WASHINGTON (REUTERS) — President Bush Thursday asked Congress to authorize a military strike against Iraq and the ouster of President Saddam Hussein, in a move that would present a united front to the world.
Bush also made clear his growing impatience with the United Nations, warning that Washington was prepared to act on its own, or with its allies, if the Security Council failed to come up with tough, new action requiring that Iraq disarm.
In a proposed congressional resolution, entitled “To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq,” Bush asked for approval from Congress to use “all means he determines to be appropriate, including force.”
“If you want to keep the peace, you’ve got to have the authorization to use force,” Bush said after meeting with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Vice President Dick Cheney and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice in the Oval Office.
“It’s a chance for Congress to say, ‘We support the administration’s ability to keep the peace.’ That’s what this is all about,” Bush said.
It appeared clear that some version of the resolution would easily be approved in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate in the coming weeks, giving Bush political cover to use military forces in his showdown with Saddam over Iraq’s suspected chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
Approval would not be a sign of imminent military action.
Appearing before the House International Relations Committee as Bush sought congressional backing, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld served notice that U.S. air power alone could not wipe out Iraq’s suspected weapons of mass destruction, saying any American attack would require ground troops.
Rumsfeld and the nation’s top military officer, Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, also told the Senate Armed Services Committee they could not guarantee Iraq would not use chemical or biological weapons against those troops.
Iraq’s offer Monday to readmit U.N. arms inspectors, made under heavy international pressure, has divided the Security Council and weakened Bush’s drive for a new mandate for unfettered inspections backed by the threat of force.
Russia and France have questioned the need for a new resolution, complicating Powell’s attempts to negotiate tough language requiring Iraq to disarm or face the consequences.
Bush ridiculed a speech by Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri in which he accused the United States of fabrications in order to attack Iraq and take control of Middle East oil.
“I didn’t hear it, but let me guess: ‘The United States is guilty, the world doesn’t understand, we don’t have any weapons of mass destruction.’ It’s the same old song and dance that we’ve heard for 11 long years,” Bush said.
The proposed congressional resolution cited a “high risk” that Iraq will employ weapons of mass destruction in a surprise attack against the United States or provide them to international terrorists who would strike U.S. targets.
Trying to draw a link between Iraq and last year’s Sept. 11 attacks, the document said members of al Qaeda are known to be in Iraq and that the attacks in New York and Washington “underscored the gravity of the threat that Iraq will transfer weapons of mass destruction to international terrorist organizations.”
The draft resolution restated the U.S. policy of “regime change” — Saddam’s ouster — and laid out these goals: enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions, defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore peace and security in the region.
The wording will be debated by members of Congress. Initial reaction was generally positive, with an eye toward passage before Nov. 5 elections, probably within the next two weeks.
“We will look at what the administration is proposing and make our own determination as to whether it is something to support,” said Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D.
Some members expressed doubts. Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., said he feared the wording was too broad and could be used to go beyond Iraq. “I am for a generous grant of authority to the president in dealing with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. If you are going beyond Iraq, then I think we need to have a little more scrutiny,” he said.
Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., said the administration’s language was unacceptable, too broad, and did not adequately define the mission.
“It appears to actually authorize the president to do virtually anything anywhere in the Middle East, a proposal that no doubt will alarm many of our most important allies in the fight against terrorism,” Feingold said.
White House officials made clear they intended the resolution to deal only with Iraq.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the language looked fine to him and predicted it would pass overwhelmingly.
Publicly challenging U.S. skepticism over the utility of weapons inspections, Russian defense minister Sergei Ivanov said the inspectors could “easily determine” whether or not Iraq was pursuing weapons of mass destruction.
“It’s not a question of trust or mistrust. It’s a question of facts,” he said ahead of Pentagon talks with Rumsfeld.
