Interested to see/hear what Congress saw/heard yesterday...also..i bolded part about a CBS Newspoll...assuming the poll is correct, what's all this, "americans aren't convinced" stuff? 67% approved of removing him from power before the speech the other night! 77% did afterward. call americans stupid all you want...but don't say they're not convinced. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/nation/1757197 Congress given a peek at case against Saddam Powell to lay out evidence at U.N. By MICHAEL HEDGES and KAREN MASTERSON Copyright 2003 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau RESOURCES Next week, Secretary of State Colin Powell will lay out to the United Nations what the White House believes is a persuasive case that Saddam's regime has weapons of mass destruction and substantive links to al-Qaida terrorists, top administration officials said. President Bush, on the road in Michigan, called for the United Nations to stiffen its resolve for disarming Saddam. "I wanted the United Nations to be something more than an empty debating society," Bush told an audience to loud applause. "The risks of doing nothing, the risks of assuming the best from Saddam Hussein are simply not worth taking." He added, "In my judgment, you don't contain Saddam Hussein. You don't hope that therapy will somehow change his evil mind." As part of an intense lobbying effort to gain backing for war with Iraq, Bush dispatched Powell and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to Capitol Hill for a classified briefing with members of Congress. They showed scores of legislators some of the recently declassified evidence Powell plans to use Wednesday in a high-stakes speech before the U.N. Security Council that is aimed at securing that body's backing for disarming Saddam by force. Opinions about the effectiveness of the briefing varied. "They will have pictures when they go the U.N. next week," Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill., said after the briefing. He said Rumsfeld "laid out a whole list of things that people have never heard before," providing further evidence that peace depends on regime change in Iraq. "I learned more; I became more convinced," said Rep. Carolyn Maloney, a New York Democrat. She said "concrete evidence" connecting Saddam to the al-Qaida terrorist network was provided. But Rep. Chris Bell, D-Houston, saw the evidence as less compelling. "I would characterize it as another building block in making the case for going forward," he said. "I do think the administration has gotten the message they'll have to be more forthcoming with members of Congress and the public." Neither Bush nor his Cabinet members spoke explicitly Wednesday of a timetable for war. But officials indicated that the "final phase" leading either to war or a clear-cut Iraqi disarmament had begun. That final phase would not extend much beyond the arrival in Southwest Asia by late February of sufficient U.S. combat power to overwhelm Iraq's defenses, officials said. One end game being openly discussed by Bush officials Wednesday was for Saddam to accept exile from Iraq. "If he were to leave the country, and take some of his family members with him, and others in the leading elite that have been responsible for so much trouble during the course of his regime, we would, I'm sure, try to find a place for them to go," Powell said during a State Department briefing. "That certainly would be one way to avoid war." The full-court press by top administration officials came as polls indicated Bush gained ground with his Tuesday State of the Union speech in his effort to convince Americans that war with Iraq was necessary. A CBS News poll showed that approval for military action to remove Saddam and his regime among those whom watched the speech was 67 percent before the speech and 77 percent after it. But those polled were almost evenly split on whether that action should occur now, or after further U.N. inspections. Among the revelations Powell is likely to make next week is that Iraqi intelligence has penetrated the security of U.N. weapons inspection teams and knows in advance where they are going and what they are looking for, allowing the inspections to be evaded, one official said. To back up that claim, the United States will provide satellite photographs that show Iraq moving what could be chemical and biological weapons ahead of inspectors, and cleaning out sites before the arrival of U.N. teams. Intelligence experts said Wednesday that in Powell's speech next week, the United States must carefully balance the need to make the case for a war with Iraq with protecting informants and the techniques they used to gather information. "It is more the techniques than the people," said Vince Cannistraro, a former top CIA official. "They are going to talk about the product of electronic intercepts that reveal that Saddam is playing a shell game with the weapons inspectors." One of the options being considered by the administration is to propose before the United Nations a final deadline for Saddam to comply with disarmament resolutions, or face immediate military action to disarm him, an official said. That deadline would be finite, about one month, he said. Iraq says it has already disarmed. It was not clear how compliance with that demand would be gauged. The willingness to share U.S. classified intelligence with the United Nations strongly suggested that the administration is committed to acting within a few weeks, rather than allowing an open-ended inspection process to continue, Cannistraro said. That message was made repeatedly by Bush officials Wednesday. "The diplomatic window is closing," said U.N. Ambassador John Negroponte. "What you are going to see unfolding in the next several days is a period of intense diplomatic activity." Mohammed Al-Douri, Iraq's U.N. ambassador, promised Iraq would resist an "imperialistic invasion." He said of Bush, "You can accuse as much as you like, but you cannot provide one piece of evidence ... The inspections of suspected sites in the past few weeks dispelled the allegations of Iraqi WMDs (weapons of mass destruction.)" Texas lawmakers who heard from Powell and Rumsfeld on Wednesday put different interpretations on what they heard. Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, said he saw "new information" on "the intelligence to link al-Qaida to Iraq." The briefing was mostly cordial, although Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin, rankled Powell and Rumsfeld by asking how many casualties they expected. His question was not answered.
There is little doubt in my mind that some action should be taken, but I think its important that this case is made and more of our allies are aboard before we go full force. That is the reason I feel Powell's presentation is important. Whether we have the UN's blessing or not, we should be sure that we have other countries assistance. Based on the 77% figure, it seems as though the population understands, and is aboard with what we should do. The problem is it’s turned into a partisan issue in Washington so the other party can position themselves for a push for the White House in '04.
Interested to see/hear what Congress saw/heard yesterday...also..i bolded part about a CBS Newspoll...assuming the poll is correct, what's all this, "americans aren't convinced" stuff? 67% approved of removing him from power before the speech the other night! 77% did afterward. call americans stupid all you want...but don't say they're not convinced. Americans support the idea of getting rid of Hussein -- that's clear. They even support a military strike to do it. Where the support falters is if we do it alone. "removing from power" vs. "attacking" vs. "attacking without allies" are three very different polls. I am glad to hear someone outside of the administration at least has seen and believes the evidence. Still need to show the rest of the world something though.
I know you realize that there is a zero percent chance of us "doing it alone", why post as if that's a realistic scenario?
Major, you know full well the United States isn't going it alone. They've had clear support...and they've had clear critics. But the US isn't going to have to go it alone, and you know that. Why do you keep posting that?
Major, you know full well the United States isn't going it alone. They've had clear support...and they've had clear critics. But the US isn't going to have to go it alone, and you know that. Why do you keep posting that? Because Bush keeps saying it.
A force comprised of the Brits and the Americans doesn't hold other countries accountable Buck. I'd like to see the Russians and Germans in the force too. It'd be nice to not only drop some jaws at the UN, but to morally compel other countries to join the force. If a bomb gets out there, it'll of course come here, but it'd be nice to not isolate the US as the outgroup. I don't want it to be a common occurence that W. Europeans say "well, you got what you deserved".
bush says it to make a point emphatically...but you've seen clear support for this...there's another thread on this board right now where 8 European leaders are calling for unity with the US on this. You know that, at the very least, the UK has been with us since the start. It's not playing in reality to keep saying, "we don't have support...we can't go this alone...americans don't suppport going it alone." Americans probably don't support Elvis as president..but it's not a concern to begin with...so why bring it up?
i can assure you right now, france and germany aren't coming on board...if you're waiting for germany, keep waiting...if bush can bring germany in this thing, that's a master stroke..to take any position aligning with the US is political suicide in Germany right now...guys are winning elections over there by seeing who can speak out loudest against the US. russia is another matter...and putin is stepping up the talk already about russian involvement if iraq doesn't start being more cooperative...we'll see what happens after the administration shares intelligence
bush says it to make a point emphatically...but you've seen clear support for this...there's another thread on this board right now where 8 European leaders are calling for unity with the US on this. You know that, at the very least, the UK has been with us since the start. It's not playing in reality to keep saying, "we don't have support...we can't go this alone...americans don't suppport going it alone." Americans are against going without a new UN Resolution. If France, China, and Russia are not on-board, what is the likelihood of a new UN resolution? http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030127.asp Which comes closer to your view – [ROTATED: the United States should invade Iraq when the Bush administration decides that it is time to do so, (or) the United States should not invade Iraq unless there is a new United Nations vote authorizing military action]? Invade when Bush decides: 39% Not invade unless a UN Vote authorizes: 56% Getting "some" support isn't good enough here. This has to be a world-supported mission. I don't care what the random French citizen thinks. I care if the random Saudi kid thinks this is US aggression and grows up hating the US or if he sees it as something supported by the world and something that his country supports and is a part of. The Middle East doesn't hate us for invading Iraq in '91 because it was a world-supported coalition. That's exactly what the focus should be here as well. World opinion matters - and it matters most in the countries that are not our closest allies.
Not sure about Germany, the political situation is really screwed up right now, Schroeder's favorable rating was something like 25% last week, the lowest ever recorded in Germany. Russia will join in eventually, as will France. It's all about business to them, they stand to lose billions by sitting on the sideline. Another thing to remember is that, other than the U.K., these countries provide little or no offensive military assistance; of course for p.r. reasons it would be ideal to have a "world effort" to oust the Baathists, there is, however, absolutely no reason to let one or two countries prevent said effort for reasons that are clearly related to their own self-interest, not that of the world at large.
1. so we're gonna let france, russia and china dictate our policy, huh? despite the fact we have many other nations that support us, we're gonna remain inactive because france, russia and china just happen to be the countries on the security council. sounds like it's letting bureaucracy getting in the way of policy. 2. who says russia won't be on board? they're sounding more supportive all the time...
I fully agree, but with the differences in reason for action between this time and the action in the early 90’s, its safe to say this one will be a much longer process. Last time it was to force them out of a country, this time is to attempt to change their country and make it safer for the neighboring countries and the world. We will not and should not stop if they decide after a show of force, to uncover where the weapons are. It should only stop once the UN feels the threat of this happening again in the future is minimal.
That's as resounding as the dossier Tony Blair gave to the Parliament months ago.... Hypothetically speaking, is China going to let us dictate 'their policy' on N. Korea...or "domestic security" actions on their Asian neighbors? Haven't we used this "bureaucracy" to dictate UN policies concerning Israel? It works both ways here. It seems like we speak the loudest only because we can. And while doing so, we're ignoring the slowly shifting power structure of the world. Wealth is being recirculated and resources are being discovered in developing nations. Countries have a tendency to bitterly remember their past injustices. We might be on top now, but may we hope that history forgives our "lapses in judgement". The credibility of the UN is at stake here. If we disregard it as a "failing bueracracy" (with equal fault of our own), then we lose our best safeguard in resolving international warfare.
MadMax: Old news . Last poll I saw (and perhaps this changed after the SotU, the majority still opposed war w/o more international support). Of course, being majority rule validates a position is a losing proposition... given that most majority positions across the ages have ultimately proven mistaken .
I find it laughable that people don't want to go without support from Germany. I've got news for you...Germany has sunstantial business dealings with Iraq. They won't support removing Saddam as long as they make money off of him being there.
What sort of sunstantial business dealings do Iraq and Germany engage in? Has Iraq cornered the tanning bed market? And this whole time I've been skeptical of the Coppertone lobbying efforts. It really is about Oil.
