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.
So very, very true. And Daschle is again - not leading and not even allowing our president to lead.
Just who does Daschle think he is? Does he think one person should have the right to deny the senate the right to vote on an issue? Does he think he is co-president?
We elected those people to act for America's interests and I dang well mean for them to act or we will take out each and every one of them and get others that will perform their duties.
You're right about his look. It was as if he couldn't believe anyone would have been that stupid to have said such a thing. It really was awesome...I hope they replay it again.
That's a good start...but the look on President Bush's face was great...it just adds to the message...he looks completely baffled, and slightly pissed, as to why a U.S. elected official would say they must defer first to the "international community" and to the U.N. in matters of U.S. interests and homeland safety
Make that the EUNICE STONE Homeland Security Bill
My biggest fear is that the UN will go along with us and be strengthened and legitimized rather than left behind in an irrelevant heap. I voted for GWB with high hopes and not a few fears. The way he referred to the UN in this instance warmed my heart and relieved my mind.
I told my husband that a democratic vote for president in 2004 would physically endanger not only our country, but our family who we love so dearly. He got really angry with me and accused me of emotional blackmail. I rarely say what I think about his votes, other than that he's wrong:), but I feel SO strongly about the next election coming up.
Heh heh heh. You got it. Just let him try!!!
Eunice is on FOX right now and she is great. For some strange reason she's not talking about tommy and LIEberman protecting union security workers rights.
Not past tense.
He still does, hasn't changed, hasn't learned from his idiotic mistakes.
One-term governor, one-term President.
Yesterday, Bush "checkmated" the UN
Today, he is putting the final few moves in play to complete the checkmate of Daschle, Byrd, and Gephardt (talk about a trifecta!)....
He now has TWO huge rounds of ammo to use against them:
1) Their 1998 "gung ho, let's finally take care of Hussein" vs. the 2002 flip-flop, and
2) They ASKED for this debate, and NOW they don't want to do it, all for purely political motives, with NO regards to civilian life and national security.
All those pro-"Gore-is(oops, WAS)-the-smarter-candidate" really are learning the lessons the hard way.
Give me a choice between someone with a business background, and someone from a all-political background, and the businessman will win everytime - they know how to make the tough calls, not just try to placate everyone...
3,000 American noncombatants died last Sept. 11 in a premeditated attack upon American soil. The ringleader of the attack has been known to have consorted with Saddam, through their respective representatives. Saddam continues to thumb his nose at 16 relevant UN resolutions.
What threat can be quantified?
Tally up the monetary and human cost of the Iran-Iraq war, the 1991 invasion of Kuwait, and 9/11/01 for starters.
What has changed in recent months or years?
See above. Add to this reports that Saddam is close to one or more nukes. Consider how indiscriminately he lobbed scuds at Israel and our troops during the Gulf war. This should indicate to any sensible person the manner in which he or his clients are willing to use nukes.
What will be the reaction of our allies?
Who cares? They'll jump on board, or they'll never be with us.
How much will it cost?
Who cares? We'll pay for it.
If we change regimes, who will be in the new regime, and has that been thought through?
Who cares, as long as our safety and that of the rest of the world is safeguarded from Iraqi-sponsored aggression?
Those and many other questions I think are ones that we have to explore very carefully.
Those are your answers. Now explore to your heart's content. But do it quick. Our lives and our country as we know it are at stake.
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.