US warns Syria not to provide haven for wanted Iraqis (Eagleburger impeach gwb if we attack syria)

uk independent ^ | 14 April 2003 | Ben Russell

[TheRedSoxWinThePennant]

US warns Syria not to provide haven for wanted Iraqis By Ben Russell, Political Correspondent 14 April 2003

Syria faced renewed warnings from America not to provide safe haven for senior figures in Saddam Hussein's regime.

Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, increased the diplomatic pressure on Damascus while Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defence, extended his rhetoric against the Syrians, insisting that "there's no question" that some senior Iraqi leaders had fled to Syria. "We certainly are hopeful Syria will not become a haven for war criminals or terrorists," Mr Rumsfeld said.

President George Bush added to the pressure, saying: "Syria just needs to co-operate with the United States and our coalition partners, not harbour any Baathists, any military officials, any people who need to be held to account."

Speaking to reporters later, he appeared to threaten Syria with possible military action, by pointedly saying that Damascus held chemical weapons, and that the Iraq war showed that "we're serious about stopping weapons of mass destruction".

Asked by a reporter whether Syria could face military action if it did not turn over Iraqi leaders, Mr Bush said: "They just need to co-operate."

On Saturday a gunman who shot dead an American Marine guarding a hospital in Baghdad was found to have a Syrian identification card by US military officials. Marines shot and killed him.

Dominique de Villepin, the French Foreign Minister, who is visiting Lebanon, said the international community should focus on rebuilding Iraq and reviving Middle East peace efforts. Asked about American accusations against Damascus, he said: "The time is not correct. The time is to work together."

His comments coincided with visits by Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, and Mike O'Brien, a Foreign Office minister, to Iraq's neighbours to discuss the future of the region.

Hawks in the Bush team have raised the prospect of action against Syria. Mr Rumsfeld warned that Syria would be "held to account" if it provided military equipment to Iraq.

General Powell, considered amoderate within the administration, joined the chorus of disapproval despite concern over deteriorating relations between Syria and the West. He said: "We think it would be very unwise ... if suddenly Syria becomes a haven for all these people who should be brought to justice who are trying to get out of Baghdad ... nor do I know why Syria would become a place of haven for people who should be subject to the justice of the Iraqi people."

General Powell told the BBC's Breakfast with Frost: "Syria has been a concern for a long period of time. We have designated Syria for years as a state that sponsors terrorism.

"We are concerned that materials have flowed through Syria to the Iraqi regime over the years. We are making this point clearly and in a very direct manner to the Syrians."

Mr O'Brien, who visited Tehran, the Iranian capital, yesterday, will raise the Allies' concerns with the Syrian authorities today. Mr Straw was visiting Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia to discuss the reconstruction of Iraq.

Lawrence Eagleburger, who was US Secretary of State under George Bush Snr, told the BBC: "If George Bush [Jnr] decided he was going to turn the troops loose on Syria and Iran after that he would last in office for about 15 minutes.In fact if President Bush were to try that now even I would think that he ought to be impeached. You can't get away with that sort of thing in this democracy."

[TheRedSoxWinThePennant]

whats up with eagleburger

[Steven W.]

what's up with you ... talk about "jumping the gun"

[muawiyah]

I'd say the man "sold out", or that he likes French wine and German sausages to an extreme, or maybe both.

[Support Free Republic]

---

STOMP OUT FREEPATHONS !
	BECOME A MONTHLY DONOR TODAY! 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!- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[MinuteGal]

If there's anything worse than muddled retired generals expounding on TV, it's muddled retired secretaries of state.

Leni

[snooker]

>>>whats up with eagleburger

who knows. this guy is all over the map.

Congress gave Bush the authority to pursue terrorists anywhere. They need to vote to take it back.

However I think it unlikely we will attack Syria, unless provoked. We will squeeze them every way we can. Listen to Ollie as he reports the attackers are largely Syrian. Wonder who sent them.

[polemikos]

I suspect that LE was trying to explain that the US was not going to act precipitously,
but by going to an absurd extreme, the comment came out sounding like an attack.

[Redcloak]

Huh?

Mr. Eagleburger should take a closer look at what Congress authorized. The original post-9/11 declaration gives the President wide latitude in the conduct of this war. The subsequent declaration on Iraq was not needed. All the President needs as "probable cause" is to show a nexus between the target and terrorism. Such a nexus exists in both Syria and Iran. Bush would be allowed by law to go after either.

[DWPittelli]

Villepin was, for once, right when he said: "The time is not correct." Or at any rate, it's clear that the U.S. is

Not Going to Attack Syria Soon

We are right now pulling out 2 aircraft carriers from the Gulf, apparently to return to the U.S. That means we're giving Syria et al about 6 months before we'd be prepared to attack them. Of course, Syria knows what we're doing with the carriers, so they may feel emboldened to keep on with their terrorism. But if you see carriers moved to the Mediterranean, then you'll know that we're seriously leaning on Syria and/or seriously considering an attack.

[mvpel]

Bush does in fact need Congressional authorization to militarily engage Syria. That authority was granted by Congress for Iraq by House Joint Resolution 114, on October 10, 2002. He's going to need something similar to go after Syria with military force.

[Argus]

The still-unrepealed congressional resolutions for the War on Terror authorize President Bush to use whatever force he deems appropriate to pursue terrorists and the states that harbor them. He still has the power, and there's nothing unconstitutional about it.

[PhiKapMom]

Eagleburger should sit down and shut up!

If they (including Eagleburger) hadn't been so weak in 1991 and we had gone to Baghdad then, we would not have had to take this action now!

[polemikos]

...if President Bush were to try that now...

the operative word is "now" which was left out of the subhead.
And within that limited context, LE is correct.

Now as a significant causus belli is found...
Well, GWB is a patient man. New target, new allies, new weapons, fresh troops, new plan, fresh resolutions, etc.

[bybybill]

Whats up with Eagleburger?-----Don`t believe everything you read in the funnypapers

[TD911]

Not to metion his stellar conduct up to the beginning of the war.

Who can forget those moronic editorials?

Anywho, he's on Hannity&Colmes tonight. Someone should tell Hannity to ask him about this treasonous quote.

[cynicom]

Eagleburger is not a team player, also he has other personal "interests" in the Middle East, as do a lot of former ex government people.

[dodger]

Larry, ever over-rated, is (as I am told by my cousin -- a Harvard Medical School neurologist) showing subtle, early but real signs of a demential syndrome. Sad as he was, in his day, good.

By the way, my cousin notes a similar decline in Jeanne Kirkpatrick.

[blam]

"We are right now pulling out 2 aircraft carriers from the Gulf, apparently to return to the U.S. That means we're giving Syria et al about 6 months before we'd be prepared to attack them. "

We don't need the Navy planes for this, we have the AF in the Iraqi bases.

[mvpel]

What resolutions are you referring to? Senate Joint Resolution 23 authorizes attacks only against those who were specifically involved in the 9/11 attack, and those nations that harbor such organizations or individuals.

I think the only way that could be applicable was if there was a pretty clear line drawn between the specific Iraqi officials believed to be harbored in Syria and 9/11.