Bush reviewing Iraq options, will be patient

Bush reviewing Iraq options, will be 'patient'
Crawford |Reuters | Gulf News, 22-08-2002

U.S. President George W. Bush said yesterday he would continue to consult with U.S. allies on how to deal with Iraq, saying he was a "patient man" but remained committed to removing Saddam Hussein.

"The subject (of Iraq) didn't come up in this meeting," Bush told reporters on the sidelines of a meeting with his top national security advisers. "We take all threats seriously and we will continue to consult with our friends and allies."

"I'm a patient man," he said. "We will look at all options and we will consider all technologies available to us, and diplomacy and intelligence. But one thing is for certain ... this administration agrees that Saddam Hussein is a threat ... Regime change is in the interest of the world."

Meanwhile, powerful U.S. lawmaker Tom DeLay yesterday lashed out at fellow Republicans for questioning the Bush administration's goal of removing Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, underscoring discord in the president's own party.

In a toughly worded speech to a hometown audience, DeLay said critics of military action were guilty of "wishful thinking and appeasement" and that war was both inevitable and necessary. He also heaped scorn on European leaders for failing to endorse U.S. action against Baghdad.

"Saddam will soon have nuclear weapons unless American troops get there first," the fiery Texas conservative said. "The question is not whether to go to war, for war has already been thrust upon us."

DeLay, the No. 3 Republican in the House of Representatives who is slated to soon become No. 2, vowed the chamber would support President George W. Bush in taking on Iraq, but he acknowledged divisions with the party.

In recent days, a number of influential Republicans - including former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, outgoing House Majority Leader Dick Armey and Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Richard Lugar of Indiana - have questioned both the need for and the consequences of a U.S. attack.

Some opponents argue Iraq poses no realistic threat to the United States and say an attack would alienate America's Arab and European allies, further inflame the Middle East and hurt the global fight against terrorism.

Others say a pre-emptive campaign, without direct provocation, would mark a historic turn in U.S. foreign policy and usher in a dangerous new era in international law.