Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush Doubts Iraq Will Meet Deadline (and indirectly slams Daschle)
AP via Excite News ^ | 9/13/02 | AP

Posted on 09/13/2002 6:13:15 AM PDT by frmrda

Bush Doubts Iraq Will Meet Deadline Sep 13, 8:57 AM (ET)

By BARRY SCHWEID

UNITED NATIONS (AP)- President Bush said Friday it is "highly doubtful" that Saddam Hussein will comply with U.S. demands and avoid a confrontation with the world community.

In a meeting with African leaders at the international organization, Bush reiterated his request for a U.N. resolution, demanding that Saddam disarm his weapons programs.

"We're talking days and weeks, not months and years," the president said in outlining his request for a U.N.-imposed deadline on Saddam.

"That's essential for the safety of the world," he said.

Bush also questioned why some Democratic lawmakers want delay in voting on a resolution allowing him to act against Saddam until the U.N. passes its measure.

Chuckling, the president said he could not imagine being an elected member of Congress and saying, "Vote for me and, oh, on matters of national security, I think I'm going to want somebody else to act."

Bush made the remarks one day after asking the U.N. to take action to join with the United States in taking action against Saddam unless the Iraqi president quickly meets a series of demands, including unconditional disarmament and an end to persecution of minorities.

"I am highly doubtful that he will meet our demands. I hope he does, but I'm highly doubtful," Bush told reporters. "The reason I'm doubtful is he's had 11 years to meet the demands. For 11 long years, he has basically told the United Nations and the world he doesn't care."

Bush's comments came as Secretary of State Colin Powell was launching talks Friday with key foreign leaders to see if they can put together a U.N. resolution that calls on Iraq to submit to weapons inspections or risk grave consequences.

Only Britain stands firmly with the United States in its hard-line approach to Iraq's Saddam Hussein. The three other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, Russia, China and France, have the power to veto and torpedo a resolution.

Powell's tough assignment is to try to gain their support.

"I think the U.N. Security Council realizes we have a problem they have to deal with," the secretary said.

Interviewed on CBS's "The Early Show," Powell said that any new U.N. resolutions "can't be the kinds of resolutions we've had in the past."

On ABC's "Good Morning America," he said, "There has to be deadlines this time. In the absence of deadlines, the Iraqis will string us out, will try to negotiate away or simply ignore the resolution."

In a speech Thursday night, Powell lashed out at the Iraqi leader.

"Saddam Hussein has long made an unholy alliance with terrorists," Powell said. "What is not arguable is that he is in violation of international law."

Raising the specter of war, Bush had told skeptical world leaders Thursday to confront the "grave and gathering danger" of Saddam's Iraq - or stand aside as the United States acts. Hesitant allies asked Bush not to go it alone, while some members of Congress said the president still had not made the case for an attack.

Powell stressed on Friday, however, that Bush has not yet made a decision.

"The president has made it clear that he feels Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime to be abhorrent," he said on CBS, "but he's not declaring war on anybody at this point."

Powell said he would confer with Security Council partners Friday but that he did not anticipate immediately putting together a new resolution. Representatives of other nations likely would need the weekend to consult with leaders back home, he said, saying a new resolution might not be forthcoming until next week.

"But I don't want to put a time dimension on it right now because I think it's something for me and my colleagues in the Security Council to work out," Powell said.

"We're often accused of being unilateral," he said on ABC. Powell said Bush's appearance at the U.N. "was a desire to speak to the international body, to be multilateral."

In deciding to try to put together a new U.N. resolution on Iraq - there have been 16 since the Persian Gulf war of 1990-91 calling for weapons inspection and disarmament - Bush has taken a step in the direction of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and other world leaders who are opposed to unilateral action.

But a senior U.S. official responded negatively when asked if there was a chance Saddam would comply with U.N. demands this time. The official added there will be no negotiations with Iraq.

Powell had a luncheon scheduled with the foreign ministers of Russia, France, Britain and China, and a separate session with the other members of the Council.

Also, Powell was to meet separately with Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan of China and, briefly, with French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepan.

In Washington, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said, "I don't think that the case for pre-emptive attack has been made conclusively yet. That doesn't mean it can't be."

Republican lawmakers praised Bush's speech and urged Democrats to support him.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Front Page News
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-130 last
To: rockinonritalin
I find it hard to believe that Democrats actually think that they can win in November by behaving as they are. Aren't they just generating anger from the American people against themselves? Wouldn't they be better off acting tough alongside the President and then using the power of incumbancy to hold onto the Senate?

They can't. They're trapped by their base, made up of pressure groups that are deeply committed to appeasement, "multi-culturalism" and anti-Americanism. If that base doesn't turn out for the Dem candidate on election day, they lose.

121 posted on 09/13/2002 12:57:00 PM PDT by Argus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Samwise
Clinton may not have been the worst President, but he was certainly the worst man who was ever President.

I can't remember who said that, but I thought it fit.

George Will. It was the last line of the following brilliant op ed:

George Will: Clinton is a rapist

122 posted on 09/13/2002 1:09:40 PM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
We should reread that article every once in a while just to remind ourselves.

Thanks for the memory aid.
123 posted on 09/13/2002 1:19:56 PM PDT by Samwise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: BlueNgold
If Tommie (the weenie) Dasshole ever becomes President I'll eat my gun.
124 posted on 09/13/2002 1:21:00 PM PDT by pankot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mwl1
I do not understand the strategy of Senator Daschle (D-Iraq) at all. He should want a prompt vote to get this issue out of the way of his troops facing re-election. Why he is peddling the obstruction is beyond me.

Me too. I'm really trying to come up with something else, but the only thing to occurs to me a present: Tommy is dumb. He don't know "stategery".

125 posted on 09/13/2002 1:23:34 PM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
Re #37
Bush has definately gotten his point across. I just saw
Lieberman on Fox News, looking "Statesman Like" (Really!).
He said that he will work with the Administration and members of both Parties to get a resolution through Congress. For the security of the American People, of course.

I do not know if he was trying to look Presidential or starting
a run for Dassholes job.
126 posted on 09/13/2002 3:40:19 PM PDT by NCMOM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
Re: #54
No, you are wrong. Carter was inept, Clinton was corrupt.
127 posted on 09/13/2002 4:40:26 PM PDT by NCMOM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: mwl1
What's Senator Daschle waiting for? Iraq to nuke New York or something?

He's behaving as if 9-11 never happened.

Never Forget---Never-Surrender---Pray for our martyrs---9-11

128 posted on 09/13/2002 4:58:10 PM PDT by pray4liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: NCMOM
No, you are wrong. Carter was inept, Clinton was corrupt.

Would that Carter had been merely inept. We might still have a modernizing regime, very likely a democratic one by now, in Iran. We would have never had to deal with the Sandanista regime in Nicaragua.

Carter most certainly was corrupt. Admittedly it wasn't the amoral and unprincipled corruption of Clinton, but was possibly more dangerous, particularly in a time before The Gipper won The Cold War, because it was principled: driven by Jimmah's hard left ideology. Carter abandoned (even actively conspired against) our allies and succored our enemies. He continues to do so to this day.

129 posted on 09/13/2002 5:18:18 PM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: NCMOM
Even Biden this morning on CNN was supporting Bush! Sure looks like daschle is out in left field on this one!
130 posted on 09/13/2002 5:56:26 PM PDT by PhiKapMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-130 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson