This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 OTTAWA 000660 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR WHA/CAN, WHA/PDA 
WHITE HOUSE PASS NSC/WEUROPE 
 
E.O. 12958:  N/A 
TAGS: KPAO KMDR OPRC CA OIIP
SUBJECT:  MEDIA REACTION: IRAQ; TURKEY 
 
 
IRAQ 
¶1.   "How to lose the war of public opinion" 
Under the sub-heading, "The Bush administration might 
think it has enough evidence to attack Saddam Hussein, 
but the polls show otherwise," Calgary Herald columnist 
Danielle Smith wrote in the nationalist Ottawa Citizen 
(3/7): "Had Saddam Hussein been responsible for the 
Sept. 11 terrorist attacks; had he harboured Osama bin 
Laden and his henchmen in the fallout of the Taliban 
regime collapse; had the United States revealed Saddam 
has provided weapons of mass destruction to militant 
Islamic groups; had he recently invaded foreign 
territory, lobbed missiles at one of his neighbours, 
discharged chemical weapons or attacked the U.S. 
directly - any of these would have been sufficient 
grounds for an immediate attack. But 
there aren't clear grounds, which is why U.S. 
President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister 
Tony Blair should not invade Iraq.... What has Iraq 
done to the West, or even to its neighbours lately? The 
U.S. argues Iraq may supply terrorist  organizations 
with weapons of mass destruction. That may be true, but 
so could a lot of other nations, and the U.S. can't 
wage war on them all.... There is no question that Iraq 
is a tragic case. Iraqis need 
liberation, to free them from the abuse they suffer at 
Saddam's hands, and to stop thousands of politically 
motivated executions. Saddam is an evil man, but so are 
many other despots and dictators, and the U.S. can't 
topple them all. The responsibility for regime change 
in Iraq ultimately lies with Iraqi citizens, not the 
U.S. And, in any event, the question before the UN is 
disarmament, not regime change. There is no question 
which nation is the strong horse now. Crushing Saddam 
Hussein to drive the point home just isn't necessary." 
 
¶2.   "First Iraq, then UN" 
The conservative tabloid Winnipeg Sun opined (3/7): 
"People keep talking about the looming irrelevancy of 
the United Nations if the U.S. unilaterally invades 
Iraq as if this was a bad thing. Why? The destruction 
of the UN in its present form is almost as desirable as 
ridding the world of Saddam Hussein. The UN's fatal 
flaw is that it treats every member state the same, 
regardless of its human rights record. Because its 
dictatorships so often act in concert, the UN has run 
amok for years.... Post 9/11, America has every 
justification for war. Not only is Saddam a cruel 
tyrant to his own people who has attacked three 
neighbours, he has vigorously pursued weapons of mass 
destruction and financially supported terrorism.... We 
don't share George Bush's view that toppling Saddam 
will inspire a wave of democracy in the Mideast's 
thuggish dictators. But it will warn them, effectively, 
that from now on there will be a price to pay for 
following Iraq's lead. As for the UN, its few 
worthwhile aid and humanitarian programs can be revived 
under a new global organization in which democracies, 
not dictatorships, must play the dominant role." 
 
TURKEY 
¶3.   "The day the Turks came out' 
Columnist Jeffrey Simpson commented in the leading 
Globe and Mail (3/7): "...The Turkish government could 
scarcely believe it lost the vote. Washington was 
stunned. After all, Turkey has been a strong U.S. ally 
and a NATO member, and had been a front-line state 
during the 1991 Persian Gulf war.... Recep Tayyip 
Erdogan's government had all kinds of political 
capital. It had received an overwhelming mandate in 
November to clean up Turkish politics. Although 
nominally an Islamist party, Mr. Erdogan's team 
said and did everything to convince Western countries 
that Turkey would remain a faithful ally. Now this. The 
Turks, who know Iraq, understand that, despite today's 
sweet pronouncements about respecting borders, there 
are Kurds in eastern Turkey and Kurds in northern Iraq 
(and in Syria and Iran), and that blood often runs 
thicker than the water of political declarations of 
intent. They know that, after the Americans leave Iraq, 
the Turks will be left to cope with its ethnic 
rivalries. The hint of Turkish troops entering northern 
Iraq with the Americans inflamed Iraqi Kurds; the idea 
of a quasi-autonomous Kurdish territory inside Iraq 
frightened the Turks. The 
Turks don't like Saddam Hussein, but they don't fear 
him, either, and they are a lot closer to his regime 
than the U.S. is. The Turkish military prizes 
its relationship with the U.S. military. Maybe the 
generals and better parliamentary tactics can reverse 
what happened in parliament. Even so, the first vote 
reflected well on Turkish democracy and sent a signal - 
which will undoubtedly be ignored in Washington - that 
the people of yet another friendly country have 
deserted the United States."            CELLUCCI