Kofi Break?
The late Sunday movement in the Iraq crisis is everybody's lead. USA Today
says that U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan will arrive in New York today from
Baghdad, bringing with him an agreement that may avert a second Gulf War. The
Los
Angeles Times reports the breakthrough came via a dramatic, three-hour
bargaining session between Annan and Saddam Hussein. The Washington Post says Annan will present the document he and
Hussein already signed Monday (Baghdad time) to the Security Council in New
York on Tuesday. Written details were not available at press time (and
USAT notes that U.S. officials aren't sure that Annan could speak
frankly about it to anyone while he remained in Iraq where phone lines are not
secure), but the dailies are reporting that Hussein has agreed to open his
presidential palaces to U.N. weapons inspectors--the sticking point that has
brought the U.S. to the brink of warfare. More than the other papers, the
New York Times
emphasizes that much seems to remain unresolved for the moment--the number of
sites covered may actually be limited, it reports.
According to the coverage, the newly brokered agreement lacks something the
Iraqis had previously insisted on--a time limit on inspections of the
presidential locations. And in return, the U.N. agrees to provide diplomats
from various countries who would accompany the weapons inspectors. Even if the
Security Council approves the deal, notes the WP , Washington has
reserved the right to bomb Iraq. And White House spokesman Mike McCurry is
widely quoted as noncommittal. But, says the Post , Annan is confident
that all members of the Council, including the U.S., will accept the deal. One
administration concern the Post passes along: that Annan may not have
insisted on the right of inspectors to make repeat visits to the presidential
palaces.
The NYT emphasizes that the agreement apparently does not address the
issue of other presidential properties not on Baghdad's list of eight. The
Times national edition reports that "some diplomats say" that in only a
matter of weeks inspectors could run into access problems at other sites. The
NYT metro edition is bolder: "The agreement
apparently does not address the issue of other presidential properties not
among the eight listed by Baghdad." The USAT front
section cover story">USAT front section cover story is plainer
still: "The problem is that over the years, Saddam has also agreed to many
things on which he has not followed through."
USAT goes front-page with the news from Sunday morning chat show
appearances made by Monica Lewinsky's attorney, William Ginsburg, that she
"absolutely" stands by her affidavit in which she denied having sex with
President Clinton. Only USAT sees this as big news. The other fronts
pass, perhaps because, as USAT notes, Ginsburg has said almost as much
before.
The Wall Street Journal waited until the day after Desert Storm
opened fire to run its profile of Norman Schwarzkopf. Today, it does a little
better in running an interesting Thomas Ricks profile of the current Iraqi
operation's top dog, Gen. Anthony Zinni. It seems to "Today's Papers" that such
men should get at least as much advance press attention as second-tier
presidential candidates do. (How many column inches, for instance, did the
Journal spill on Alan Keyes?) The piece has the good detail that when
Zinni headed up peacekeeping efforts in Somalia, he met regularly with local
cartoonists, who he discovered, had inordinate influence on the largely
illiterate local populace. The piece's only real false-step: describing the
Marine Corps' ideal officer as a "knuckle-dragging intellectual." Would the
Journal ever call a CEO that?
A front-page NYT piece notes the trend towards Internet-aided prostitution operations. TP doesn't know the
NYT policy regarding the giving of Web addresses in news stories, but
notes that in this one, the address for a Chelsea-based sex service
clearinghouse called "Redlightnet.com" is not issued. But what's the point of
withholding this, since a Web search of that handle will quickly turn up a
URL?
