|since Steam likes old quotes so much.||rufus|
Sep 28, 2003 5:41 AM
|"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."-Colin Powell, Feb. 24, 2001
"We are able to keep Saddam's arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."- Condoleeza Rice, May 2001
so as steam has asked about others, were they lying then? or are they lying now?
|i see he's tactfully avoiding this topic||rufus|
Sep 29, 2003 11:30 AM
|hoping it will simply disappear, while spewing forth various conspiracy theories all over the rest of this board.|
|You're easy too :O) Context?||Live Steam|
Sep 29, 2003 12:07 PM
|You can't have it both ways now can you? On one hand you want to say that Bush, et al have had a long standing plan to take over the globe by starting with Iraq. Then you want to post some quote that says they believed prior to the war Saddam had no weapons, which would undermine their case for doing so - to make what point? I think the words uttered prior and subsequent to these few you posted, are very important. Don't you?|
|so admin quotes are suspect......||rufus|
Sep 29, 2003 1:02 PM
|but that huge quotefest you went on a few weeks back isn't?|
|Again you fail to connect the dots||Live Steam|
Sep 29, 2003 1:59 PM
|Look, you have been making claims about the neocon hegemony, not me. To make the argument that Bush and co. didn't think Saddam had WMD or any appreciable military capabilities, goes against your argument. As I said, don't you think what came before and after the few words of those quotes you posted, are important for context? To now use those quotes to somehow show that Bush reversed his position on WMD and Saddams capabilities, is contrary to everything you and others have been saying. I am sure that these quotes are out of context in that regard.
The quotes I posted support my theory that the hypocritical leftist liberal pundits, are just that. They previously said that WMD unequivocally existed and that Saddam was a real and immanent threat. That is what their quotes stated. Now they are reversing themselves because of political expediency.
Did I miss something?
|so, there may not have been more around the selective quotes||rufus|
Sep 29, 2003 3:01 PM
|you chose to make your point? where's the difference?
and if you need convincing about neo-con plans for US global hegemony, all you have to do is go to the Project for the New American Century website and read it for yourself, in their own words. nothing out of context there, i assure you.
|anyway, Steam, just for you, the surrounding language||rufus|
Sep 29, 2003 3:46 PM
|as best as i can find:
QUESTION: The Egyptian press editorial commentary that we have seen here has been bitterly aggressive in denouncing the U.S. role and not welcoming you. I am wondering whether you believe you accomplished anything during your meetings to assuage concerns about the air strikes against Iraq and the continuing sanctions?
SECRETARY POWELL: I received a very warm welcome from the leaders and I know there is some unhappiness as expressed in the Egyptian press. I understand that, but at the same time, with respect to the no-fly zones and the air strikes that we from time to time must conduct to defend our pilots, I just want to remind everybody that the purpose of those no-fly zones and the purpose of those occasional strikes to protect our pilots, is not to pursue an aggressive stance toward Iraq, but to defend the people that the no-fly zones are put in to defend. The people in the southern part of Iraq and the people in the northern part of Iraq, and these zones have a purpose, and their purpose is to protect people -- protect Arabs -- not to affect anything else in the region. And we have to defend ourselves.
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.
and here's condo-lies-a:
KING: Still a menace, still a problem. But the administration failed, principally because of objections from Russia and China, to get the new sanctions policy through the United Nations Security Council. Now what? Do we do this for another 10 years?
RICE: Well, in fact, John, we have made progress on the sanctions. We, in fact, had four of the five, of the permanent five, ready to go along with smart sanctions.
We'll work with the Russians. I'm sure that we'll come to some resolution there, because it is important to restructure these sanctions to something that work.
But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.
This has been a successful period, but obviously we would like to increase pressure on him, and we're going to go about doing that.