Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

DATE=10/07/02

TYPE=U-S OPINION ROUNDUP

TITLE=IRAQ DEBATE CONTINUES

NUMBER=6-12660

BYLINE=Andrew Guthrie

DATELINE=Washington

EDITOR=Assignments

TELEPHONE=619-3335

CONTENT=

///EDITORS: EVERY EFFORT IS BEING MADE TO INCLUDE TOPICS OF INTEREST TO THE HOUSE, OTHER THAN IRAQ, IN FUTURE OPINION ROUNDUPS, BUT THAT IS BECOMING MORE DIFFICULT.///

INTRO: The national debate continues on possible U-S military action against Iraq to dispose of Saddam Hussein's reported arsenal and depose him. Editorial columns keep the topic at the head of many a page. We get a sampling of the latest comments now from _____________ in today's U-S Opinion Roundup.

TEXT: If the average American citizen, the so-called man and woman in the street, is not consumed with this debate over Iraq, at least most newspapers are. In the latest round of editorials, we get some pro and con comments on an attack itself, plus several ancillary issues, such as the loyalty of the Iraqi army and the possibility of war crimes trials when it is over.

Here is how The Salt Lake [City, Utah] Tribune sees the issue.

VOICE: Many Americans, like much of the rest of the world, have been repulsed by President Bush's seemingly shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later approach to the admittedly criminal regime in Iraq. The case that Saddam Hussein's suspected weapons of mass destruction justify a pre-emptive military strike has not been made to anything near universal satisfaction.

An eagerness to appear to the world, and to history, as the nation that will fire the first shot is not something Americans -- particularly our leaders -- have previously displayed. But the way Saddam has cleverly put the Bush administration on the defensive by agreeing Tuesday [10-1] to readmit United Nations weapons inspections teams is enough to see why our president is so suspicious of the Iraqi regime, and why it might feel that striking the first blow would be the right thing to do.

TEXT: Views of Utah's Salt Lake [City] Tribune. For The Des Moines Register in Iowa's capital, the problem is that Senate debate on the matter has been too brief.

VOICE: Robert Byrd, the U-S Senator from West Virginia, summoned the words of the Roman historian Livy to denounce as "blind and improvident" the rush to war with Iraq, "for we are embarking on a course of action with regard to Iraq that in its haste is both blind and improvident. Later, the Senate ignored [Mr.] Byrd's call for caution and voted 95 to one to proceed with debate on a resolution giving President Bush authority to go to war with Iraq. Just like that, the debate was over. It shouldn't be over, though. It is not clear the only solution [to Saddam Hussein's obvious threat] is unilateral action by U-S armed forces.

TEXT: In California, The San Francisco Chronicle agrees about the lack of adequate debate. It lauds Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer for opposing the resolution on going to war. Sums up The Chronicle: "President Bush simply has not made the case that Iraq poses an imminent threat to our nation's security."

TEXT: However in New Hampshire, The Manchester Union Leader excoriates the president's critics.

VOICE: Critics of George W. Bush increasingly are using smear tactics to try to undermine public support for a hawkish U-S policy on Iraq. Without any evidence whatsoever, many claim that [Mr.] Bush is pursuing a war with Iraq for personal or political reasons -- to heap vengeance upon a world leader his father hates, to direct business to G-O-P donors in the oil industry and "military industrial complex," or to boost his and the G-O-P's political prospects.

The first two criticisms are so absurd that no serious opposition leader is making them. It is the latter position -- that [President] Bush is pursuing the war only for the political benefit of himself and Republicans -- that is more often made, most recently by [Democrat and Senate Majority Leader] Tom Daschle, [former vice president] Al Gore and [entertainer] Barbara Streisand. This, too, is absurd. If [Mr.] Bush is rattling the sabers solely to ingratiate himself with the American people, that means the American people want the sabers rattled.

TEXT: A viewpoint from The Manchester Union Leader. A very different perspective comes from Madison, Wisconsin's Capital Times, talking about last week's news conference in which both Democrats and Republicans in the House endorsed the president's stance.

VOICE: President Bush surrounded himself with the usual crew of bowing and scraping legislators when he announced what they claimed was a compromise congressional resolution to give [him] unprecedented powers to use military force against Iraq. The resolution is not a compromise, [but] rather a capitulation by people who ought to know better, to the president's demand that Congress shut up and let him do as he pleases.

The crowd [of legislators] did not include U-S Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin [who] said he would oppose the resolution as currently written because it lacks specific justification for using military force. [Senator] Feingold's reasoning is both sound and reflective of the sentiments expressed by Wisconsinites in town hall meetings, phone calls and letters.

TEXT: For its part, Boston's Christian Science Monitor is anxious that the United States continue to build a coalition before any military action.

VOICE: President Bush stands ready to attack Iraq even without the approval of the United Nations Security Council. So far, three permanent Council members -- Russia China, and France -- threaten to veto the U-S request to authorize the use of force in eliminating Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Britain, the fifth veto-wielding power, has already decided to enlist in a possible U-S campaign. But if it comes to that, Mr. Bush will first need a stamp of moral legitimacy from other nations if he is to avoid setting a potentially dangerous precedent for any nation to launch a preemptive war.

TEXT: Concerns from The Christian Science Monitor. In Oklahoma, The Tulsa World has several questions it wants answered, among them:

VOICE: Will Iraq be forced to account for hundreds of civilians and military personnel missing in the Gulf War; does Mr. Bush have plans for a post-war Iraq? And how will he establish a new government? These questions need to be answered in the congressional debate.

TEXT: And in Texas, The Dallas Morning News has this suggestion about what the U-S should begin doing to condition the Iraqi army. First offer them amnesty if they lay down their arms as the first shot is fired. Also, it says:

VOICE: Iraqi commanders and soldiers need to know -- loudly and clearly -- that if they give or act upon orders to use weapons of mass destruction, they will face war crimes trials if captured. Their complicity will result in swift action, thorough relevant tribunals, as some in the Iraqi opposition urge.

TEXT: Lastly, a plea from Newsday on New York's Long Island for a "sober debate" on the subject by the Senate, since the House has already voted.

VOICE: The Senate should narrow any authorization for war even further [than the House]. It should insist on language that leaves no doubt that the U-S objective is to dismantle or destroy Iraq's missile and weapons of mass destruction. In the end, Congress is almost certain to authorize use of force in Iraq. So it is also crucial that [Mr.] Bush provide a clear view of his plans for the political and economic reconstruction of a post-war Iraq. An Oil-rich Persian Gulf in chaos would be a disaster for the United States and its allies. If ever there was a time for sober deliberation, now is that time.

TEXT: With comment from New York's Newsday, we conclude this sampling of the latest views on the Iraq debate.

NEB/ANG/RH