[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.