A senior administration official suggested that the 2000 election may have played a role in the Security Council deal. While a deputy to U.N. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke led the talks, an administration source says national-security adviser Sandy Berger was quietly calling the shots. The theory: that the White House wanted to get on record against Saddam before the campaign year heats up.
Berger vehemently denied that politics played any part in the resolution, telling NEWSWEEK the White House was not driving the process and that the suggestion of political positioning “is personally offensive and wrong… I’ve watched Saddam slaughter and starve his people for seven years.” Berger said the resolution was in the national interest. “Our objective,” he said, “was to achieve a resolution that would pass the Security Council.”
Beyond the bickering, many details are unresolved. The first issue is who will head the new U.N. team; the next is what they’ll get to see inside Iraq. And France wants to cut former U.N. inspectors out of the new effort despite their expertise in Iraq’s weapons program. The winner in the end may yet again be Saddam.
