Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

DATE=10/03/02

TYPE=U-S OPINION ROUNDUP

TITLE=IRAQ / DEBATE

NUMBER=6-12656

BYLINE=Andrew Guthrie

DATELINE=Washington

EDITOR=Assignments

TELEPHONE=619-3335

CONTENT=

INTRO: At midweek, the U-S House of Representatives agreed to a resolution supporting the use of military force to unseat Saddam Hussein. The Senate is considering a similar resolution and the debate, which began Thursday [10-3] is expected to be fierce. The House action moves the nation closer to the possibility of armed conflict with the Baghdad regime, and in the American press there is continuing debate. V-O-A's _______________ joins us now with a sampling in today's U-S Opinion Roundup.

TEXT: Many American daily papers are calling for more and serious debate on going to war with Iraq. At the same time, the latest reservations coming from Iraq about placing Saddam Hussein's palace compounds off limits are drawing criticism. The New York Times suggests this is "A Time for Debate and Reflection."

VOICE: Congress is on the threshold of a solemn and rare occasion, a debate over war and peace. Flagwaving sound bites [Editors: short comments designed for television news programs] with an eye to next month's hotly contested midterm elections will not be enough. There are too many crucial issues that require deeper examination than they have had so far. The debate should be a moment for the American public to take stock, perhaps the country's last real opportunity for measured deliberation.

No further debate is needed to establish that Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator. The issue is how Washington and the international community can best eliminate or reduce this danger. At this point, there remains a possibility that Iraq can be disarmed by voluntary means. The likely consequences of war in Iraq extend far beyond November's elections. The Congressional debate must be equally farsighted.

TEXT: Thoughts from a lead editorial in The New York Times. In California, under the headline "Barreling Toward Battle, The Los Angeles Times exudes some apprehension.

VOICE: The House and Senate may be rushing toward a barely debated bipartisan resolution that gives congressional backing to President Bush in any war with Iraq. ...If the United Nations does not pass a stiff enough resolution on weapons inspections in Iraq, [Mr.] Bush seems eager to go it alone. Lawmakers who still have questions should not hesitate to raise them, for the sake of public understanding the White House has not yet provided a persuasive reason why. Saddam Hussein merits a one-on-one war with the United States.

TEXT: Excerpts from a Los Angeles Times editorial.

Thousands of kilometers to the East, Maine's little weekly, The Ellsworth American shares those doubts.

VOICE: Does the United States face a true and verifiable threat from Iraq and its despotic ruler, Saddam Hussein? Many of our own citizens, and millions more throughout the world, are unconvinced. If the President wants unlimited authority to go to war, the American people have the right to expect - - and Congress should demand -- much greater justification than has been offered up to now.

TEXT: "Stay the Course," says Florida's Miami Herald, suggesting the issue is "far from resolved." "The president should [use] diplomacy first and [build] support in the United Nations before exercising a last-resort military option."

To the Midwest where Chicago's Sun-Times joins Florida's Orlando Sentinel in complaining about the latest restrictions the Iraqi government is placing on the resumed weapons inspections. In part, here's what the Chicago tabloid says about how much of Iraq may be placed off limits.

VOICE: [More than 31-hundred-square hectares]! Also included in Saddam's off-limits list are his defense ministry and the headquarters for his Republican Guard. You have to ask yourself: Why? Why does Iraq want these "palaces" off-limits to inspection? To preserve its national dignity? To maintain its sovereignty, which has amounted to the limited sovereignty the world has had to grant it since the Gulf War? We want to see all the pockets. The president wants to find out what Iraq is hiding, and not be deterred by the old games and deceptions.

TEXT: Views of The Chicago Sun-Times. The Orlando Sentinel shares the Sun Times' suspicions.

VOICE: Despite the supposed lack of conditions in the agreement, Iraq is still refusing to let the United Nations conduct unannounced inspections at eight "presidential sites." Those sites are in huge compounds. Together, they cover [more than 31-hundred square hectares] and include more than one-thousand buildings. The United States suspects Iraq is using them to develop and stockpile weapons of mass destruction. Saddam's latest empty promise is a transparent ploy to undermine the United States and Great Britain as they lobby other U-N Security Council members to get behind a new, badly needed resolution on Iraq.

TEXT: For those worried about the potential cost of a U-S war with Iraq, not to worry says The Augusta [Georgia] Chronicle. It cites Newsweek columnist Robert Samuelson. He says the war can be waged "on pocket change" roughly 40-billion dollars and, even at twice that cost, it would still be under o n e percent of America's gross domestic product.

Still with the economic side of the war, although the war may be affordable for this country, The Minneapolis, Minnesota Star Tribune cautions:

VOICE: The fragile world economy should be spared the shock of war unless war is essential. [Mr.] Bush should keep his [gun] powder dry and let the [U-N sponsored weapons] inspections proceed. What they reveal will point the way toward war or toward peace."

TEXT: If anyone doubts this country's resolve, says South Carolina's [Charleston] Post and Courier they are badly mistaken.

VOICE: Serious questions remain about how the United States, its allies and the United Nations Security Council should solve the problem presented by Saddam Hussein's possession and development of weapons of mass destruction. But nobody, including the Iraqi despot, should doubt the wide-ranging resolve, in America and beyond, to disarm him.

TEXT: The Post and Courier hopes that "Stern [U-N] resolutions to disarm Iraq could be the trigger for peace."

Northern California's San Francisco Chronicle however, takes issue with what it feels is some inappropriate remarks from President Bush's press aide about this conflict.

VOICE: That wasn't Dirty Harry [Editors note: a reference to a well known fictional renegade U-S police detective in several motion pictures] threatening to dispatch a villain. It was President Bush's press aide suggesting a money-saving way of solving the Iraq problem. "The cost of one bullet," Ari Fleischer pointed out, "is substantially less" than the nine-billion-dollar-a-month-tab for waging a war to oust Saddam Hussein.

TEXT: Lastly, to Texas, where The Dallas Morning News wants the U-N to "show resolve."

VOICE: A United Nations resolution now that does not allude to the use of force would be useless against Saddam Hussein. As British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Tuesday, "Sometimes, and in particular when dealing with a dictator, the only chance of peace is a readiness for war."

TEXT: With those words from the British Prime Minister, as quoted in The Dallas [Texas] Morning News, we conclude this sampling of comment on the current Iraq debate.

NEB/ANG/RH