Saddam could stay in power if he disarms fully: Powell

Xinhua News and USA Today ^ | October 4, 2002

[HAL9000]

WASHINGTON, Oct 3, 2002 (Xinhua via COMTEX) -- US Secretary of State Colin Powell has suggested that although Washington seeks a "regime change" in Iraq, it could leave Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in power if he disarms fully, The USA Today reported Thursday.

[Anti-Bubba182]

TAKE BACK THE SENATE!

VOTE OUT THE DEMS!

DONATE TODAY!!!. SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[My Favorite Headache]

I don't know what to say but the headline pisses me off more and more that I look at it.It is like saying lets keep bin-Laden in charge of Al Qaeda so we can make sure we know who he is working with. This is stupid and annoying now. Can't the Bush team stick to one message and grow some balls here?

[Stallone]

Powell was single-handedly responsible for the initial P.A. fiasco.

Bush's powerful message on terrorism was watered down by the State Dept. ridiculous decision to appease terrorist Arafat.

Of course, an unmitigated policy disaster ensued until Arafat and his human excrement society revealed their true smell.

Bush only survived that bomb because the Dems fumbled badly under Daschle.

Never again - DO NOT LET POWELL OPEN HIS RINO MOUTH - HE IS A WALKING PUBLIC RELATIONS DISASTER FOR BUSH.

When Rumsfeld speaks for this administration, Bush is flying high. Lose Powell, and quickly.

[The Great Satan]

Arms inspections are meaningless. It looks like Bush is blinking. For a while back there, in the weeks before the September 11 anniversary, I got the impression Bush was going to turn the tables on Saddam, expose his blackmail and let the chips fall were they may. Looking back, I guess that was just brinkmanship -- we were making overtures behind the scenes to trade exile for silence, and we needed to pile the pressure on. Now, that gambit's failed, and it looks like Bush is about to fold his hand. Of course, every one will play their respective parts: Bush will demand "intrusive" (but still meaningless) inspections, which will make him look tough; the euros and the dems will scream blue murder, which will make Bush look tough, and Saddam will hold tight and then give way at the last minute, which will make Bush look tough (except to the Arabs, who understand what Saddam is up to). Game, set and match to Saddam Hussein. This is playing out like the Gulf War denouement, and for much the same reasons.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I don't think there's any dissension in the White house. The retaliation has been in place for the past year and is proceeding as planned.

This is all just smoke and mirrors before the night of the New Moon.

[byteback]

The resolutions are that he needs to give peace a chance but he got his okay to take Saddam out. So he asks for unfettered access including palaces and waits to see what Saddam says. As long as he gets the hammer the process might be worth going through, and seeing as how the economy isn't that hot maybe a delay works out.

[johnny7]

Nah... he's not blinking. Just crossing his t's and dotting his i's.

It's like a cat toying with a mouse... it's not when... just how.

[The Great Satan]

Really? Are you betting on October 6, the new moon and all that crap? If I had a penny for every "new moon" prediction I've seen on FR in the last year... Forget it. "WE HAVE THIS ANTHRAX. YOU CAN NOT STOP US." It's bullet-proof. Bush has set this up for show. He'll look tough to the ignorant, the gullible and the self-deluding. The rest of us, including the whole Arab world, will understand who's ass is really getting kicked here.

[The Great Satan]

Er... who's = whose.

[Jeff Chandler]

I thought it was "when".

[steveegg]

IMHO, what Colin Powell is offerng is a sucker bet. Everyone with so much as a quarter of a brain knows that Saddam won't fully comply with full disarmament because the moment that full disarmament (and by extension, the end of widescale repression) becomes reality, Saddam will be overthrown.

[StolarStorm]

Good Cop. Bad Cop. Everyone is playing their role.

Powell got the lousy job.... good cop.

[ejdrapes]

Powell is just doing his job, trying very hard to get a new UN resolution that has teeth. If we have to play down "regime change" to get the Russians on board so be it. Disarming Saddam is the objective it's just that we all know that will never happen as long as he's in power. The scenario Powell has layed out will never happen in a million years and everyone - including Powell knows it. So who cares if the publically push for "regime change", because it's going to happen anyway.

[ArneFufkin]

Exactly.

This is jibba jabba. Hussein will never disarm voluntarily.

[Dutchgirl]

The UN will not support any action aimed at regime change. If Powell goes in and states regime change as the purpose of US policy, all talks are over.He must state the remote feasability of Saddam clinging to power in order to work towards a resolution that has a component calling for consequences if Saddam does not comply with weapons inspections.

Then, when the lying scumbag plays games with the US, we can bomb his presidential palaces, with him inside, into just another pile of desert dust, and the euro weenies can watch complacently.

[ArneFufkin]

That's right, you're the guy who says we're all hostages to Saddam's anthrax hammer. Yep.

I'm cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.

[bankwalker]

it could leave Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in power if he disarms fully

His power emanates from his weapons. If the weapons are removed, he will have no power.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

Yes, and he could also stay in power if he had a brain transplant.

[VRWC_minion]

Compared with those remarks, it said, Powell's comments were obviously softer.

Powell, said: If Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction Saddam could stay. However, if Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction he would not stay in power. He needs the threat of those weapons to stay in power.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that there is no difference between saying Saddam must go or his weapond must go. Either way he ends up gone.