This is the same person who was against the Gulf War and was largely responsible for leaving Saddam Hussein in power in 1991. Here is a good analysis of Powell's Lousville speech [link|http://www.thenewrepublic.com/120301/editorial120301.html|Louisville Slugger]

"The banality of Colin Powell's address on American foreign policy in Louisville last week was breathtaking.
...
And Powell's comment confirms yet again the premise of his sense of American strategy: so as never to fight the Vietnam way, he wishes always to fight the Gulf way. For the secretary of state, it is 1991 or nothing. But Powell's statement betrays also more concrete errors: that the war in the Gulf, for example, was a "successful war." If we were successful in Operation Desert Storm, it was because we defined our way to success, by excluding the overthrow of Saddam Hussein from our definition of it. In the real world of authoritarian regimes and weapons of mass destruction, we failed. "

What would you have done? The bottom line is that 10 years later Saddam hussein is still in power and still trying to obtain nucear weapons, and may have been the source of the anthrax. I wouldn't call that success.

I agree with you 100% about nuclear weapons. As long as the US maintains nuclear weapons I don't see any justification for teh US objecting to others having them as well. However, the point about Iraq is very simple. 10 years after the Gulf War, Iraq is still a dangerous threat in the region.