"Goats and Cows! Powell punkslapped me like a little ho!"
Posted on 09/17/2004 6:17:37 AM PDT by ejdrapes
[snip] QUESTION: What is your reaction to Kofi Annan’s pronouncement about Iraq, about our action in Iraq? I'm curious, obviously, what you think about that. I'm not -- I don't recall he's used the word "illegal" before. Also, is that really helpful to our efforts to, you know, increase international involvement and also to the Iraqis' effort to try to establish a peaceful situation over there? SECRETARY POWELL: I think the Secretary General -- I can't give you a LexisNexis of what he may have said over the past year, but he has certainly always felt that it is an action that should not have been taken without additional Security Council resolutions or action. We feel that it is entirely legal and legal in accordance with UN Security Councils of the past. And I don't know if Nexis had our briefing earlier today, but we'll make available to the press Will Taft's, my Legal Advisor's long article that was published last summer in a legal journal that makes the case that what we did was totally consistent with international law and consistent with the UN's own resolution over a period of time. You have to keep in mind that President Clinton, in 1998, also took a military action and bombed Iraq without seeking a Security Council resolution, and I don't recall this kind of a reaction. So it was not illegal. We agree with what you heard from the British Government and the Australian Government. It's been our position all along. And as I read the transcript, the Secretary General was sort of drawn into this conversation by a very, very good reporter and who finally took him up to the last step where he used the word "illegal." But we don't accept that judgment. I don't think it was a useful statement to make at this point. What does it gain anyone? We should all be gathering around the idea and the prospect of helping the Iraqi people, helping the Iraqi Government, and not getting into these kinds of side issues which are not relevant any longer. QUESTION: Let me just follow up a little bit. I understand that our position is, your position is, that it's in conformity with the UN, et cetera, but it's not -- I assume it's not our government's position that it would be illegal if it wasn't. Presumably, we can assert our own sovereignty and act when we feel like we need to and not (inaudible) illegal. SECRETARY POWELL: We always -- we always have the inherent right of self-defense and the UN Charter provides for that. QUESTION: But even without the UN Charter and the supremacy of self-defense -- SECRETARY POWELL: Even without the UN Charter, the President of the United States is empowered by the Constitution of the United States, in the name of the American people, to protect the American people. And it's the first and foremost obligation of an American President. So we would rest on that if we needed to. In this instance, we rest on that but we don't need to because there's a consistent body of international law and 12 years worth of resolutions that we can rest the case on. And I am the author of the resolution, one of the principal authors of 1441, and we knew exactly what we were saying. And it was a subject of exquisite debate, down to commas and articles. You remember, Tony. Or versus and. Nick will remember. And the biggest fight we had in the early stages of 1441 was in the first operative paragraph that said they are in material breach, remain in material breach, and we're giving them a chance to get out of material breach. So there was never any question about the sins. Now, some of my Security Council colleagues -- the French particularly -- wanted to sort of say, forget that, let's just start from now. And our argument was, no, we're not going to ignore 12 years of material breach in order to start the clock running all over again. The clock has been running for 12 years and we're giving them one last chance to get out of material breach, and they didn't take it. [snip]
Kofi's worried about Food for Oil... it's gonna bite him big.
I hope he is swallowed up in the bribes for oil scandal. He's a arrogant and stupid twit with few credentials to be in his position.
I thought that was a prerequisite for being in the UN.
Isn't President Bush supposed to address the General Assembly next week?
Looks like Kofi is doing his standard Bash-America preening-for-the-third-world screed prior to having the US Commander in Chief visit his miserable abode.
He is a first class JOKE, and so is the UN.
Regardless of Annan's credentials or qualifications, I think it's the position itself that needs to be reevaluated....
pong
How 'bout the entire organization and concept?
Better yet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.