New York Times
Not quite four decades ago, Lyndon Johnson learned to his and the nation's sorrow that taking a reluctant country to war can severely damage the body politic. President Bush must be mindful of that danger as he draws the United States ever closer to military conflict with Iraq. Americans are worried about Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction, but are also concerned about the anemic state of the nation's economy, and seem uncertain how best to deal with Iraq. A New York Times/CBS News poll published yesterday, and other surveys, support the sense of many around the country that Mr. Bush still has work to do if he hopes to persuade Americans of the need to use military force to disarm Iraq. ...
Congress is likely to grant the president the power to use force that he seeks. But that does not mean the debate should lack seriousness or tough questioning or that it should amount to a blank check. Mr. Bush himself acknowledged last night that many fair questions had been raised about the need for a military showdown with Iraq. He addressed some of them, but not all his answers were persuasive.
Referring to the coming war vote in Congress, Mr. Bush said, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." The country should hold him to that.
Washington Times
One indisputable conclusion from reporter Jerry Seper's recent five-part series in The Washington Times, "Border War: On the front line against illegal immigration," is that the nation's border-enforcement strategy along the 1,940-mile U.S.-Mexico border clearly is not working. Since the federal government implemented a new strategy in 1994 focusing on deterrence, detection and arrest, the illegal alien population in the United States has increased from an estimated five million to between nine and 11 million. As many as two million illegal aliens per year succeed in their efforts to penetrate the U.S.-Mexico border without being caught and expelled. ...
One option that must be rejected out of hand is the use of the military to patrol the border. Given the drug cartels' ability to infiltrate cultures of all sorts, our armed forces must be protected from the inevitable taint of drug-related corruption. However achieved, gaining control of the U.S.-Mexico border will almost certainly cost much more than is currently spent. Where will the money come from? A surtax? Increasing the deficit? Taking the money from other programs? Hard decisions need to be made.
Ideally, of course, the long-term solution will be for Mexico to dramatically increase economic opportunities for its citizens. However, that is decades away, if ever. In the meantime, Americans need to decide what burdens they are willing to bear in order to eliminate the chaos that reigns along the southern border. As Mr. Seper's series makes unmistakably clear, now is not too soon to begin addressing our worsening border problems.
Louisville Courier-Journal
President Bush is not exactly a details guy. By most reports, he puts in a short work day and leaves most of the lifting, heavy and otherwise, to the hired hands.
But someone in the White House needs to sit Mr. Bush down and get him focused on stopping a feud within his own administration, before serious damage is done.
The outrage in question is being perpetrated by the President's own Office of Management and Budget, which The Wall Street Journal reports is resisting spending and helping to wipe out $134 million appropriated by Congress this summer for disaster and refugee assistance to Afghanistan.
The OMB, which appears to have the upper hand, is thus countermanding the State Department and CIA, which have been pushing Congress to increase humanitarian aid to Afghanistan to meet the grave problems that face the fragile regime of pro-Western President Hamid Karzai. ...
The President needs to make clear that he does know what's going on, and that he insists on appropriate funding to help Afghanistan become a stable state that will never again harbor terrorists.
Sometimes, details are important.
Honolulu Advertiser
It is tough to decide what part of President Bush's speech on Iraq last night should take our focus:
Is it his reassurance that war with Iraq is neither imminent nor inevitable?
Or should we focus on his warning that the United States has had it with dissembling, delay and deceit and will get its regime change one way or another?
There was little in Bush's much-anticipated speech that was new. Rather, it was an effective summing up of what has been said and argued before.
What one heard, then, was less an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein than the closing argument of a prosecutor trying to make his case before the U.S. Congress and the United Nations Security Council. ...
Iraq clearly presents great risks. So too does going it alone.
St. Louis Post Dispatch
In a sober, low-key speech to the nation, President George W. Bush pulled together his case for war against Iraq, repeatedly linking the urgency of the threat to the new sense of "vulnerability" felt by Americans after Sept. 11. Still, he did not present convincing new evidence of a connection between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks, nor did he have evidence that the nuclear threat from Iraq is imminent. ...
Mr. Bush's speech might solidify public opinion in favor of the war, which had begun to appear soft in opinion polls. It is certain he will win a big majority on the war resolution in Congress, and he may be able to nudge reluctant allies to support him in the United Nations. But Mr. Bush still has not presented a convincing case for his alarming run-up to war.
Seattle Times
President George Bush turned from high-ballistic war rhetoric to earnest conversation last night as he laid out his administration's case for going to war with Iraq.
In a calm, cogent manner, Bush said Saddam Hussein represented a grave threat to peace. The Iraqi dictator has the demonstrated capacity to inflict harm with chemical and biological weapons, and the clear intent to develop a nuclear weapon.
As Congress prepares to vote on war resolutions this week in the Republican-controlled House, and next week in the Democratic-led Senate, the president took his campaign to the heart of the opposition. ...
If the White House wants to move the nation toward war, this cannot be the president's last, best effort to lay out the evidence against Iraq, to affirm a commitment to seeking allied support, and rebuilding a war-torn Iraq.
The president needs to keep talking, but last night felt as if the conversation has started in earnest.
San Diego Union-Tribune
By focusing on disarmament of Iraq, rather than the more ambitious aim of ousting Saddam Hussein, President Bush last night held out at least the prospect of a peaceful resolution to the gathering crisis in the Persian Gulf. Speaking to the nation from Cincinnati, Bush stressed that approval of a congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against the Baghdad regime "does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable."
Those ought to be reassuring words for the majority of Americans who support military intervention against Iraq but also believe the United Nations should be given more time to dispatch arms inspectors before the United States resorts to war. ...
As the president works to build support in the House and Senate for a resolution authorizing force, he must be no less diligent -- or less patient -- on the diplomatic front. Backing from the U.N. Security Council for Washington's stance against Saddam Hussein would not only strengthen domestic support if a shooting war erupts, but also mute opposition among Arab governments and the rest of the international community. Allowing U.N. inspectors one last chance to disarm Iraq, thereby averting the need for war, is not only sensible but also may be necessary to gain Security Council support for the ultimate use of force.
"I hope this will not require military action, but it may." Bush said. "We refuse to live in fear." Those are sentiments which most Americans plainly share.
Charlotte Observer
The Bush administration's campaign for war with Iraq thus far has been a disturbingly erratic display of policy making, as factions inside and outside the administration fought for the president's ear.
First America was eager to go it alone, and allies who had reservations were little better than appeasers, and the United Nations was irrelevant.
Then our nation's friends and the American people said slow down, make this an international mission, use the United Nations. Now the administration is courting allies to build support for military action, if necessary, and its aftermath. That's progress.
Sometimes the only way to deal with danger is to confront it immediately. But war should be the last resort. Plainly, in the case of Iraq, there are other steps that can be taken that might remove the danger without starting a war. ...
Before going to war, President Bush must satisfactorily answer these questions. Has he made the case to our nation and the world that the danger posed by Iraq must be removed, by force if necessary? Has he exhausted all other means of removing that danger? Has he adopted a course that not only will remove the danger but will create a situation more likely to maintain peace?
The president has taken on that challenge. We hope the answers do not lead to war. But if they do, at least the war will be fought with a realistic appraisal of the benefits, dangers and responsibilities that come with victory, and other nations will be sharing in the task.
Chicago Tribune
Leftist labor leader Luiz Inacio "Lula" da Silva trounced the opposition in Sunday's presidential election in Brazil, but came three points short of the 50 percent of the vote required for a clear win. Still, he got twice as many votes as the nearest rival -- picked by the incumbent -- and is the odds-on favorite to win the runoff in three weeks. ...
What happens in Brazil is vitally important to the U.S. Brazil's economy is the ninth largest in the world. Its size and population of 170 million make an Argentine-style economic meltdown a disastrous prospect for the regional and world economies. ...
The test of Lula's legendary negotiating skills will be fashioning a more inclusive economic deal for the disenfranchised without the class war that has erupted in places such as Venezuela. That Brazil is about to turn to a three-time loser is a sign of desperation, not affection. Let's hope Lula, should he win the runoff, comes to recognize the difference.
Dallas Morning News
At long last, President Bush presented a call for action against Iraq directly to the American people. Speaking in Cincinnati on Monday night, he addressed the agonizing questions that Congress and citizens have been asking. Why now? And what's next?
Although he offered no significant new information, Mr. Bush -- like a dogged prosecutor delivering his summation to the jury -- presented a strong case. ...
The president now must help create a vision for a post-Hussein Iraq. The costs of war are high -- both in economic and personal terms. The costs of rebuilding could be even higher. But the cost of living in a world where blackmail prevails is unacceptable.
In the short term, it would be easier for the world to ignore Mr. Hussein. But longer-term security and stability require dealing with difficult issues.
Kansas City Star
Secretary of State Colin Powell should adopt the new recommendations of a U.S. commission and name 12 countries as egregious violators of religious freedom.
Designating them "countries of particular concern" would require President Bush to pressure violators through diplomacy or with such tools as economic sanctions.
This year's list contains some of the usual suspects where repression is concerned -- Iran, Iraq, China and North Korea -- as well as Burma (Myanmar), Laos, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Turkmenistan. For the first time, however, it adds India, Pakistan and Vietnam. And with good reason. Each country has a sorry record in protecting freedom of worship and religious expression. ...
Freedom of religion is a basic human right. It's a value that was at the very heart of America's founders, and it remains a bedrock principle here. But it's not just an American or Western ideal. It is fundamental to human freedom everywhere.
The Commission on International Religious Freedom is doing its job to monitor religious repression around the world. Now the Bush administration must pressure violators to change.
Los Angeles Times
At $1 billion or more a day, the cost of the West Coast port stalemate is far too damaging to the nation's economy, the wave of economic pain rolling toward the country's trading partners far too ominous for Washington to let it continue. The shippers and longshore workers can reach a speedy agreement or President Bush should force them to behave responsibly. ...
The last time a labor dispute shut down West Coast shipping the economic effect was relatively minor. But West Coast ports now are crucial players in a global economy where "just in time" is the order of the day. Labor and management have legitimate concerns that they're entitled to settle. But for them to remain entangled like stubborn, self-absorbed wrestlers while the economy sinks is more than the nation should have to witness, more than the Bush administration should tolerate another day.
(Compiled by United Press International.)
