Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

DATE=02/12/04

TYPE=WORLD OPINION ROUNDUP

NAME=U-S WAR APOLOGISTS

NUMBER=6-130256

BYLINE=ANDREW GUTHRIE

DATELINE=WASHINGTON

EDITOR=ASSIGNMENTS

TELEPHONE=203-4301

CONTENT=

INTRO: Foreign newspapers are again commenting on the Bush administration's justification for the war in Iraq, including recent comments. We are joined now by V-O-A's ____________who has a sampling for us in this week's World Opinion Roundup.

TEXT: From a congressional hearing with Central Intelligence Agency chief George Tenent, to comments by Secretary of State Colin Powell, and President Bush's interview on a weekend news program, the theme was similar: the intelligence may have been flawed, but the war against Iraq was justified. However many foreign newspapers are pointing out that the specific language America's leaders are using on the war appears to be changing. In Britain, The Independent in London states:

VOICE: If [British Prime Minister Tony] Blair believed the most alarmist intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons he was being spectacularly naïve. . intelligence can be unreliable. . Almost a year later he faces the political repercussions. They are likely to be very serious.

TEXT: However a leading news magazine, has a different view:

VOICE: The Economist continues to think the war was justified; but no inquiry can verify or refute that view. Nor can it establish whether the war had made Iraq and the world better and safer.

TEXT: France's Le Figaro proposes that: [Mr.] Bush is learning that in a democracy one does not mislead one's people without having to pay a price." While Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung says: "Iraqi WMD will continue to remain an issue in the U-S election campaign. This is something now even President Bush [understands.]" In Austria, Vienna's Der Standard reacts negatively to the weekend TV interview.

VOICE: [Mr.] Bush's line of defense on the war . is dishonest, but it might work . In reality, nothing of what [he] claimed on Sunday was true.

TEXT: In Brussels, La Libre Belgique complains:

VOICE: Both in the United States and. Great Britain, the investigative commissions . created under political and popular pressure seem to have more the objective of preventing criticism than of shedding light on the reasons used to enter the war.

TEXT: Asia's South China Morning Post says:

VOICE: The only thing worse than being deceived by someone else is to be deceived by oneself. In the U-S, we now have a glaring example of how badly things can go wrong when this happens, with the Bush administration .convincing itself . that Saddam Hussein's had huge stockpiles of WMD. Now, the chickens have come home to roost.[Editors: slang for " negative consequences of an earlier action have materialized"]

TEXT: As for Indonesian reaction, Kompas in Jakarta writes: "President Bush may well feel he has done no wrong and [refuses] to apologize to Iraq, but the U-S attack has given rise to rage and a desire for revenge among the Iraqi people. The attack . was a complete waste of time and effort."

Moving on to Africa, Kenya's East African Standard from Nairobi, asks:

VOICE: Can you believe it? Washington and London are still prevaricating and obfuscating about the non-existence of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

TEXT: Lastly, Ontario's Toronto Star writes:

VOICE: We now know Saddam had no serious ties to the 9/11 terrorists, and he had bowed to the United Nations and scrapped his nuclear, chemical and biological programs. All this was dismally evident in [Mr.] Bush's weekend interview . where he trotted out a feeble and incoherent Version B rationale for war . [which] isn't any more believable than Version A.

TEXT: With that e view from Canada's Toronto Star, we conclude this sampling of foreign reaction to the latest U-S explanations for the war in Iraq.

NEB/ANG/MEM