"The
objective has to be disarmament, to compel Iraqi compliance with the
UN Security Council resolutions that called for the complete
destruction of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and an end to all
efforts to develop or produce more chemical, biological or nuclear
weapons."
Bush,
who branded Iraq part of an "axis of evil" developing
weapons of mass destruction, has long pressed for a regime change in
Baghdad. But his administration has yet to spell out how, or when it
hopes to achieve one.
Powell's
more moderate statements illustrate the widening gap that separates
the former 1991 Gulf War general from the administration
"hawks" who seem to have the ear of the President, Cheney,
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and National Security Advisor
Condoleezza Rice.
The
former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under president Bill
Clinton, Richard Holbrooke, said these contradictions reflect the
"public disarray" within the current administration.
"Instead
of making the case unambiguously with a single group of people singing
from the same song sheet, they're singing at least, at a minimum,
different lyrics to the same music, and they're undermining their
case," he said.
Even
former Secretary of State Republican Alexander Haig, who favors
military intervention, bemoaned the lack of consistency.
"There
have been disagreements from day one and they should be brought under
control," he said. "And the differences will always be there
until there is a firm decision and a game plan to implement."
"(Bush)
has got to lead, he's got to unify, he's got to start speaking with
one voice."
White
House spokesman Scott McClellan Sunday, September 2, 2002, played down
these differences, explaining that Powell's comments mirrored the
administration's appeal for "unfettered inspections."
However,
he added, "inspections are no guarantee if at the same time the
regime in Iraq continues to try to hide weapons of mass
destruction."
 |
|
Rumsfeld, a leading hawk
|
Asked
to comment on the U.S. position, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tareq
Aziz said Sunday: "We are hearing conflicting statements from the
American officials."
"So
we would like to know in exact terms what the United States government
is seeking."
Meanwhile,
Time magazine reported Monday that according to an aide close to
Powell, the Secretary of State, frustrated by the military hawks in
the cabinet, plans to step down at the end of Bush's four-year term.
“He
will have done a yeoman’s job of contributing over the four years.
But that’s enough," the aide told the weekly news magazine.
As
the aide told Time, Powell feels that "I did what my heart told
me to do. I got (Bush) here and set him up. I did the best I could
do."
According
to the aide, only the imminence of a major diplomatic victory, in the
Middle East, for example, could convince Powell to stay on - should
Bush win a second term in 2004.
Powell
is not himself angling for a shot at the Presidency, the aide said.
At
the same time, said the magazine, the loss of Powell would be a
setback for the President's party, which would miss the former
general's moderate voice which has served to broaden the base of
Republican appeal
