 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
CIA letter on Iraq fails to sway Bush
By SARA FRITZ, Times Washington Bureau Chief WASHINGTON -- President Bush disagrees with the CIA's estimate that Iraq is more likely to unleash a terrorist attack on the United States if American forces are sent to Baghdad, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Wednesday. Fleischer told reporters that despite the CIA's assessment, which was contained in a letter made public Tuesday by Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., Bush firmly believes that military action may prove to be the only way to deter the terrorist threat posed by Iraq. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein "has the means and he has the history," Fleischer said, "and the president has the responsibility to protect the country." In the CIA's letter to Graham, who heads the Senate Intelligence Committee, the agency said Hussein "now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks" on the United States with conventional, chemical or biological weapons. "Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred," the letter added, "he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions." That judgment caused consternation on Capitol Hill, where the House and Senate are debating a resolution that would give Bush broad powers to launch an attack on Baghdad, and it emboldened some opponents of the president's policy. Congress is expected to approve the resolution, however. Rep. Donald Payne, D-N.J., said during House debate Wednesday that the CIA report suggested an attack on Iraq "could trigger the very things that our president has said that he is trying to prevent: the use of chemical or biological weapons." "In view of this report," Payne said, "the policy of a pre-emptive strike is troublesome." Likewise, Ivan Eland, defense policy expert at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, said the letter "shows that the policy of deterring and containing Iraq does work and that a more aggressive policy of invasion could prove disastrous." But Fleischer focused, instead, on another passage in the CIA letter: "The likelihood of Saddam using (weapons of mass destruction) for blackmail, deterrence, or otherwise grows as his arsenal builds. Moreover, if Saddam used (weapons of mass destruction) it would disprove his repeated denials that he has such weapons." Even though these two statements appear to conflict, they are both correct, said Anthony Cordesman, military analyst at another think tank, the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "We face a long-term threat if we don't attack Iraq," he said. "We face a short-term threat if we do." Cordesman said that the CIA's statement demonstrates that a U.S. assault on Iraq could be more dangerous to the American people than the president has been willing to admit, but "you cannot accept that as a reason for paralysis." "The question we must ask is, 'Will they be more capable of launching a terrorist attack in one or two years from now, if we do nothing?' And the answer is yes," he said. The House is expected to approve the Iraq resolution today, but the Senate vote likely will be delayed until next week as a result of stalling tactics by Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. A defender of congressional prerogatives, Byrd said the proposed resolution was a "blank check" that "cedes the decisionmaking power of the Congress under the Constitution to declare war." On Wednesday, the Senate voted 88-10 against an amendment to the resolution proposed by Graham that would have expanded Bush's authority for pre-emptive military action to include five terror organizations. Focusing only on Iraq could distract from the war on terrorism and "increase the risk at home," Graham argued. But administration allies said Graham's proposal would only complicate the situation. All 10 votes for Graham's proposal came from Democrats, while 39 Democrats joined Republicans in voting to block it. Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate's second-ranking Democrat, said he would vote to extend warmaking power to Bush, but urged the president to use his power with discretion. "President Bush, the rule of law matters and so does a decent respect for the opinion of the rest of the world. As president of the United States, you are the leader of the free world, not its ruler," Reid said. Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., said the resolution has the support of almost all of the Senate's 49 Republicans and was gaining support among Democrats. On the other side of the aisle, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said he thinks the wording of the resolution must be improved, but he agreed it would pass. The president hopes the U.N. Security Council will be influenced by a strong vote in Congress. But the five veto-holding members of the Security Council remained divided Wednesday on whether to authorize military action if Iraq does not comply with U.N. weapons inspectors. The United States and Britain want approval to attack Iraq if it blocks weapons inspectors again. But France, Russia and China say Hussein should be given a chance to cooperate before military action is authorized. In Moscow, Deputy Foreign Minister Yuri Fedotov said his country could accept a new U.N.resolution if it did not open the way for automatic use of force should Baghdad fail to comply with the inspections regime. -- Information from the Associated Press was used in this report.
 © 2006 • All Rights Reserved • Tampa Bay Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111 
|
From the Times wire desk
From the AP |
