BLAST FROM THE PAST
Both US parties back away from Iraq war
Top politicians say Bush must prove Saddam is real threat
Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles
Tuesday August 13, 2002
The Guardian
Leading politicians from both parties in the US foreign policy debate yesterday called for proof that the Iraqi leader, President Saddam Hussein, represents an immediate threat to the US, ending weeks of bipartisan support for a military attack on Iraq.
The reservations were voiced as Iraq's information minister said yesterday that UN weapons inspectors had completed their work in the country four years ago. Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf told the al-Jazeera television station: "The work of inspection teams in Iraq has been completed."
He told the Arabic satellite television station that the US president, George Bush, was "standing in quicksand" when it came to Iraq.
In the US, with mid-term elections due in November, both parties are assessing what effect a commitment to war might have. Even Mr Bush has been talking in less bellicose terms in the last few days.
Carl Levin, the chairman of the Senate armed services committee, said an attack on Iraq might prompt President Saddam to use weapons of mass destruction, because he would have nothing to lose.
"He's a survivalist," Mr Levin, a Democrat, said on NBC's Meet the Press programme. "He is not a suicide bomber... The question is how do you contain him." He added: "There should be continued pressure to resume UN weapons inspections in Iraq."
Last week Dick Armey, the Republican majority leader in the House of Representatives, said he did not believe an attack on Iraq would be justified without provocation. "My own view would be to let [President Saddam] bluster, let him rant and rave all he wants," Mr Armey said. "As long as he behaves himself within his own borders, we should not be addressing any attack or resources against him." Chuck Hagel, Republican senator for Nebraska, has also expressed reservations.
At the weekend, the Democratic national committee chairman, Terry McAuliffe, went further than most of his colleagues when he accused Mr Bush of breaking his agreement "never to exploit the national crisis that united us" after the September 11 terrorist attacks.
Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman who heads the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, told the New York Times: "You have not had the president articulate why Saddam needs to be removed. He has not made the case that Sad dam is an imminent threat."
Dick Lugar, a senior member of the Senate foreign relations committee and a Republican, said Mr Bush had to explain to the American people why the Iraqi leader was a threat. "The president has to make the case that... to wait for provocation [from Baghdad] is to invite a very large disaster," he said.
Fred Thompson, a Republican and a member of the Senate intelligence committee, also said Mr Bush had to make a case for invasion, although he suggested that he was in the process of doing that. "Do we sit back and hope we can negotiate our way out of that situation with Saddam?" he asked. "I don't think so."
The constant leaking of supposed war plans, some of which suggest that as many as 250,000 US ground troops might need to be deployed for up to 10 years, is starting to have an effect on the political debate. The projected cost of billions of dollars in waging such a war has also disconcerted some politicians.
Mr Bush appeared less committed to immediate military action when he spoke to reporters during his summer break. He said there was "no imminent war plan", but that Iraq remained an enemy of the US "until proved otherwise".
The more hawkish members of the administration have been showing signs of frustration as the debate has grown and details of the potential scope of the war have been revealed. The defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has complained: "If people start treating war plans like they're paper airplanes and they can fly them around this building and throw them to anyone who wants them, I think it's outrageous. It's inexcusable and they ought to be in jail." |
