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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (104582)	7/10/2003 6:20:13 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Powell: No Apologize on Uranuim Charged washingtonpost.com By DARLENE SUPERVILLE The Associated Press Thursday, July 10, 2003; 3:56 PM washingtonpost.com PRETORIA, South Africa - Secretary of State Colin Powell defended the administration's handling of information about Iraq's weapons programs, saying Thursday that President Bush shouldn't have to apologize for statements that later proved false. "There was no effort or attempt on the part of the president or anyone else in the administration to mislead or to deceive the American people," Powell said. "The president was presenting what seemed to be a reasonable statement at that time." Powell's remarks, in Africa where he is traveling with the president, were the administration's strongest defense yet of Bush's decision to include a line in his State of the Union speech that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium in Africa. As weeks have passed with the American search turning up no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, criticism, especially by Democrats, has been building concerning assertions the administration made as justification for the war. Powell said the issue was "overblown." The president's remarks in January reflected the best available intelligence at the time, Powell said. He said that as he prepared his own Feb. 5 speech to the United Nations, the information on uranium "was not standing the test of time" and he decided not to use it. "I didn't use it, and we haven't used it since," Powell said. "But to think that somehow we went out of our way to insert this single sentence into the State of the Union Address for the purpose of deceiving and misleading the American people is an overdrawn, overblown, overwrought conclusion." © 2003 The Associated Press

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (104582)	7/10/2003 6:25:28 PM
From: Rascal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It doesn't take theories of stupidity or pressure to believe that intelligence services all over the world were unlikely to believe that Saddam threw the UN inspectors out in 1998 so that he could secretly destroy all his WMDs while making the world think he still had them. I know how you like facts. According to the State Department (On their own Web Site)Inspectors were not thrown out. Things got tough and the inspectors left. Myth: UNSCOM inspectors behaved badly and deserved to be thrown out of Iraq. Fact: The inspectors were not thrown out of Iraq. Iraq's obstructionism and refusal to cooperate with the weapons inspectors, who were carrying out a UN Security Council mandate, prevented the inspectors from fulfilling their mission and they had no choice but to leave. usinfo.state.gov As for Scott Ritter, it has been established to my satisfaction* that he was simply on Sadam's payroll, so who cares what he says or how often he changes his story?* Do you have a link for this fact? Rascal @patientinformedyouknowthrest.com