Hussein Is Called ‘Mortal Threat’

Vice President Dick Cheney on Monday spelled out the Bush administration’s rationale for ousting Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, saying he believes that the dictator will add the nuclear bomb “fairly soon” to his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.

Cheney’s remarks injected a heightened sense of determination and urgency into President Bush’s desire to launch a preemptive strike against Baghdad despite cautions from critics both at home and abroad--including from some top Republicans in the first Bush administration--that the White House should go slow in dealing with Hussein.

“What we must not do in the face of a mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or willful blindness,” he told the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Nashville. “We will not simply look away, hope for the best, and leave the matter for some future administration to resolve.”

The vice president called the arguments of administration critics “deeply flawed.”

Cheney’s comments came as the president’s lawyers concluded that he can launch a military strike against Iraq without new approval from Congress.

White House officials at President Bush’s ranch near Crawford, Texas, discussed that finding even as they hastened to add that Bush would consult broadly with lawmakers and allies before acting.

Still, officials left little doubt that the president is reserving the option of going it alone.

“We will also demonstrate leadership,” said White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. “It’s often the case that when America leads, the world follows.”

In a briefing in Texas, Fleischer also noted that President Clinton asserted similar authority in 1999 when he launched bombing missions in Kosovo.

Even so, Fleischer said, Bush would act only after considering other factors. “There are a host of other issues that the president will consider--including policy matters, historical matters, relationship with Congress matters, public support matters.”

Senate Democrats disputed the White House claim that Bush is not legally bound to seek congressional approval for a military strike against Iraq. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said the decision to go to war “should not be treated like a technicality.”’

But House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) said that, although he believed that Bush would consult Congress before taking military action against Iraq, he thought requiring him to seek authorization amounted to throwing up “hypothetical hurdles for the president to jump over as he’s leading us against the terrorists.”

Although Fleischer reiterated Bush’s oft-stated position that no decision on Iraq has been made--and that there is no specific timetable for action--Cheney in Tennessee repeated Bush’s comment that “time is not on our side” in dealing with Hussein, whom the vice president called a “sworn enemy” of the United States.

The U.S. has accused Hussein of trying to assassinate former President Bush. Cheney said the Iraqi leader had repeatedly deceived United Nations weapons inspectors dispatched to Iraq after the 1991 Persian Gulf War--fought to end Baghdad’s occupation of Kuwait--to monitor his compliance with promises to stop developing weapons of mass destruction.

“In the past decade, Saddam has systematically broken each of these agreements,” Cheney said.

Moreover, he said, “we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.”

Cheney then added: “Many of us are convinced that Saddam Hussein will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon. Just how soon, we cannot really gauge.”

U.S. intelligence officials agree that assessing the time frame Iraq needs to develop and build a nuclear weapon is a matter of considerable conjecture.

The U.N. inspection and disarmament teams were ejected by Iraq in 1998, but U.N. sanctions and prohibitions remain in place, designed to hinder Iraq’s ability to import the materials and machinery needed to rebuild research and production facilities.

If the U.N. sanctions were someday removed, “the intelligence community estimates that Iraq, unconstrained, would take several years to produce enough fissile material to make a weapon,” says the most recent unclassified National Intelligence Estimate, which was released in January of this year and includes the judgments of the CIA and other agencies.

That conclusion is still valid unless the Iraqi dictator “buys a bomb off the shelf somewhere,” an intelligence official said Monday. No evidence suggests that he has, the official said.

In addition, government officials and outside experts noted, Hussein is several years away from possessing a long-range missile to deliver a nuclear weapon to distant targets.

But Cheney said the West has underestimated Hussein’s capabilities before. Prior to the Gulf War, intelligence officials believed that Hussein was “at least five or perhaps even 10 years away from having a nuclear weapon,” the vice president said.

But after the war, officials discovered that Iraq was “perhaps within a year of acquiring such a weapon,” Cheney said.

Cheney also raised the specter that even if Iraq were to readmit the U.N. inspectors, that act alone might not avert a U.S. military strike.

“On the contrary, there is a great danger that it would provide false comfort that Saddam was somehow back in his box,” Cheney said. “Meanwhile, he would continue to plot.”

Cheney’s low-key, monotone speaking style belied the stark message he delivered--in words that seemed to defy skepticism.

“Ladies and gentlemen, there is no basis in Saddam Hussein’s conduct or history to discount any of the concerns that I’m raising this morning,” he said.

Several times during his speech, Cheney quoted from Bush’s own remarks, saying at one point: “The risks of inaction are far greater than the risk of action....

“And the entire world must know that we will take whatever action is necessary to defend our freedom and our security....This nation will not live at the mercy of terrorists or terror regimes.”

Cheney called “deeply flawed” the argument that, until Hussein has actually acquired a nuclear weapon, it would be premature for the U.S. to act.

“Yet, if we did wait until that moment, Saddam would simply be emboldened, and it would become even harder for us to gather friends and allies to oppose him.”

Cheney also argued that a “regime change” in Baghdad would not destabilize the region.

“I believe the opposite is true,” he said, adding, “When the gravest of threats are eliminated, the freedom-loving peoples of the region will have a chance to promote the values that can bring lasting peace.”

And he quoted a Middle East expert as having predicted that the streets of Baghdad and other Iraqi cities would “erupt in joy” after Hussein is ousted.

“Our ability to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would be enhanced, just as it was following the liberation of Kuwait in 1991,” Cheney said. “The reality is that these times bring not only dangers but also opportunities.”

Cheney also noted that the U.S. has a long history of helping rebuild vanquished foes, and said, “We would act in that same spirit after a regime change in Iraq.”

The goal, he said, would be to help Iraq develop “a government that is democratic and pluralistic [and become] a nation where the human rights of every ethnic and religious group are recognized and protected.”

Times staff writers Bob Drogin, Janet Hook and Paul Richter contributed to this report.