The Massachusetts Democrat summed up concerns shared by some colleagues in his party when he said that the president had not made the case that Iraq represents an imminent threat to the United States and that he had not ''laid out the cost in blood and treasure'' of going to war.

''War should be a last resort, not a first response,'' Kennedy told an audience at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies.

But Kennedy acknowledged that administration officials can overcome opposition from Democrats.

''They've got the votes. They don't have to negotiate,'' Kennedy said in an interview.

At the United Nations, the United States next week plans to propose a new hard-line resolution that would give President Saddam Hussein of Iraq seven days to agree to disarm the nation of weapons of mass destruction, according to UN Security Council diplomats and administration officials.

Hussein would then be given an additional 23 days to disclose fully all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related materials. The resolution would also demand that he open his presidential palaces to UN weapons inspectors.

If he does not agree to disarm within that period, ''all necessary means'' may be used to bring Iraq into compliance with the terms of the resolution, said the diplomats, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Details of the proposed UN resolution emerged yesterday as administration officials began circulating a draft to key allies, including Russia and France.

Bush continued trying to win over US allies, calling President Jacques Chirac of France to convey the administration's determination to have a ''firm and effective'' resolution. A UN resolution on Iraq has faced strong opposition from France, Russia, and China, all of which have veto power in the UN Security Council. So far, only Britain has publicly aligned itself with Bush on Iraq.

Andras Simonyi, Hungary's ambassador to the United States, said in an interview that Bush has an another ally in his country, a new NATO member. ''Without hesitation, Hungary will make sure everyone knows it is a good ally, a strong ally,'' said Simonyi, who had a brief discussion with Bush about Iraq on Wednesday.

Diplomats say the draft UN resolution sets out new rules governing weapons inspections that Iraq would have to follow, thereby invalidating a 1998 agreement between Iraq and the UN governing weapons inspectors' access to eight presidential sites. The change means inspectors would have the right to inspect Hussein's palaces without having to be accompanied by diplomats approved by the UN.

The measure lists all 16 of the previous UN mandates that Iraq has defied. But the country's compliance would be measured by its agreement to abide by the new resolution, which would set out a detailed list of tasks, with deadlines, that Iraq must perform.

By saying that ''all necessary means'' may be used against Iraq, the resolution borrows language used in a UN Security Council resolution passed in 1990. That resolution gave Iraq a deadline to withdraw from Kuwait or face military action.

Using language the 15-member body has already approved improves its chances of passage, foreign policy specialists said. ''If they pull language from old resolutions and repackage it in a new resolution demanding compliance, I think they can get that,'' said Nancy Soderberg, a former deputy US ambassador, now with the International Crisis Group.

Diplomats stressed that the resolution could change, based on discussions with allies over the next few days.

In Washington, after negotiations with Democrats and Republicans in both chambers of Congress, the White House on Thursday delivered a modified draft resolution on Iraq that would give Bush the authority to use force to ''defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq.'' The resolution would allow Bush to use force against Iraq without first winning support from the UN.

Bush, in Denver for a Republican fund-raiser, said he was ''willing to give peace a chance to work,'' but reiterated that the United States would act alone against Hussein if necessary.

''I want the United Nations to work. I want him to do what he said he would do. But for the sake of our future, now is the time,'' Bush said to applause. ''He can either get rid of his weapons, and the United Nations can act, or the United States will lead a coalition to disarm this man.''

The White House is seeking a vote on an Iraq resolution from Congress next week, arguing that congressional support would strengthen the United States' position at the UN. Language on the congressional resolution is still being negotiated, but Senate debate is expected to begin next week, with a vote possible as early as late in the week. The House will probably not vote until the following week, said John Feehery, spokesman for House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Republican of Illinois.

In an interview, Kennedy predicted that an Iraq resolution, now the subject of negotiations between White House officials and congressional leaders from both parties, would get 75 to 80 votes in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

In his speech, Kennedy said the first aim should be to get UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq. The UN should pass a resolution that would trigger an attack if Hussein refused to comply or cooperate with inspectors, Kennedy said.

''No delaying tactics should be tolerated, and if they occur, Saddam should know that he will lose his last chance to avoid conflict,'' Kennedy said. ''We may reach the point where our only choice is conflict ... but we are not there yet.''

Republican leaders denounced Kennedy's address. ''The US seeks broad support in the war on terror, but subcontracting our national security to the United Nations, as Senator Kennedy recommends, would be a foolish blunder,'' said Tom DeLay, the House majority whip and Republican of Texas. ''The argument advanced by Senator Kennedy irresponsibly relies on a benign view of Saddam's relationship with terrorist organizations.''

Democrats are preparing alternatives to the draft resolution. Representative William D. Delahunt, Democrat of Quincy, is circulating a resolution that would urge the UN Security Council to set up a war crimes tribunal to prosecute Hussein and other Iraqi officials. The State Department has already set aside $8 million over the last two years for such a prosecution, Delahunt said.

If Hussein refused to show up in court, the international community would have the right to apprehend him, assuaging the concerns of some lawmakers who argue that a preemptive strike on Iraq violates international law, Delahunt said.

''It provides not just legal justification, but a moral basis for action,'' he said.

The most recent draft resolution - which Senate Democrats said was presented to them as the White House's final offer - limits some of the latitude Bush initially requested. Instead of allowing Bush to use force to ensure ''peace and security in the region,'' the newer language limits action to addressing a threat from Iraq.

But some Democrats are unhappy with that language as well, because it would still allow the president to launch a unilateral, preemptive attack. And some Democrats are still seething about what they see as Bush's politicization of the issue.

Trent Lott, Republican of Mississippi and the Senate minority leader, acknowledges that the Senate may end up considering competing resolutions despite an effort to come up with bipartisan language. But Lott predicted that Bush would prevail.

''We need to get it done, and get it done right, and get it done in the way that will get the broadest possible support,'' Lott said.

Susan Milligan reported from Washington. Elizabeth Neuffer reported from New York.

This story ran on page A1 of the Boston Globe on 9/28/2002.

© Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company.