Msg. to Bush: Don't Attack Iraq

W A S H I N G T O N, Aug. 15, 2002 -- As President Bush's advisers publicly make the case for attacking Iraq, some of the people who were at his father's side during the Persian Gulf War against Iraq are making the case against it, saying it could damage the war on terrorism.

In an interview with BBC Radio, Condoleezza Rice, Bush's national security adviser, said the United States does not "have the luxury of doing nothing."

Rice called Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein "an evil man who, left to his own devices, will wreak havoc again on his own population, his neighbors and, if he gets weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, all of us. It's a very powerful moral case for regime change."

But in today's Wall Street Journal, Brent Scowcroft, the retired Air Force general who was national security adviser to Bush's father, urged caution.

Under the headline, "Don't Attack Saddam," Scowcroft argued that allied opposition would require "a virtual go-it-alone strategy" that risks "unleashing an Armageddon in the Middle East" and would "seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign."

He argued that Saddam is not directly targeting the United States with terrorism, seeking instead domination in the region and control over oil supplies. "He is unlikely to risk his investment in weapons of mass destruction, much less his country, by handing such weapons to terrorists who would use them for their own purposes and leave Baghdad as the return address," Scowcroft wrote.

Republicans Challenge President

Also today, Lawrence Eagleburger, who was secretary of state for the senior Bush, questioned the apparent urgency to move against Iraq.

"Unless he has his hand on a trigger that is for a weapon of mass destruction and our intelligence is clear, I don't know why we have to do it now when all of our allies are opposed to it," he said. "There are any number of other terrorist targets that deserve our attention. We ought to be taking some time to think through whether they are at least as urgent a target as Iraq."

Clearly, Republicans now feel free to challenge Bush on Iraq. Just last week, House Majority Leader Richard Armey of Texas said an unprovoked attack "would not be consistent with what we have been as a nation or what we should be as a nation."

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who would be in charge of planning and directing any military strike, said he welcomes the debate.

"I think it's important for people to say what they think on these things and that's the wonderful thing about our country," he told reporters last week. "We have a public debate and dialogue and discussion on important issues."

White House officials acknowledge there are a variety of views on the matter and stress that no decisions have been made.