Bush asks for 'blank cheque' to attack Iraq

President George Bush asked Congress yesterday for a "blank cheque" draft resolution on Iraq, giving him authorisation to use force to deal with Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi leader responded witha blistering attack on the US, delivered at the United Nations.

Reading extracts of a letter from President Saddam, the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Naji Sabri, declared that Baghdad had no chemical, nuclear or biological weapons. He accused the Bush administration of putting out "lies, distortions, and falsehoods" about Iraq, as a pretext for an attack, whose true aim was to gain control of Middle Eastern oil.

"I hereby declare before you that Iraq is clear of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons," President Saddam said in his message.

In targeting Iraq, the US was "acting on behalf of Zionism which has been killing the heroic people of Palestine, destroying their property, murdering their children".

The message, applauded by diplomats at the UN, drew a predictable response from the White House, where officials described the claim that Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction as "a fairy-tale."

Ari Fleischer, Mr Bush's spokesman said the speech presented "nothing new". It was "a disappointing failure" that changed nothing.

More ominously, the Iraqi leader hinted that the return of the UN weapons inspectors might not be quite as "unconditional" as first seemed. Not only should inspections be part of a comprehensive solution to the crisis, including the lifting of UN sanctions, they should also "respect arrangements" on Iraq's sovereignty and security – a possible warning that some of President Saddam's palaces and other suspect sites could be off limits.

Even before Mr Sabri spoke, Mr Bush rejected all such terms and left no doubt that Washington was ready to take military action alone or with the support of a few allies such as Britain, whatever emerged from the Security Council.

"There are no negotiations to be held with Iraq," the President said at the start of an Oval Office meeting with Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, to review efforts to secure a tough new ultimatum from the Security Council for an early deadline for inspections.

"They [the Iraqis] have nothing to negotiate," said Mr Bush. "They say they don't have weapons of mass destruction. It's up to the United Nations Security Council to lay out resolutions to confirm what Iraq has already agreed to."

The wording of the endorsement that the administration is seeking from Congress is no less uncompromising. According to the White House text, the President should be "authorised to use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force, in order to enforce the UN Security Council resolutions" and to "defend the national security interests of the United States".

The draft cites the "inherent right of the United States" to defend itself – another thinly veiled assertion that the US feels free to do whatever it wants, regardless of the UN.

The splits in the Security Council which emerged after President Saddam agreed to readmit the inspectors have made the swift and overwhelming congressional endorsement Mr Bush is seeking more important than ever. The White House is determined to let the UN know that it has broad bipartisan backing. It hopes this will persuade doubters such France and Russia to swing into line.

Last night, Mr Bush urged Congress not to tinker too much with the language of the draft – and the signs were that he will probably get his way, whatever the reservations voiced by many Democrats about military action without the blessing of the UN.

Democratic strategists are acutely aware that by stalling they risk charges of being unpatriotic. For that reason the party leadership wants to get the Iraq issue out of the way before campaigning for the mid-term elections on 5 November gets under way in earnest. This would permit Democrats to focus on issues where Mr Bush and the Republicans are vulnerable, notably the faltering economy and soaring healthcare costs.

President Saddam's broadside yesterday could hasten the process. He accused Mr Bush of "utmost distortions," designed to portray Iraq as "the most dangerous situation for the US and the whole world", and to suggest that Iraq was linked to the attacks of 11 September.

More measured language might have appealed to waverers here. The torrent of accusations that came instead will not have done.