BYTE BACKKFNX1100AM Listen Live
BLOND AND HARMONIZED GETTING IT RIGHT AGAINST THE RIGHT firstname.lastname@example.org
February 05, 2003
AN INTELLIGENT, COMPELLING CASE
Dawn, this was an A+ speech.
Why couldn't Powell be president - then I would have felt informed.
I was struck by the gravity of speaking before the world's leaders. Powell treated it as such.
IRAQ: FAILING TO DISARM - the title of his presentation.
Summary: If all the assertions of violations are true - and I'll believe much of what was said - then the UN and the Security Council needs to act to reduce the risks of Saddam's ambition.
Second point. Much of the commentary (diff. from reporting) will be worthless in discussing the points made here. I will go to the experts. The networks (not FOX) showed the entire speech but went back to studio. I would have liked to hear the other countries' reponses.
COCKED, BUT NOT FIRED - OR SMOKING
I did listen to the entire speech. I appreciated it. There was a lot more intelligent conversation there that the American public has not heard before. The tone was measured, sober, logical and remarkably free of rhetoric. Powell is no George Bush Junior - thankfully.
Is this the first time ever a United Nations presentation was aired on all three networks?
The audio evidence showed that there was an effort on the part of IRAQ to hide weapons. This I already believed. There was a lot of talk about Iraqis effort to deceive - but little proof about what they might be hiding.
The nuclear portion was abbreviated. The main point seemed to be - do we want to live in a world where Saddam can sell or use these weapons?
"Until we act, we are facing an uncertain future. ...
[close paraphrase]...Should we not act we face the idea that he will someday use these weapons at a time and place of his choosing.
Bottom line. I would support some kind of attack with unvarnished UN support. I would still like to hear more about efforts to minimize damage to American soldiers and the Iraqi people.
The tack seems to be - expand the inspections - which I believed I mentioned below (I'll get link in a moment).
I will await more expert opinion.
update clarification The tack mentoned above is one I would support FIRST. And before I support an attack I do need to hear more about the efforts to minimize etc etc.
Please call me a traitor.