PhillyKev 0 #1 October 2, 2003 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... On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box". Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." Oh, you want a source? How about the US State Department http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #2 October 2, 2003 > He has not developed any significant capability with respect to > weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional > power against his neighbors. Well, the answer is obvious. He developed thousands of tons of bioweapons and chemical weapons between 3/01 and 1/03, then destroyed them all, leaving no trace, between 1/03 and 4/03. After all, he couldn't even defend or maintain his own country - no doubt all the top people were continually manufacturing and then detroying all those weapons. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #3 October 2, 2003 What...no conservative response to this one? Where's the screams of the "liberal media state department"? Where are the lists of liberals who made similar statements as the current administration? Where is the assertion that maybe the administration knows more than the general public? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #4 October 2, 2003 One more bump just to confirm that I really stumped you guys. Any of you Bushites want to explain away this one? At least be big enough to admit you've been wrong all along. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #5 October 2, 2003 I guess since I'm not a Bushite I shouldn't be answering the challenge. The fact is that most conservatives knew that the real reason for being in Iraq was to "clean up the block." When the war started, I knew that the only way to show the WMD's was if Hussein actually used them. Thus, there was a corner that the admin pushed themselves into. So was the admin full of shit about the WMD's? Yeah, probably. It's terrible when Republicans stoop to these tactics they so despise, i.e., telling people a reason they can stand behind whilst doing something for another reason altogether. The problem is that they learned from the left that these tactics are effective. Pass the Tylenol... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #6 October 2, 2003 QuoteThe fact is that most conservatives knew that the real reason for being in Iraq was to "clean up the block." If they didn't have WMD, and didn't pose a threat to their neighbors, let alone us (as Powell claimed), what exactly needed to be cleaned up? QuoteThe problem is that they learned from the left that these tactics are effective. Come on now, that's like the chicken or the egg question. You're saying that politics from the left were dirty and the right was pristine and corrupted by the left? All politics are dirty, that's why it's our responsibility to keep an eye on those in charge and hold them accountable for their deeds. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #7 October 2, 2003 QuoteThe 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... On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box". Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." Oh, you want a source? How about the US State Department http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm In pure political speak, this statement does not declare no WMD. This statement, in fact, states just the opposite (I bolded the portions where this is). The part I italicized, where's the source for this? It wasn't state.gov... So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #8 October 2, 2003 >The fact is that most conservatives knew that the real reason for > being in Iraq was to "clean up the block." So most conservatives knew that the stated reasons for the war was a lie? >The problem is that they learned from the left that these tactics are effective. Right! God knows the right would never go after a president for a lie told about his personal life, for example. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #9 October 2, 2003 i've been waiting for this for a very long time. i was yelling and screaming all along although sodamninsane is a fairly unsavory individual he was no threat. it comes as no surprise that ol Wyatt Earp & Doc Holliday at the very least exagerrated the WMD topic just to go in there and spend the billions and billions of taxpayer's dollars. the pair disgust me. the whole affair is a travesty and will go down as a "A Great Blunder In Military History". i get a kick out of ol' Wyatt traveling all over the world sucking up to all of the 3rd world leaders, when pre-invasion he was merely "burning up the phone lines" what an asshole. i'm incensed that our troops have been put in harms way merely for monitary gain, that SUKS. this event is costing the US taxpayer 4 billion dollars a month, not to mention the 87 billion ol' Wyatt is trying to get from congress right now. we have people here in the states with no job and no food, etc...how smart do we look now that we've invaded a nation that literally hates us and thinks we are the anti-christs, not to mention we spent billions to destroy the godforsaken place just to build the piece of shit back up. i'm shocked and appalled.--Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #10 October 2, 2003 QuoteIn pure political speak, this statement does not declare no WMD. This statement, in fact, states just the opposite (I bolded the portions where this is). The part I italicized, where's the source for this? It wasn't state.gov... I haven't developed any significant capability with respect two WMD either. Does that mean I have them? How is that the opposite of saying they don't exist. Come on now. http://www.memoryhole.org/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #11 October 2, 2003 QuoteQuoteIn pure political speak, this statement does not declare no WMD. This statement, in fact, states just the opposite (I bolded the portions where this is). The part I italicized, where's the source for this? It wasn't state.gov... I haven't developed any significant capability with respect two WMD either. Does that mean I have them? How is that the opposite of saying they don't exist. Come on now. http://www.memoryhole.org/ It acknowledges that a capability exists, albeit, not significant. In the example where you cite your WMD capability, the premise does not exist that you have killed hundreds of thousands of people in nerve gas attacks. John Pilger has several accomplishments to his credit, but his word, versus a dozen elected US Congressmen on what's happening in the middle east, I'll set Pilger aside, as his agenda is far more dangerous than any politician in my opinion.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #12 October 2, 2003 QuoteI'll set Pilger aside, as his agenda is far more dangerous than any politician in my opinion He's just a source for the quote. Don't know anything about him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Atlas 0 #13 October 2, 2003 I'd have to say you don't get a whole lot of responses when you state something like this because no one wants to get into a discussion with a hard headed person who will not listen to the other side of the debate. Just by reading what you have said in those two posts shows me that you are hard headed. It shows me that you wouldn't listen to reason and I, therefore, would be wasting my time trying to debate any point with you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #14 October 2, 2003 QuoteJust by reading what you have said in those two posts shows me that you are hard headed in response to your post to phillykev, he is entitled to say or state his opinion(s) about anything and yes, certainly politics if he so desires. this is really spooky, because him & i NEVER agree on anything. and if he continues to skydive he better remain "hard headed" political views always bring about much debate as they have in the past. i might not agree with everything you say, but i'll defend to the death your right to say it. g'day mate! --Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Atlas 0 #15 October 3, 2003 Aye, I don't mind what you say one bit, but if you're looking to debate something, you'd better be open to the other side :/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MarkF 0 #16 October 3, 2003 QuoteI'll set Pilger aside, as his agenda is far more dangerous than any politician in my opinion. Interesting, why do you say that ? Ooroo Mark F... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #17 October 3, 2003 QuoteI'd have to say you don't get a whole lot of responses when you state something like this because no one wants to get into a discussion with a hard headed person who will not listen to the other side of the debate. Just by reading what you have said in those two posts shows me that you are hard headed. It shows me that you wouldn't listen to reason and I, therefore, would be wasting my time trying to debate any point with you. See, I'm rather curious to hear the explanation on how Powell can sit around and say this....then a few year later pull out that tiny example of what Iraq may have, in front of the UN as a reason to bomb them to submission? Please, I'm realy curious. Want to know the best way to defeat a politician? Let them talk long enough and they will hang themself._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 568 #18 October 3, 2003 Excellent - forwarding that link to the BBC on that. Just listened to them harrassing Jack Straw (foreign secretary) on the Kay report. Sick to death on the arguments about Saddam was a bad guy and that justified the war, as firstly that is illegal and secondly what about my glorified leader (Mugabe/Zimbabwe) who the brits put in power 20yrs ago and whos documented to have killed several hundred thousand ppl?Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bch7773 0 #19 October 3, 2003 you from zimbabwe nigel? What part? I was there last summer... and things have gone to shit. MB 3528, RB 1182 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 568 #20 October 3, 2003 Harare - but I left 6yrs ago when Bob went mad.Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #21 October 3, 2003 Quotewhat about my glorified leader (Mugabe/Zimbabwe) well lets see: 1. Did he piss off Bush Senior? 2. Does Zimbabwe have oil? 3. Is there anything else Bush and his cronies can profit from in Zimbabwe? Sorry, the answer is no to all three questions, the US cannot come and bomb your country at this point in time, please check back with them in the future. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #22 October 3, 2003 QuoteQuoteI'll set Pilger aside, as his agenda is far more dangerous than any politician in my opinion. Interesting, why do you say that ? I can't provide extensive detail, but looking through Pilger's extensive run of accomplishments, it has been spent looking for the "bad" in everything. His most recent trip to Iraq is another example. I don't discount what he finds, I do discount what he finds as being the "norm". He's simply been doing it so long that he's missing the forest for the trees. Unfortunately, it's become an agenda. That's simply my opinion.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bch7773 0 #23 October 3, 2003 QuoteQuotewhat about my glorified leader (Mugabe/Zimbabwe) well lets see: 1. Did he piss off Bush Senior? 2. Does Zimbabwe have oil? 3. Is there anything else Bush and his cronies can profit from in Zimbabwe? Sorry, the answer is no to all three questions, the US cannot come and bomb your country at this point in time, please check back with them in the future. ok thats not quite right. look at what bush wants to do with North Korea... the answer to your questions would be still be no, but you can tell bush is itching to go in there. MB 3528, RB 1182 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #24 October 3, 2003 Quotebut you can tell bush is itching to go in there. Thats funny.... I though the Bush admin was trying to find a political and diplomatic solution to the N K situation.....Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #25 October 3, 2003 >but you can tell bush is itching to go in there. How? You can't take what political leaders say to be the truth. If that was the case, North Korea would have already turned the US into a vast fireball. I've found about the only way to find out what they really think is to look at their actions, not their words. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
