Posted on 02/05/2003 9:28:24 AM PST by Indy Pendance
UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- Secretary of State Colin Powell, methodically making his case that Iraq had defied all demands that it disarm, presented tape recordings, satellite photos and informant statements Wednesday that he said constituted "irrefutable and undeniable" evidence that Saddam Hussein is concealing weapons of mass destruction.
"Clearly, Saddam will stop at nothing until something stops him," Powell told a skeptical U.N. Security Council, saying Baghdad's denials constitute a "web of lies."
Three months after Iraq pledged that it would disarm, Powell presented his evidence in an appearance that was televised live around the world. The Council members - joined by Iraq's U.N. ambassador - sat around a large circular table with Powell and listened attentively.
Of the 15 Council members, only the United States and Britain have voiced support for forcibly disarming Saddam.
Tang Jiaxuan, China's foreign minister, said immediately after Powell's presentation that the work of the weapons inspectors should continue. "As long as there is still the slightest hope for political settlement, we should exert our utmost effort to achieve that," he said.
Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov agreed. While saying he had listened closely to Powell's presentation, he said he believed more study and analysis was needed of the new evidence presented by the United States. Meanwhile, inspections "must be continued," he said.
Coming to Powell's defense, British Foreign Minister Jack Straw said the secretary made a "most powerful" case. Saddam is "gambling that we will lose our nerve rather than enforce our will," Straw said. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov
In a more than hour-long presentation, Powell also detailed the U.S. claims that Baghdad and al-Qaida operatives are working together and that some followers of a senior lieutenant of Osama bin Laden are currently in the Iraqi capital, with the approval of Saddam.
Saddam, in an interview broadcast Tuesday in London, denied his government has a relationship with the al-Qaida or has weapons of mass destruction. He said it would be impossible to hide such arms.
In his presentation, Powell:
-Asserted that Iraq "bulldozed and graded to conceal chemical weapons evidence" at the Al Musayyib chemical complex in 2002, and had a series of cargo vehicles and a decontamination vehicle moving around at the site. Powell said that was corroborated by a human source.
-Played an audio tape between Iraqi military officers purportedly discussing hiding prohibited vehicles form weapons inspectors. He said the tape was an intercepted conversation between officers in Saddam's Republican Guard.
The voices were discussing a modified vehicle one of them had that was made by an Iraqi company, which Powell said was a weapons manufacturer.
"We have this modified vehicle," one of them said as the two discussed a pending visit by a U.N. weapons inspector.
"I'm worried you all have something left," the second voice says.
"We evacuated everything. We don't have anything left," the other replies.
-Cited informants as saying that Iraqis are dispersing rockets armed with biological weapons in western Iraq.
-Presented declassified satellite pictures that he said were 15 munitions bunkers. Powell said four of them had active chemical munitions inside.
-Said Iraqi informants claim that Iraq has 18 trucks that it uses as mobile biological weapons labs.
-Played a tape recording of an intercepted conversation between two commanders in the Republican Guard. Powell said they discussed removing a reference to nerve agents from written instructions.
Powell presented his case in a rapid-fire delivery, moving from tape recordings to photos and other evidence without pause.
He said his case was persuasive that Iraq is hiding its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs and missile activity and was deliberately misleading inspectors. "I believe this conclusion is irrefutable and undeniable," he said.
"The issue before us is not how much time we are willing to give the inspectors to be frustrated by Iraqi obstruction, but how much longer are we willing to put up with Iraq's noncompliance before we as a Council, we as the United Nations say: `Enough. Enough.' "
Most U.S. allies, including France and Germany, want more time for U.N. weapons inspectors to do their work in Iraq. But Bush and his top national security aides have said repeatedly that the United States - with or without its allies - will forcibly disarm Iraq if it does not immediately comply with U.N. resolutions requiring it to rid itself of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
Five members of the council hold veto power: the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China.
As he opened his presentation, Powell reminded the Council that it had voted unanimously last Nov. 8 for a resolution - U.N. Resolution 1441 - that "gave Iraq one last chance to come into compliance or to face serious consequences."
"No Council member present...had any illusion...what serious consequences meant," he said.
Following a White House breakfast that Bush had with congressional leaders in advance of Powell's presentation, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware said: "If I had this evidence before a jury that was an unbiased jury, I could get a conviction."
But Biden, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said "we're talking about a different stage. (Powell) has a tougher jury and there is a lot of skepticism that exists in the international community."
So saying we should deal with N.K. "first" is a cover for doing nothing about Iraq. But you knew that, didn't you?
Yeah, they are resorting to name calling and profanity again. Emotions are the only argument a liberal can muster up. Pathetic.
You're kidding us right? By the sounds of it, the U.N wasn't the only one asleep. I ask what more "Proof" you would need? WMD,Human testing, outright deliberate lies and distortions, moving and hiding of their "Proof" is not enough for you? What more evidence could Powell give I ask?
Conservatives rejoice! The U.N. is dead. It just doesn't know it yet...
That is a delaying tactic. We WILL drop an egg on NK before this is over...
Not yet, but this problem isn't going away and will very likely get worse in the coming months. Which is, of course, all the more reason to resolve the Iraq situation sooner rather than later, and with extreme prejudice.
Apparently not...
What I saw real-time was that satellite (?) video of that Iraqi F-1 Mirage spraying the simulated anthrax (2000 L) out of its tail end. I've been looking around but haven't found it on the web yet to post a link.
*Sigh* Are you incapable of remembering anything for more than three seconds or what? The taped phone call is proof that Iraq has NOT been complying with UN Resolution 1441. That, in and of itself, is justification for military action, as set forth in the resolution which was approved by ALL 15 members of the UN Security Council several months ago.
A "clear and present threat to this nation" is NOT, and HAS NEVER BEEN, a condition of action pursuant to UN Resolution 1441.
So, you intended your comment to mean we NEVER need to deal with Iraq - it could be interpreted that way. I just didn't think anyone could be that . . . well, you know.
I guess I'm one of those poor ignorant saps who thought President Bush and Secretary Powell have made a compelling case - you did watch Secretary Powell today, didn't you and the SOTU speech? Willing to bet your keester that none of that chem/bio would ever show up in the US and Saddam would never use a nuke?
The blood for oil argument is so stupid. First, we have plenty of oil now and Saddam wants to sell more not less. Second, there are places we can get more without going to war, like Russia or ANWR or a mild step-up in Saudi production. Third, if we wanted to go to war for oil there are lots easier places to go, like sending peacekeepers to Venezuela which barely has an army much less nerve gas.
Your handle evidences some confusion - are you concealing French ancestry?
I don't particularly care about UN resolutions either. Its being demonstrated pretty clearly that they're not much interested in actually enforcing them. Nevertheless, the widespread international support represented by the UN resolution is significant: it suggests that the situation in Iraq IS a concern to everyone, not just the U.S. It isn't just our interests that are in play here, though that alone should be sufficient justification. I think you're forgetting that our last three presidents have had to contend with Hussein, that terrible oppression is exercised by his regime, and that not too long ago, he invaded and plundered a neighboring country, and allowed murder, rape, and pillage to be inflicted on its population.
In any case, I think Tony Blair made the argument as to why Iraq poses a threat: there are weapons of mass destruction in the hands of someone who is an avowed enemy of the U.S., in a part of the world teeming with terrorists of a similar bent who are willing to die in the delivery of a weapon. Sooner or later, the two are going to find each other. The world (and the U.S. in particular) can't sit around and wait until they do find each other before it does something about it.
When you look at Hussein, his appetite for weapons of mass destruction, his hostility toward the U.S., Israel, and even his Arab neighbors, the prevelance of terrorists and countries that are permissive towards them, and the suicidal inclinations of those terrorists who would barely think twice before killing themselves in the delivery of a weapon - its hard for me to understand why there are still so many who can't see why we need to remove Hussein, scour Iraq for weapons, and help them move toward a more democratic society, or at least towards one which is less hostile to the U.S. and the world.
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.