Saddam's List Of Crimes

The United States was taken to task Wednesday for its draft resolution on Iraq with a majority of Security Council members opposing language which could authorize Washington to launch a war in Baghdad.

Although the Bush administration has said it expects a swift end to the seven weeks of negotiations, it was clear Wednesday that staunch opposition from powerful players such as Russia, France and China would mean more time, and possibly more compromise, to win support for the draft.

"We have consistently found that we need more time ... than we originally sought," said British Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock, whose country is a co-sponsor of the U.S. draft resolution.

Meanwhile, CBS Chief White House Correspondent John Roberts reports that the White House took another step to further demonize Saddam Hussein by working up a case of war crimes against him - his two sons and many of his top lieutenants.

A State Department Web site outlines a litany of their alleged crimes against humanity - from the use of poison gas against the Kurdish people to the invasion of Kuwait to the torture and execution of political prisoners - crimes that the last Bush administration refused to act on, reports Roberts.

In Washington, Secretary of State Colin Powell said debate would likely be concluded toward the end of next week but he warned the United States wouldn't be tied to the will of the United Nations.

"There is nothing that we would propose in this resolution or we would find acceptable in a resolution that would handcuff the president of the United States in doing what he feels he must do," Powell said.

Powell spent the day on the telephone with foreign ministers from Russia, Britain and France.

The five veto-holding members of the council are deeply split over Iraq. The United States and Britain want the Security Council to approve a resolution threatening Saddam Hussein with retaliation if he fails to comply with a tough new inspections regime.

Russia, France and China want to give Iraq a chance to cooperate before discussing any consequences.

In an effort to lure support, Washington signaled a readiness this week to make some minor concessions involving a new weapons inspection regime.

The suggestions were quietly welcomed but didn't pierce the core of the debate over whether the United States was seeking the authority to act unilaterally if Iraq fails to comply with inspectors.

"Some paragraphs can still be regarded as the right to automatic use of force," said Deputy Russian Ambassador Gennady Gatilov. "This is the main problem." He said Russia wanted written assurances in the resolution that it will not trigger military action.

Diplomats, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Washington could be willing to offer such assurances privately. In the meantime, U.S. officials said they were sticking to the draft's basic principles.

France and others had originally complained that references in the draft finding Iraq in "material breach" sanctioned the future use of military force even before inspectors had a chance to test Iraq's sincerity to comply.

On Wednesday, it was less about the exact wording and more about the concept.

"We don't want any hidden triggers and we made that clear, as did a majority of the council members," one French diplomat said on condition of anonymity.

In private consultations, France sought to soften the two references to "material breach," but it was unclear whether the United States would agree to the suggestions.

Much of the opposition during Wednesday's session focused on an introductary paragraph recalling a previous resolution on Iraq which authorized member states to "use all necessary means" to restore international peace and security.

China's Ambassador Wang Yingfan said he expected the United States and Britiain to come back with revisions.

There is little doubt at the United Nations that Iraq is in material breach of numerous resolutions passed since its invasion of neighboring Kuwait set off the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Iraq refused to allow weapons inspectors into the country for nearly four years, but relented in September under intense international pressure stemming from President Bush's speech at the United Nations on Sept. 12.

The president told world leaders then to get tough with a derelict Iraq or stand aside as the United States acted. Together with Britain, the administration crafted a single resolution significantly broadening the powers of inspectors and warning Saddam of consequences if he continues to be in "material breach."

On Tuesday, Powell said "there may be a way" to bridge remaining differences with France, Russia and China but stressed that "our basic principles remain the same." And he warned that if the Security Council doesn't act, Bush "has what he believes is the authority needed and, frankly, the obligation to act with like-minded nations to disarm Iraq."

But French Ambassador Jean-David Levitte said Wednesday: "we don't know where the U.S. is" on the bigger issue of authorizing force.

Amid the tense diplomatic struggle, Bush hosted chief weapons inspectors Hans Blix of the United Nations, and Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency, at the White House earlier Wednesday.

Blix told Associated Press Television News that Bush made clear he was categorically committed to ensuring the success of weapons inspectors. At the same time, the administration wants to prevent Iraq from engaging in any "cat and mouse play" with inspectors, Blix said.

Much to the pleasure of Washington, Blix and ElBaradei came out earlier this week strongly in favor of a tougher weapons inspections regime backed up some kind of threat of consequences.