Here are excerpts from recent editorials in newspapers in the United States and abroad. --- Nov. 2 The Arizona Republic, Phoenix, on presidential war powers: As a rule the federal courts have been reluctant to horn in on disputes between the executive branch and Congress. So it seems unlikely that the lawsuit brought by 45 House Democrats will impede the slide toward war in the Persian Gulf, if war is what George Bush has in mind. The plaintiffs may stand athwart the road to Armageddon, but the courts will be reluctant to stand with them. Twice before in recent years ... members of Congress have sought to define the president's war-making authority. In each case the courts have run for cover. ... Bush makes no secret of his objectives in the gulf, and they offer scant comfort to those who define America's interests narrowly. His stated goals continue to include the restoration of the Kuwaiti monarchy - of marginal interest to Americans at best - and ``unconditional withdrawal of all Iraqi forces,'' though a negotiated withdrawal might save countless lives and much treasure. If war is his intention, the president is among a shrinking minority. According to the latest polls, 70 percent of the American people resist the idea of military action against Iraq - this before the body bags start arriving home. Enthusiasm for a shooting war also is absent in Congress, even among the president's own loyalists. If ... Bush turns his back on such realities, he will face the same icy blast that finally swept Lyndon Johnson out of office. --- Nov. 22 Enterprise-Journal, McComb, Miss., on the Persian Gulf: Is the United States going to war in the Saudi Arabian-Kuwait desert? As U.S. military forces continue their buildup - it surely looks that way. Immediately after Iraq's invasion of oil-rich Kuwait, American applauded President Bush's decisive response and his tough stance. But as the crisis drags out, apprehension in Congress and throughout the nation grows. Do we really want American boys to die in the desert for Kuwait? Do we want them to die over the price of gasoline? To boot out Saddam Hussein, a vicious, cruel ruler? For Arab states like Iran or Syria, whose actions have been as bad as Iraq's? We are confident, if war comes, the United States and its allies would prevail. But at what price in U.S. casualties? Twenty thousand, 50,000, 100,000? And what price in civilian casualties to Iraq should Iraqi cities get caught in U.S. air attacks? Hundred of thousands? Millions? We wonder, too, what would be the ultimate effect of such a war on the Middle East? Would Arab nations become even more hostile to the United States as U.S. aircraft killed Arab men, women and children? And who would be the ultimate gainer? Probably not the United States. Probably Iran and Syria, no friends of ours. Moreover, should such a war not end quickly, and as U.S. casualties mounted, American public opposition would surely grow. That leads us to hope that Bush won't get impatient and pursue a military solution before exhausting all avenues of negotiation. It's hard to figure how Saddam can hold out against such united condemnation. Even though it might take a little longer, U.S. troops bivouacking in a hot desert, is much preferable to the body bags we recall from Vietnam. --- Nov. 23 Capital Journal, Pierre, S.D., on the Persian Gulf: Congressmen on both sides of the aisle are asking for a bigger role in the United States' military buildup in the Persian Gulf. The word from the White House is that President Bush doesn't need any help, or vindication, from Congress. As the massive U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia drags on, what this country needs is debate about the buildup and its future. Letting the fate of 400,000 troops hang on the decisions of one man is scary, even if that man is the president of the United States. Bush has already gotten this country into a desert stalemate half a world away. His best course of action is to court Congress and seek some sort of joint official action rather than shutting out its members. If he insists on making all the decisions himself, he may face another protracted deadlock right in Washington, D.C. --- Nov. 22 Statesman Journal, Salem, Ore., on holidays and war: Last year we had big news to celebrate at Thanksgiving: Peace had broken out. For the first time in 45 years, the superpowers no longer faced each other with nuclear-tipped missiles while threatening to blow themselves and the rest of the world to smithereens. We looked forward to a year of peace in the world and progress at home, and we hoped by this Thanksgiving to see as much progress at home as we had seen overseas. That didn't happen. Thanks to Saddam Hussein, a year that started out with great hopes ended up as so many others had: in war or war preparation. Our money, our resources and our hopes for a changed world and a rebuilt United States now are stuck in the sands of Saudi Arabia. It's easy to be thankful when everything is going well, as it was last year. What takes devotion and optimism is to be hopeful when you feel the disappointment of failure. Fortunately, we still have optimism. Let us give thanks for what we can still do to try in the Middle East the key that brought peace in Europe. There is still time to avoid the ruins of war. Let us give thanks that although disappointed, we still have endless blessings ourselves, and we can still share them with those around the world nnd at home who need our help. Every year brings new problems and new opportunities. Though disappointed by lost opportunities of the past year, we must recognize our good fortune in what we have ourselves and in what we can do between now and next Thanksgiving for our country and our world. ---