tommorrow colin powell speaks

[JOFO]

and then we will all hear the u.s. evidence against iraq.

what it will be, I don't know, but I'm curious to find out.

 

[deep]

Here is an opinion piece.

Only by Swallowing Big Lies Can Powell Justify a War
Robert Scheer

February 4 2003

We know in advance that Colin Powell's performance will be flawless. His military career has prepared him well to execute the orders of his commander in chief, no matter what his doubts as to their morality, efficacy or logic. Making a seamless case for preemptive war on Iraq to the United Nations, the secretary of State can draw on his decade of wartime experience in which he publicly justified the deaths of more than a million Vietnamese, tens of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Laotians and Cambodians.

It took two decades for Powell, in his autobiography "My American Journey," to acknowledge that all the destruction brought down upon Indochina by the U.S. was based on an uneducated, unfocused and enormously costly policy that he and other military leaders had known to be "bankrupt."

But duty, apparently, required they not tell the public the truth.

"War should be the politics of last resort. And when we go to war, we should have a purpose that our people understand and support," he wrote, summarizing Vietnam's lessons.

Does anybody outside of the extremist claque of think-tank warriors bending the president's ear really think we are at the point of "last resort" with Iraq, a poor country half a world away that is already divvied up into "no-fly" zones, crawling with U.N. inspectors and still shattered economically and militarily from two previous wars? Or that the American people, so divided and apathetic in polls on the subject, "understand and support" why we would start a firestorm in Baghdad and then send our young men and women to fight in its streets?

Regardless of Saddam Hussein's record of cruelty and regional power ambitions, as a military man Powell should be employing a straightforward equation: Does the target pose a direct threat to U.S. security? In the case of Iraq in 2003, the answer can be yes only if Powell is prepared to swallow a trio of Big Lies, the first of which is that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction that pose a real threat to the U.S. or our allies.

"There is no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear program since the elimination of the program in the 1990s," said the U.N.'s chief nuclear weapons inspector, Mohamed ElBaradei.

Less clear is whether Iraq has made at least token efforts to replenish stocks of biological and chemical weapons. In any case, Iraq can deliver payloads only to regional enemies, and the most likely target, Israel, is armed with nuclear weapons.

However, Powell has gone way beyond these facts, claiming U.N. inspectors found that Iraq was concealing and moving illicit material. The U.N.'s chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, categorically denied this in an interview last week with the New York Times, part of a comprehensive rebuke to White House exploitation and media misinterpretation of his balanced, dispassionate report.

Similarly, Powell and the president have employed an irresponsible pattern of exaggeration and innuendo in an attempt to link Iraq to Al Qaeda. This shameful canard molds a few extremely fuzzy and circumstantial bits of proto-evidence into an absurdly convenient "proof" that taking over Iraq will help prevent anti-American terrorism.

In a New York Times report Sunday, sources inside U.S. intelligence agencies "said they were baffled by the Bush administration's insistence on a solid link between Iraq and Osama bin Laden's network," they were upset that "the intelligence is obviously being politicized" and that "we've been looking at this hard for more than a year and you know what, we just don't think it's there." Blix also said there was no evidence Iraq had or planned to supply weapons to Al Qaeda.

All of which brings us to the most outrageous Big Lie of the Bush administration: that delaying an invasion to wait for the U.N. to complete inspections would endanger the U.S. The fact is that for more than a decade the military containment of Iraq has effectively neutered Hussein, and there is no reason to believe that can't continue.

Of course, there is a case to be made for keeping up pressure on Iraq to cooperate further with the U.N. It is, however, counterproductive to transparently lie to a skeptical world and immoral to denigrate the inspection process because we are afraid it will undermine our cobbled-together rationale for going to war.

As Powell knows from his Vietnam experience, lies have a way of catching up with you. Years from now, if the U.S. is still spending billions trying to micromanage the Middle East and reaping its rewards in blood, Bush will be marked indelibly, like Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon before him, as a leader who went to war on a lie.

Maybe he will show them this picture.

Evidence of Saddam meeting with a dealer of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

 

[Popmartijn]

Hello,

Interesting piece deep. I'm personally still not convinced that a war is necessary at this moment. Last weekend I read an interview with a high (Swedish) weapon inspector who inspected Iraq the last time. He acknowledged that it took them a few years to get going, but when they finally got to speed they were able to find and destroy (almost) all weaponry Iraq had at that time.

As for Powell's 'evidence', I'm sceptical. First, he was going to present undeniable evidence that Iraq still has WMD. Yesterday I read in a paper that Powell would not really present undeniable evidence, but indications that Iraq is not complying. Today, I hear that there will be some sort of multimedia blitz in a 1 1/2 show to the Security Counsel. I'll first have to see it to believe it.
The point remains that if the evidence presented today isn't as clear as the Bush administration has always claimed it is, then I think they can forget it. Most of the world will then never believe their claims anymore. They'll just be like some schoolkid who always screams he has all the toys in the world, but you're not allowed to see it, or play with it, because he don't want anyone to know where those toys are.

C ya!

Marty

*edit: hey deep! Where's that opinion piece you just posted? The only thing that's now left is a picture. IMO, that piece was way better (because who is shaking hands with Saddam?)

 

[STING2]

Lets not forget that its up to Iraq to prove what happened to 30,000 chemical and Biological munitions and thousands of tons of Anthrax, and VX Nerve Gas, just to name a few things that they have and have not given over or shown evidence of their destruction.

Iraq has in the past blocked any inspections attempt it felt the need to. The inspectors are not armed and they cannot overcome Iraqi military forces guarding Iraq's most sensitive WMD sites. Iraq is a big country and the inspectors are ill equipped to be able to find everything. The inspectors cannot ultimately do for Iraq what they have been required to do. Their job is chiefly verify that it is done.

While the inspector had a lot of success in the 1990s, it was more of Iraq attempting throw the UN a bone in order to get the sanctions lifted. In addition, Iraq learned a lot from the way UN inspectors operate and had four years to hide and prepare for the possibility that inspectors would be on the ground in Iraq again.

As all of the UN resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire state, it is Iraq that must disarm and prove that it has disarmed.

 

[diamond]

powell has pictures..all kinds of pictures, that he will bringing tommorrow..
not naked pictures either.

 

[deep]

Hello,


*edit: hey deep! Where's that opinion piece you just posted? The only thing that's now left is a picture. IMO, that piece was way better (because who is shaking hands with Saddam?)

Sorry, I put it back.

That man is Donald Rumsfield, U. S. Secretay of Defense.

He is on the television everyday in the U.S. pushing for war on Iraq. The picture was taken in the 80s went he worked for President Reagan.

 

[diamond]

deep-
i think donald shook charlie manson's hand in the 70's.
plez post that..

db9

 

[deep]

be careful what you ask for.

What About Those Chemical Weapons?
The Saddam in Rummy's Closet
by Jeremy Scahill

"Man and the turtle are very much alike. Neither makes any progress without sticking his neck out."

Donald Rumsfeld

Five years before Saddam Hussein's now infamous 1988 gassing of the Kurds, a key meeting took place in Baghdad that would play a significant role in forging close ties between Saddam Hussein and Washington. It happened at a time when Saddam was first alleged to have used chemical weapons. The meeting in late December 1983 paved the way for an official restoration of relations between Iraq and the US, which had been severed since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

With the Iran-Iraq war escalating, President Ronald Reagan dispatched his Middle East envoy, a former secretary of defense, to Baghdad with a hand-written letter to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and a message that Washington was willing at any moment to resume diplomatic relations.

That envoy was Donald Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld's December 19-20, 1983 visit to Baghdad made him the highest-ranking US official to visit Iraq in 6 years. He met Saddam and the two discussed "topics of mutual interest," according to the Iraqi Foreign Ministry. "[Saddam] made it clear that Iraq was not interested in making mischief in the world," Rumsfeld later told The New York Times. "It struck us as useful to have a relationship, given that we were interested in solving the Mideast problems."

Just 12 days after the meeting, on January 1, 1984, The Washington Post reported that the United States "in a shift in policy, has informed friendly Persian Gulf nations that the defeat of Iraq in the 3-year-old war with Iran would be 'contrary to U.S. interests' and has made several moves to prevent that result."

In March of 1984, with the Iran-Iraq war growing more brutal by the day, Rumsfeld was back in Baghdad for meetings with then-Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz. On the day of his visit, March 24th, UPI reported from the United Nations: "Mustard gas laced with a nerve agent has been used on Iranian soldiers in the 43-month Persian Gulf War between Iran and Iraq, a team of U.N. experts has concluded... Meanwhile, in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, U.S. presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld held talks with Foreign Minister Tarek Aziz (sic) on the Gulf war before leaving for an unspecified destination."

The day before, the Iranian news agency alleged that Iraq launched another chemical weapons assault on the southern battlefront, injuring 600 Iranian soldiers. "Chemical weapons in the form of aerial bombs have been used in the areas inspected in Iran by the specialists," the U.N. report said. "The types of chemical agents used were bis-(2-chlorethyl)-sulfide, also known as mustard gas, and ethyl N, N-dimethylphosphoroamidocyanidate, a nerve agent known as Tabun."

Prior to the release of the UN report, the US State Department on March 5th had issued a statement saying "available evidence indicates that Iraq has used lethal chemical weapons."

Commenting on the UN report, US Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick was quoted by The New York Times as saying, "We think that the use of chemical weapons is a very serious matter. We've made that clear in general and particular."

Compared with the rhetoric emanating from the current administration, based on speculations about what Saddam might have, Kirkpatrick's reaction was hardly a call to action.

Most glaring is that Donald Rumsfeld was in Iraq as the 1984 UN report was issued and said nothing about the allegations of chemical weapons use, despite State Department "evidence." On the contrary, The New York Times reported from Baghdad on March 29, 1984, "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the United States and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name."

A month and a half later, in May 1984, Donald Rumsfeld resigned. In November of that year, full diplomatic relations between Iraq and the US were fully restored. Two years later, in an article about Rumsfeld's aspirations to run for the 1988 Republican Presidential nomination, the Chicago Tribune Magazine listed among Rumsfeld's achievements helping to "reopen U.S. relations with Iraq." The Tribune failed to mention that this help came at a time when, according to the US State Department, Iraq was actively using chemical weapons.

Throughout the period that Rumsfeld was Reagan's Middle East envoy, Iraq was frantically purchasing hardware from American firms, empowered by the White House to sell. The buying frenzy began immediately after Iraq was removed from the list of alleged sponsors of terrorism in 1982. According to a February 13, 1991 Los Angeles Times article:

"First on Hussein's shopping list was helicopters -- he bought 60 Hughes helicopters and trainers with little notice. However, a second order of 10 twin-engine Bell "Huey" helicopters, like those used to carry combat troops in Vietnam, prompted congressional opposition in August, 1983... Nonetheless, the sale was approved."

In 1984, according to The LA Times, the State Department_in the name of "increased American penetration of the extremely competitive civilian aircraft market"_pushed through the sale of 45 Bell 214ST helicopters to Iraq. The helicopters, worth some $200 million, were originally designed for military purposes. The New York Times later reported that Saddam "transferred many, if not all [of these helicopters] to his military."

In 1988, Saddam's forces attacked Kurdish civilians with poisonous gas from Iraqi helicopters and planes. U.S. intelligence sources told The LA Times in 1991, they "believe that the American-built helicopters were among those dropping the deadly bombs."

In response to the gassing, sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the US Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most US technology. The measure was killed by the White House.

Senior officials later told reporters they did not press for punishment of Iraq at the time because they wanted to shore up Iraq's ability to pursue the war with Iran. Extensive research uncovered no public statements by Donald Rumsfeld publicly expressing even remote concern about Iraq's use or possession of chemical weapons until the week Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, when he appeared on an ABC news special.

Eight years later, Donald Rumsfeld signed on to an "open letter" to President Clinton, calling on him to eliminate "the threat posed by Saddam." It urged Clinton to "provide the leadership necessary to save ourselves and the world from the scourge of Saddam and the weapons of mass destruction that he refuses to relinquish."

In 1984, Donald Rumsfeld was in a position to draw the world's attention to Saddam's chemical threat. He was in Baghdad as the UN concluded that chemical weapons had been used against Iran. He was armed with a fresh communication from the State Department that it had "available evidence" Iraq was using chemical weapons. But Rumsfeld said nothing.

Washington now speaks of Saddam's threat and the consequences of a failure to act. Despite the fact that the administration has failed to provide even a shred of concrete proof that Iraq has links to Al Qaeda or has resumed production of chemical or biological agents, Rumsfeld insists that "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

But there is evidence of the absence of Donald Rumsfeld's voice at the very moment when Iraq's alleged threat to international security first emerged. And in this case, the evidence of absence is indeed evidence.

 

[STING2]

Funny "Robert Scheer" did not mention the state of containment and sanctions today. He seems to forget that Saddam is now smuggling 4 Billion dollars worth of goods into the country every year, some of it capable of helping Iraq's WMD programs. So much for containment.

He also does not understand the fact that the Weapons inspectors do not have the capability to get past an Iraqi T-72 tank should the inspectors actually get on the trail to finding something.

Containment is almost gone, deterence is gambling with millions of lives, covert action won't succeed, revolt will not either. The only option is either for Saddam to finally comply with the resolutions, or for the US military to do that for him if he refuses. Saddam has 12 years to comply with these resolutions.

 

[STING2]

This guy "Jeremy Scahill" does not understand or talk about the ramifications of an Iranian victory over Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war. He does not realize that US troops have to be deployed to the region to fight the Iranian military as it moved south to occupy Kuwait, and the Saudi Oil fields just south of there.

All of the Helicopters that Jeremy Scahill mentions in his article are transport helicopters. Jeremy Scahill does not understand the context of the threat that existed in the 1980s from Iran. He also seems to forget that all of Iraq's ATTACK HELICOPTERS came from the Soviet Union. So did nearly all of its tanks, armored personal carriers, Artillery, and other weapons systems. But since Jeremy Scahill is unsucessfully attempting to do a smear job on Donald Rumsfeld, you will not hear any of this.

What exactly did Jeremy Scahill suggest that Rumsfeld do about Iraqi chemical attacks? Did he suggest military action to weaken Iraq so Iran would win, something that the USA, Soviet Union, Persian Gulf Region and most of Europe did not want to see. What besides saying something, action not words, would he of liked the USA to do, considering the threat the Iranians posed to the entire Gulf Region do to their growing ability to defeat the Iraqi military on the battlefield. Sanctions to cut of the Iraqi military from supplies thereby allowing Iranian military units to overrun Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Yes that would be truely wonderful.

 

[melon]

It will be a performance. That's really all politics are anymore.

Melon

 

[diamond]

check this.
the man w the goods..

 

[us3]

Powell Changes Speech at Last Minute to Satisfy Democrats
(2003-02-05) -- U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, at the eleventh hour, has altered his presentation to the U.N. Security Council to try to satisfy the concerns of Congressional Democrats, as well as U.S. critics elsewhere in the world.

Previously, Mr. Powell planned to show images and documents demonstrating that the Iraqi government has weapons of mass destruction and is deliberately deceiving U.N. inspectors.

However, the White House has become convinced that even with such evidence, the U.N. and Democrats in Congress will still oppose action to disarm Saddam Hussein.

So, instead, Mr. Powell will present the following accusations against Iraq:

--Saddam Hussein personally owns guns, and uses them.
--Iraq produces oil, the combustion of which will doom the planet to a second ice age.
--Saddam supports the death penalty and uses it.
--Some Iraqis, including government officials, drive Sport Utility Vehicles (SUV).
--Saddam believes Iraq is better than other countries.
--Saddam is decisive, often seeing issues in black-or-white terms, rather than countless shades of grey.
--Many Iraqis are meat eaters.
--Many Iraqis are "pro-life," opposing abortion.

A few Democrats who have previewed the script for the presentation expressed outrage at Iraq, and wondered why President Bush has not previously gone public with this "damning evidence."

"We are ready to authorize the use of overwhelming force," said one unnamed Senate Democrat. "This crazed dictator must be stopped before his ideas spread throughout the region."

 

[deep]

Come on, Saddam is bad. But please, not THAT bad.

You are scaring me.

 

[deep]

I am watching his presentation right now.


So far no smoking gun. I don't think he is winning anyone from the sceptics side.

I am sure supporters will say he is doing a good job. Not a lot of minds will be changed.


The Anthax bit makes one wonder if the claim that not accounting for their Anthax production and storage is such a crime.

Then the U. S. is guilty. The Anthax that killed Americans in 2001 was determined to be of high grade U. S. orgin.

I was hoping for something clearly convincing.

The pictures and graffics are not clear and are subject to interpetation.

 

[meegannie]

I'm watching it too. I'm still not convinced.

 

[ghetofabu]

What do you think of the two converstaions that he played? Maybe they were talking about moving wigets and not items that they say they don't have. Or maybe they are two staged actors talking OR maybe it is just two staged actors talking about widget and it is being translated wrong.

 

[Flag Pole Pear]

its funny, all the headlines ive read on websites say "powell presents evidence."

then if you read the story, you find out that he didnt.

 

[daisybean]

What do you think of the two converstaions that he played? Maybe they were talking about moving wigets and not items that they say they don't have. Or maybe they are two staged actors talking OR maybe it is just two staged actors talking about widget and it is being translated wrong.

I was thinking the same thing.....

 

[ghetofabu]

There will be doubters to everything. There are still people who believe that we no one landed on the moon and that there was never a holocaust happened. Doubters to something will most likely always be doubters of it. It is the same way with believers of something.

 

[deep]

I think faking, altering the recordings or for that matter the fuzzy pictures, dates is not likely.

The fact that two Iraqis discussed "nerve agents" and references to them is not surprising. The wireless transmissions (email) could have said ?the nerve of those agents, they wanted to inspect at 5 a.m. , that is went I am at my morning prayers, praise be to Allah.?

 

[JOFO]

I saw it, and the evidence is there. whether or not you agree is a seperate issue. I think if iraq bombed the white house some of you would say the video was doctored.

 

[Klaus]

Well i don't believe that this "proof" would have any chance in a western court to

BBC and the British secret service - both not to be known to be anti american reject Iraqi al-Qaeda link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2727471.stm

" There are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network, according to an official British intelligence report seen by BBC News."

So we have to ask ourself:
Did Powell present enough evidence to justify war on Iraq?
Powell's revelations contain a lot of old news and lots of "anonymous" sources, we have to believe - we get no evidence.

Would that be enough if it was a trial in a court of law?

Klaus

 

[DrTeeth]

I too believe the Americans haven?t tampered with the material. But all I've seen was an accumulation of facts leading to believe Iraq isn't fully cooperating with the weapon inspectors (but we already new that) and a lot of assumptions. We have to ask ourselves the question whether this is an ?attack now or we?ll be doomed!? scenario, or if there?s enough time to explore other options. I?d go with the latter.

I also find it amusing that, while Bush already told us in early 2002 he wanted to go after Iraq, a lot of the ?important? (highly subjective term) evidence dates from after the UN had resumed the inspections. That, together with the fact that his motivations for an attack changes from time to time, lead me to believe that Bush wanted to launch an assault on Iraq first and only started looking the necessary justification later.

 

[STING2]

Peope here don't understand what the law stipulates here. The law is the 1991 Ceacefire Agreement. That law states that IRAQ, NOT THE UNITED NATIONS, must prove that they no longer have weapons of mass destruction. That is an irefutable fact.

Where are the 30,000 Chemical and Biological Shells, where are the 10s of thousands of tons of Anthrax and VX Nerve Gas. Iraq was required to peacefully disarm and the UN inspectors were there to verify that disarmament. It was never the job of the UN inspectors to hunt and attempt to go into every Iraqi home, and search every inch of every square mile of Iraq. The UN inspectors have never had the capability. The UN inspectors cannot force compliance. If Iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction, they have to prove it. Iraq has to show where the 30,000 chem/Bio shells are. They have to show where the 10s of thousands of tons of Anthrax are. There are only two results that are possible, they either give up the weapons or show the evidence of their destruction. So far Iraq has done neither.

 

[melon]

I don't think Saddam will give up his WMD voluntarily, to be perfectly honest, and it was never really to terrorize the international arena as much as he uses the threat of them on his own people to stay in power. For him to suddenly give them up would be, in Saddam's eyes, leaving open an avenue for his overthrowal.

While I disagree with the methods that the U.S. has used during the past couple years--i.e., this kind of "secret" mentality they have--they are probably right on Iraq in dealing with the WMD. Iraq is hiding them.

Melon

 

[Flag Pole Pear]

what YOU dont understand is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for ANYONE in the universe to prove that something DOESNT exist!

its a loophole!

again, it is impossible to prove something doesnt exist.

 

[melon]

what YOU dont understand is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for ANYONE in the universe to prove that something DOESNT exist!

its a loophole!

again, it is impossible to prove something doesnt exist.

Considering the U.S. has spy satellites monitoring Iraq--and probably have been monitoring Iraq for over a decade now--such demolition would be on tape.

In addition, there would be waste products of such destruction. Where are those?

Melon

 

[STING2]

Flag Pole Pear,

Let me explain. Every one agrees that in 1998 Iraq had 30,000 Chemical/Bio weapon shells, thousands of tons of Anthrax and VX Nerve Gas. Iraq does not dispute that. Inspectors were forced to leave Iraq in 1998, and have only been let in the past couple of months.

There are only two possibilities for the above items. Saddam either still has them or he has destroyed them. If he still has them, he must turn them over to the United Nations. If he destroyed them, he most show the evidence of their destruction of which there would be plenty of. There is not a third possibility.

 

[gvox]

Considering the U.S. has spy satellites monitoring Iraq--and probably have been monitoring Iraq for over a decade now--such demolition would be on tape.

Melon

Like the US would play THAT or admit to it if it did indeed happen??? Cmon now!