Foxfyre wrote:No the facts weren't there either or else practically the entire US Congress, the present administration, and the previous administration, virtually every head of state in the free world and the Middle East were all illiterate idiots.
What on earth are you talking about?
Powell gave his presentation to the UN Security Council, outlining his claim that the US had the
proof that Iraq not only had had WMD, but still had them, and America knew where. The members of the Security Council were not impressed, as was clear immediately. And subsequently,
all SC members except for the US, the UK, Spain and Bulgaria refused to support the type of resolution the US had wanted to bring and instead all insisted that weapon inspectors should be given more time to corroborate whether Saddam did indeed still have WMD or not. (See
this post for details).
About a year ago, it was Karzak who brough up the canard that "the vast majority of politicians in the US and abroad believed saddam had stockpiles of chemical weapons, and that they posed a threat". Back then I already replied:
nimh wrote:Am not going to go thru this whole thing again, so lets just post two quotes and leave it at that:
Joschka Fischer, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Germany, turning to Donald Rumsfeld at an international summit and switching to English in mid-sentence to tell him:
Quote:in this democracy my generation has learnt... ( in English ) You have to make the case, and to make the case in a democracy, you have to be convinced yourself, and excuse me, I am not convinced. This is my problem and I cannot go to the public and say, "well, let's go to war because there are reasons" [when] I don't believe in that.
CBC on
Canadian PM Chretien's position:
Quote:Although by February 2003 United Nations inspectors had found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the United States continued to push for an end to Saddam Hussein's regime and lobbied other nations to join in that effort. Jean Chrétien declined to join, saying Canada would not participate in a war against Iraq without UN approval.
[..] Chrétien gave one of his characteristic responses accompanied by one of his quintessential shrugs when asked what he meant by wanting to have "clear evidence" that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
"A proof is a proof. What kind of proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven," Chrétien told reporters.
Oh, and anyone remember
Hans Blix? The UN weapon inspector chief who warned extensively that there was no conclusive proof on Iraqi WMD, and was fiercely slimed by the conservatives for it?
His warnings were in the papers, werent they?
Then again, I also already went through the exact same discussion with Foxfyre
a year ago too (following up
with O'Bill). Oh, and
here too, already.
