PDA

View Full Version : Powell Tries to Explain 2001 Remarks on Iraq




zimv20
Sep 26, 2003, 11:38 AM
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030925/ts_nm/iraq_powell_dc_6


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.


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.


"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.


from his february 2001 remarks:

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.


weak. he's caught in a lie and he knows it.



toontra
Sep 26, 2003, 11:51 AM
Zim,

Correct me if I'm wrong but this has all come about as a result of a TV documentary by an Australian journalist (John Pilger) being shown on UK TV (ITV) earlier this week (Breaking the Silence) which contained footage of Powell's speech in 2001.

If I'm right about that, it begs the question, why the hell does it take foreign journalists to bring this sort of thing to light?

zimv20
Sep 26, 2003, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by toontra

If I'm right about that, it begs the question, why the hell does it take foreign journalists to bring this sort of thing to light?

i guess because, with a few exceptions (krugman, palast, et. al.), the american journalists are too scared.

thank god the rest of the world cares enough to have a look, where "cares enough" equals "feels threatened enough".

mcrain
Sep 26, 2003, 12:06 PM
No, the reason is because the media is really controlled by the conservatives, and the biggest lie that has ever been put over on us is the idea that the media is really liberal.

zimv20
Sep 26, 2003, 02:50 PM
a little tidbit from the new york times:

Yesterday, Secretary of State Colin Powell met with Times editors. Asked whether Americans would have supported this war if weapons of mass destruction had not been at issue, Mr. Powell said the question was too hypothetical to answer. Asked if he, personally, would have supported it, he smiled, thrust his hand out and said, "It was good to meet you."


http://nytimes.com/2003/09/26/opinion/26FRI1.html