Interview with William Karel on the film THE WORLD ACCORDING TO BUSH
I read Éric Laurent’s first book, La Guerre des Bush, while I was making my previous film on the CIA [CIA, guerres secrètes, broadcast on Arte]. I had just finished shooting and I was about to begin editing when it was published. I found it fascinating. To the extent that I even went back to see one of the people that I had questioned because I had learnt some new things about him. After the film, I read the second book, Le Monde secret de Bush, with the same interest. And then, one morning, Jean-François Lepetit and Agnès Vicariot called me to tell me that they had just bought the rights and wanted me to adapt it. CIA, guerres secrètes was my seventh documentary on the USA so I felt that I had more or less finished dealing with the issue… At the same time, it was becoming like a sort of serial for me and I was eager to see what would happen next. The film was broadcast at the very start of the war in Iraq and I was keen to return to the USA to see how things were developing there. So I accepted.
Did you try to find all the witnesses that Éric Laurent had met for his investigation ?
That wasn’t really possible. It’s much easier to contact people when you work for the written press. Firstly, because of the reputation of a newspaper (Éric Laurent was writing for Le Figaro) but, above all, because you can quote them under the cover of anonymity, something which is clearly impossible on television. Especially as my films tend to use direct accounts because I usually deal with already historical subjects and the witnesses, in general, are no longer obliged to respect confidentiality. Here, we were dealing with current events, so there was an immediate barrier.
So, as a result, your film favours extremely critical witnesses …
It’s true that people like Stanley Hoffmann or Norman Mailer don’t hold the Bushes in particularly high esteem and, indeed, hate them outright. There are also people whom you could call "dissidents", like David Kay or Joe Wilson, who have worked for Georges W. Bush’s administration but who have now resigned. As for those who support Bush and the war in Iraq, they virtually all refused to appear. We tried twenty times at least to approach Paul Wolfowitz but he sent us packing each time. I won’t even mention Bush senior… The worst one is Dick Cheney: it’s impossible to get near anyone in his entourage.
And as for the few who accepted…
We obtained Richard Perle because I had known him since my previous film and he owns a house in France but, above all, because he no longer holds any official function. The only "official" member of Bush’s entourage who agreed to speak to us was David Frum, the writer of the president’s speeches and "inventor" of the "axis of evil" catchphrase. For other witnesses, things were more complex. Frank Carlucci was willing to talk to us but not about everything. He categorically refused to talk about the ties between Saddam Hussein and Bush senior and was horrified to think that we could even raise the issue. Michael Ledeen, one of Reagan’s former advisers, was in a more ambiguous position. He has remained loyal to Bush senior but has no particular sympathy for his son. He was willing to refer discreetly to the weapons of mass destruction but he wouldn’t go much further. Just think: if Bush junior finds them, he will have to explain that his it was his own father who shipped the weapons to Iraq when he was in office!
Certain people saw your previous film, Opération Lune, a hoax documentary, as an attack on America. With this new film, you aggravate the case…
Even if I don’t give my own point of view directly, it’s hard to remain objective about such a subject and, to be honest, I don’t have much faith in objectivity in a documentary. I cannot conceal my antipathy for the Bushes and their entourage, for what they are and for what they do.
People could reply that they didn’t set up the system that they are using, notably this collusion between politics and the military industrial complex. In the days of Nixon, Kissinger, etc., things weren’t much better…
That’s true. In fact, Eisenhower, in his farewell speech, already warned the Americans of the danger that the development of the military-industrial complex represented for democracy. But the thing that has changed is the president’s position. Nixon was an unscrupulous manipulator true, but he was above all an intelligent man who took part in the all the decisions taken by the White House, who was never sidestepped by his advisers. When George W. Bush states, as he did recently, that he hadn’t been informed about the cases of torture in the prison of Abou Ghraib, the worst thing is that I believe him! The man isn’t aware of anything, most of the decisions go above his head. Nixon was capable of working 23 hours a day but Bush junior takes five-hour naps in the middle of a war! Another totally new element is the weight and influence of the presidential entourage. Just think, Bush senior is on the board of Carlyle and so indirectly sells the tanks and missiles that the Pentagon needs to wage his son’s war! Cheney’s wife is with Lockheed-Martin that sells military equipment to her husband! Cheney himself, former CEO of Halliburton, now helps to enrich that same company! It doesn’t seem credible! These people make money by every means possible, without the least morality or any feelings of impunity. In order to illustrate this aspect of the situation, I decided to refer to the meeting of the Carlyle board that a member of the bin Laden family attended on the morning of September 11 2001. In itself, it doesn’t really mean much but, symbolically, it sums up the situation perfectly: just as his brother’s hirelings were crashing two planes into the Twin Towers, Shafiq bin Laden was calmly discussing business with George Bush Sr.
Even so, eight films about the USA and not about its most glorious aspects… Do you have a problem with the country ?
Well, no. (laughter). I’m very fond of the country. Because of what it represented for the people of my generation: a model, the origin of all the emancipation and contestation movements. But also because it’s very pleasant to work there. When I was making my film on the Giscard years [VGE, le théâtre du pouvoir, broadcast on France 3], it was a genuine nightmare obtaining interviews about events that took place 30 years ago! In the USA, once people have left office, they talk openly. The director of the FBI who appears in my film on the CIA left his job on a Friday evening. The following day, Saturday, we started filming his interview! For the former CIA agents, it was a little more complex because a law prevents them from even writing a single line without having it approved by the Agency. But there’s a judicial void concerning TV interviews that they eagerly give en masse. When I went to see the men who had been ordered to prepare Castro’s assassination, they would start by asking me, "Are you really interested in all these old stories?" then they would start telling them. On top of that, I love American politics; I read a great deal, I gather documentation. When you have a pass to enter the White House or a 24-hour pass for the Pentagon, that’s a wonderful thing. When I was shooting Les Hommes de la Maison Blanche, Clinton had just taken office and so didn’t feature in the film at all. But his press agent asked us if we would like to follow him for a day… I dropped everything to do that. For the simple pleasure of being in the escorts, of seeing how everything works… A child-like fascination.
So, in spite of everything, you still have hope in the USA…
When I look at what is happening in American society, from the return to "traditional values" to Mel Gibson’s film, via the furore over Janet Jackson’s breast, the banishing of live TV broadcasts, the dismissal of certain journalists, the Patriot Act, the unwavering support for Sharon who is forcing Israel towards suicide, etc., I can’t help but feel dismayed because I see all that as a step back. But, at the same time, you have the demonstration by a million women protesting against any change to the law on abortion, you have the films of Michael Moore, you have the senator Robert Byrd, a man of 85 who looks who as if he has just stepped out of a film by John Ford and who pronounced a violent diatribe against the Bush administration… Not everyone is asleep.
What can a film like yours change ?
Nothing. CIA, guerres secrètes mentioned the famous report of August 6 that the Agency sent to George W. Bush to warn him of the imminence of a terrorist attack. I met two directors of the CIA who showed it to me – outside of our interviews because they couldn’t speak about it – and I used this element in the commentary, giving the date, showing the first page and questioning an agent who had had it in his hands… There must have been 4 minutes of the film devoted to it in all and Arte broadcast the film at 8:40 PM. Well, it went totally unnoticed! One year later, Le Monde ran a headline that read "Rumours of a missing report…" This makes me very angry but, deep down, I lost my illusions when I made Histoire d’une extrême droite that related the rise of Le Pen. Among the letters that I subsequently received, most of which were insults, there was a woman who congratulated me saying, "Thank you for opening my eyes. I had supported Le Pen for 15 years. I have just shifted my allegiance to Bruno Mégret!" (laughter).
Christophe Kechroud-Gibassier