What the US papers say

New York Times
Editorial, September 8
"While Mr. Bush finally set a price tag on the upcoming cost of the Iraq effort, he still has not done nearly enough to level with the American people. The bulk of the $87 billion the president said he would request from Congress goes to the military and intelligence. The amount that would be left for things like restoring water and electricity seems very low, given recent information on the pathetic state of the country's infrastructure.

"Mr. Bush's earlier attempts to evade setting a price tag ... were in part aimed at greasing the skids for the administration's tax cut programme ... now it is time to give up on the idea that the tax cuts temporarily approved during the president's tenure can remain in place. But while Mr Bush is getting more specific about the numbers, he has yet to really tell Americans that they will have to make sacrifices to pay the bill."

Los Angeles Times
Editorial, September 8
"It's not what the administration is attempting to do in Iraq but how badly it is doing it that is so distressing.

"However welcome the removal of Saddam Hussein and his sons was, the ... spate of attacks against US and coalition forces in Iraq shows that the administration wildly underestimated the costs and dangers of imposing its headstrong will in Iraq ...

"The president said he was determined that the US would not run ... and this nation has the moral obligation to finish what it started and hand Iraq back to the Iraqis. Then, perhaps, the dream of taxpayer dollars building new schools, roads and medical clinics can be one that can be afforded not just in Iraq but in the United States."

Michael Kramer
Daily News, New York, September 8
"The president has articulated the true reason for toppling Saddam: the need to set an example to cow the terrorists while rebuilding Iraq (and the rest of the Middle East, too) as a calm and hopefully democratic region willing to live peacefully with us, as we are willing to live peacefully with them.

"We're a long, long way from that, but ... we can't walk away from Iraq before the mission is truly accomplished because Bush is right: unless the terrorists are stopped in Iraq and Afghanistan, we will 'meet [them] again on our own streets, in our own cities.'"

Washington Post
Editorial, September 8
"Other countries aren't going to supply enough troops or pony up enough cash to reduce America's burden. But they may help keep that burden from growing even heavier than Mr Bush's portrayal of it last night.

"If the US retains control over military forces in Iraq while an evolving Iraqi government reports to a UN administrator, Americans would lose little in the way of influence while gaining much in international support and credibility for their disavowal of imperial ambitions. It may be that France ... would block even such a reasonable compromise. But such a compromise should be the administration's goal."

New York Post
Editorial, September 8
"The terrorists are on the run all around the world. They are isolated and on the defensive in Afghanistan and in Pakistan; in Indonesia and on the Philippine archipelago - even on the West Bank.

"In Iraq, meanwhile, the bloody-fisted Saddam Hussein regime has been reduced to isolated bands of mad bombers hiding among women and children - deadly while fighting from ambush, to be sure, but ultimately doomed if America stays the course.

"The bombings and the snipings and the rocket-propelled grenade attacks are going to continue ... Maybe the United Nations will step up and help out ... But Bush and co. can't count on that. America will need to do its own heavy lifting."