1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Powell claimed Iraq had no significant wmd wmd and was no threat in Mar. 2001!!!

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by glynch, Sep 26, 2003.

Tags:
  1. glynch

    glynch Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    18,087
    Likes Received:
    3,605
    Powell Tries to Explain 2001 Remarks on Iraq
    Thu Sep 25, 5:38 PM ET Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!

    UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) tried on Thursday to explain away remarks on Iraq (news - web sites) dating back to the beginning of the Bush administration, before the United States decided to invade Iraq.

    Speaking in Cairo in February 2001, on his first Middle East trip, Powell said that Iraq had not developed "any significant capacity" in weapons of mass destruction and was not able to attack his neighbors with conventional weapons.

    A former Democratic congressional aide dug out his remarks this week and has circulated them to the media.

    Asked why he changed his assessment, Powell said: "I didn't change my assessment... I did not say he (Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)) didn't have weapons of mass destruction."

    "He was a threat then. The extent of his holdings were yet to be determined. It was early in the administration and the fact of the matter is it was long before 9/11 (the date of the 2001 attacks on the United States)," he added.

    Powell noted that his objective at the time was to muster international support for a new U.N. sanctions system designed to ease the flow of civilian goods to Iraq while tightening controls over imports of possible military value.

    The United States eventually changed the sanctions system but after the attacks the Bush administration gradually shifted its Iraq policy to one of "regime change" by military force.

    The main rationale cited for invading Iraq was that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and might pass them on to extremist groups like al Qaeda.

    But since last March's invasion no one has been able to find any such weapons in Iraq, nor evidence of a link between Saddam and al Qaeda, the group blamed for the 2001 attacks.

    "A lot changed between February 2001 (and the invasion), but I don't find anything inconsistent between what I said then and what I've said all along," Powell said.

    Speaking in Cairo in 2001 after a meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak (news - web sites), Powell said sanctions had worked.

    "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place," he added.
    ***********

    Powell noted that his objective at the time was to muster international support for a new U.N. sanctions system designed to ease the flow of civilian goods to Iraq while tightening controls over imports of possible military value.

    I love this part where he explains why he made the statement while trying to deny he made it.
     
    #1 glynch, Sep 26, 2003
  2. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    471
    #2 mc mark, Sep 26, 2003
  3. MadMax

    MadMax Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    76,683
    Likes Received:
    25,924
    were his earlier comments recorded in some verifiable fashion?
     
    #3 MadMax, Sep 26, 2003
  4. rimrocker

    rimrocker Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 1999
    Messages:
    23,140
    Likes Received:
    10,208
    Press Remarks with Foreign Minister of Egypt Amre Moussa

    Secretary Colin L. Powell
    Cairo, Egypt (Ittihadiya Palace)
    February 24, 2001

    "We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue.

    http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm
     
    #4 rimrocker, Sep 26, 2003
  5. glynch

    glynch Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    18,087
    Likes Received:
    3,605
    Yes, Rimrocker, but do you have a verified official transcript of that state Department document, complete with a continuous chain of custody?:)

    Hey the original story I saw with Greg Palast , who I believe broke the story, had another humorous (black humor) statement abour Iraq and Sadam being no threat made pre 9/11 by Condoleeza Rice. I'll look for it a bit.
     
    #5 glynch, Sep 26, 2003
  6. MadMax

    MadMax Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    76,683
    Likes Received:
    25,924
    hey!! i'm not that unreasonable!!! his pants are down on this one, as best i can tell.

    not your pants, rimrocker. :D mr. powell's.
     
    #6 MadMax, Sep 26, 2003
  7. glynch

    glynch Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    18,087
    Likes Received:
    3,605
    Remember, 9/11 changed everything! Recent props to Rocketman Tex.

    Powell should have tried that line. Or is it getting too old to be used, except in jest?
     
    #7 glynch, Sep 26, 2003
  8. rimrocker

    rimrocker Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 1999
    Messages:
    23,140
    Likes Received:
    10,208
    If the information posted on a Federal Government website rises to the threshold of a Federal Record as defined by the Federal Records Act, then it is a legal and legitimate Federal record and is subject to all the provisions set up by the act, as well as FOIA, which has a slightly different definition of record. The key idea is that the information, not the medium, makes the record. So, the above referenced web page is an official Federal record with established provenance regardless of whether there is a paper copy in existence.:)
     
    #8 rimrocker, Sep 26, 2003
  9. Murdock

    Murdock Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2002
    Messages:
    180
    Likes Received:
    2
    Glynch,

    He did..

    He was a threat then. The extent of his holdings were yet to be determined. It was early in the administration and the fact of the matter is it was long before 9/11 (the date of the 2001 attacks on the United States)," he added.
     
    #9 Murdock, Sep 26, 2003
  10. glynch

    glynch Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    18,087
    Likes Received:
    3,605
    rimrocker, it was just a lawyer joke with Max. throwing around terms like "chain of custody". Demanding evidence of the highest legal quality.
     
    #10 glynch, Sep 26, 2003
  11. rimrocker

    rimrocker Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 1999
    Messages:
    23,140
    Likes Received:
    10,208
    Hence the :) in my answer.
     
    #11 rimrocker, Sep 26, 2003
  12. HayesStreet

    HayesStreet Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    8,507
    Likes Received:
    181
    What does that have to do with her being black?
     
    #12 HayesStreet, Sep 26, 2003
  13. rimrocker

    rimrocker Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 1999
    Messages:
    23,140
    Likes Received:
    10,208
    Does anyone besides me find it curious that when we were claiming Saddam had all these WMDs we were massing troops just over the border and thus creating a nice target for WMDs? Am I being too conspiratorial by thinking we might have known he had no WMDs and were thus relatively safe by staging troops in such a vulnerable fashion?
     
    #13 rimrocker, Sep 26, 2003
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)

Share This Page