Powell's speech
Feb. 5th, 2003 09:29 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
plutherusJust heard a report about Colin Powell's report to the UN. I haven't seen Powell's report yet, I'll try to get to it this weekend.
However, first impressions are that it consists of:
1. Sworn testimony from Iraqi defectors
2. Surveillance photographs
3. Recordings of a phone conversation in which one Iraqi was urged to "remove all mention of nerve agent" from some documents.
Now, who knows, I could be wrong. Like I said, I haven't seen the whole report, but based on this administration's past record of lying about their evidence, or creatively mis-interpreting other groups reports, my first response is:
1. Since our government has admitted to using torture (er...I mean, "stress and duress") in questioning suspects, and threatening the lives of the families of Iraqi scientists who did not tell us what we want to hear, I don't believe we can give much weight to the defector's testimony, unless it's backed up by some kind of evidence.
2. How much "interpretation" do those photographs need? They've already tried this one twice and didn't convince anyone outside of the republican party.
3. Who are the people in the conversation? Did they say? Or is it just some "anonymous Iraqi scientist". If so, what evidence do we have that the recording was even done in Iraq? The people in the Bush regime have repeatedly lied to us and to congress. Faking a phone conversation is hardly a stretch for them.
I think, like Europe, my response is: I want some corroboration before I'm willing to commit to war.
However, first impressions are that it consists of:
1. Sworn testimony from Iraqi defectors
2. Surveillance photographs
3. Recordings of a phone conversation in which one Iraqi was urged to "remove all mention of nerve agent" from some documents.
Now, who knows, I could be wrong. Like I said, I haven't seen the whole report, but based on this administration's past record of lying about their evidence, or creatively mis-interpreting other groups reports, my first response is:
1. Since our government has admitted to using torture (er...I mean, "stress and duress") in questioning suspects, and threatening the lives of the families of Iraqi scientists who did not tell us what we want to hear, I don't believe we can give much weight to the defector's testimony, unless it's backed up by some kind of evidence.
2. How much "interpretation" do those photographs need? They've already tried this one twice and didn't convince anyone outside of the republican party.
3. Who are the people in the conversation? Did they say? Or is it just some "anonymous Iraqi scientist". If so, what evidence do we have that the recording was even done in Iraq? The people in the Bush regime have repeatedly lied to us and to congress. Faking a phone conversation is hardly a stretch for them.
I think, like Europe, my response is: I want some corroboration before I'm willing to commit to war.
