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 000680 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR WHA/CAN, WHA/PDA 
WHITE HOUSE PASS NSC/WEUROPE 
 
E.O. 12958:  N/A 
TAGS: KPAO KMDR OIIP OPRC CA
SUBJECT:  MEDIA REACTION: IRAQ 
 
 
IRAQ 
¶1.   "Victory? Not yet" 
The conservative National Post opined (3/11): "...The 
truth is that nothing has yet been 'won' in Iraq - 
notwithstanding the wishful thinking we hear from Mr. 
Chretien, French President Jacques Chirac and the other 
world leaders whose desperation to avoid war is 
blurring into appeasement. The battle will not be won 
until Iraq is fully disarmed - a goal that, more and 
more, would seem to require the removal of Saddam 
Hussein to be achieved." 
 
¶2.   "Saddam has to go, but we can't trust Bush to do 
it" 
Retired political reporter and columnist Anthony 
Westell observed in the leading Globe and Mail (3/11): 
"... I'm in favour of using force if necessary to 
remove Mr. Hussein. But, and here's the rub, the man 
who has the force is Mr. Bush, and he, too, I fear, is 
showing signs of megalomania. He loves being a 
president at war. See him strut, hear his bellicose 
speeches to his troops. And remember that Iraq is only 
the first part of his grand strategy. He plans to 
reorganize the Middle East - and, it appears, 
any other part of the world that offends him.... [But] 
how can I reconcile these two views - that we should 
remove Saddam Hussein, by force if necessary, but that 
Mr. Bush is not the man we can trust with the task? My 
answer is probably idealistic. Unless Mr. Hussein 
proves he has disarmed and steps down, I think the 
Security Council should vote to remove him and 
replace his regime with a temporary UN administration, 
using force if necessary, but a measured force, applied 
by troops in blue helmets and under UN command. If Mr. 
Bush agreed to commit U.S. forces under those 
conditions, good. But I know that's highly unlikely, 
and there would be no way now to stop him from acting 
alone. In that case, the lesson for the Security 
Council should be that it is time, past time, to create 
a multinational military force able to enforce its 
rulings." 
 
¶3.   "Saddam doesn't have a prayer" 
Under the sub-heading, "The Iraqi dictator's greatest 
miscalculation was to toy with the Bush administration 
after Sept. 11. Now there's no turning back," columnist 
Drew Fagan suggested in the leading Globe and Mail 
(3/11) that, "...It may be that the Bush administration 
gambled from the start - using disarmament as a 
smokescreen for regime change, using the UN to give 
credibility to a fundamentally unilateral policy. If 
so, the pretext is 
falling away. But Mr. Hussein's calculations have been 
infinitely more reckless. He has brought on himself 
what appears to be the imminent destruction of his 
government and the occupation of his country. Mr. 
Hussein won't have to live with the aftermath. The rest 
of the world does. They should hope that the war that 
now appears all but certain goes as well as 
the Americans have planned. This is one Hail Mary pass 
that, if thrown, must be completed successfuly." 
 
¶4.   "Tide turns against Bush" 
Columnist Thomas Walkom wrote in the liberal Toronto 
Star (3/11): "The Iraq crisis is no longer about 
stopping Iraq. It is about stopping the United 
States.... Most countries outside the U.S. are no 
longer worried about rogue Iraqi dictator Saddam 
Hussein. They are worried about rogue American 
President George W. Bush.... For now it is not Iraq, a 
minor Middle Eastern power, that is in potential 
defiance of the U.N. system, but the mighty U.S. 
In effect, Bush has served notice that the painstaking 
logic of collective security, which the U.S. itself did 
so much to create 58 years ago, is to be junked. War is 
to be no longer a last resort but an active part of 
superpower foreign policy. Decisions on the 
international order are to be made not at the U.N. but 
in Washington alone. The sovereignty of other 
nations is now to be wholly contingent upon U.S. 
geopolitical interests. No wonder the rest of the world 
is nervous. No wonder that France, Germany, 
Russia and (maybe) China have forged their unlikely 
peace coalition." 
 
¶5.   "Test Iraq's will to fully disarm" 
The liberal Toronto Star editorialized (3/11): 
"...Obsessed with toppling Saddam, Bush has trotted out 
one dubious rationale after the other for war: 
To destroy weapons the U.N. isn't sure Saddam 
possesses. To guard against the possibility he might 
give weapons to Al Qaeda, when no Baghdad-9/11 axis 
exists. To punish Saddam for befriending other 
terrorists. To defend the U.N.'s honour. To liberate 
Iraqis from a despot. To defend Israel. To safeguard 
oil. To democratize the Mideast. Because 250,000 U.S. 
troops can't be kept waiting forever. And now to spare 
Bush an embarrassing climbdown. This dizzy reasoning 
has sown discord at the U.N., in the North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization and in the European Union. Bush's 
threat to ignore the U.N. has led to criticism that he 
is acting like a scofflaw himself.... The U.N. can 
legitimately demand that Baghdad `disarm' or face 
attack, as the U.S. wants. But not without defining 
what that implies. And not without giving the Iraqis a 
chance to comply." 
 
¶6.   "An untutored, unprepared president will be 
running this war" 
Former Washington correspondent and professor of 
journalism and international affairs at Carleton 
University, Andrew Cohen pointed out in the nationalist 
Ottawa Citizen (3/11) that, "...[President Bush] hasn't 
seen war, as JFK or Truman did, or pondered the future, 
as Lincoln did, which would make him more credible. Why 
won't he disavow the interests of oil? Does he 
challenge the hawks? Does he demand more information? 
His lack of perception and curiosity make even those 
who support intervention wish this 
were Al Gore's War. He sees Iraq as a question of 
security, pure and simple, and security is a 
president's greatest responsibility. The dangers - the 
damage to the United Nations, the alienation of old 
allies, the challenge of Iraq after Saddam - are of 
less consequence. In these matters, he is innocent of 
nuance. Without great experience or knowledge, Mr. Bush 
does have faith. He reads short inspirational homilies. 
Religion allows him to see things in black and white - 
evil or America, peace or chaos - which may be the only 
way to see Saddam Hussein. As he makes the most 
important decision a president can, he is said to be 
keeping his own counsel. In the end he may well do the 
right thing for the wrong reasons in Iraq, and it may 
make him courageous, resolute and wise. One hopes so. 
In the meantime, Mr. Bush on the brink is simply 
frightening." 
 
CELLUCCI