In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "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."
Powell went onto to say; "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".
Condolezza Rice:
Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."
Why did they both agree that Iraq was no threat when they first took office? Is it because they didn't get their instructions from Bush this early in their terms regarding how to deal with this question (which means blow the threat level way out of proportion so he could have an excuse to start a war?)
2007-06-17 00:57:55 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
your last paragraph answers your question.
2007-06-17 01:06:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
No, perhaps it is because at that time (February of 2001), Saddam didn't pose a threat to the United States.
It is likely that it wasn't until after the Jihadist attack of America that the US truely felt threatened by any Muslim nation. We had a bigger army, why would we feel a threat? That was true--right up until we were attacked.
At that point, we realized that it wasn't an army we should be fearful of. We should fear Islamic fanatacism.
Iraq was no threat when George Bush took office. It became a threat when it refused to allow UN inspectors to see whether they did (or did not) have weapons of mass destruction that they were (or were not) giving to Jihadists.
When they directly opposed inspections by an international inspection team--that's when they became threatening. That didn't happen until 2002.
Perhaps you don't remember. The world changed on September 11, 2001. Our threats changed with it.
2007-06-17 01:09:31 · answer #2 · answered by Lorenzo 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Colin Powell arms down. i detect no admirable characteristics to Condoleeza Rice's overall performance to this element. Colin Powell on the different hand i will discover very few flaws in his finished profession, the two political and militia. Colin Powell is the only Republican that would get my vote for President in 2008.
2016-11-25 02:45:55 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The people who devised possibly the most dumbest war in the history of humanity are all liars.
Saddam wasn't removed because he was a tyrant, but because he refused to be Washington's dog.
You know, the Saudi regime can be even worse than Saddam's regime and the US still strongly supports the wicked Saudi monarch.
I would advise you to read Memoirs of George Tenet, a book written the former CIA chief. You might find answers to your questions there. Even though we never know how to trust a spy, even a former one.
2007-06-17 01:08:16 · answer #4 · answered by Zabanya 6 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Powell's failed policy of keeping Saddam contained was a complete joke. It allowed a completely corrupt organization (UN) to profit off the misery of the Iraqi people while keeping a murderous, brutal tyrant in power.
Condi was absolutely correct and removing Saddam was the logical next step. Even Clinton realized this.
BTW, how's Saddam doing these days?
LOL!!!
2007-06-17 01:22:31 · answer #5 · answered by gorgeous george III 3 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Bush, Cheney, Rummy. The axis of evil.
2007-06-17 01:17:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
In Feb 2001, the neoconservative cabal of Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, Feith, etc. did not have the excuse of Sep 11, 2001 which enabled them to pursue their thwarted dream of occupying Iraq.
2007-06-17 01:02:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
Bush stated he wanted to hit at the root cause of terrorism. What is the root cause of terrorism? That is what this is all about, one may not agree with the method but the cause is noble.
2007-06-17 01:13:36 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Before you go putting words in peoles mouths you should note some sources. Otherwise its just hearsay. Or just another lie from the left.
Also, if Saddam had let the UN inspectors do their jobs then perhaps he would still be alive today. He was obviously hiding something.
2007-06-17 01:06:30 · answer #9 · answered by Johnny Conservative 5 · 2⤊ 7⤋
It's hardly relevant at this point. He's dead and he's not coming back. And the Iraqis who judged him guilty of genocide apparently felt he needed to go.
2007-06-17 01:11:27 · answer #10 · answered by ? 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋
ethnicly cleansing a race of humans like the kurds from the face of the earth probably had alot to do with it..heres a clue..UNDERSTAND WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT BEFORE YOU COMMENT...OK?
2007-06-17 01:21:47 · answer #11 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋