니다. 친공화당계 <워싱턴포스트>의 대표논객 코엔은 민주당 하원의원이자 대통령 후보 출마가 유력한 쿠치니크를 거짓말쟁이로 몰아가는 칼럼을 썼습니다. 그 칼럼의 결론은 '그런 거짓말 자꾸 하면 민주당은 대선에서 또 진다'는 것이었지요.
한편 친민주당계 <뉴욕타임스>의 대표 칼럼니스트 프리드만과 크루그만은 부시 정부에게 '거짓말로 전쟁 일으키지 말라'고 쏘아붙였습니다. 게다가 부시 대통령은 '약속을 안 지키는 사람'이라면서 그의 신뢰성을 걸고 넘어갑니다. 지켜지지 않은 약속은 '거짓말'과 뭐가 다르냐는 것이지요.
그래서 지금 미국 정가는 '거짓말 싸움' 중입니다. 부시 관리들과 민주당 인사들이 좌충우돌합니다. 그 동안 분위기와 여론에 밀려 끽소리 못했던 민주당이 부시의 전쟁 정책에 딴지를 걸기 시작하면서 벌어지는 일들입니다. 더구나 언론이 논쟁에 뛰어들면서 열기는 점점 더 뜨거워집니다. 서로 내 말은 '정말'이고 너는 '거짓말쟁이'랍니다.
누가 정말을 했고 누가 거짓말을 했는지는 좀더 시간이 지나봐야겠지요. 관련 문서들이 비밀에서 해제돼야 하겠고요. 그때까지는 태평양 건너에서 서로 물고 뜯는 거짓말 논쟁을 느긋하게 관전해보는 것도 그다지 나쁜 일은 아니겠습니다. 다만, 미국의 거짓말 논쟁 주제가 이라크에서 북한으로 넘어오지만 않기를 바랄 뿐입니다.
덧붙이는 글 | <워싱턴포스트> 2003년 2월25일자 논설 원문
Antiwar And Illogical
By Richard Cohen
"Liar" is a word rarely used in Washington. This is not because the town lacks liars but because the word is so unambiguous -- so lacking in customary fudge -- that its use was long ago forbidden by, of course, consensus. So it was particularly shocking, not to mention refreshing, to hear Richard Perle on Sunday call Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) a liar to his face. I paused to see if the Washington Monument would crack down the middle.
It did not. Moreover, Kucinich himself seemed only momentarily fazed by Perle's sharp right to his integrity and went on, indomitable demagogue that he seems to be, to maintain that the coming war with Iraq will be fought to control that nation's oil. Kucinich, a presidential candidate, has made this charge before, and when Tim Russert asked him on "Meet the Press" to back it up, here is what he said:"I base that on the fact that there is $5 trillion worth of oil above and in the ground in Iraq, that individuals involved in the administration have been involved in the oil industry, that the oil industry would certainly benefit from having the administration control Iraq, and that the fact is that, since no other case has been made to go to war against Iraq, . . . oil represents the strongest incentive."
But it is not true that no other case has been made for war with Iraq. In fact, many cases have been made -- some persuasive, some not. Some were made by George Bush, some by Tony Blair, some by Republicans and some by Democrats. If you don't impose a deadline for the war, then the case for it was even made by the U.N. Security Council's Resolution 1441, endorsed, as it happens, by France. I don't think France, not to mention Syria, would have voted to secure Iraq's oil for America's energy companies.
Kucinich's accusation was too much for Perle, a Pentagon adviser and Washington's uber-hawk. He called Kucinich's argument "a lie."
"It is an out-and-out lie," he said. "And I'm sorry to see you give credence to it." But Kucinich, who must have studied logic in France, came roaring back. "Well, if America is not at threat, then what is this about? And many people are wondering: 'How did our oil get under their sand?' "
A better question is: How did this fool get on "Meet the Press"? The answer is disheartening. Not only is Kucinich running for president, but he has emerged -- along with former Vermont governor Howard Dean -- as the darling of antiwar Democrats who will have much influence in the Iowa caucuses. George Bush's war -- whether for a better world or more SUVs -- may well be fought hand to hand in the Iowa snows.
As for Dean, he too had something to say about Iraq over the weekend. Along with most of the other presidential candidates, he appeared before the Democratic National Committee and started right off with Iraq: "What I want to know is why in the world the Democratic Party leadership is supporting the president's unilateral attack in Iraq?"
If Dean was referring to the original congressional resolution, then maybe he's technically correct. But if the verb "is" means what it usually does, then he is just plain wrong. Britain supports the United States. That makes it bilateral. And Spain would make it trilateral, and Italy and Poland and the Netherlands and the Czech Republic make it multilateral. Whatever may have been Bush's initial preference, he did wind up going to the United Nations -- and, it seems, going and going and going. Why is Dean saying something so unilaterally wrong?
Because something truly awful has happened. The looming war has already become deeply and biliously ideological. By that I mean that the extremes on both sides -- but particularly the war's opponents -- no longer feel compelled to prove a case or stick to the facts. As with Vietnam, this is becoming an emotional battle between ideologues who, as usual, don't give a damn about the truth.
Kucinich seems to be one of those. He may be largely an unknown, but in liberal circles he's something of a hero. Despite a long antiabortion record, which he recently (conveniently?) renounced, he has been featured in the Nation, a venerable and respected liberal magazine. It's impossible to know whether Kucinich believes what he said or was merely repeating a lie because others believe it. Either way, if he and his fellow antiwar candidates are going to turn a complex debate into an ideological brawl, then one outcome of the potential war will not be in doubt: The Democratic Party will lose.
<뉴욕타임스> 2003년 2월19일자 논설 원문
Tell the Truth
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
As I was listening to the French foreign minister make his case at the U.N. for giving Saddam Hussein more time to comply, I was struck by the number of people in the Security Council chamber who applauded. I wish there were someone I could applaud for.
Sorry, I can't applaud the French foreign minister, because I don't believe that France, which sold Saddam his first nuclear reactor, the one Israel blew up, comes to this story with the lofty principles it claims. The French foreign minister, after basking in the applause at the U.N., might ask himself who was clapping for his speech back in Baghdad and who was crying. Saddam was clapping, and all his political prisoners ?i.e., most Iraqis ? were crying.
But I don't have much applause in me for China, Russia ?or the Bush team either. I feel lately as if there are no adults in this room (except Tony Blair). No, this is not a plague-on-all-your-houses column. I side with those who believe we need to confront Saddam ?but we have to do it right, with allies and staying power, and the Bush team has bungled that. The Bush folks are big on attitude, weak on strategy and terrible at diplomacy. I covered the first gulf war, in 1990-91. What I remember most are the seven trips I took with Secretary of State James A. Baker III around the world to watch him build ?face-to-face ?the coalition and public support for that war, before a shot was fired. Going to someone else's country is a sign you respect his opinion. This Bush team has done no such hands-on spade work. Its members think diplomacy is a phone call.
They don't like to travel. Seeing senior Bush officials abroad for any length of time has become like rare-bird sightings. It's probably because they spend so much time infighting in Washington over policy, they're each afraid that if they leave town their opponents will change the locks on their office doors.
Also, you would think that if Iraq were the focus of your whole foreign policy, maybe you would have handled North Korea with a little less attitude, so as not to trigger two wars at once.
Maybe you would have come up with that alternative ?which President Bush promised ?to the Kyoto treaty, a treaty he trashed to the great anger of Europe. You're not going to get much support in Europe telling people, "You are either with us or against us in a war on terrorism, but in the war you care about ?for a greener planet ?America will do whatever it wants."
I am also very troubled by the way Bush officials have tried to justify this war on the grounds that Saddam is allied with Osama bin Laden or will be soon. There is simply no proof of that, and every time I hear them repeat it I think of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. You don't take the country to war on the wings of a lie.
Tell people the truth. Saddam does not threaten us today. He can be deterred. Taking him out is a war of choice ?but it's a legitimate choice. It's because he is undermining the U.N., it's because if left alone he will seek weapons that will threaten all his neighbors, it's because you believe the people of Iraq deserve to be liberated from his tyranny, and it's because you intend to help Iraqis create a progressive state that could stimulate reform in the Arab/Muslim world, so that this region won't keep churning out angry young people who are attracted to radical Islam and are the real weapons of mass destruction.
That's the case for war ?and it will require years of occupying Iraq and a simultaneous effort to defuse the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to create a regional context for success. If done right, such a war could shrink Al Qaeda's influence ?but Al Qaeda is a separate enemy that will have to be fought separately, and will remain a threat even if Saddam is ousted.
It is legitimate for Europeans to oppose such a war, but not simply by sticking a thumb in our eye and their heads in the sand. It's also legitimate for the Bush folks to focus the world on Saddam, but two years of their gratuitous bullying has made many people deaf to America's arguments. Too many people today no longer accept America's strength as a good thing. That is a bad thing.
Some of this we can't control. But some we can, which is why it's time for the Bush team to shape up ?dial down the attitude, start selling this war on the truth, give us a budget that prepares the nation for a war abroad, not a party at home, and start doing everything possible to create a global context where we can confront Saddam without the world applauding for him.
<뉴욕타임스> 2003년2월25일자 논설
Threats, Promises and Lies
By PAUL KRUGMAN
So it seems that Turkey wasn't really haggling about the price, it just wouldn't accept payment by check or credit card. In return for support of an Iraq invasion, Turkey wanted ?and got ?immediate aid, cash on the barrelhead, rather than mere assurances about future help. You'd almost think President Bush had a credibility problem.
And he does.
The funny thing is that this administration sets great store by credibility. As the justifications for invading Iraq come and go ?Saddam is developing nuclear weapons; no, but he's in league with Osama; no, but he's really evil ?the case for war has come increasingly to rest on credibility. You see, say the hawks, we've already put our soldiers in position, so we must attack or the world won't take us seriously.
But credibility isn't just about punishing people who cross you. It's also about honoring promises, and telling the truth. And those are areas where the Bush administration has problems.
Consider the astonishing fact that Vicente Fox, president of Mexico, appears unwilling to cast his U.N. Security Council vote in America's favor. Given Mexico's close economic ties to the United States, and Mr. Fox's onetime personal relationship with Mr. Bush, Mexico should have been more or less automatically in America's column. But the Mexican president feels betrayed. He took the politically risky step of aligning himself closely with Mr. Bush ?a boost to Republican efforts to woo Hispanic voters ?in return for promised reforms that would legalize the status of undocumented immigrants. The administration never acted on those reforms, and Mr. Fox is in no mood to do Mr. Bush any more favors.
Mr. Fox is not alone. In fact, I can't think of anyone other than the hard right and corporate lobbyists who has done a deal with Mr. Bush and not come away feeling betrayed. New York's elected representatives stood side by side with him a few days after Sept. 11 in return for a promise of generous aid. A few months later, as they started to question the administration's commitment, the budget director, Mitch Daniels, accused them of "money-grubbing games."
Firefighters and policemen applauded Mr. Bush's promise, more than a year ago, of $3.5 billion for "first responders"; so far, not a penny has been delivered.
These days, whenever Mr. Bush makes a promise ?like his new program to fight AIDS in Africa ?experienced Bushologists ask, "O.K., that's the bait, where's the switch?" (Answer: Much of the money will be diverted from other aid programs, such as malaria control.) Then there's the honesty thing.
Mr. Bush's mendacity on economic matters was obvious even during the 2000 election. But lately it has reached almost pathological levels. Last week Mr. Bush ?who has been having a hard time getting reputable economists to endorse his economic plan ?claimed an endorsement from the latest Blue Chip survey of business economists. "I don't know what he was citing," declared the puzzled author of that report, which said no such thing.
What Americans may not fully appreciate is the extent to which similarly unfounded claims have, in the eyes of much of the world, discredited the administration's foreign policy. Whatever the real merits of the case against Iraq, again and again the administration has cited evidence that turns out to be misleading or worthless ?"garbage after garbage after garbage," according to one U.N. official.
Despite his decline in the polls, Mr. Bush hasn't fully exhausted his reservoir of trust in this country. People still remember the stirring image of the president standing amid the rubble of the World Trade Center, his arm around a fireman's shoulders ?and our ever-deferential, protective media haven't said much about the broken promises that followed. But the rest of the world simply doesn't trust Mr. Bush either to honor his promises or to tell the truth.
Can we run a foreign policy in the absence of trust? The administration apparently thinks it can use threats as a substitute. Officials have said that they expect undecided Security Council members to come around out of fear of being on the "wrong" side. And Mr. Bush may yet get the U.N. to acquiesce, grudgingly, in his war.
But even if he does, we shouldn't delude ourselves: whatever credibility we may gain by invading Iraq is small recompense for the trust we have lost around the world.
미NBC, 2003년 2월23일자 스크립트 (부분)
<언론과의 만남>
(전략)
MR. RUSSERT: Congressman, you made a very strong charge against the administration and let me show you what you said on January 19. Why is the Administration targeting Iraq? Oil. What do you base that on?
REP. KUCINICH: I base that on the fact that there is $5 trillion worth of oil above and in the ground in Iraq, that individuals involved in the administration have been involved in the oil industry, that the oil industry certainly would benefit from having the administration control Iraq, and that the fact is that, since no other case has been made to go to war against Iraq, for this nation to go to war against Iraq, oil represents the strongest incentive.
MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe the president of the United States would risk the lives of American men and women for oil?
REP. KUCINICH: I think that to answer that question would be to put a focus on a person, and I think the policy is what we have to talk about, that this policy to go against Iraq was promulgated even before 9/11, and the day after 9/11, the secretary of Defense in a meeting of the National Security Council said we could use this moment to go after Iraq, even though there was no connection. I think that when a president commits the young men and women of this country to battle, that it should only be when there is an imminent threat to this country, and that I believe most sincerely that one of the motivating factors involved in this effort to strike against Iraq is the desire on the part of some to be able to control the oil interests in Iraq. I believe that.
MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Perle, theres been discussion about the role of Israel and the formulation of American foreign policy regarding Iraq. Let me show you an article from The Washington Times, written by Arnold DeBorograf: The strategic objective is the antithesis of Middle Eastern stability. The destabilization of despotic regimes comes next. In the Arab bowling alley, one ball aimed at Saddam is designed to achieve a 10-strike that would discombobulate authoritarian and/or despotic regimes in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Emirates and sheikhdoms. The ultimate phase would see Israel surrounded by democratic regimes that would provide 5 million Israelissoon to be surrounded by 300 million Arabswith peace and security for
at least a generation. ...The roots of the overall strategy can be traced to a paper published in 1996 by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, an Israeli think tank. the document was titled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Security the Realm. ...Israel, according to the 1996 paper, would shape its strategic environment, beginning with the removal of Saddam Hussein... ...Prominent American opinion-makers who are now senior members of the Bush administration participated in the discussions and the drafting that led to this 1996 blueprint.
Can you assure American viewers across our country that were in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?
MR. PERLE: Well, first of all, the answer is absolutely yes. Those of us who believe that we should take this action if Saddam doesnt disarm and I doubt that he’s going to believe its in the best interests of the United States. I don’t see what would be wrong with surrounding Israel with democracies; indeed, if the whole world were democratic, wed live in a much safer international security system because democracies do not wage aggressive wars.
But please allow me to say: I find the accusation that this administration has embarked upon this policy for oil to be an outrageous, scurrilous charge for which, when you asked for the evidence, you will note there was none. There was simply the suggestion that, because there is oil in the ground and some administration officials have had connections with the oil industry in the past, therefore, it is the policy of the United States to take control of Iraqi oil. It is a lie, Congressman. It is an out and out lie. And I’m sorry to see you give credence to it.
(하략)
|
|