|
||||||||
  |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John King: Shifts in U.S. rhetoric on Iraq
CRAWFORD, Texas (CNN) -- President Bush is pressing the United Nations for action on Iraq and expressing optimism that Congress will approve a resolution authorizing the use of force to disarm Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. But there seems to have been a shift of emphasis in the president's recent public remarks toward disarmament and away from talk of overthrowing the Iraqi regime. CNN's Senior White House Correspondent John King spoke with CNN Anchor Heidi Collins about the administration's current position on Iraq from Crawford, Texas, where the president is spending the weekend. COLLINS: John, can you give us an idea if Afghanistan will actually be used as a model for the possible Iraq military action? KING: If there is military action, Heidi, the president continues to insist he has not made that final decision yet. One of the things the United States is telling its allies and skeptical countries around the world as it tries to build its case, if there is a military action that removes Saddam Hussein from power ... Afghanistan would be the model in the sense that the United States is promising that it would keep forces in Iraq itself, that it would build a coalition to keep stabilizing forces in Iraq, and that you would try to stand up a new government, again, if Saddam Hussein is removed from power. A great number of questions and a great deal of skepticism about whether the two are comparable, whether you have somebody like President [Hamid] Karzai in Afghanistan to step forward and lead in Afghanistan. Turkey is nervous because of the Kurds in the north of Iraq. So that is a big question, but it is a much more long-term question down the line. And again, Mr. Bush says he doesn't want to get into the specifics of that right now, because he continues to insist he has not decided that he will go the military route. COLLINS: Well, you know, we just recently heard Ted Kennedy's speech calling for diplomacy as well as a number of other Democrats. Does anyone on either side really believe that diplomacy alone will bring about this regime change? KING: Inside the White House, they do not believe diplomacy will work. But you have heard the president in recent days significantly soften his rhetoric and make the case. As he said yesterday as he was traveling in Colorado and in Arizona that use of force is his last resort, that he continues to hope for diplomacy through the United Nations. The president himself even has put regime change on the back burner in terms of his rhetorical focus, saying the goal now must be disarmament, getting the United Nations to adopt a tough new resolution, sending weapons inspectors back in, backed up with the threat of military force if Saddam Hussein does not comply. So in going to the United Nations and in trying to quiet and temper the criticism in Congress, the president himself has set regime change aside in terms of his most public, vocal rhetoric. That does not mean it is not still the policy of this administration. COLLINS: Well, let's talk about that a little bit more, then, John. What will be the criteria for these weapons inspections? How will we know if Iraq comes out clean? And then how long of a time frame is going to be allowed to make sure that those weapons inspections are done correctly? KING: That is the critical question right now. The United States and Great Britain have put forward to the other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council a very tough draft resolution that says once the resolution is adopted, Saddam Hussein would have one week to say yes or no to whether he accepts the terms. Then he would have 30 days to give a full accounting of all his weapons of mass destruction and all his weapons sites, any laboratories used to produce chemical or biological agents. Then the inspectors would go in, perhaps even backed up by military guards with them, and be able to go anywhere in Iraq, including the presidential palaces that Saddam Hussein has said in the past are off-limits. Then the inspectors would go in. How long would that take? Some say it would take months, some say it could take years. That all assumes that the inspectors are getting cooperation from Iraq and they are getting unfettered access to all those sites. It also assumes, however, something we can't just say yet, that the president gets his way in the U.N. Security Council. There is a great deal of skepticism from the permanent members, Russia, China, and France, who have veto power. So the president still has some uphill lobbying. And the big question is if the president does not get his way, will he accept something less than the White House wants from the United Nations? Or will he say, I tried the United Nations route, now we're going to try something else? COLLINS: Right. And John, one last question for you. Why does President Bush want the homeland security bill to be voted on before the U.N. Iraq resolution? Why is that so important to go in that order? KING: It is important for the president as a political priority. He says the Senate has been debating homeland security for some time. The president wants that bill passed before Congress breaks for the recess. He's hoping that once they get to the final vote, he can put public pressure on the Congress to vote his way. He says the Senate version right now is too micromanaging of the labor rules within the department. It is an arcane issue but critical to this president. Mr. Bush believes there's broad public support, and especially broad support in the Senate, for the resolution authorizing force. But that will be a heated debate, perhaps, by Sen. Kennedy and others who oppose him but that ultimately he will win big in the Senate on that issue if he wants to put political pressure on the Senate to give him his Homeland Security Department first. The worry at the White House is, if they can't get agreement in the Senate, they will just pass the Iraq resolution, then go home to campaign for re-election without passing the new Department of Homeland Security. COLLINS: All right. Senior White House Correspondent John King from Crawford, Texas, this morning. Thanks for your insights.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
