MEDIA REACTION ON CONGRESS' DECISION ON IRAQ

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 AMMAN 005967

SIPDIS

STATE FOR NEA/ARN, NEA/PA, NEA/AIA, INR/NESA, R/MR,
I/GNEA, B/BXN, B/BRN, NEA/PPD, NEA/IPA FOR ALTERMAN
USAID/ANE/MEA
LONDON FOR GOLDRICH
PARIS FOR O'FRIEL
USCINCCENT//CCPA, USCENTCOM REAR MACDILL AFB FL
STATE PASS TO AID

E.O. 12958: N/A

TAGS: KMDR JO
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION ON CONGRESS' DECISION ON IRAQ
AND TERRORIST INCIDENTS


Summary

-- Lead stories over the weekend, October 11-15,
highlight developments in the region. Reports
highlight the Congress' decision authorizing President
Bush to launch war on Iraq and the President's
response to that decision, maintaining that Iraq's
"days as an outlaw state are numbered". Papers over
the weekend also highlight a New York Times article
that discussed U.S. plans for a "military occupation"
of Iraq. Front-page stories continue to report on
ISRAEL's "barbaric" attacks against Palestinian
civilians.

Editorial Commentary

-- "Who awoke the sleeping cell?"

Daily columnist Jamil Nimri writes on the back page of
independent, mass-appeal Arabic daily Al-Arab Al-Yawm
(10/11): "It was a big shock for the American marines
that the first terrorist attack before the war on Iraq
would come from within Kuwait itself. The attackers
may have links with Al-Qa'eda, and Kuwaiti officials
may talk about a sleeping terrorist cell, but it is
impossible to deny the hostile feelings that Kuwaitis
have for the United States. Nothing proves best the
fact that U.S. policies are responsible for the
deepening hatred of the people of this region for the
United States than what has happened in Kuwait. If
this responsibility is being blamed in one way or
another on the Islamic culture or the poverty and
backwardness, then this does not apply to the people
of Kuwait who enjoy a good standard of living."

-- "Attack against the marines"

Daily columnist Musa Hawamdeh writes on the op-ed page
of center-left, influential Arabic daily Al-Dustour
(10/11): "The attack against the marines in Kuwait
has major and serious implications. The attack took
place in Kuwait, the one place where Americans thought
that their forces would not face such an attack,
simply because they `liberated' Kuwait, and so the
Kuwaitis must show their appreciation. Yet, the
injustices that the United States is inflicting upon
the Arabs is going to push even U.S. supporters to get
angry at the way the Arab nation is being despised and
at the way the feelings of the Arab people are being
disregarded. The blatant bias for Sharon's policy and
the ISRAELi occupation, supporting the declaration of
Jerusalem as ISRAEL's capital, continuing the
slaughter of Palestinians, occupying Arab oil sources,
threatening to strike Iraq and change its regime, will
all increase the hatred of America and increase at the
same the popularity of Bin Laden and the
fundamentalists and extremists who will take over the
Arab streets after their governments have bowed to
America's dictates."

-- "Blank check"

Daily columnist Fahd Fanek writes on the back page of
semi-official, influential Arabic daily Al-Ra'i
(10/15): "The U.S. congressional decision to
authorize President Bush to launch war on Iraq is not
a blank check, and it is not an authorization to
declare war as newspapers have said. The decision has
tied the President's hands and placed conditions that
are hard to meet. It is very likely that such an
attack [on Iraq] will yield more terrorists who will
target America and seek revenge. The most important
source for anti-American terrorism lies in the Arabs
and Muslims' feelings of degradation and insult and
complete helplessness in the face of America's power.
Without a doubt, occupying Iraq and appointing a
American military governor in Baghdad will be the
biggest insult to every Arab and Muslim."
-- "Congress abdicates as Bush obfuscates"

Centrist, influential among the elite English daily
Jordan Times (10/15) editorializes: "The U.S.
Congress officially surrendered its constitutional
powers in foreign policy . granting President George
Bush wide and largely unaccountable powers to wage war
against Iraq. The abdication by Congress runs
contrary to the intents of the founding fathers of the
United States. Voting to support a president who has
yet to make clear his intentions or long-term strategy
violates the separation of powers, so integral to the
American constitution. Congress' vote to hand over
full-war-making authority to President Bush also
violates the individual responsibilities of
representatives and senators as regards their roles as
the `voices of the electorate'. Most polls show
Americans are lukewarm at best concerning waging war
against Iraq."

-- "An American military ruler for Baghdad!"

Center-left, influential Arabic daily Al-Dustour
(10/13) editorializes: "There is no doubt that the
Iraqi issue is not about international inspectors,
weapons of mass destruction or other American pretext.
It is about occupying Iraq and appointing an American
military ruler. One cannot believe these war
scenarios that talk about the occupation of a country
and the establishment of a foreign military government
on its soil, not when the era of colonialism is over
and the right to self-determination is a given."
GNEHM