Why did the Bush Administration say this before 911???Caught Lying? - New England Patriots Forums

jack · 12-09-2007, 03:26 PM

. Secondly, Colin Powell, our own Secretary of State, stated in February of 2001 that Iraq had no significant stockpiles of WMD's and that UN sanctions and U.S. airstrikes had prevented them from aquiring a capability to develop new ones or to be a threat to his neighbors. Those are the exact two claims that were continuosly employed to justify invading Iraq.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUESTION: The Egyptian press editorial commentary that we have seen here has been bitterly aggressive in denouncing the U.S. role and not welcoming you. I am wondering whether you believe you accomplished anything during your meetings to assuage concerns about the air strikes against Iraq and the continuing sanctions?

SECRETARY POWELL: I received a very warm welcome from the leaders and I know there is some unhappiness as expressed in the Egyptian press. I understand that, but at the same time, with respect to the no-fly zones and the air strikes that we from time to time must conduct to defend our pilots, I just want to remind everybody that the purpose of those no-fly zones and the purpose of those occasional strikes to protect our pilots, is not to pursue an aggressive stance toward Iraq, but to defend the people that the no-fly zones are put in to defend. The people in the southern part of Iraq and the people in the northern part of Iraq, and these zones have a purpose, and their purpose is to protect people -- protect Arabs -- not to affect anything else in the region. And we have to defend ourselves.

We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. 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, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***PressCoverage*** · 12-09-2007, 06:22 PM

Powell has all the dirt... the man resigned for a reason... and not because he "wanted to spend more time with his family"...

i mean, c'mon... everyone paying real attention has learned that it was Colin Powell and the State Department who was vehemently opposed to Cheney/Rumsfeld's agenda, and thus, left out of the loop... when, in fact, the STate Department should have been at the center of the rebuilding efforts and PR...

Powell was ordered to give that bogus speech (written by Libby) to the UN, and hated having to do it... it's all right here, from the 2:50 mark on, and there's no denying it... he knew the majority of speech was bullshyt, but agreed to support his commander in chief on the eve of war... he managed to throw some things out from his UN speech, but it didn't matter... he knew he had just been the voice for a lie to the world...

his legacy is forever tarnished, ... and he knows it...

still, Powell's much-anticipated book next year, if it hasn't been squashed already, will be a bombshell...

jack · 12-10-2007, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jack

. Secondly, Colin Powell, our own Secretary of State, stated in February of 2001 that Iraq had no significant stockpiles of WMD's and that UN sanctions and U.S. airstrikes had prevented them from aquiring a capability to develop new ones or to be a threat to his neighbors. Those are the exact two claims that were continuosly employed to justify invading Iraq.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUESTION: The Egyptian press editorial commentary that we have seen here has been bitterly aggressive in denouncing the U.S. role and not welcoming you. I am wondering whether you believe you accomplished anything during your meetings to assuage concerns about the air strikes against Iraq and the continuing sanctions?

SECRETARY POWELL: I received a very warm welcome from the leaders and I know there is some unhappiness as expressed in the Egyptian press. I understand that, but at the same time, with respect to the no-fly zones and the air strikes that we from time to time must conduct to defend our pilots, I just want to remind everybody that the purpose of those no-fly zones and the purpose of those occasional strikes to protect our pilots, is not to pursue an aggressive stance toward Iraq, but to defend the people that the no-fly zones are put in to defend. The people in the southern part of Iraq and the people in the northern part of Iraq, and these zones have a purpose, and their purpose is to protect people -- protect Arabs -- not to affect anything else in the region. And we have to defend ourselves.

We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. 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, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Harry why would the bush administration say this before 911????????

Then months later claim he had the WMD smorgasboard?

Why?

jack · 12-10-2007, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jack

. Secondly, Colin Powell, our own Secretary of State, stated in February of 2001 that Iraq had no significant stockpiles of WMD's and that UN sanctions and U.S. airstrikes had prevented them from aquiring a capability to develop new ones or to be a threat to his neighbors. Those are the exact two claims that were continuosly employed to justify invading Iraq.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUESTION: The Egyptian press editorial commentary that we have seen here has been bitterly aggressive in denouncing the U.S. role and not welcoming you. I am wondering whether you believe you accomplished anything during your meetings to assuage concerns about the air strikes against Iraq and the continuing sanctions?

SECRETARY POWELL: I received a very warm welcome from the leaders and I know there is some unhappiness as expressed in the Egyptian press. I understand that, but at the same time, with respect to the no-fly zones and the air strikes that we from time to time must conduct to defend our pilots, I just want to remind everybody that the purpose of those no-fly zones and the purpose of those occasional strikes to protect our pilots, is not to pursue an aggressive stance toward Iraq, but to defend the people that the no-fly zones are put in to defend. The people in the southern part of Iraq and the people in the northern part of Iraq, and these zones have a purpose, and their purpose is to protect people -- protect Arabs -- not to affect anything else in the region. And we have to defend ourselves.

We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. 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, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fogbuster you appear to be on the up and up, why would the bush administration say this before 911? then months later claim iraq has the whole enchillada of wmd's???????

Fogbuster · 12-10-2007, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jack

Fogbuster you appear to be on the up and up, why would the bush administration say this before 911? then months later claim iraq has the whole enchillada of wmd's???????

Well, jack, the piece speaks for itself. Why do YOU think Colin Powell said what he said?? What do you think he was he saying "between the lines"??

//

jack · 12-10-2007, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fogbuster

Well, jack, the piece speaks for itself. Why do YOU think Colin Powell said what he

said?? What do you think he was he saying "between the lines"??

//

What powell said then was the truth...

Between the lines

I am not john nash.....

So what did you read into the message fog?

Fogbuster · 12-10-2007, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jack

What powell said then was the truth...

Between the lines

I am not john nash.....

So what did you read into the message fog?

Nothing more than what it says. It is what it is.

//

jack · 12-10-2007, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fogbuster

Nothing more than what it says. It is what it is.

//

So you are saying that the bush administration lied to the public with their claims of WMD's in Iraq?????????

Fogbuster · 12-10-2007, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jack

So you are saying that the bush administration lied to the public with their claims of WMD's in Iraq?????????

I didn't see that in Powell's interview, and no, I don't think Bush lied. We've been around that tree already. Nothing more to say about it, thanks.

//

jack · 12-10-2007, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fogbuster

I didn't see that in Powell's interview, and no, I don't think Bush lied. We've been around that tree already. Nothing more to say about it, thanks.

//

Thats being dishonest in this discussion.

Why would a man of faith behave in this way..

Honestly, you sure seem to deflect the question with obfuscation and misdirection..Why do you do that?

So I ask you ''FogBuster'' , Why did the bush administration change their stance on Iraq having WMD's from feb 2001 t0 after sep 11..

WHY?