Yahoo! News Message Boards Top Stories
Can ANYONE reconcile these WH quotes?
by: uncommonsense48 (48/M/Ohio) 07/12/04 05:46 pm
Msg: 47054 of 47074
7 recommendations
"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"
Secretary Colin L. Powell
Cairo, Egypt (Ittihadiya Palace)
February 24, 2001
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm
"The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit. We acted because we saw the evidence in a dramatic new light -- through the prism of our experience on 9-11."
Donald Rumsfeld [Reuters, 7/9/03]
http://911review.org/Wget/www.cooperativeresearch.org/wot/iraq/other_indications _that_bush_administration_had_no_evidence.html
"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C88403%2C00.html
Hmmmm, prewar, Colin Powell says Iraq is contained and not a threat.
Postwar, we have Rumsfeld saying we had NO NEW EVIDENCE, just a new perspective to justify war and we have Wolfowitz saying WMD was chosen as the reason to invade as though the decision had already been made. This dovetails precisely with the books by Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke.
How can ANYONE reconcile these comments?
How can ANYONE support thie GOP ticket?
Yahoo! News Message Boards Top Stories
by: uncommonsense48 (48/M/Ohio) 07/12/04 05:46 pm
Msg: 47054 of 47074
7 recommendations
"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"
Secretary Colin L. Powell
Cairo, Egypt (Ittihadiya Palace)
February 24, 2001
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm
"The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit. We acted because we saw the evidence in a dramatic new light -- through the prism of our experience on 9-11."
Donald Rumsfeld [Reuters, 7/9/03]
http://911review.org/Wget/www.cooperativeresearch.org/wot/iraq/other_indications _that_bush_administration_had_no_evidence.html
"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C88403%2C00.html
Hmmmm, prewar, Colin Powell says Iraq is contained and not a threat.
Postwar, we have Rumsfeld saying we had NO NEW EVIDENCE, just a new perspective to justify war and we have Wolfowitz saying WMD was chosen as the reason to invade as though the decision had already been made. This dovetails precisely with the books by Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke.
How can ANYONE reconcile these comments?
How can ANYONE support thie GOP ticket?
Yahoo! News Message Boards Top Stories
posted by Gary at 4:51 PM
<< Home