|
Grex > Agora47 > #133: What were Powell and Rice thinking? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
sj2
|
|
What were Powell and Rice thinking?
| 
Oct 28 07:36 UTC 2003 |
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm
Although, the title is misleading because Powell at no point says that
Iraq has no WMDs (infact he explicitly says they might have them) but
the whole thing still contradicts the statements made in 2003.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But two years earlier, Powell said just the opposite. The occasion was
a press conference on 24 February 2001 during Powell's visit to Cairo,
Egypt. Answering a question about the US-led sanctions against Iraq,
the Secretary of State said:
We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President
and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the
fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the
Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's
ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should
constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those
sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose.
That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago
when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed
any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass
destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his
neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security
of the neighbors of Iraq...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| 8 responses total. |
clees
|
|
response 1 of 8:
|
Oct 28 12:08 UTC 2003 |
typical.. .
|
rcurl
|
|
response 2 of 8:
|
Oct 28 18:13 UTC 2003 |
Nothing strange about this. Powell works for the president, and either
takes his orders - or resigns.
|
sj2
|
|
response 3 of 8:
|
Oct 28 19:33 UTC 2003 |
Despite this, I still favour Powell. He seems to be the sensible one of
the whole lot. I believe he played a crucial role in getting that UN
resolution and the donor's conference.
|
sabre
|
|
response 4 of 8:
|
Oct 29 03:49 UTC 2003 |
RE#0
Sheesh..would you quit quoting from the "politics for idiots" handbook?
That crap is so.......OLD!
I guess this will be the liberal strategy in 94. Beating this dead horse as
in ARGUMENTUM AD NAUSEUM !!!
|
rcurl
|
|
response 5 of 8:
|
Oct 29 07:01 UTC 2003 |
I see, if it contradicts your preconceptions it is "so......OLD". However
it is exactly a persons past that is one of the best measures of their
likely future. So, nothing really is "so......OLD".
|
tsty
|
|
response 6 of 8:
|
Oct 29 07:29 UTC 2003 |
i'll be back ....
|
tsty
|
|
response 7 of 8:
|
Nov 14 07:54 UTC 2003 |
... 'so.... OLD' as clinton's proclamations about the *necessity* of
taking saddam out? u.n. resolutions <how many....17?> demanding
disarmament and PROOF of same?
nothing isreally 'so.....OLD' as a prejudiced mammory gone dry.
|
willcome
|
|
response 8 of 8:
|
Nov 27 08:25 UTC 2003 |
I hate dried up whores.
|