Hyde Backs Powell's Statement on Iraq

The Illinois Leader ^ | February 5, 2003 | Congressman Henry Hyde

[Deacon_m]

WASHINGTON) - U.S. Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-IL), chairman of the House International Relations Committee, commented on today's presentation by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell before the U.N. Security Council:

Secretary Powell presented a compelling argument and detailed evidence that should persuade anyone capable of being persuaded that Saddam continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. I am convinced that war can be avoided only if Saddam Hussein acts immediately to destroy his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, weapons he has freely used in the past and which he agreed to eliminate after his defeat in the Gulf War in 1991. His continuing failure to comply with numerous mandates of the United Nations threatens to reduce the UN to a meaningless institution unless the Security Council acts to enforce its resolutions.

History has taught us that we cannot permit a murderous tyrant like Saddam Hussein to tear up his agreements and to freely arm himself with a destructive capacity for use against the United States and the international community.

Saddam Hussein would not squander his country's resources on these weapons unless he intended to use them or give them to terrorists and others who have demonstrated a willingness to die in order to sow chaos and death. We can be certain that if terrorists acquire these weapons, they will use them, and we may find ourselves mourning the deaths of millions, not thousands.

Saddam has ignored repeated warnings from the United States and from the international community that he must disarm or face war. We must now demonstrate to those who would harm us that our warnings are not empty words and that we will act decisively to defend ourselves.

[Deacon_m]

No sooner had U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell made his before the U.N. Security Council my Congressman, Henry Hyde came out with a statesman- like comment on the policies of the United States concerning Iraq.

[steveegg]

One of the good guys bump.

[ez]

Alec Baldwin's reaction to this story?

"You know what we'd do if we lived in Iraq? We'd drag Henry Hyde and his family out in the street and we'd stone them...we'd stone them to death."

[Solamente]

"Secretary Powell presented a compelling argument..."

ARGUMENT?

[Momaw Nadon]

Attack on Iraq Betting Pool

[Carry_Okie]

I thought Powell's speech perfectly adequate to proving whether Iraq has violated UN resolutions and is producing chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction along with delivery systems appropriate for use by terrorists here in the USA. However, IMO, he did not make an adequate case (for political purposes) that Iraq is an immediate threat to USE those weapons against the USA or likely to pass them on to Al Quada.

If the UN fails to act to enforce its resolutions, It should not fall upon the United States to serve as a unilateral enforcer of UN resolutions. The US must be seen to be acting in its OWN self defense against Iraq as a certain aggressor, sovereign nation to sovereign nation, not as a proxy for the UN.

The thing that mystifies me is that, as I understand it, a case for such an assertion exists. Iraq was an abettor of both the Oklahoma City bombing and the first WTC attack. Both were terrorist attacks, both assisted by Iraq. Those facts establish that Iraq would indeed supply Al Quaeda with WMD and thus closes the loop on the justification to attack Iraq as an immediate threat to United States citizens.

Why isn't the Administration making THAT case?

[OneLoyalAmerican]

A man of honor bump.

[OneLoyalAmerican]

Secretary of State Colin Powell presented clear and convincing evidence. Proof beyond reasonable doubt; Saddam Hussein's Iraq again spits in the face of the United Nations.

[ImphClinton]

Bump

[bybybill]

They aren`t tying Iraq to OK City or the first WTC attack cause it would muddy the water and they don`t need it.

Just wait a little longer, Sadammnnn is finished. Our guys are doing good.

[Carry_Okie]

They aren`t tying Iraq to OK City or the first WTC attack cause it would muddy the water and they don`t need it.

Muddy hell; read the post more carefully.

It's not good enough for me. I don't want America's troops fighting a UN war, legally or otherwise.

[bybybill]

The war to remove Saddammmnn is never going to be a UN war. GWB shamed the UN into sending back the inspecters and Powell today made the case that the bastard has to go. The neat thing is that we are forcing the UN into backing our play. Why is that important? It shuts up the idiots here and more importantly, helps other countries support us. Not a bad deal,huh?

[Carry_Okie]

GWB shamed the UN into sending back the inspecters and Powell today made the case that the bastard has to go.

No, Powell made the case that Iraq is in material breach of 1441.

The neat thing is that we are forcing the UN into backing our play. Why is that important? It shuts up the idiots here and more importantly, helps other countries support us. Not a bad deal,huh?

No, a VERY bad deal. It places the UN sovereign over the internal affairs of a nation. That sets the UN up as a government. It's a very bad precedent.

This needs to be handled nation to nation. If there are allies who want to go with us, fine. I want no part of a UN action.

[bybybill]

That`s your opinion but me thinks you need to watch the all of the movie, we are going, With the UN or without them.