Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Attack Iraq? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (549)	9/6/2002 9:09:12 PM
From: JEB	Respond to of 8683

“Suddenly, on the eve of a vote to impeach him, after six years of a weak approach to Saddam Hussein, we are now told bombing is an urgent necessity,” Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., said. Clinton said he acted “to protect the national interest of the United States” and Iraq’s neighbors in the Middle East. He gave the go-ahead after consulting with his top advisers and reviewing a U.N. report that said Saddam had again failed to fulfill its obligations to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors. “Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear weapons, poison gas or biological weapons,” Clinton said. “I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.” Clinton cautioned that unintended Iraqi casualties were a certainty. Staunch allies such as Germany and Canada offered quick support for the joint U.S.-British attack, while China angrily condemned the airstrikes and France said it deplored “the grave human consequences that they could have for the Iraqi population.” The French Foreign Ministry added, however, that it also “regrets that Iraqi leaders were unable to show proof of the spirit of complete cooperation” demanded by the Feb. 23 memorandum of understanding signed by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Iraq’s Tariq Aziz. Message 17958953