-Caveat Lector- This article from NYTimes.com has been sent to you by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bush Declares U.S. Is Using Diplomacy to Disarm Hussein October 22, 2002 By DAVID E. SANGER WASHINGTON, Oct. 21 - President Bush said today that the United States was trying diplomacy "one more time" to disarm Saddam Hussein "peacefully" and suggested that if the Iraqi leader complied with every United Nations mandate it would "signal the regime has changed." The White House immediately said that Mr. Bush was not backing away from his past insistence that Mr. Hussein must leave office. His spokesman said he could not imagine a situation in which the Iraqi leader, after 11 years of defiance, would suddenly comply with the United Nations. The president himself said today, in an appearance with Lord Robertson, the secretary general of NATO, that "the stated policy of the United States is regime change." Some administration officials said privately that they suspected that Mr. Bush was toning down his talk of removing the Iraqi leader, by force if necessary, to mollify nervous allies on the day that the United States and Britain began circulating a revised resolution in the Security Council demanding Iraq's disarmament. Nonetheless, the president's comments raised the question of exactly how the president defines "regime change," and whether a radical change in the Iraqi government's behavior would accomplish the same goal as ousting Mr. Hussein. The United States presented a slightly revised draft resolution to the Security Council today that moderated some requirements for weapons inspections in Iraq but still threatened unspecified consequences if Mr. Hussein refuses to disarm. One of Mr. Hussein's top advisers said in an interview with The New York Times that secret weapons programs were not the Bush administration's real objective in threatening war, but rather "oil and Israel," citing the United States' failure to threaten tough action against North Korea since it admitted last week to restarting its nuclear arms program. Mr. Bush's spokesman, Ari Fleischer, told reporters that the new United Nations resolution was now "moving forward nicely," and that, if passed, it would give Mr. Bush all the authority he believes he needs to act militarily if Mr. Hussein fails to comply. Mr. Fleischer also dismissed the release of Iraqi prisoners over the weekend as providing any indication that Mr. Hussein was moderating his rule, saying it was unclear how many prisoners there were, and how many remain imprisoned. For the first time today Mr. Bush talked publicly about the difference between the challenge posed by Iraq and by North Korea, which told American officials two weeks ago that it had restarted a clandestine nuclear weapons program using highly enriched uranium. Mr. Bush said he saw no contradiction in threatening military action against Iraq, while relying on diplomacy to solve the new crisis in the Korean Peninsula. "Saddam Hussein is unique in this sense," Mr. Bush said. "He has thumbed his nose at the world for 11 years," he said, adding later, "and for 11 years he said, `No, I refuse to disarm.' " The remarks seemed to leave open the possibility of negotiations with North Korea, a path that Mr. Bush has rejected outright in the case of Iraq and that some hard-liners in the administration argue would be a big mistake with Pyongyang as well. Mr. Bush's comments today about Mr. Hussein were sparked in part by statements that Secretary of State Colin L. Powell made on Sunday during television appearances in which he discussed the two weapons crises. Mr. Powell is keenly aware that any talk of "regime change" makes Security Council members deeply uneasy, and he has noted repeatedly that while Mr. Saddam's ouster is an American policy, it is not the policy of the United Nations. "We've tried diplomacy," Mr. Bush said when asked about the issue today. "We're trying it one more time. I believe the free world, if we make up our mind to, can disarm this man peacefully." At the same time he said, "The stated policy of our government, the previous administration and this administration, is regime change - because we don't believe he is going to change." Then, he added a cryptic caveat. "However, if he were to meet all the conditions of the United Nations, the conditions that I've described very clearly in terms that everybody can understand, that in itself will signal the regime has changed." Those were the last words of the brief Oval Office appearance, and aides shooed reporters out before they could ask follow-up questions. This evening, Mr. Fleischer, asked about the president's comments, said Mr. Bush "reiterated today what he said in Cincinnati, which was a reiteration of what he said in the United Nations: that Iraq needs to comply with the U.N. resolutions, and if they do their regime will have indeed have changed, because under Saddam Hussein they have shown no inclination to comply." Pressed on the question of whether Mr. Hussein could stay in power if he fully complied, Mr. Fleischer chuckled a bit and said: "I can't imagine a situation in which Iraq would do these things. When these steps are taken to observe the peace and honor the U.N. resolutions, at Saddam Hussein's direction and under his leadership, give me a call to discuss it." A review of Mr. Bush's past statements on the question of how Mr. Hussein must change - and what the result would be - shows incremental but real differences. On Sept. 12, speaking at the United Nations, Mr. Bush made six demands that Mr. Hussein must meet "if the Iraqi regime wishes peace." They included disclosing and removing all weapons of mass destruction, ending support for terrorism, ceasing the persecution of its own population, accounting for all those missing in action from the Persian Gulf war, and ending "all illicit trade" outside the oil-for-food program. The president suggested that, even then, a new government would have to be put in place by the United Nations. "If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq," he said. In Cincinnati on Oct. 7, describing his rationale for pressing the Iraq issue, Mr. Bush repeated those demands and added one more: Mr. Hussein must allow his weapons experts to be interviewed outside Iraq - with their families - so Mr. Hussein could not intimidate them. At that time, Mr. Bush seemed to suggest that if Mr. Hussein complied, he would in effect be running a very different country. "By taking these steps, and by only taking these steps, the Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict," the president said. "Taking these steps would also change the nature of the Iraqi regime itself. America hopes the regime will make that choice. Unfortunately, at least so far, we have little reason to expect it." He added that that is why he and President Bill Clinton concluded that "regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our nation." According to several officials, the administration has concluded internally that there is no way Mr. Hussein could comply with all of the demands: as soon as he was caught dissembling in his declarations about weapons of mass destruction, or blocking inspectors, or intimidating witnesses, the United States would have reason to act militarily. An official who sits in many of the Iraq policy discussions said tonight: "I don't think the president is backing down one iota from his conclusion that Saddam's got to go. But he's learned that talking about it doesn't help his cause." Mr. Fleischer, speaking a few hours before the president, put it more succinctly: "If anybody really thinks that Iraq is going to do all these things with the same despot in charge, with Saddam Hussein in charge, where on earth could anybody be getting that idea, based on Saddam Hussein's history and his current practices? "I think it's a rather unrealistic notion." http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/22/international/middleeast/22PREX.html?ex=1036270244&ei=1&en=36c2a5be5cc03e66 HOW TO ADVERTISE --------------------------------- For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters or other creative advertising opportunities with The New York Times on the Web, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit our online media kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo For general information about NYTimes.com, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http://archive.jab.org/ctrl@;listserv.aol.com/ <A HREF="http://archive.jab.org/ctrl@;listserv.aol.com/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
