SI
SI
discoversearch

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: epicure who wrote (155377)1/6/2005 11:40:49 AM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Policy evolves. A snapshot from 2001 means little, without context. Indeed, the context of Powell's remarks was to explain why the sanctions regime, though it had been useful, needed fixing:

Powell explains changes in Iraq sanctions policy (March2001)

Secretary of State Colin Powell says the sanctions regime that was put in place to prevent Iraq from developing weapons of mass destruction needs shoring up.
Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee March 8 that the United Nations sanctions regime has kept Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in check. "Even though we know he is working on weapons of mass destruction, we know he has things squirreled away, at the same time we have not seen that capacity emerge to present a full fledged threat to us," he said.

However, Powell said that when he took office five and a half weeks ago "I discovered that we had an Iraq policy that was in disarray, and the sanctions part of that policy was not just in disarray; it was falling apart."


Powell said the United States was being accused of hurting the Iraqi people. However, "the purpose of these sanctions was to go after weapons of mass destruction. That's what they were put in place for ... at the end of the Gulf War."

It became clear, he said, that the sanctions had to be modified in order to "eliminate those items in the sanctions regime that really were of civilian use and benefited people, and focus [sanctions] exclusively on weapons of mass destruction and items that could be directed toward the development of weapons of destruction."

Powell said he found support for this modification from Arab allies, permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, and many NATO colleagues. "And so we are continuing down this line that says let's see if there is a better way to use these sanctions to go after weapons of mass destruction and take away the argument we have given him that we are somehow hurting the Iraqi people. He is hurting the Iraqi people, not us."

To end the sanctions, Powell said, Iraq must permit the U.N. inspection teams to return to their work.

reliefweb.int



To: epicure who wrote (155377)1/6/2005 11:47:12 AM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Title: Powell Tries to Explain 2001 Remarks on Iraq
Author: Reuters
Link: reuters.com
Date: 9/29/2003 1:52:54 PM
Source: Web
Group: Public



UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Secretary of State Colin Powell tried on
Thursday to explain away remarks on Iraq 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.

A former Democratic congressional aide dug out his remarks this week
and has circulated them to the media.

Asked why he changed his assessment, Powell said: "I didn't change
my assessment... I did not say he (Iraqi President Saddam Hussein)
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.

Powell noted that his objective at the time was to muster
international support for a new U.N. sanctions system designed to
ease the flow of civilian goods to Iraq while tightening controls
over imports of possible military value.


The United States eventually changed the sanctions system but after
the attacks the Bush administration gradually shifted its Iraq
policy to one of "regime change" by military force.

The main rationale cited for invading Iraq was that Saddam Hussein
had weapons of mass destruction and might pass them on to extremist
groups like al Qaeda.

But since last March's invasion no one has been able to find any
such weapons in Iraq, nor evidence of a link between Saddam and al
Qaeda, the group blamed for the 2001 attacks.

"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.

Speaking in Cairo in 2001 after a meeting with Egyptian President
Hosni Mubarak, 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.


theaxisofevil.net



To: epicure who wrote (155377)1/6/2005 11:56:54 AM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

------------------------------------------------------------------------

freerepublic.com



To: epicure who wrote (155377)1/6/2005 12:03:02 PM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
June 26, 2004
Clinton tried Iraq regime change, too, sort of
In his June 22 BBC interview, former President Clinton reminds us that he, too, wanted regime change in Iraq, but he would have left it to the Iraqis.

CLINTON: “When President Bush asked for authority for the Senate to use force if Saddam didn’t cooperate with the U.N., I strongly supported that. My only difference and.. and.. I adopted, in ’98, after we kicked the inspectors out, a policy of regime change. I thought, well, we’re never going to be ever to do any consistent business with this guy. That’s different from invading him. You know, I said we ought to support the opposition elements and just keep working until we get a new leader.
“So, I didn’t have any profound difference with the policy until it was decided to invade Iraq before the U.N. Weapons Inspection process was finished…”

BBC: “So what you’re saying is you were opposed to the invasion of Iraq?”

CLINTON: “What I am saying is I believe that we should have led the - I would have supported the invasion of Iraq, whether or not we’d had U.N. opposition, if the U.N. inspectors had finished their job and Han Blix had said they won’t cooperate.”

U.N. weapons inspector Blix did say the Iraqis were not cooperating fully and immediately, violating U.N. orders. Blix said Saddam had not cooperated in providing an accurate accounting of what happened to his chemical and biological weapons. But of course, Blix, ever the diplomat, went for months avoiding straightforward words like, “They won’t cooperate.”

But that’s not the problem with Clinton’s alternative to a U.S.-led invasion.

The problem is that Clinton's approach to Iraqi fascism -- “support the opposition elements and just keep working until we get a new leader” -- was not likely to work for at least another 20 years, and it was likely to get hundreds of thousands more Iraqis killed.

The first President Bush called on the Iraqis to overthrow Saddam in 1991. That stirred the Shiites to resist the Baathists, who quickly discovered that Saddam’s multi-layered police state was unbreakable from within. Half of Saddam’s mass graves hold the bodies of those daring 1991 rebels.

About 200,000 were hauled off and slaughtered. If that was not proof that Arabs want to be free like everyone else, then nothing is. If that failed to convince you of Saddam’s totalitarian cruelty, then you deny the truth. If that was not justification for a rescue mission to liberate Iraq, then what could be?

And there being no statute of limitations on a regime’s crimes of such bloody magnitude, the liberation was justified at any time, the sooner the better.

Funding the Iraqi opposition was bound to be as ineffective as encouraging the French people to overthrow their French and German oppressors in World War II. To every act of resistance, the totalitarian forces responded by hanging Frenchmen from lampposts. The French weren’t freed until outside help arrived.

Clinton’s way had little chance for success in Iraq, and even he now seems to admit it. The forced removal of Saddam’s regime freed Iraq fairly quickly. And as difficult as the liberation has been, its human toll has been significantly smaller than what Saddam and sons had in store.

frankwarner.typepad.com