Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

DATE=09/04/02

TYPE=U-S OPINION ROUNDUP

TITLE=BUSH ON IRAQ

NUMBER=6-12622

BYLINE=ANDREW GUTHRIE

DATELINE=WASHINGTON

EDITOR=ASSIGNMENTS

TELEPHONE=619-3335

CONTENT=

INTRO: President Bush is explaining his position on dealing with Saddam Hussein to members of Congress this week amid media reports of a divergence of views within the administration. Next week, the president is expected to make his case against Iraq before the opening session of the U-N General Assembly. Newspaper editorial pages have been debating the issue for months. Here with a sampling of the latest is V-O-A's ______________ in today's U-S Opinion Roundup.

TEXT: The U-N weapons inspection team left Baghdad in frustration at the end of 1998, blocked by Iraqi agents from seeing anything useful. Since then, it is widely believed that Saddam Hussein has rebuilt his arsenal of chemical, biological and, possibly even nuclear weapons. It is this threat that has led the Bush administration to consider an attack to remove Mr. Hussein and neutralize his arsenal.

In Pennsylvania, The Philadelphia Inquirer's Trudy Rubin, senior foreign affairs columnist, makes the point that not enough attention is being given to what happens after Saddam Hussein.

VOICE: Someone will have to take responsibility for rebuilding a broken Iraq. Someone must set up a new government and prevent chaos or ethnic division of the country. . Is the Bush team ready or willing? This administration has been notoriously hostile . to . "nation-building." It was far more gung-ho [Editors: slang for "enthusiastic"] about dumping the Taleban than taking the lead in Afghan reconstruction. In fact, the Bush team's irresponsibility in Kabul gives some clues about its likely behavior in Baghdad.

Since the fall of Kabul, the administration's prime focus has been on chasing down the remnants of al-Qaida, [not rebuilding the country.] . Nation-building in Iraq however, would be an undertaking that dwarfs what's needed by Afghans. If the administration attacks Baghdad alone, it probably would be left to do, and fund, the rebuilding alone - - without international . assistance. . On thing is sure: If the White House can't meld military strikes and "nation-building" in Afghanistan, it won't be able to do so in Baghdad.

TEXT: In Boston, The Christian Science Monitor feels both the military and the inspection option must be fully debated.

VOICE: Much has been said about the need for the Bush administration to make the case publicly that an invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein would be justified. Such a justification, wrought out in open debate, is .critical. The alternative to an invasion, presumably, would be resumption of international arms inspections in Iraq. Those favoring that approach - - most recently including Secretary of State Colin Powell - - have their own justifying to do.

TEXT: On whether the president needs new congressional approval to attack Iraq, Savannah's Morning News (Georgia) notes:

VOICE: . it is disconcerting to see Mr. Bush appear not just reluctant to seek congressional approval, but even dismissive of the need - - let alone the prudence - - to do so.

TEXT: The Savannah paper disputes an assessment by White House counsel that the president can use the 1991 congressional resolution that led to the Gulf War for any new aggression. To that aspect of the debate, The Commercial Appeal in Memphis [Tennessee] adds:

VOICE: If the president decided that military action . is crucial, he should ask Congress for its formal support while simultaneously stating his case in forceful terms to the American people. Absent some drastic change, he would thus get the sort of legislative and public concurrence that would enable the nation to move ahead in a strong, unified, nonpartisan way.

TEXT: As far as San Antonio's [Texas] Express-News is concerned, the differences within the administration are still pronounced.

VOICE: Twice last week . Vice President [Cheney] made the case for immediate action against the rogue nation. . But [Secretary of State] Powell, in an interview with the BBC, said that weapons inspectors should return to Iraq to gather evidence and make the case for an international response. . This is the world's problem, and the United States should.marshal broad international support to deal with him. [Mr.] Powell, obviously, understands that.

TEXT: Wisconsin's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel says of the reported dissention, "[Secretary] Powell's [position] makes a lot more sense than [Mr.] Cheney's." And in USA Today, the national daily published outside Washington notes the rising tide of international opinion, including most recently Nelson Mandela of South Africa, against an invasion. And the paper adds, President Bush:

VOICE: .has an opportunity to turn the world's attention to where it belongs when he addresses the U-N General Assembly on September 12th. He needs to lay out a strong case against Saddam Hussein - - and persuade allies that Baghdad's new offer to negotiate a return of U-N inspectors is a delaying tactic to keep the focus on [Mr.] Bush and off Iraq.

TEXT: Back in Pennsylvania, Allentown's Morning Call is pleased that the president is hearing a wide diversity of opinions on this crucial question.

VOICE: Though President Bush has the vice president and secretary of defense stating their case [for an attack] in one ear, from the other, he hears concerns raised by General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warning U-S action could further destabilize the Gulf region and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But the most startling, similar warnings in recent days have come from Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser in the first Bush administration, and . former Secretary of State James Baker . [who urges] that a United Nations Security Council resolution be secured to support any attack.

TEXT: Along the Texas Gulf Coast, add The Corpus Christi Caller-Times to the growing list of newspapers that say President Bush needs to get the authorization of Congress to attack Iraq.

VOICE: Strictly speaking President Bush has the authority to invade Iraq without specific, new approval by Congress, and one reason is a law intended as a roadblock to overeager administrations, the 1973 War Powers Act. .[It] says a president can instigate a military action for 60 days and up to 90, but cannot keep military forces in play unless Congress has agreed. . If the president decides that military action against Iraq is crucial, he should ask Congress for formal support.

TEXT: In Western Pennsylvania, The Greensburg [Pennsylvania] Tribune Review has a unique worry asking:

VOICE: Could a war that consumes U-S military attention in Iraq give China the distraction it needs to forcibly rein in Taiwan? We won't know until we're well into the fight, if it comes to that. And by then, who knows what force we'd be able to muster should Beijing start using some of its 350 missiles pointed at Taiwan? . What's kept China's threat to the isle in check for years has been the no-nonsense resolve from the United States to defend Taiwan.

TEXT: Finally, The Wall Street Journal questions the prevailing media logic that opposition to a U-S attack on Iraq in Europe is widespread. It lauds a proposal for setting up a Committee of Britain's House of Commons that would give Saddam Hussein a deadline to accept international weapons inspectors as a clever way to enlist Britain's political left in the struggle should such a deadline not be met.

And that concludes this sampling of current editorial comment on the Iraq debate.

NEB/ANG/MAR