Bush warned he needs backing for Iraqi war
US President George Bush was warned today he needed the backing of Congress and the American people if he is to wage war on Iraq - despite being told the law did not require it.
The move reflects pressure on Prime Minister Tony Blair for him to consult Parliament fully before any military action involving the UK is taken.
Senior figures in Washington spoke out after the White House had disclosed legal advice to Mr Bush saying he had no need to consult Capitol Hill before striking at Saddam Hussein’s regime.
There is no legal requirement for Mr Blair to seek the backing of the Commons either.
Potential tensions between the White House and senators and congressmen surfaced as a former senior administration figure during President Bill Clinton’s presidency predicted there would not be a pre-emptive strike by America on Iraq.
Nancy Soderburg, a member of the National Security Council during the Clinton era, warned any action would be drawn out and could result in the US running Iraq for the next five to 10 years.
Challenged by the BBC Radio 4 Today programme on whether the Bush administration would launch an attack, she said: “I do not think they are actually going to do it. If we do go into Iraq it is not going to be quick.”
She added that the US could end up “staying there are some time and basically run Iraq for the next five to 10 years as we are in Afghanistan.”
Today’s manoeuvrings came after Vice President Dick Cheney last night stoked pressure for a strike.
Speaking at a war veterans’ convention in Nashville, Tennessee, he dismissed as “deeply flawed” the logic of those who argue against a pre-emptive strike at Saddam.
Describing the Iraqi leader as posing “a mortal threat” to the West, he said America must not “give in to wishful thinking”.
Mr Cheney went on to deliver the administration’s most comprehensive argument to date for removing Saddam, warning that failure to attack would only allow Iraq to grow stronger.
Ken Adleman, a member of defence review board, said international diplomatic pressure and economic sanctions had been used against Saddam Hussein’s regime for the past 12 years.
He told the Today programme: “I think the question we have to ask is do we want to be subject to another attack (September 11) or do we take a new approach in this world, one of pre-emption.
“We know (Saddam) is a bad guy, we know he has weapons of mass destruction, we know he hates the West and supplies countries. Do we want to just chance it and see what happens?”
The White House did acknowledge that Congress had an important role to play if President Bush decided to attack, although its legal advice was that there was no requirement for consultation.
Republican Senator Chuck Hagel voiced colleagues’ concerns, saying: “I don’t play this game so much on what is legal and what is not legal. If the president is going to commit this nation to war, he had better have the support of the Congress and the American people with him.”
And House of Representatives Democratic leader Dick Gephardt said: “The president has to get congressional approval. He must have a debate on this issue and a vote in the Congress.”
Here, shadow foreign secretary Michael Ancram warned that a military attack against Iraq had to be about the elimination of weapons of mass destruction rather than deposing Saddam.
He told Today that although the international community had to look at Iraq’s past record in relation to UN resolutions, “we must be absolutely clear that what we are doing is eliminating weapons of mass destruction which pose a threat to us and the wider world.”
