Editorial Roundup

www.grandforks.com Posted on Wed, Mar. 05, 2003 Associated Press

With certain exceptions - Excerpts from recent editorials in newspapers in the United States and abroad:

Feb. 27

Anderson (S.C.) Independent-Mail, on Mister Rogers:

Children's programming is more flash and sizzle than substance these days, with singing dinosaurs and Power Puff Girls and mutated superheroes who blast and scorch and send chills of fear down the spine. ...

But children also love Mister Rogers, alias Fred Rogers, who on each show invited children into a shabby and comfortable living room where they would be warm and cozy, slipped on a sweater and into sneakers and sang about a beautiful day in the neighborhood. ...

From a living room set, he welcomed the mailman and puppets and people who would show how they did their jobs or how something was made, the host a comfortable and comforting mentor who actually taught children something.

But it wasn't just the practicalities of learning in which Rogers specialized. Manners were important, and speaking softly instead of raising one's voice, unless the voice is raised in laughter. He believed in simple pleasures and assumed that everyone was essentially good if given the chance to be good. ...

Mister Rogers would by no stretch ... be called reality programming, that genre that has inexplicably become so popular these days.

But oh, what a world it would be if he were.

Feb. 27

South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Fort Lauderdale, on the gift of life:

The rare dangers, mistakes and failures linked to organ donations got a lot of publicity lately. It was front-page news when a surgeon botched a teenage girl's heart-lung transplant, by failing to check for an incompatible blood type, and when the same girl got a second transplant that didn't save her life. ...

Jesica Santilian was only 17 when she died. ...

In an ironic twist, Jesica's parents refused to allow her organs to be donated to help someone else.

The United Network for Organ Sharing says there are only two other cases on record nationwide of mismatched organs being transplanted.

More than 80,400 patients now are on waiting lists for organ transplants, about 750 from South Florida. More than 6,300 patients die each year because a transplant is not available. Nearly 23,000 transplant operations were performed last year, but fewer than 12,000 people donated organs. ...

The organ donation system is a means to mitigate human tragedy, fight illness and ease the feelings of permanent loss after death. Organ donations save 55 lives each day.

Give the gift of life; become an organ donor.

March 3

Journal Star, Peoria, Ill., on executing Saddam Hussein:

... No doubt, it would be simpler if some sharpshooter was able to take out Saddam Hussein. If the choice is between surgically assassinating the Iraqi leader and a potentially deadly war that puts 200,000 American soldiers at risk, it's one many Americans would have little trouble making.

Yet we admit to an uneasy feeling upon hearing U.S. Sen. Peter Fitzgerald say President Bush would authorize Saddam's assassination "if we had a clear shot." This wasn't some off-the-cuff remark by Fitzgerald. He had details about his conversation with the president, presumably while aboard Air Force One in January. He said Bush has already thought about repealing an executive order forbidding assassinations of foreign leaders. ...

Indeed, it is difficult for the United States to hold itself as a beacon of democracy and governmental self-determination while planning coups in other countries. There is a moral dimension to endorsing or facilitating murder, no matter how evil some of our opponents are. ...

In the long run, assassination is a lousy tool of foreign policy that can be counterproductive to U.S. security.

In the case of war, however, the rules change. Saddam could be a target in the U.S. effort to disrupt Iraq's command and control structure and save American lives. We've not convinced it must come to that, but neither Saddam nor President Bush seem willing to find another way.

March 5

Los Angeles Times, on Ashcroft's Russian roulette:

Last year, Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft tried but failed to get the U.S. Supreme Court to buy his theory that the 2nd Amendment allows pretty much anyone to buy pretty much any gun, a view the court has consistently if infrequently rejected.

Now Ashcroft has threatened California's top firearms control official with criminal charges if the state continues to use a federal databank to hunt down those making illegal gun purchases, as it has done for years.

Ashcroft's latest decree is reckless and could emasculate this nation's gun laws, hamstring police and put the public at risk. Since 1998, firearms dealers across the country have used the Department of Justice's National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, to check, supposedly within 30 seconds, whether a customer is prohibited from owning a gun because of, for example, a felony or a history of mental illness. ...

Ashcroft wants to stop such practices, believing that a gun owner's right to privacy trumps public safety. The federal Brady law, requiring the background check for handgun buyers, requires gun dealers to take one peek at an individual's criminal record. A buyer with a clean record takes the gun home. But if that same individual later commits a crime, is slapped with a restraining order or becomes mentally unstable, Ashcroft has decreed no one should know.

Ashcroft would force California law enforcement officials to play Russian roulette 7,000 times a year when they release a suspect for lack of evidence, spring a parolee from prison or discover that a judge has put a restraining order on a wife beater who has a firearm. Only, in this game, the bullets will be aimed at law-abiding citizens. ...

A large part of Ashcroft's responsibility is protecting the public, not undercutting laws that would help him do that job.

March 3

Dayton (Ohio) Daily News, on politicians and war:

such as street demonstrations and talk radio - the American debate about the war has been reasonably civil. The politicians have been restrained.

Now Republican hit man, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, of Texas, wants to change the tone. In search of a Democrat to bash, he recently settled on presidential candidate Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont. ...

The candidate insists that many options short of war remain. And he insists that Saddam Hussein is a lesser danger by far than North Korea and al-Qaida.

Rep. DeLay calls this posture "appeasement." That term is being heard more and more about opponents of the war. It makes no sense.

"Appeasement" entered the political lexicon in the days before World War II, when some people wanted to (and did) accede to Adolph Hitler's demands for new territory, in the hope that that would mollify Hitler. But Saddam isn't demanding anything.

Appeasement is simply an irrelevant and hyperbolic concept.

At any rate, until the leading doves start calling President Bush bloodthirsty or a warmonger, the hawks ought to refrain from their own name-calling. Let there be no race to the bottom of political oratory.

March 3

Albuquerque (N.M.) Journal, on new airport security measurers:

When passengers book a flight and check their bags, are they also checking their civil rights?

The government's latest action in the name of national security could be seen that way. Its new risk-detection system, called CAPPS II, assigns a "threat level" to everyone booking a commercial flight.

Transportation officials have been short on details about the computer prescreening system - how the information will be gathered and how long it will be kept - which in itself attracts concern. Ordered by Congress after the Sept. 11 attacks, the system will be piloted by Delta Air Lines for three months and could be comprehensively in place by the end of the year.

The system carries out instantaneous background checks on passengers, checking credit reports and bank account activity, and compares passenger names with those on government watch lists.

A long list of law enforcement and intelligence agencies would have access to the information. ...

But authorities should have this kind of information before the passenger books a flight. When the routine buying habits of Americans become part of a national database, citizens should be concerned.

Citizen concern conceivably could translate into another disincentive for choosing to fly - at the worst financial time in aviation history. United Airlines and US Airways are in bankruptcy; American Airlines appears headed that way. Eastern and Pan Am are already names of the past.

Conceivably, the Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System could be helping to place Delta on that at-risk list.

March 2

The Orange County Register, Santa Ana, Calif., on oil markets:

Are oil companies gouging us? Across Orange County, drivers now are paying above $2 a gallon for 91 octane and nearly $2 even for 87 octane. It was only 18 months ago that we were paying about $1.41 a gallon. Home heating oil and natural gas prices have increased just as fast.

Unfortunately, some politicians are taking advantage of the problem. "It is imperative that the Department (of Energy) and the (Bush) administration assure the American people, now and in the future, that the prices that they are paying at the gas pump and for their fuel oil are not the result of price manipulation or gouging," Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., wrote on Feb. 24 to Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham. ...

The volatility, of course, stems from the potential invasion of Iraq, which would disrupt world oil supplies, and the civil turmoil in Venezuela, which has shut down oil production there.

There's no "price manipulation or gouging," only market responses. ...

Markets should not take the rap for problems caused by political turmoil. As happened with the 1991 gulf war, once the political turmoil is over with, prices will drop.

March 3

Mobile (Ala.) Register, on the capture of an al-Qaida terrorist:

The capture of al-Qaida leader Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is both a huge blow for freedom and a strong rebuke for critics of the Bush administration.

Consider the latter issue first. For at least half a year, naysayers and political opportunists among Democrats in Congress have argued that President George W. Bush's focus on Iraq was hobbling efforts to fight the al-Qaida terrorist network.

The worst offenders charged that the administration, by supposedly doing little more than grubbing for oil in Iraq, was negligently leaving the United States vulnerable to more al-Qaida attacks of the 9-11 variety.

One prominent senator and now-presidential candidate, Bob Graham of Florida, voted no on last fall's congressional resolution authorizing military force against Saddam Hussein specifically for that reason. Sen. Graham said, in effect, that the United States couldn't fight Iraq and al-Qaida at the same time.

Mr. Graham himself is no cheap-shot artist. His positions at least have had the courage of consistency. But others in his party in recent months have picked up that same drumbeat without his level of knowledge or nuance. ...

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's arrest is the most important counterterrorist arrest, ever. ...

This is big stuff. The world is safer as a result. Next up for the cause of freedom: Take out Saddam Hussein. Because when it comes to fighting terrorists, the United States can indeed walk the walk against some and chew Saddam at the same time.

March 3

The Independent, London, on the potential war against Iraq:

On the one hand, the British Prime Minister conveys to readers of this newspaper his deeply held belief that the threat of war against Iraq is both morally right and necessary. On the other hand, the Iraqi tyrant plays a wily game, offering, partially, to disarm. It is a compelling contrast. ...

Whatever the motives of Saddam, the U.N. weapons inspectors are making some progress. Here is a moment to build on, a hint of an alternative course to war. It would be an act of willful recklessness to rush into a conflict at this point. Let us briefly rehearse the consequences. If there is war, innocent Iraqis will be killed. The terrorists will hail a recruiting agent of their dreams. The future of postwar Iraq - let alone the surrounding region - is still far from clear.

This is a moment when Mr. Blair should bend a little in order to avoid a war. He has done so before. ... In Northern Ireland he has shown considerable political courage by being flexible, patient and tolerant to preserve the peace process. Sometimes it is much bolder to be adaptable. His pragmatism has kept the peace process alive.

There is, of course, a significant difference between Northern Ireland and Iraq. When it comes to dealing with Saddam, President Bush will decide whether or not there is war. Already the president has made clear that he will go to war if there is a second U.N. resolution. The Northern Ireland precedent is of no interest to him. Sadly it appears to be of no interest to Mr. Blair either.

We are in the midst of an appalling tragedy. War over the next few weeks could be avoided, but President Bush and Mr. Blair have made up their minds and they do not seem willing to move for the sake of peace.

March 4

The Guardian, London, on the U.N. and Iraq:

The diplomatic tug-of-war over a second U.N. resolution on Iraq is turning into a charade. Three times in the past five days, George Bush has made plain his intention to overthrow the Iraqi regime, whatever the U.N. says. His aim, he said last week, was "a liberated Iraq. ... America's interest in security and America's belief in liberty both lead in the same direction." At the weekend, Mr. Bush again sketched out plans for a bright new future entirely predicated on Saddam Hussein's downfall. The U.S. president's candid although still very blurry focus on a post-Saddam settlement, rather than on disarmament, makes it clear that nothing less than physical as opposed to behavioral regime change will now suffice. U.S. determination to impose its will by force renders the U.N. debate redundant in terms of practical outcomes. It makes a mockery of the Security Council. ...

March 5

Le Monde, Paris, on the North Korean challenge:

Iraq masks a second emerging crisis, no less dangerous, perhaps even more: North Korea. The recent interception of an American spy plane in international airspace by four North Korean fighter jets over the Sea of Japan, Sunday March 2, ... gives the impression that the Korean Peninsula is skidding.

Wrong or right, North Korea feels it is the next target of Washington after Iraq; it intends to show it is not intimidated by the United States. ...

Washington insists it does not want war with North Korea and is favorable to negotiating a solution to the crisis started by the nuclear ambitions of Pyongyang.

But the more the Americans delay restarting dialogue with Pyongyang, the more the process of reactivating a (nuclear) reprocessing facility in Yongbyon, capable of producing plutonium, becomes inescapable.

Feb. 28

Asahi Shimbun, Tokyo, on North Korea and the United States:

North Korea, out of its growing sense of isolation, might well take such outrageous actions as test-launching ballistic missiles and starting nuclear reprocessing facilities. The Bush administration says it has no intention of attacking North Korea. But it also believes North Korea already has nuclear weapons. The United States might not hesitate to use force if it believes North Korea has the capability to conduct a nuclear attack on the U.S. mainland.

North Korea would then retaliate, throwing the Korean Peninsula into chaos. This scenario would be the worst-case nightmare for Japan as well. The danger of brinkmanship is that the perpetrator can go over the brink without even realizing it, and fall into that void itself. The United States should open direct talks with North Korea before the circumstances develop into such a stage. Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi should be more emphatic in urging the United States to do so. It is one thing to discuss with the other country how to end its nuclear development program and quite another to give in to nuclear blackmail.

South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun's administration has placed the highest priority for now on a policy to advance toward resolution of North Korea's nuclear development. Cooperation between Japan and South Korea has become even more important, not only regarding North Korea, but toward the United States as well.

March 4

Egyptian Gazette, Cairo, on prospects for a U.S. attack on Iraq:

It may be weeks, if not days, before the U.S. goes to war with or without U.N. endorsement. Of course, it would be useful for Washington in political and financial terms if it wrested UN blessing.

With their massive troops and firepower already in place in the Gulf, the U.S. and its unswerving ally Britain are fighting tooth and nail to win a diplomatic battle now raging at the U.N. Security Council. The diplomatic battle may be harder than the war the U.S. is poised to wage against Iraq.

A decisive victory at the U.N. will dispel lingering doubts about the U.S. as an unchallenged diplomatic, economic and military power of the world. A vociferous opposition by France, Germany and Russia against U.S. rush into war against Iraq underlines their own frown about the American plan to be the policeman of the world.

All opponents agree with the U.S. that Iraq must comply with U.N. resolutions about disarmament. However, they realize that what makes the U.S. tack is not Iraq's purported possession of proscribed weaponry, but a consuming desire to foist its agenda on the rest of the world in this unipolar era.

March 4

Dagens Nyheter, Stockholm, Sweden, on US-Iraq:

When the Baghdad regime is brought up for discussion, the sensitivity and delicacy that the Bush administration showed after Sept. 11, has turned into war drums and ultimatums.

The members of the U.N. Security Council belong to those who have been presented with a fait accompli: either you support us or we act on our own.

We've seen the result. The Turkish parliament's "no" to the stationing of U.S. troops in the country is only the latest example.

There's much at stake. The day the United States attacks Iraq on its own (or possibly with the support of Great Britain and other states), not only will the already-fragmented coalition that is needed in Iraq fall apart, but there is also the risk that the international coalition against terrorism could do the same.

And what that could lead to is best not to even think about.

March 5

Straits Times, Singapore, on the U.S. and Iraq:

Unless global sentiment changes suddenly within the next few weeks, Washington will be launching its invasion of Iraq with less support than it has ever had in its entire history. Will it matter?

In a word - yes! The problem is not winning the war - that the U.S. can do alone. Turkey's refusal to cooperate will make things difficult for the U.S., but not impossible. The problem is winning the peace - and that the U.S. cannot do alone.

For one thing, the cost of Iraqi reconstruction is likely to be prohibitively high. With the 2003-2004 U.S. budget deficit already projected to exceed US$300 billion without factoring in the cost of the Iraqi war, Washington will need all the help it can get to put a post-Saddam Iraq back on its feet.

Having raised the stakes so high - nothing less than the transformation of the entire Middle East - how is Mr Bush going to accomplish such a colossal task without the support of his key allies, let alone regional powers like Turkey?

A diplomatic strategy that ignores the doubts of many, that keeps changing the goalposts, that is endlessly flexible in the justification it offers for war - disarmament, terrorism, 'regime change,' regional transformation - is not calculated to win the confidence of the global community.

Washington has no more than two weeks to win the legitimacy that only a Security Council resolution can provide it. If it fails in this effort, it will still win the war, but its winning the peace will be in serious doubt.

March 5

La Repubblica, Rome, Italy, on war and the pope:

Can a fast stop the spiral toward war, which quickens more every day? Can a fast save peace?

To a believer, the purpose of a fast, as of a prayer, is linked to the promise and mystery of God. But for all of us, believers or not, this gesture proposed by the pope is a challenge to logic of interests, of force and of violence.

It is a political act in the highest sense of the term, because it concerns the most profound reasons of human coexistence. To fast as a personal choice, when a large part of the world risks starvation, means committing oneself to a cause and defining oneself as responsible.

It would be wrong to consider the pope's call anti-American, or as an answer to Bush's refusal of his overtures for peace. It is much more. The pope condemns terrorism along with war, refusing violence from all sides. He denies the pretenses of men and states to judge over good and bad, condemning all holy wars.

The pope's call for a fast has a strong religious meaning, coinciding with Ash Wednesday. But it is also a historical, powerful and tangible contribution to the difficult road of peace in the Iraq crisis.