| "Iraq
has been in violation of many U.N. resolutions for most of the last 11
or so years," Powell said. "And so, as a first step, let's see what the
inspectors find. Send them back in. Why are they being kept out?"
Powell's call for
a return of U.N. weapons inspectors, who left Iraq in late 1998, appeared
to conflict with Vice President Dick Cheney's dismissal of their value.
"The return of inspectors
would provide no assurance whatsoever of his compliance," he told a group
of war veterans. "On the contrary, there's a great danger that it would
provide false comfort."
Instead, Cheney made
the case for pre-emptive action, saying, "The risks of inaction are far
greater than the risk of action."
Despite his recommendation
for their return, Powell acknowledged Sunday that weapons inspections are
not foolproof.
"We should not think
that the inspections, in and of themselves, should give us the kind of
assurance that we can take to the bank," he said.
But the secretary
of state has favored amassing international support before any attack on
Iraq.
"I think that the
world has to be presented with the information, with the intelligence that's
available. A debate is needed within the international community so that
everybody can make a judgment.
"I think, in the
current debate, too much attention has focused on the United States and
what debate is taking place within our administration as opposed to attention
being focused on the Iraqi regime."
Those last comments
apparently alluded to a split within the administration. Powell's voice
of caution has not appeared in tune with calls from Cheney and Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for military action.
The split within
the administration is also reflected in the party, which has also presented
a fractured front on Iraq.
Sen. Chuck Hagel,
a Nebraska Republican, expressed reservations in an interview Saturday
with CNN's "Novak, Hunt & Shields."
"If, in fact, we
unilaterally invade Iraq with no allies, where does that lead to?" the
decorated Vietnam War veteran asked.
"Where does that
go? Who governs after Saddam? How do we do it? When do we do it? What is
the objective? Have we calibrated the consequences -- unintended consequences?"
He added, "These
questions are very important, it seems to me, that the president wants
to address -- I hope will address -- before we talk about unilaterally
with no allies invading Iraq."
|
