U.S. May Revise Draft Resolution on Iraq

abc ^ | 3/10/03

[knak]

U.S. Signals Willingness to Delay U.N. Vote and Revise Draft Resolution Endorsing Force in Iraq

Adopting a two-pronged strategy to avert a U.N. defeat, the Bush administration once again portrayed Iraq as in violation of international demands it disarm, but signaled a willingness to revise its troubled resolution endorsing the use of force.

As new evidence to condemn Saddam Hussein as a deceptive cheat, Secretary of State Colin Powell and his spokesman cited the development of drone airplanes and cluster bombs, both capable of spreading chemicals. Powell said the world should be concerned.

Hoping to win the support of U.N. Security Council fence-sitters, U.S. and British diplomats consulted with them on extending the March 17 deadline proposed last Friday for Iraq to disclose and eliminate all its hidden weapons of mass destruction.

In the process, a vote planned for Tuesday was postponed at least until later in the week. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer described consultations on the March 17 deadline as "fluid."

President Bush and Powell pressed their diplomacy to secure at least the minimally required nine votes for adoption of the resolution. The foreign minister of Guinea, Francois Fall, said after a luncheon meeting with Powell that Guinea and other council members were "in intensive consultations in order to find a compromise."

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher confirmed that revising the tough resolution in a bid to gain support was being considered.

"We are obviously listening to other governments as we talk to them, and we'll see where we come out on this. At this point I don't want to predict anything either way," Boucher said.

Still, opposition by France and Russia loomed as huge hurdles for the resolution devised jointly by the United States, Britain and Spain.

In Paris, French President Jacques Chirac said France was prepared to veto the resolution, if necessary, and joined Russia in saying the two nations would vote against a March 17 deadline.

While Tuesday had not been officially set as the date for a vote on the resolution U.S. officials made clear it was the intention.

Signaling a change in timing, Fleischer declined to predict when the resolution would be taken up. "It certainly could be any day later than tomorrow," he said.

Powell, meanwhile, voiced concern over the discovery that Iraq has unmanned drone aircraft capable of dispensing chemical weapons.

Disclosure last week by U.N. weapons inspectors that Iraq had such aircraft "should be of concern to everybody," Powell said. "This and other information shows Iraq has not changed."

Iraq also has developed a version of a South African cluster bomb that could disperse chemical weapons over a target, Boucher said.

Iraq has said that it has destroyed all chemical warheads.

Bush, meanwhile worked the telephone to stave off a U.N. Security Council defeat. He spoke by telephone to eight world leaders, the biggest burst of telephone calls since October 2001 when he marshaled support for the U.S. military campaign against the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan.

Bush talked to Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, Chinese President Jiang Zemin, South African President Thabo Mbeki, Sultan Qaboos of Oman, Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar of Spain, Turkish governing party leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, President Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal and President Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria.

Besides Fall, Powell spoke to Presidents Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan and Jose Eduardo dos Santos of Angola, Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez of Mexico, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and Spanish Foreign Minister Ana Palacio.

In Iraq, U.S. and British aircraft dropped 240,000 leaflets near Iraqi anti-aircraft artillery batteries warning "do not track or fire on coalition aircraft."

On the other side of the leaflets was a warning that "any hostile action by Iraqi air defenses toward coalition aircraft will be answered by immediate retaliation."

President Bush gestures while speaking with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi from the Oval Office of the White House Monday, March 10, 2003. The president along with members of his administration are working the phones. They're trying to drum up support for the U.N. resolution that gives Saddam Hussein until March 17th to prove he's disarmed. (AP Photo/Eric Draper, White House)

[knak]

I've been out for a while and don't know if this has been posted, I searched under revise and didn't see it.

[dinok]

So are we blinking?

Not good

[Cyber Liberty]

Bush knows that he needs to find a place to live January 20, 2005 if he blows this.

[Maynerd]

I feel ill. I can't believe W is kowtowing to Cameroon!

[Cyber Liberty]

We are not. We have ABC and Reuters reporting that we're caving. Do you believe them?

[Gilbo_3]

Call the hand already and SHOW THE CARDS

[Euro-American Scum]

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer described consultations on the March 17 deadline as "fluid."

So when are they planning to go in? The 4th of July in 120-degree heat?

[Thane_Banquo]

Every day we delay means more US casualties.

[Uncle Hal]

I tell you folks the more this drags on the weaker Bush look. Bush has either got to go in soon or forget it. There is an expression in the business world that says if things start out bad they usually end up bad. As much as I love Bush the longer this goes on the more indecisive he looks. I am really getting concerned.

[Peach]

It's not just Reuters and ABC reporting this. It's Ari Fleischer, Capitol Hill mags, Fox news, etc. Wish it was just bad reporting or mis-information to regain the element of "surprise" for the Butcher of Bagdad, but I think it's far more serious than that. I for one find it hard to believe this president, of all presidents, is willing to put our troops at risk like this for the FRENCH of all people, or for any political reason, but it's becoming increasingly apparent that he is.

[Peach]

I'm with you. Every day of delay is a bad day. I'm a huge supporter and actually love this president, but he's quickly losing my support. I see his support dwindling every day in this very conservative South Carolina town which absolutely CARRIED him in the primaries. If we're losing faith, you can imagine how the rest of the unconvinced or neutral citizenry feels.

[goodnesswins]

Boy...am I GLAD I don't live in IRAQ and think I'm going to be free.....this is frustrating enough HERE....think what it must be there!

[Freeper Lady]

I'm with you. Even the hardliners I know are starting to shake their heads. This is not good for Bush and people are starting to loose interest.

[ijcr]

Nope! Just waiting for a new vote in Turkey.

[tet68]

Tis like the headlines, "Republican party split,
vast gulf opens in party operatives. Democrats show solidarity."

more press lies.

[over3Owithabrain]

Bush had it all just months ago - the strong backing of the majority of voting Americans, a GOP House and Senate, 15-0 UN vote on disarming Saddam, the liberals and media cowering.

But like his dad, he couldn't stand success. Lost somewhere amongst his morning prayers and daily tough talk was his resolve. He sleptwalk through his press conference last week, and is now yet again backing off his own statements: "game over" "weeks not months" "cards on the table".
If something doesn't change real soon he will have thrown it all away, and us in the process.

[tetelestai]

I too, am getting concerned. If this goes beyound the end of next week, I'll conclude that Bush is bluffing, and the UN knows it.

[pgkdan]

If this is true it's bad, bad , bad news!! The President looks weak and indecisive. Are we going to do this or not? I heard President Bush say last week at his press conference that he believed Iraq posed a real threat to the American people. He said it at least 10 times. If that's the case why are we still farting around at the UN??? If Iraq is a real threat to the American people it's not a matter for the UN to consider.

The longer this takes the worse the President looks. This is not good.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Shoot the messenger.

[rabbitdog]

I think the date set will be irrelevant because France is not going to change to abstain from a veto if the resolution is extended for two weeks. If you extend it two weeks to get the others on board to vote with you, and then France still vetoes, then you still attack the 17th and added the additional countries to be in agreement with your resolution. Am I missing something?