/ 1 January 2002

Why is Saddam a danger?

Lawmakers say they are waiting for President George Bush to make his case for invading Iraq before they endorse it, with evidence that Saddam Hussein is prepared to use weapons of mass destruction the key factor.

Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister, meanwhile, urged the United States to give diplomacy more time to resolve the Iraqi situation.

He reiterated that his country would not allow itself to be used as a staging area for an attack on its neighbour.

Saudi Arabia also confirmed on Sunday that it was holding 16 alleged al-Qaida members who had been turned over by Iranian officials in June after they sought refuge in that country. Senator Dick Lugar, a Republican, said that while not inevitable, it now is ”probable” an invasion of Iraq will be necessary. But, he added, Bush has to clearly tell the American people why Saddam is a danger.

”The president has to make the case that … to wait for provocation (from Saddam) is to invite a very, very large disaster,” Lugar, a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on CBS’ ”Face the Nation.”

”At the end of the day we have to separate those weapons of mass destruction from Saddam,” he said.

Senator Fred Thompson, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he agreed the president has not yet made the justification for a war with Iraq, but that ”he’s in the process of doing that.”

Noting that Saddam has biological and chemical weapons and may eventually get a nuclear capability, Thompson said on ”Fox News Sunday”: ”Do we sit back and hope that we can negotiate our way out of that situation with Saddam? I don’t think so.”

But Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said an attack on Iraq might simply prompt Saddam to use weapons of mass destruction ”because he’d have nothing to lose.”

”He’s a survivalist. He is not a suicide bomber. … The question is how do you contain him,” Levin said on NBC’s ”Meet the Press.” There should be continued pressure to resume UN weapons inspections in Iraq, he added.

Thompson argued, however, that an agreement over weapons inspections, if not unfettered, would simply give Saddam time – perhaps two or three years – to possibly develop nuclear capability.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia reiterated that if Iraq were attacked, it would not be from Saudi soil.

”Under the present circumstances … with no proof that there is a threat imminent from Iraq, I don’t think Saudi Arabia will join in,” Saudi foreign minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said on ABC’s ”This Week” program.

”We see that there is movement on the diplomatic front … and we think it is only right to give this diplomatic solution a chance before going to war,” the prince said.

Saud also said that in June, Iran turned over to Saudi Arabia 16 alleged members of the al-Qaida terror network who had fled Afghanistan into Iran. Information obtained from interrogating them is being shared with US officials, he said.

”The innocent will be let go and the guilty ones will be incarcerated and go to trial,” the prince said.

Despite intense discussions within the administration about preparation for a possible invasion of Iraq, Bush said on Saturday that he had no ”imminent war plan” but that Saddam remains ”an enemy until proven otherwise.”

He said he believes the American people understand that chemical, biological, or eventually nuclear weapons in the hands of Saddam ”are very dangerous for ourselves, our allies”. – Sapa-AP