Grex Agora47 Conference

Item 133: What were Powell and Rice thinking?

Entered by sj2 on Tue Oct 28 07:36:30 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.
#1 of 8 by clees on Tue Oct 28 12:08:40 2003:

typical.. .

#2 of 8 by rcurl on Tue Oct 28 18:13:08 2003:

Nothing strange about this. Powell works for the president, and either
takes his orders - or resigns.

#3 of 8 by sj2 on Tue Oct 28 19:33:59 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.

#4 of 8 by sabre on Wed Oct 29 03:49:35 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 !!!

#5 of 8 by rcurl on Wed Oct 29 07:01:32 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".

#6 of 8 by tsty on Wed Oct 29 07:29:46 2003:

i'll be back ....

#7 of 8 by tsty on Fri Nov 14 07:54:13 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.

#8 of 8 by willcome on Thu Nov 27 08:25:51 2003:

I hate dried up whores.

There are no more items selected.

You have several choices: