Powell Makes Iraq Case With Photos, Tapes

AP ^ | February 5, 2003 | BARRY SCHWEID

[colorado tanker]

Hey there, Einstein, once a country actually builds a nuke your options go way down. You can't send an army in to disarm N.K as you can with Iraq because N.K. would nuke Seoul as well as our troops. So, we're forced into diplomacy due to the utter failure of the Clinton administration to deal with N.K.

So saying we should deal with N.K. "first" is a cover for doing nothing about Iraq. But you knew that, didn't you?

[scan59]

Re: DU

Yeah, they are resorting to name calling and profanity again. Emotions are the only argument a liberal can muster up. Pathetic.

[PatrioticAmerican]

Syria only showed their hatred for Israel and called for attacking Israel if we attack Iraq. Syria claimed Iraq was "cooperating".

Screw Syria!

[Japedo]

If that was the best that this administration can muster in order to justify an invasion that risks the lives and fortunes of this great country, then it becomes glaringly obvious that there simply isn't much there.

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?

[Uncle Miltie]

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.

Conservatives rejoice! The U.N. is dead. It just doesn't know it yet...

[ez]

North Korea has nukes and delivery systems, but we want dialogue with them.

That is a delaying tactic. We WILL drop an egg on NK before this is over...

[kesg]

North Korea has never used WMD on any other country, and has never used them on their own people.

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.

[Aquinasfan]

I'm sold. Let the bombing begin.

[talleyman]

There is no evidence that is sufficient for one who does not want to believe.

[Japedo]

There is no evidence that is sufficient for one who does not want to believe

Apparently not...

[jiggyboy]

CNN has a transcript, too.

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.

[Sicon]

"If a taped phone call of two idiots talking about clearing out a field of any ammo they could get in trouble for constitutes a clear and present threat to this nation, it's a sad day indeed. Long live the Republic."

*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.

[OhhTee5]

Another point...remember the past.

In the past IRAQ has used chemical weapons against its own people.

During the Gulf War, chemical weapon detectors went off after artillary barrages. News footage showed people scrambling to put on gas masks with detectors wailing in the background. We have lots of evidence that IRAQ used these "banned" weapons on numerous occasions.

Do we want to wait until a weapon is unleashed in the US, example 9/11? IRAQ has proven from past experience to not hesitate to use these, and other so "banned" weapons. Rules and treaties mean nothing to them.

The evidence is clear, Powell's presentation was very strong, it's time to clean this mess up now. Then we can take care of North Korea if needed.

As far as the naysayers: reminds me of a saying one of my Petty Officer's said when they caught someone in a lie: "You wouldn't admit to sh$t if it was smeared all over your face, and even then you'd swear it was chocolate".

[Rockitz]

Busted!

Time to collect up your billions and get out of Dodge, Saddam.

[abraxas_sandiego]

Who in the hell cares about U.N. resolutions--- are you an American, or do you cede this country's sovereignty to a America-haters? Think something through instead of parroting a bunch of stupid U.N. " resolutuions ".

[abraxas_sandiego]

Where did I say we needed to deal with N.K. first? Learn to read and think something through, genius.

[colorado tanker]

Where did I say we needed to deal with N.K. first? Learn to read and think something through, genius.

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?

[abraxas_sandiego]

low blow...

[Sicon]

"Who in the hell cares about U.N. resolutions--- are you an American, or do you cede this country's sovereignty to a America-haters?"

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.