Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

DATE=01/29/03

TYPE=U-S EDITORIAL DIGEST

TITLE=WEDNESDAY'S EDITORIALS

NUMBER=6-12810

BYLINE=ANDREW GUTHRIE

DATELINE=WASHINGTON

EDITOR=ASSIGNMENTS

TELEPHONE=619-3335

CONTENT=

INTRO: President Bush's State of the Union Address to the American people dominates editorial columns. Other commentaries deal with Iraq and the Israeli election results. Now, here with a sample or two is ____________ and today's U-S Editorial Digest.

TEXT: President Bush is getting generally high marks for his oratory, but a few papers suggest he has not made a convincing case for war against Iraq. Suggests The New York Times of the twin messages of war and another "huge tax cut for the wealthy:"

VOICE: No one watching the somber President's delivery could doubt [his] sincerity .But the combination created far too mixed a message. . as he heads into his own re-election cycle with a war plan at the top of his agenda, the state of the union . is clearly laced with anxiety and doubt.

TEXT: The Washington Post was disappointed that:

VOICE: . Mr. Bush revealed little of the intelligence the administration says it has on the Iraqi arsenal, and he said little about what the costs of a war might be, or about the commitment .to a postwar Iraq. His case against Saddam Hussein was strong; but it left him with much still to do...

TEXT: The speech went over well in Colorado, where The Denver Post calls it "Bush's bravura performance - at least the strongest speech . since his September. address in the wake of the terrorist attacks." Adds The Denver Post, in disagreement with The Washington Post:

VOICE: We were also heartened by the president's increasing willingness to "go public' with his evidence against Iraq.

TEXT: In Texas, The Dallas Morning News describes the strengths as:

VOICE: Simple. Moral. Persuasive. President Bush was all three last night in describing the compelling urgency to dismantle Saddam Hussein's regime.

TEXT: Ohio's Cincinnati Post calls it:

VOICE: . a responsible speech by a man who seems clear about what this moment in the nation's life requires of him.

TEXT: U-S-A Today, the national daily however remains unconvinced: "[His] case for attacking Iraq [is] still short on critical details." In Chicago, The Tribune feels:

VOICE: By the time [Mr.] Bush finished speaking, each America had heard something it liked. Opponents of an attack .can note that [President] Bush did not offer what his critics demand: smoking-gun evidence of . weapons development. And those who feel military action . necessary hear a powerful reminder that the burden of proof rests not on the United Nations or the United States ... but rather on Iraq...

TEXT: Chicago's Sun-Times adds that "We expect most Americans came away from the speech feeling the state of the union is on the right course." But in the Texas State Capital, where Mr. Bush used to govern, The Austin-American Statesman complains:

VOICE: Though his rhetoric was forceful, what the president lacked was solid proof. He alluded to nuclear and chemical material that Saddam has . but presented nothing resembling strict proof.

TEXT: As for the Israeli elections, won by the Likud Party incumbent Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Wisconsin's Milwaukee Journal says:

VOICE: . [the] triumph is almost certain to be followed by continuing terrorism unless peace negotiations with the Palestinian Arabs are revived. And new peace talks are unlikely unless centrist elements in Israeli politics . are participants in the new government.

TEXT: Long Island New York's Newsday says the "Israeli Voters' Choice Shows Their Distrust of [Yasser] Arafat."

On that note we conclude this editorial sampling of Wednesday's U-S press.

NEB/ANG/RAE