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.
SEN. TOM DASCHLE: What I hope will happen over the course of the next several weeks is that the President will be more forthcoming in terms of the information that he believes warrants U.S. intervention in Iraq. What new information exists? What threat can be quantified? What has changed in recent months or years? What will be the reaction of our allies? How much will it cost? If we change regimes, who will be in the new regime, and has that been thought through? Those and many other questions I think are ones that we have to explore very carefully.
Metaphorically speaking. Heh heh heh.
Unfortunately...you may be hoping in vain...chances are we'll see it a few times on FOX (probably as Brit Hume's ending zinger) but the "national" networks will bury this one where the sun don't shine !!
It was announced during the inauguration. I was in the crowd at the capitol. I don't remember whether or not it was actually announced, or whether word swept through the crowd. I couldn't stand Reagan at the time and had voted for Carter (I know, I know), but immediately saw the effects of having this marvelous man as president. I became a Republican during his adminitration and my family has believed I fell over the edge ever since. Anyway, the atmostphere at the inauguration was electric. You could just feel the difference in the crowd!
I heard a report this morning that Tariq Aziz (sp?) said that Iraq will not comply because the US will come after them anyway. I heard this report on FNC before I had my coffee, so I can't remember the quote verbatim.
Funny, I do not recall reading about Congress asking these type of questions before going to war with Japan. Could it be if you wait for your enemy to destroy you, all other points are moot?
That says it all. Rallying cry for Senate take over. Take back America.
It was the day of Reagan's inauguration that our citizens were returned to us, for all you twenty-somethings. ;^) They knew the difference between an empty suit and a "cowboy".
So true Teacher.
The original hostage plan was that they would be kept for a few days or a week at the most.
Once they realized that there would be no reprocussions by the feckless POC in office, the plan changed.
Then along comes the "cowboy" and they realized feeces would hit the fan.
It shows that these crazy bastards are not so crazy afterall and that they can be "influenced".
Ah, Mr. Malaise. Remember his energy policy? Turn down the thermostat and wear sweaters. He even turned down the temp at the Whitehouse and appeared sweater clad before the American people. Time and again, on issue after issue, his basic message was, "we are helpless," and time and again, as President, he set the example of that helplessness. Bad as Clintoon was, I still think Jimmuh edges him out as our worst modern President.
Mr. Daschle went on to say, "I think the Florida Hwy. Patrol acted precipitacley in stopping the two cars that may belong to terrorists."
" First, there has been no conclusive case made thaqt the occupants are terrorists."
"Second, until the UN and Kofi Annan have given their blessing, our state and local law enforcement personnel shouldn't act unilaterally."
Obviously nothing but the administration, Tom, which accounts for the changing of your mind.
"Any delay would have given Saddam Hussein time to reconstitute his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and undermine international support for our efforts." Tom Daschle December 16, 1998 press conference supporting President Clintons actions against Iraq.
And when Clinton failed to do anything in '98 when Hussein kicked out the weapons inspectors, it reinforced to Hussein that the U.S. would continue down the road of helplessness when challenged.
Thank God that President Bush continues to exhibit the backbone that Clinton never had.
Middle Easterner's do not know how to respond to a world leader who keeps his word.
The ol' clock is ticking down.
That's one of the things I love about Bush. He calls it like it is. No longer are we going to pretend the UN is a viable, effective organization in a pathetic attempt to appease the Europeans. What a huge waste of money this organization is. I think they've been put on notice that we expect them to go about the business of their charter if they want to continue to enjoy our funding.
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.