Gość: guardian
IP: 168.103.126.*
29.01.03, 21:45
State of the union address: what the US papers say
Sarah Left reviews the American media response to George Bush's address to
the nation on Iraq
Wednesday January 29, 2003
This morning's US papers were in agreement that George Bush's state of the
union address indicated an imminent war, rather than a president confident of
a path to peace.
All outlined George Bush's case against Saddam Hussein, with some papers more
convinced than others, and just about all demanding more detail.
"Bush leaves little doubt about war," screamed the headline in USA Today. In
a leader column, the paper said Mr Bush had made a compelling - but not a
complete - case against Saddam, and wanted to see crucial questions
addressed, such as what would constitute a victory in Iraq and how much a war
would cost.
The San Francisco Chronicle was less convinced: "Once again, the president
stopped short of offering Americans and our many sceptical allies a
compelling case that would generate a strong consensus for an invasion of
Iraq."
The Los Angeles Times found the speech heavy on emotion and light on
evidence. The leader writers felt the president had pinned a good deal of
hope on details due to be delivered to the security council next week by the
secretary of state, Colin Powell.
"In seeking to corral the support of the American public, the president
sought to make an emotional connection between the 9/11 tragedy and going
after Hussein. The rhetoric worked. But many facts remain to be filled in.
Bush built a foundation on Tuesday, but he left a lot of hammering, sawing
and nailing to be done by Powell," the Los Angeles Times said.
Sensing fiscal hypocrisy, both the New York Times and the Washington Post
seized on the president's vow not to "pass along our problems to other
Congresses, to other presidents and other generations", and turned the phrase
on its head.
As the Washington Post put it, Mr Bush "blithely ignored a connection that
ought to be obvious: that there is, or should be, a trade-off between the
huge continuing costs of the war on terrorism and the ability of the
government to offer both expensive new social programs and tax cuts for the
wealthy."
The New York Times nodded in agreement, saying that the president's fiscal
policies "have helped create gigantic deficits for taxpayers of the future".
The paper was unimpressed by both main planks of Mr Bush's speech - the
economy and his policy on Iraq.
Although it supported Mr Bush in providing more intelligence to the UN and
leading a fresh debate in the security council, it disapproved of his threat
to launch a war without UN approval.
"Mr Bush's language and his intensity left little doubt that his path was
set, no matter what the rest of the international community decides," the New
York Times concluded.
The Chicago Tribune - while seeming broadly to condone military action -
hedged its bets to say that the nation is deeply divided over the issue.
Possibly alluding to recent surveys that have found around 70% of Americans
in favour of giving weapons inspectors more time, the paper said: "Bush did
not look Tuesday night like a president who particularly cares how his
resolve will play in overnight public opinion polls."
Mr Bush "did a better job of portraying the problems [of the economy and
Iraq] than offering solutions", the Boston Globe said. The paper praised the
president's courage in standing up to Saddam Hussein, but was critical of his
post-September 11 policies on fighting terrorism within the US.
Noting Mr Bush's words that "our founders dedicated this country to the cause
of human dignity", the paper countered that "the same principles argue
against domestic spying, mass deportations, and detentions without
