New York Times
Yesterday's cautiously upbeat presentations by the two chief United Nations weapons inspectors undercut Washington's already weak chances of winning Security Council endorsement for a new war resolution on Iraq. Britain's effort to widen support by delaying the resolution's deadline is laudable. But the brief extension now being proposed -- until March 17 -- is unlikely to be enough. The United States and its partners should offer a more meaningful delay. The obligation would then fall on France and others now opposing the resolution to meet them partway.
The main message from Hans Blix was that Iraqi cooperation has increased in recent days and weeks, and that Iraq has begun to move beyond access and procedural questions to the actual destruction of prohibited weapons, notably the bulldozing of missiles that exceed the range permitted by the United Nations. On the crucial question of nuclear weapons, the other chief inspector, Mohamed ElBaradei, went further, saying that so far he had found no evidence that Iraq had restarted the nuclear weapons programs it had been forced to abandon more than a decade ago. He also reported that claims made by Washington and others that Iraq had recently made illegal purchases of uranium and prohibited nuclear components had been investigated and found to be unsubstantiated.
Baghdad is still a very long way from living up to the Security Council's demand for it to give up its unconventional weapons. The most powerful lever for securing full Iraqi cooperation would be a reunited Security Council. But the speeches by the various foreign ministers yesterday reinforced the Council's divisions. If that divide is to be bridged, the United States and Britain must treat the proposed new March 17 deadline as an initial negotiating position. For their part, France and its partners must be prepared to offer something more constructive than a veto threat. They have yet to come up with an alternative proposal that maintains adequate pressure on Iraq. Without such pressure, the inspectors would have had a lot less progress to report yesterday.
Washington Times
In his televised press conference Thursday night, President Bush once again presented a compelling case that Iraq has failed to meet its disarmament obligations, and that there is no serious possibility that Saddam Hussein would agree to do so peacefully. ... While vowing to pursue "the last phase of diplomacy" to persuade the U.N. Security Council to make Saddam disarm, the president rightly declared that Washington is ready to move against Iraq without U.N. approval. Mr. Bush noted that, "when it comes to our security, we really don't need anybody's permission." We agree. ...
Britain, in conjunction with the United States, is pushing for a second compromise Security Council resolution that would give Iraq until March 17 to fulfill its disarmament commitments. But French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin says his government will veto this resolution and demand more time for inspections.
The Security Council is rendering itself irrelevant when it comes to disarming Saddam Hussein. It's time for Mr. Bush and the rest of the allied coalition to take action on their own.
Chicago Tribune
On the eve of the 1991 Persian Gulf war, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein outraged the world by holding expatriates from other countries against their will as human shields. He released them before bombs started to drop.
This time around, the human shields came willingly to Iraq. Peace activists had hoped to attract thousands to their movement. Said one of the organizers, Liev Aleo, on a movement Web page: "Stopping the war with our presence is almost 100 percent assured."
Not exactly. The thousands never showed up. A couple hundred did arrive in February, eager to keep bombs from falling on innocent Iraqis. They were Algerians, Americans, Brits, Finns, French, Norwegians, Russians, South Africans -- a veritable United Nations of the peaceful.
At first, it all went fairly well. Iraq put them up in hotels in Baghdad and provided telephone lines and Internet access. The human shields had it all planned out. They would protect hospitals and schools, maybe help treat the wounded.
Saddam had other ideas. Operating under the quite rational theory that U.S. military planners most likely won't be aiming their bombs at schools and hospitals, the Iraqis ordered the human shields to head to potential strategic targets -- oil refineries, power plants and the like. Protect them, please, said the government.
"Now we are being told we cannot go to certain sites, such as hospitals," said one of the annoyed organizers. When ordered to go to power plants and refineries, some of the shields more or less said: Are you nuts? We could get killed!
Shocked to discover that (a) they couldn't do as they wished in this police state, and (b) this could get really dangerous, many of the shields have wisely taken a powder. (No, not anthrax.)
An American organizer, Kenneth O'Keefe, said he wasn't concerned that some might see the shield movement as supporting Saddam rather than the Iraqi people. "You cannot separate the two," he said. With that much, Saddam would certainly agree. At least for now.
Boston Herald
There are far worse things than losing a vote in the United Nations Security Council, President Bush made clear Thursday night.
``The attacks of September the 11th, 2001, show what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction,'' the president said. ``I will not leave the American people at the mercy of the Iraq dictator and his weapons.''
There are those poor misguided souls -- and nations -- who want to continue to accept the mythology that somehow Saddam Hussein's sudden willingness to begin to destroy missiles built in utter disregard of the U.N. resolution represents real disarmament.
Some are no doubt sincere and would pay any price to avoid a war. Others are no doubt blinded by their own national agendas that see commercial advantage in dealing with despots. They choose to ignore the fact that despots cannot be tamed or contained; they can only be removed.
Yesterday, speaking before the Security Council, Secretary of State Colin Powell called reports by chief U.N. inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei ``a catalogue of non-cooperation'' by the Iraqis. ...
``Iraq is once again moving down the path to weapons of mass destruction,'' Powell said.
Those whose eyes are open -- Britain, Spain -- know that is the truth. Those who refuse to see, to believe -- France, Germany, Russia -- will not be convinced unless and until Saddam lights the fire in their own backyard.
``Now is the time for the council to tell Saddam that the clock has not been stopped by his stratagems and his machinations,'' Powell said.
The moment will come next week. The United States and Britain will call for a vote. But win or lose that show of hands, the path is clear -- for the United States and for all those who will stand up for the cause of freedom from terror.
Dallas Morning News
When it votes early next week, the United Nations Security Council should approve a U.S., British and Spanish resolution authorizing war against Iraq unless the Middle Eastern country agrees to disarm by March 17. If France carries out its threat to veto any resolution that establishes a deadline as long as Iraq is "cooperating" with U.N. arms inspectors, President Bush should order the U.S. military to attack anyway. Iraq's begrudging and incomplete cooperation is too little, too late. ...
In his speech to the nation on Thursday, Mr. Bush convincingly made the case for war. If Saddam Hussein does not leave Iraq, and soon, it reluctantly befalls the strongest military power and its allies to eliminate the menace regardless of whether France and other accommodators agree.
Los Angeles Times
Many Californians are familiar with Manzanar, the Owens Valley site of the World War II camp -- now a national monument -- where thousands of Japanese Americans from the western United States were interned because of officials' fear they might secretly aid the enemy war effort.
Few, however, have heard of Tule Lake, a camp in northern Shasta County just a few miles south of the Oregon border that housed mostly families. As many as 18,700 Japanese Americans were interned at one time at Tule Lake. Now, a small number of former internees and their offspring are attempting to establish a memorial there. They need and deserve help in their effort.
Of the 10 World War II internment camps, only Manzanar and Minidoka in Idaho have been formally designated preservation sites. It's not likely Congress will invest in Tule Lake as it has Manzanar, which is better known and right on busy U.S. 395. However, it would take little more than a plaque for the Department of the Interior to make Tule Lake a national historic site and preserve what little is left.
The Tule Lake Committee (www.tule lake.org) is establishing a small educational center on a tiny piece of federal land. But there is considerable local resistance to creating a memorial at the camp site, just as there was at Manzanar. Farmers and other landowners have been reluctant to allow surviving buildings to be restored or a museum established because many believe the internment was justified.
"But we won't stop working to make sure Tule Lake and its stories don't die," says 80-year-old Jimi Yamaichi of San Jose, who was 24 when released from the camp in 1946.
About 25 buildings survive at Tule Lake, including the jail Yamaichi helped build, its walls still carrying scratched appeals for help.
The story of Tule Lake is a significant part of California history. Perhaps the state Department of Parks and Recreation, which preserves state historic monuments, can provide some support -- even advice or consultation -- to the Tule Lake Committee.
It's important to preserve the dark side of history and vow that it never be allowed to happen again.
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
At a huge moment in American history, the president of the United States left us wanting more. We were eager for clarity and precision -- and it was not to be.
President Bush delivered little more than what we've heard over and over; not much new in this "news" conference.
A president who on at least two other momentous occasions surprised and comforted us with his oratory has left us discomfited. If Bush sought to move either the American public or world leaders closer to agreement with his insistence that Iraq's behavior has left virtually no choice but military action, he failed. ...
Resistance hardened in the Security Council yesterday too, with China joining France, Germany and Russia insisting on continued and expanded arms inspections in Iraq. We don't see much hope that the president's message did anything to soften it.
"It's time for people to show their cards," Bush said.
We're left wondering if he really understands the stakes.
(Compiled by United Press International)
