NATIONAL & WORLD DIGEST February 2, 2008

**IF YOU CAN'T ACCESS THE FULL ARTICLE, CONTACT US AT rays.list@comcast.net and we'll be happy to send the full article.

=

Pew Research center

http://pewresearch.org/

Go to the website, above, for the following articles:
--
A Look at the Numbers
So far, the 2008 primaries and caucuses have been anything butpredictable -- comebacks, fallbacks, not to mention surprised pollsters. Buta closer look reveals some common themes that have emerged. Read more
--
A Portrait of the Latino Vote in Eight "Super Tuesday" States
Hispanic voters could be crucial to the outcome of several of next week'sprimaries and caucuses. Here are fact sheets describing the socioeconomiccharacteristics of eligible Latino voters in each of the eight states withsizeable Hispanic populations. Read more
--
GOP Debate's Economic Focus Mirrors Country's Concern
But candidates' perceptions on economic growth and tax cuts diverge fromoverall public priorities. Read more
--
The Impact of "Cell-Onlys" on Public Opinion Polls
A new Pew study finds that on key political measures such as presidentialapproval, Iraq policy, presidential primary voter preference and partyaffiliation, respondents reached on cell phones hold attitudes very similarto those reached on landline telephones. Read more
--
Do Blacks and Hispanics Get Along?
In general the nation's two largest minorities think well of each other, butthere are some important differences, a Pew survey finds. Read more
--
Science in the States
States Take Sides in Stem Cell Debate
A Stateline.org backgrounder covers various aspects of the stem cell debate,including an interactive feature illustrating the main techniques used increating pluripotent cells, a summary of ethical questions raised byscientific advances and a description of the evolution of related statepolicies. Read more
--
The Daily Number
54% - Iraq War: Bring Troops Home?
That's the proportion of American adults who favor bringing the troops homefrom Iraq as soon as possible. Check back every weekday for another numberin the news. Read more



=

Washington Post

http://www.miamiherald.com/692/story/403128.html

L.A. Times backs Obama, McCain

Posted on Sat, Feb. 02, 2008

The Los Angeles Times endorsed the presidential bids of Barack Obama andJohn McCain on Friday.

The newspaper said either of the candidates remaining in the Democraticfield - Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton - would be a formidable nominee inthe November election. But it "strongly" endorsed Obama after praising himas an inspiring leader "most focused on steering the nation towardconstructive change."

"Just because the ballot features two strong candidates does not mean thatit is difficult to choose between them," the Times said.

The nation's fourth-largest paper was particularly critical of the New Yorksenator for her Senate vote on Iraq, saying she "faced a test and failed,joining the stampede as Congress voted to authorize war." Obama, bycomparison, "saw the danger of the invasion and the consequences ofoccupation, and he said so. He was right."

Clinton's election "would drag into a third decade the post-Reagan politicalduel between two families, the Bushes and the Clintons," the paperconcluded. "Obama is correct: It is time to turn the page."

more . . . . .



=

Dear MoveOn member,

With hundreds of thousands of ballots cast across the country, for the firsttime in MoveOn's history, we've voted together to endorse a presidentialcandidate in the primary. That candidate is Barack Obama.

Something big is clearly happening. A few weeks ago, MoveOn members wesurveyed were split. But with John Edwards bowing out, progressives arecoming together. Obama won over 70% of the vote yesterday, and he's movingup in polls nationwide.1 As comments poured in from MoveOn members acrossthe country, the sense of hope was inspiring. Here's how Christine Y. in NewJersey put it:

"I've never felt so strongly about any one candidate in my entire life. He'struly an inspiration to all of us-especially the younger generation. I willstand by him 100% for as long as he's willing to stand up and fight for thiscountry!"

What does MoveOn's endorsement mean? People-power. Together, we are 3.2million Americans who care about our country and want change. Half of uslive in states with primaries or caucuses this coming "Super Tuesday."

We know how to roll up our sleeves and win elections, and if we all pitch intogether between now and Tuesday, we can help Sen. Obama win the biggestprimary day in American history. Think about it: volunteering during thenext four days could mean four years of a progressive president. Can yousign up right now to volunteer for Obama's campaign? Click here:

http://pol.moveon.org/volunteerforobama/?id=12015-5533006-VExC2P&t=535

There are lots of ways to help. You can call voters from home, godoor-to-door with others in your community, travel to "Super Tuesday"states, donate, put up a yard sign, volunteer in a campaign office, or joina local meetup. Senator Obama is running a grassroots campaign, and there'sa role for everyone.

Many of us feel like change is within reach for the first time in years.Here's some more of what MoveOn members see in Obama:

"This country needs real, progressive transformation. Barack Obama is thecandidate who gives us the best hope of uniting and inspiring the nation tomove in that direction, while also restoring America's dignity and standingas a member of the global community."-James M., Connecticut

"While I'm impressed with Clinton and believe she would make a very goodpresident, I'm actually MOVED by Obama. In the end, I believe if Obama iselected he has the potential to bring the country together behindhim."-Patricia S., Wisconsin

"He was right on the biggest question of the era-opposing the war from thestart."-Jacob S., Washington, D.C.

"I support Barack Obama for the same reasons I support MoveOn.org: the morepeople are inspired to get involved, the better the outcome for our country.Senator Obama has demonstrated a unique capacity to inspire participationand to make public service 'cool' again. He is also sound on all the issuesthat matter to me and my family."-Liz B., New York

"I live in a red state, and I see my conservative neighbors and friendsshowing a positive interest in Barack. They like him. They are ready to beswayed. And I see my Democratic friends and family members getting excitedlike never before...With Barack as our candidate, I am convinced that we canwin in a landslide in 2008 and usher in a new era of progressivepolitics."-Desirina B., Georgia

To be clear, we won't always agree with all of Obama's positions. And MoveOnmembers said overwhelmingly that, regardless of who wins the Democraticnomination, we'll work hard to win the White House in 2008. Whatever happensin the primary, we'll push the Democratic nominee to campaign progressivelyand then we'll push them to fulfill their promises after they win.

The building of a progressive consensus around Senator Obama is tangible.Earlier this week, John F. Kennedy's daughter Caroline Kennedy said Obama isthe first presidential candidate to be as inspirational as her father.2Yesterday, progressive magazine The Nation said that electing Obama is "achance we can't pass up."3 And then DailyKos.com, the most widely readprogressive blog, announced Obama won 76% in a reader poll this week.4

It's time to get to work electing a president who is inspiring a nation andis talking about big, progressive change. Click here to volunteer in thesenext crucial days:

http://pol.moveon.org/volunteerforobama/?id=12015-5533006-VExC2P&t=536

This is just the beginning of a long road to victory in November. Thanks forall you do, and will do to change our country for the better in 2008.

-Eli, Wes, Joan, Justin, Adam G., Adam R., Ilyse, Karin, Nita, Noah, Marika,Laura, Peter, Anna, Matt, Daniel, Carrie, Tanya, and the MoveOn.orgPolitical Action Team



=

From Ron Mills

http://politalk1.blogspot.com/

Has Chris Matthews ever got anyting right? Why is he still on TV?

During MSNBC's January 30 coverage of the Florida Republican presidentialprimary, Chris Matthews -- host of MSNBC's Hardball -- asserted of formerNew York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani: "I began to watch his campaign soon afterhe entered it last year, and the one thing missing was a big idea as to whyhe should be president." He continued: "It was all, it seemed to me ...about the past. It was about 9-11." He later said that "timing ... iseverything" and that "if Rudy had been able to run, perhaps, in 2001 forpresident, he might've had a shot," adding, "We didn't hold an election thatyear." But if Matthews recognized flaws in Giuliani's campaign "soon after"Giuliani entered the race, as recently as January 19, he said otherwise. OnJanuary 19, Matthews said to Giuliani: "You know, Mayor, for months now, Ithink I've been one of the troubadours for you out there in terms of yourprospects. I have always seen the Giuliani advantage in a party thattreasures leadership." And on November 6, 2007, Matthews described Giulianias "the person with the best shot to win the Republican [presidential]nomination."

The blog Think Progress also has noted Matthews' January 30 comments aboutGiuliani's campaign.Matthews has repeatedly touted Giuliani's prospects as a presidentialcandidate since 2006:During that November 6, 2007, edition of Hardball, Matthews also asserted:"I'm not going to sell Rudy. It's not my job to sell anybody." Later,Matthews said: "You know why I've been saying this guy looks good for a longtime -- looks like a potential winner? Because I've been talking to a lot ofpeople in the South -- guys that go to lunches in the South, not necessarilychurch-y people, just secular Republicans -- they hear about lower taxes,law and order, they like him."

On the February 7, 2007, edition of Imus in the Morning (then broadcast byMSNBC), Matthews said of Giuliani: "And I think the country wants a bosslike that. You know, a little bit of fascism there. Just a little bit. Justa pinch of it." When host Don Imus asserted, "Well, the lame observationbeing made by a lot of folks, maybe it's not lame, but -- that he can't getthe nomination because, you know the right-wing nuts, you know --" Matthewsinterjected: "Well, you know what -- that is such conventional wisdom. ...[T]here should be a buzzer that goes off when people say that kind of crap.Look, if you go down to Jackson, Mississippi, you go to Atlanta, Florida,you go anywhere in the South to men's clubs for lunch, who is the number onespeaker they want? Giuliani."

On the July 18, 2006, edition of NBC's The Tonight Show, Matthews predictedthat "the next president of the United States will be Rudy Giuliani."

On the July 12, 2006, edition of Hardball, Matthews said Giuliani is "notonly running" for president in 2008, but is "going to win the whole thing."

On the June 14, 2006, edition of Hardball, Matthews described Giuliani asthe "perfect candidate" to replace President Bush.

Matthews has also repeatedly cited Giuliani's experience on September 11,2001, as one of his greatest perceived strengths in the primary:

On the June 12, 2007, edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Matthews -- discussingGiuliani's presidential prospects -- asserted: "Rudy's the ultimate streetpolitician. He was there on the curb when 9-11 struck. He had soot on hisface," later adding, "I think that's what people are looking for: somebodywho's clear and present and right there answering our questions."

On the March 1, 2007, edition of Hardball, Matthews touted Giuliani as a"hero," saying that Southerners "can't spell his name necessarily, but theyknow Rudy was a hero." Matthews also praised Giuliani as "the one tough copwho was standing on the beat when we got hit last time and stood up and tookit" and said "[w]e know that Giuliani would be powerful in the ethnicNortheast."

On the February 7, 2007, edition of Imus in the Morning, while discussingthe field of presidential candidates, Matthews called Giuliani "the kind ofgutsy, street-corner politician we all grew up with" who "stood on thecorner during the fire and told us what was going on."

On the February 5, 2007, edition of MSNBC Live, during a discussion ofGiuliani's plans to file a "statement of candidacy," Matthews declared thatGiuliani "has street cred" on the issue of "protect[ing] this countryagainst the bad guys," citing "the image [Giuliani] conveys." He alsoasserted that "voters like this guy because during 9-11, he was the one guythere on the street corner, answering questions, not hiding like all theother pols did."

From the midnight ET hour of MSNBC's January 30 coverage of the Floridaprimary:

MATTHEWS: I began to watch his campaign soon after he entered it last year,and the one thing missing was a big idea as to why he should be president.It was all, it seemed to me -- no matter how much coloration there wastonight about the economy -- about the past. It was about 9-11. JonStewart's joke in reference to him having "9-11 Tourette's," meaning hecouldn't get through a sentence without burping out the phrase 9-11; [Sen.]Joe Biden's [D-DE] reference to the fact that he constructed each sentencewith a noun, a verb, and the word 9-11, was fairly telling after awhile, andI think it was about the past.

And I think he didn't really come -- you know, I think of great athletesthat run for public office and they think it's an autograph tour. It's aboutthe past. Well, it's not, people like to get autographs from famousathletes, but they want to see what they're gonna do next if they're runningfor office, and so I think that Rudy Giuliani never really offered a bigidea as to why he would be a great president. And I think he made thatmistake.

And I'm not sure, as Tim said earlier, I don't think it was a question ofhis itinerary -- he could've gone to Iowa and been blown out of this thingtwo or three weeks ago rather than tonight -- I just don't think that itlasted. And as I said a number of nights ago, it seems to me that timing --an old phrase of my old boss Tip O'Neill -- is everything. Everyone who wasaround in 1951 remembers [Gen. Douglas] MacArthur's great speech before theCongress, and everybody -- right, left, and center -- said, "My God, if thisguy could've ran against Harry Truman, he would've beaten the man that firedhim." But the election wasn't 'til the next year, and by then, heads hadcooled, Truman was OK. [Former President Dwight] Ike [Eisenhower] was thehero, the great peacemaker. And so, if Rudy had been able to run, perhaps,in 2001 for president, he might've had a shot. We didn't hold an electionthat year.



=

From Ron Mills

http://politalk1.blogspot.com/

MATTHEWS ATTACKS!

http://www.youtube.com/v/kQx-WfOyzTY

Hardball host's history of degrading commentary target for criticism

As the media and news consumers alike take a more critical look at MSNBC'smarquee talent and Hardball host Chris Matthews, progressive leaders,prominent bloggers, and other members of the media are all speaking outagainst Matthews' journalistic standing and questionable record.

Progressive Leaders

a.. "Matthews' history proves that when discussing prominent femalefigures, he is prone to overt sexism rather than civil politicaldiscourse." -- excerpt from a January 16 letter to Steve Capus, President ofNBC News from Gloria Steinem, author/activist; Kim Gandy, President of NOW;Lulu Flores, President of The National Women's Political Caucus; CarolJenkins, President of The Women's Media Center; and Eleanor Smeal, Presidentof Feminist Majority

a.. "Let us not forget his on-air treatment of CNBC anchor Erin Burnett.Interrupting her news report, he said, 'Could you get a little closer to thecamera? ... You're beautiful. . You're a knockout.' There it is, right inyour own living room: sexual harassment brought to you by MSNBC." -- EllenR. Malcolm President, EMILY's List, January 14, 2008



=

Inside Higher Education

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/02/01/obama

Nobama?

Feb. 1

Presidential candidates regularly visit college campuses to speak, signautographs or participate in televised debates.The colleges themselvestiptoe around regulations forbidding nonprofit entities from publiclyendorsing candidates or hosting fund raising events, and usually that keepsboth students and the feds happy. But in the past few weeks, twoinstitutions have turned away a candidate - both in person and on screen -and they've angered students and activists who say administrators are beingoverly cautious in seeking to avoid any appearance of bias. While theprinciples involved are theoretically the same for all candidates, theseincidents may attract more attention than usual because the person inquestion is, well, kind of a big deal on campus.

Barack Obama won't ever have to worry about finding enough venues to hosthim, but he'd be justified in feeling a little unappreciated right now.Within weeks of each other, Washington University in St. Louis turned downhis campaign's request for a visit, and the School of the Art Institute ofChicago decided not to screen a documentary about the candidate's 2006 tripto Kenya. Both cited concerns about the appearance of partisanship, eventhough legal experts agree that in most cases, such visits and screenings -if organized under certain conditions - are perfectly legal.

"I think it is common for candidates to want to visit colleges, and I thinka lot of that goes on in states like Iowa and New Hampshire, as we've seen,"said Ada Meloy, the general counsel of the American Council on Education,which produced a document last year on legal issues surrounding colleges andpolitical campaigns.

She added that "they do have to be cautious about how it's handled."

The ACE guidelines, which are based on relevant law, Internal RevenueService rulings and legal cases, note that colleges can provide"opportunities to speak at college or university events on an equal basis toall legally qualified candidates for a public office." If an institutioninvites a candidate, it has to extend the welcome to all of them. If onerequests a visit, the institution can agree only if it would also do so forother candidates. But the institution doesn't need to worry if othercandidates haven't asked to appear - the key issue is equal access rights,not equal time. And if a college president endorses a candidate, as a fewhave recently, he or she must do so in a way that makes it clear that it's apersonal opinion, not that of the institution.

more . . . . .



=

Palm Beach Post

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/opinion/epaper/2008/02/01/m18a_cramercol_0201.html

The Britney Spears Democrats

By Elisa Cramer
Palm Beach Post Editorial Writer
Friday, February 01, 2008

The morning after Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire primary, longtimeClinton pollster Sergio Bendixen told The New Yorker magazine, "The Hispanicvoter - and I want to say this very carefully - has not shown a lot ofwillingness or affinity to support black candidates."

Was that merely "a historical statement," as Sen. Clinton later claimed? Orwas the Clinton camp playing the race card?

Ryan Lizza, author of that article, wrote: "Interestingly, in the final daysof the New Hampshire campaign, when defeat looked certain for Clinton, itwas Hillary's aides who started talking privately about racial politics.They argued that on Feb. 5, when 22 states vote, Hillary's fire wall wouldbe Hispanic voters in the largest states, such as California and New York."

After the New Hampshire win, Mr. Bendixen said, "The fire wall doesn't applynow, because she is in good shape, but before last night the Hispanic votewas going to be the most important part of her fire wall on Feb. 5."

Going into South Carolina, former President Bill Clinton attempted tomarginalize Sen. Barack Obama as "the black candidate," downplayingexpectations of an Obama victory by likening him to Jesse Jackson in the'80s with a what-else-would-you-expect-from-black-voters-toward-a-black-candidate tone.Were some Clinton staffers also practicing the politics of division, quietlyseeking to inflame racial tensions between blacks and Hispanics going intostates - Florida, and now California, New Mexico and others - with largeHispanic populations?

more . . . . .



=

USA T oday

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-02-02-super-tuesday_N.htm?csp=34

Presidential race could still be muddled after Super Tuesday

By Chuck Raasch, Gannett News Service

LOS ANGELES - California is the gold standard in Super Tuesday?s delegatehunt, involving a complicated political map of primaries and caucuses inmore than 20 states across the country.

Feb. 5 will be the largest single-day delegate grab in presidential campaignhistory.

Predicting an outcome is difficult, if at all possible, because of thecloseness of the races on both the Democratic and Republican fronts and thesudden withdrawals of Democrat John Edwards and Republican Rudy Giuliani.

Still here is an assessment of how the contests are shaping up in keystates:

California: Among Democrats, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York has long beena favorite, but Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois has drawn nearly even, settingup a television advertising war.

more . . . . .



=

Boston Globe

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/02/how_edwards_advanced_the_democrats_debate/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+Today%27s+paper+A+to+Z

How Edwards advanced the Democrats' debate

By Derrick Z. Jackson, Globe Columnist | February 2, 2008

THE WISPS of the John Edwards campaign were visible at the beginning ofThursday night's debate between Democratic presidential candidates BarackObama and Hillary Clinton. Obama led off by saying that Edwards "did such anoutstanding job elevating the issues of poverty and the plight of workingfamilies all across the country."

Clinton added that John and Elizabeth Edwards reminded the nation "that inthis land of such plenty and blessings, there are still 37 million Americanswho are living below the poverty line and many others barely hanging onabove."

In saying she believed "absolutely passionately in universal healthcare,"Clinton again referenced Edwards. "If you don't start by saying you're goingto achieve universal healthcare, you will be nibbled to death," she said."And I think it's imperative that as we move forward in this debate and intothe campaign, that we recognize what both John Edwards and I did, that youhave to bite this bullet."

Obama said both he and Edwards were linked in a mission on congressionalethics. "I think that a lot of issues that both Senator Clinton and I careabout will not move forward unless we have increased the kinds of ethicsproposal that I passed just last year - some of the toughest sinceWatergate - and that's something that John Edwards and I both talked aboutrepeatedly in this campaign. That's why I don't take federal PAC and federallobbyist money."

From that point, the strands of Edwards's populism dissipated into relativeDemocratic bliss. It was refreshing that Obama and Clinton toned everythingdown in a race where acrimony was burning bridges to the voters. But thecompliments to Edwards are more complicated than the pleasantries.

more . . . . .



=

Houston Chronicle

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5507092.html

To hear the candidates, it's JFK vs. Reagan in '08

By KATHLEEN PARKER
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle
Feb. 1, 2008, 11:14PM

Americans finally have narrowed the presidential race to two front-runners:John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.

Too bad they're both busy chatting up Guinevere and Galahad, respectively,in the ultimate Camelot, where the climate really is perfect all the year.Eternally.

Back on planet Earth, where we typically elect live specimens, the legaciesof Kennedy and Rea- gan can't get a rest.

The Republican race looks like a Barnum & Bailey elephant walk with everycandidate trying to tie his trunk to Reagan's tail. Democrats continuetrying to recapture that JFK moment when America was better looking, slimmerby far, glamorous and rhetorically rich.

Smart Democratic candidates embrace both Kennedy and Reagan. That would beBarack Obama, who dared suggest the truism that Rea- gan got elected becausehe had the right message for the right time.

more . . . . .



=

Reuters

http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSN0147632420080202

Grateful Dead to reunite for Obama concert

Sat Feb 2, 2008 1:26am EST

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters Life!) - The Grateful Dead, the San Francisco cultrock band that has played at political events since the 1960s, will reuniteon Monday for the first time in four years to rally support for Democraticpresidential candidate Barack Obama, a spokesman said on Friday.

Band leader Jerry Garcia died in 1995. Surviving members have playedtogether occasionally since then, most recently in 2004. On Monday, originalmembers Mickey Hart, Phil Lesh and Bob Weir will play at a San Franciscotheater a day before California's primary.

"They have agreed to reunite for this one-time-only event in order to lendsupport to Senator Obama leading into the crucial 'Super-Tuesday' series ofprimaries held on Tuesday, February 5th," the band said in a statement.

The band gained fame with its free-form psychedelic music when thecounterculture movement flourished in San Francisco in the 1960s, and theyattracted many loyal fans who came to be known as "Deadheads."

(Reporting by Adam Tanner)



=

Dallas Morning News

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/national/stories/020208dnpolimmig.390efe3.html

Republican candidates tone down harsh immigration rhetoric
GOP hopefuls try to stand firm without alienating Latino voters

By WAYNE SLATER / The Dallas Morning News
wslater@dallasnews.com
08:42 AM CST on Saturday, February 2, 2008

LOS ANGELES - When the Republican presidential hopefuls made their pitcheson immigration to California voters this week, Harry Pachon thought he heardsomething new.

A certain sensitivity.

Beyond the standard call to secure the border, Mike Huckabee cautioned "notto be cruel." John McCain urged "a humane and compassionate approach."

Mitt Romney, who earlier in the primary season talked about deporting peoplein 90 days, said in Wednesday's GOP debate that students should be allowedtime to finish their school year and families to make arrangements beforereturning to Mexico.

"There's a new language of qualifying the rhetoric, of toning it down," saidMr. Pachon, who heads the Tomas Rivera Policy Institute at the University ofSouthern California. "They finally woke up to realize immigration might bethe third rail of politics in the Latino community."

more . . . . .



=

Atlanta Journal-Constitution

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/tucker/stories/2008/02/01/tucked_0203.html

Clinton's Iraq vote was cynical, Obama's brave

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 02/03/08

In October 1962, a young president confronted one of the greatest crises ofhis century. After U.S. intelligence confirmed that the Soviets wereshipping medium-range nuclear missiles to Cuba - missiles easily capable ofreaching the U.S. mainland, just 90 miles away - President John F. Kennedyconsidered whether to set fire to the Cold War.

The press was itching for a first strike by American forces, as was thepublic. The formidable Dean Acheson, an architect of the U.S. strategy ofCommunist containment, pushed for an invasion of Cuba. Gen. Maxwell Taylor,chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Kennedy: "Hit 'em without anywarning whatsoever," according to Robert Smith Thompson's "The Missiles ofOctober."

But the 45-year-old Kennedy, who had barely won the Oval Office over themore experienced Richard Nixon, resisted. Instead, he pulled off a stunningdiplomatic coup and averted what might have been an all-out nuclear war.Kennedy - chastened, no doubt, by the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion - hadthe backbone to stand up to an array of presumed wise men who wanted amilitary showdown.

Barack Obama, 46, has shown similar gumption. On Oct. 26, 2002, in the midstof a campaign for the U.S. Senate, he gave a speech in Chicago opposing theinvasion of Iraq.

While Obama rightly acknowledged that Saddam Hussein was "a bad guy," healso pointed out, "Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the UnitedStates or to his neighbors. ... I know that even a successful war againstIraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undeterminedcost, with undetermined consequences."

more . . . . .



=

CBS News

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/01/politics/uwire/main3780972.shtml

Poll: Americans OK With Minority Leadership

Feb 1, 2008

(UWIRE.com) This story was written by Drew Harwell, Independent FloridaAlligator

The United States presidency, an office run by white men for more than 200years, may soon be run by anyone but.

With candidate John Edwards withdrawn from the race, the upcoming Democraticnomination is sure to make history.

Either of the top Democratic candidates - Barack Obama, a black senator fromllinois, and Hillary Clinton, a female senator from New York - wouldestablish a new precedent for the White House, which up until now has beensolely run by white men.

Sharon Austin, a UF associate professor in political science, said she wassurprised by Obama's recent increase in support.

"It does show progression," Austin said. "It shows people are able to lookbeyond color."

more . . . . .



=

Boston Globe

McCain upbeat on Super Tuesday, woos conservatives

By Steve Holland
February 1, 2008

ST. LOUIS (Reuters) - Presidential candidate John McCain urged skepticalconservatives on Friday to rally behind him and said he might clinch theRepublican nomination in crucial "Super Tuesday" coast-to-coast voting.

"We would like to have everybody on board. We'd like to have a totallyunited party," he said.

Buoyed by a string of high-profile endorsements, including one from the LosAngeles Times, the Arizona senator sounded like a front-runner in talking toreporters, rejecting criticism of his conservative credentials from rivalMitt Romney and declaring Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton tooinexperienced to be president.

Tuesday is the biggest day on the U.S. electoral calendar for choosingRepublican and Democratic candidates for the November presidential election,with contests in 24 different states in all parts of the country.

Asked if the Republican race would effectively be over on Tuesday, McCainsaid he had asked for divine intervention.

more . . . . .



=

CBS News

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/01/ap/politics/main3780242.shtml

Romney's Political Maturity Questioned

OKLAHOMA CITY, Feb. 1, 2008

(AP) Republican Mike Huckabee on Friday defended his previous remark thatMitt Romney didn't reach "political puberty" until recently, saying he wasreferring to his presidential rival's change of heart on key issues.

Speaking to 600 supporters jammed into a restaurant-bar in Oklahoma City,Huckabee said he has been consistent on issues dear to conservatives such asabortion, gun control and gay rights, while Romney has shifted hispositions.

Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, was once "very pro-choice" andsupported "strong positions for same-sex-relations," Huckabee said.

"He said on television that he would do more for the gay-lesbian agenda thanTed Kennedy. That's pretty bold. He said on television that he was not partof the Reagan Revolution, said that he was not part of that Reagan-Bushthing. That's on camera."

The former Arkansas governor, who acknowledged making the "politicalpuberty" remark in a cable television interview, said Romney claims to be agun rights supporter, but cannot be a "true Second Amendment" supporterbecause he supports an assault weapons ban.

more . . . . .



=

New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/opinion/02sat1.html?ref=opinion

Editorial: Secrets and Rights

February 2, 2008

President Bush's excesses in the name of fighting terrorism are legion. Toavoid accountability, his administration has repeatedly sought earlydismissal of lawsuits that might finally expose government misconduct,brandishing flimsy claims that going forward would put national securitysecrets at risk.

The courts have been far too willing to go along. In cases involving seriousallegations of kidnapping, torture and unlawful domestic eavesdropping,judges have blocked plaintiffs from pursuing their claims without taking ahard look at the government's basis for invoking the so-called state secretsprivilege: its insistence that revealing certain documents or other evidencewould endanger the nation's security.

As a result, victims of serious abuse have been denied justice, fundamentalrights have been violated and the constitutional system of checks andbalances has been grievously undermined.

Congress - which has allowed itself to be bullied on national securityissues for far too long - may now be ready to push back. The House andSenate are developing legislation that would give victims fair access to thecourts and make it harder for the government to hide illegal or embarrassingconduct behind such unsupported claims.

Last week, Senator Edward Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat, and ArlenSpecter, Republican of Pennsylvania, jointly introduced the State SecretsProtection Act. The measure would require judges to examine the actualdocuments or other evidence for which the state secrets privilege isinvoked, rather than relying on government affidavits asserting that theevidence is too sensitive to be publicly disclosed. Senator Patrick Leahy,chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and an important supporter of thereform, has scheduled a hearing on the bill for Feb. 13. RepresentativeJerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, expects to introduce a similar measurein the House.

more . . . . .



=

New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/opinion/02collins.html?ref=opinion

Op-Ed Columnist: A Voter's Guide

By GAIL COLLINS
February 2, 2008

The Democrats: One minute they're not even speaking. The next thing you knowthey're at Thursday's debate smiling and whispering in each other's ear.(Use of the word "agree": Obama, 7; Clinton, 5.)

He says they're friends forever. Which is actually more than we, the voters,require.

The Republicans: The unbending John McCain takes on the deeply bendable MittRomney. Think G.I. Joe vs. Gumby.

Hard to believe that so many of us actually get to vote in a presidentialprimary Tuesday. If you're in Virginia or Texas, we are hoping that thisthing goes on long enough for you to get your turn, too.

Feel free to ask last-minute questions.

more . . . . .



=

New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/opinion/02herbert.html?ref=opinion

Op-Ed Columnist: Lowering the Volume

By BOB HERBERT
February 2, 2008

There may be some grown-ups left in the Democratic Party after all.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama did themselves and their party a world ofgood on Thursday night by conducting themselves with grace and dignitythroughout their widely hyped debate in the celebrity-filled Kodak Theaterin Los Angeles.

After the food fight in South Carolina and the speculation that these twohistory-making candidates genuinely dislike one another, the run-up to thedebate had a touch of the atmosphere that preceded the Ali-Frazier fight in1971.

To their credit, the candidates lowered the volume.

Mrs. Clinton got a big laugh when she said: "You know, it did take a Clintonto clean after the first Bush, and I think it might take another one toclean up after the second Bush." She intended the line to be funny. But italso addressed a profound truth about politics and government in the UnitedStates.

more . . . . .



=

New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/opinion/02sat2.html?ref=opinion

Editorial: A New Chapter in Ethnic Cleansing

February 2, 2008

It is far too easy to become inured to bad news from Africa, a continent ofgreat promise and peril. Kenya's rampage of ethnically driven killings thatis now five weeks long is especially sickening and attention-grabbingbecause of how much hope the world had for Kenya's democracy and economicrevival - and how fast the country has descended into madness.

More dreams died this week with the murder - some called it politicalassassination - of Melitus Mugabe Were, a 39-year-old oppositionparliamentarian who tried to calm the ethnic tensions fueling Kenya's slideinto chaos. For many, he was a symbol of the moderation and reconciliationthat are Kenya's only hope. On Thursday, a second opposition lawmaker wasshot dead.

The vicious tribal violence - condemned by one American official this weekas "ethnic cleansing" - has spread with stunning speed since late Decemberwhen Kenya's electoral commission hastily handed a second term to PresidentMwai Kibaki, despite independent reports of glaring voting irregularities.The toll is now more than 800 Kenyans dead, 70,000 driven from their homesand thousands more fled to neighboring countries. The economy is paralyzed.

Instead of trying to calm their supporters and negotiate a politicalsolution, Mr. Kibaki and his principal challenger, Raila Odinga, have calledfor peace, and then incited more killing, accusing each other oforchestrating the mayhem. For too long, both men have succumbed to theirbaser ambitions and resisted high-level mediation.

Mr. Kibaki should renounce his re-election - the electoral commission'schairman said he was pressured into an early declaration. Mr. Odinga and hemust quickly agree on some reasonable compromise, a rerun of the vote or apower-sharing agreement. Together they have to urgently addressconstitutional and land reform issues that are at the heart of deep-seatedgrievances among Kenya's ethnic groups, including Mr. Kibaki's long-dominantKikuyu group, and Mr. Odinga's smaller, but politically important Luo tribe.

more . . . . .



=

New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/opinion/02sat1.html?ref=opinion

Editorial: Secrets and Rights

February 2, 2008

President Bush's excesses in the name of fighting terrorism are legion. Toavoid accountability, his administration has repeatedly sought earlydismissal of lawsuits that might finally expose government misconduct,brandishing flimsy claims that going forward would put national securitysecrets at risk.

The courts have been far too willing to go along. In cases involving seriousallegations of kidnapping, torture and unlawful domestic eavesdropping,judges have blocked plaintiffs from pursuing their claims without taking ahard look at the government's basis for invoking the so-called state secretsprivilege: its insistence that revealing certain documents or other evidencewould endanger the nation's security.

As a result, victims of serious abuse have been denied justice, fundamentalrights have been violated and the constitutional system of checks andbalances has been grievously undermined.

Congress - which has allowed itself to be bullied on national securityissues for far too long - may now be ready to push back. The House andSenate are developing legislation that would give victims fair access to thecourts and make it harder for the government to hide illegal or embarrassingconduct behind such unsupported claims.

Last week, Senator Edward Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat, and ArlenSpecter, Republican of Pennsylvania, jointly introduced the State SecretsProtection Act. The measure would require judges to examine the actualdocuments or other evidence for which the state secrets privilege isinvoked, rather than relying on government affidavits asserting that theevidence is too sensitive to be publicly disclosed. Senator Patrick Leahy,chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and an important supporter of thereform, has scheduled a hearing on the bill for Feb. 13. RepresentativeJerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, expects to introduce a similar measurein the House.



=

New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/opinion/02collins.html?ref=opinion

Op-Ed Columnist: A Voter's Guide

By GAIL COLLINS
February 2, 2008

The Democrats: One minute they're not even speaking. The next thing you knowthey're at Thursday's debate smiling and whispering in each other's ear.(Use of the word "agree": Obama, 7; Clinton, 5.)

He says they're friends forever. Which is actually more than we, the voters,require.

The Republicans: The unbending John McCain takes on the deeply bendable MittRomney. Think G.I. Joe vs. Gumby.

Hard to believe that so many of us actually get to vote in a presidentialprimary Tuesday. If you're in Virginia or Texas, we are hoping that thisthing goes on long enough for you to get your turn, too.

Feel free to ask last-minute questions.

more . . . . .



=

Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/02/AR2008020200163.html

Silicon Valley embraces Obama as promising start-up

By Anupreeta Das
Reuters
Saturday, February 2, 2008; 1:05 AM

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Silicon Valley, home to Google, tech innovationand some of the world's richest people, is sending money to a young,untested presidential candidate who is sort of like a start-up -- BarackObama.

Polls ahead of Tuesday's California primary show Obama lagging rival HillaryClinton. But residents of the Valley -- where companies such as Yahoo! Inc,Google Inc and Apple Inc have changed American life -- have written checksfor Obama more than any other candidate.

The Illinois Democrat has raised $940,459 from people in thecomputer/Internet industry, according to latest data from the Center forResponsive Politics. Clinton is second, followed by Republican candidatesMitt Romney and Sen. John McCain.

"It is absolutely the case that Obama is seen as different, and thereforeappealing to Silicon Valley," said Bill Ericson, a political independent andgeneral partner at Mohr Davidow Ventures, a venture capital firm.

People in Silicon Valley, who love innovation and change, see Obama as abreak from the past, he said. Obama has received funding from high-flyingtech executives like John Thompson, the chief executive of Symantec Corp.

more . . . . .



=

Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020103552.html?hpid=topnews

The Accompanists: Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama Warm Up to Their Parts in Orchestrating Victory

By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 2, 2008; C01

Both are confident and funny, opinionated and very smart. Both are IvyLeague lawyers with working-class roots. Both have formidable identitiesindependent of their formidable partners. Both are history-making spouses ofhistory-making presidential candidates.

It is fascinating enough that Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama are playing onthe same field as their partners duel for the Democratic nomination. Moreintriguing still is her effectiveness, hardly a given for a recent campaignrecruit matched against a two-term president.

Clinton, 61, earned his reputation as one of the most gifted nationalpoliticians in modern times while Obama was still a young lawyer trying tofind herself. Obama, 44, kept her political forays to a minimum whilebuilding a career on community outreach in Chicago, yet more than a fewenchanted voters have said after watching her that she should be the one inpublic office.

They share an ability to please a crowd, although in styles as different asa piano and a saxophone. Her riffs are typically smooth and tart, usuallyunderstated, always controlled; his are showy and wide-ranging, oftenroaming exuberantly through complex material.

On the campaign trail, as one staff member put it, Bill Clinton is Sen.Hillary Rodham Clinton's chief validator. He zips around the country -- thisweek in states from Illinois to Georgia to Missouri to Colorado --reassuring Democrats, above all, that she is ready but he has her back.Michelle Obama's role is more of a portraitist. She jetted to both coaststhis week to deepen the picture of the self-described skinny black guy witha funny name, and to argue that a divided nation needs him now.

more . . . . .



=

Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020103262.html?hpid=topnews

Decline in U.S. Jobs Could Prove Costly to GOP Nominee

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 2, 2008; A08

The economic storm clouds gathering over the 2008 presidential race burstopen yesterday with news that the economy shed 17,000 jobs in January, thefirst job loss in 52 months and the clearest sign yet that the economy maybe in a recession.

For Republicans already facing an economic headwind, the jobs numbers couldprove punishing. Traditionally, the party holding the White House is blamedfor bad economic times -- and credited for booms -- and economists saidyesterday that this year should be no different, even if GOP candidatescontinue to distance themselves from President Bush.

For Democrats, job losses could complete the anti-Republican narrative theircandidates have been building for months.

"This isn't a random event. This is the culmination of a bunch of disturbingtrends we've seen in seven years," said Austan Goolsbee, a University ofChicago economist and chief economic adviser to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)."Stagnant incomes, rising costs in energy and food, and little to nopersonal savings have left families with no margin of error."

Economists forecasting the 2008 race have given a slight edge to theDemocrats. Global Insight, a Massachusetts-based forecaster, was predictingthat the Republican nominee will garner 49 percent of the vote in November,based on recent income growth, unemployment and the power of incumbency.With yesterday's jobs report, that forecast will slip to as low as 47percent, said Nariman Behravesh, the firm's chief economist.

more . . . . .



=

Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020102621.html

Why I'm Backing Obama

By Susan Eisenhower
Saturday, February 2, 2008; A15

Forty-seven years ago, my grandfather Dwight D. Eisenhower bid farewell to anation he had served for more than five decades. In his televised address,Ike famously coined the term "military-industrial complex," and he offeredadvice that is still relevant today. "As we peer into society's future," hesaid, we "must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for ourown ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannotmortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the lossalso of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survivefor all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom oftomorrow."

Today we are engaged in a debate about these very issues. Deep in America'sheart, I believe, is the nagging fear that our best years as a nation may beover. We are disliked overseas and feel insecure at home. We watch as ourfederal budget hemorrhages red ink and our civil liberties are eroded.Crises in energy, health care and education threaten our way of life and ourability to compete internationally. There are also the issues of a costly,unpopular war; a long-neglected infrastructure; and an aging andincreasingly needy population.

I am not alone in worrying that my generation will fail to do what mygrandfather's did so well: Leave America a better, stronger place than theone it found.

Given the magnitude of these issues and the cost of addressing them, ournext president must be able to bring about a sense of national unity andchange. As we no longer have the financial resources to address all theseproblems comprehensively and simultaneously, setting priorities will beessential. With hard work, much can be done.

The biggest barrier to rolling up our sleeves and preparing for a betterfuture is our own apathy, fear or immobility. We have been living in azero-sum political environment where all heads have been lowered to avertbeing lopped off by angry, noisy extremists. I am convinced that BarackObama is the one presidential candidate today who can encourage ordinaryAmericans to stand straight again; he is a man who can salve our nationalwounds and both inspire and pursue genuine bipartisan cooperation. Just asimportant, Obama can assure the world and Americans that this great nation'simpulses are still free, open, fair and broad-minded.

more . . . . .



=

Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020102622.html

Race Matters. So Does Hope.

By Marjorie Valbrun
Saturday, February 2, 2008; A15

Let's be honest. Race does matter. Everyone knows it. Yes, in a perfectworld it wouldn't matter, but ours is far from perfect, and the currentAmerican political climate is even more so.

Nevertheless, the recent images of college students, most of them white,chanting "Race doesn't matter" at Barack Obama campaign rallies have been heartwarming. The young people have embraced this mantra and buoyed theircandidate's vote tallies in the primaries with earnest and youthfulidealism. By doing so, they've signaled that they are looking beyond raceand choosing a standard-bearer who can redefine and realign the country'spolitical-racial landscape.

Admirable? Yes. Impressive? Absolutely. Moving? How could it not be?Racially transcendent? Not a chance.

These students have come of age at a time when American race relations arenot the nuclear subject they were for their parents' generation. They haveless rigid ideas about race and tend to have a more diverse collection offriends. They live at a time when the concept of biracial or multiracialidentities is familiar. Caroline Kennedy said her three teenage childreninfluenced her decision to endorse Barack Obama.

This is indeed an incredible moment, for young people and the nation. Yetmany Americans of all stripes are struggling between buying into the notionthat race is irrelevant and wanting to reject that notion outright. It's notreally one of those well-on-the-one-hand-but-on-the-other-hand kinds ofdebates. This is America, after all. We have some serious racial baggage. Wehave a hard time reconciling ourselves to the past and sometimes behave asif it has no bearing on the future.

more . . . . .



=

Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020102506.html

The Anger Over an Online Essay

By Deborah Howell
Sunday, February 3, 2008; B06

A Jan. 7 essay on Jewish identity, published on washingtonpost.com's popularOn Faith site, caused a furor and led to two public apologies, a lost joband much recrimination.

On Faith's moderators -- Sally Quinn, author and former Post reporter, andNewsweek editor Jon Meacham-- pose a thought-provoking question each week toa panel of religion experts. That week, it was: "PBS is airing a series on'The Jewish Americans.' We know what 'Jewish identity' has meant in thepast. What will it mean in the future? How does a minority religion retainits roots and embrace change?"

Panelist Arun Gandhi, a grandson of pacifist Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi,wrote a response, including: "Jewish identity in the past has been lockedinto the Holocaust experience. . . . It is a very good example of [how] acommunity can overplay a historic experience to the point that it begins torepulse friends. . . . The world did feel sorry for the episode but when anindividual or a nation refuses to forgive and move on the regret turns intoanger. . . . The Jewish identity in the future appears bleak. . . . We have
created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players)and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity."

Gandhi posted the comments to his On Faith page before an editor saw them.On Faith editor David Waters felt the piece was "controversial andinflammatory, but a lot of what we publish is, given the wide range ofconversation on this site." Waters felt Gandhi was criticizing the Israeligovernment. "He condemns all government violence." Waters said the reactionsurprised him. "It reminded me you have to be especially careful whenediting religion."

Waters paired Gandhi's piece with an opposite view by the Rev. C. WeltonGaddy, who leads the nonpartisan Interfaith Alliance. Waters's boss, HalStraus, interactivity and communities editor, said, "I read the piece asbeing a pacifist's critique of Israeli policy, not an anti-Semite'scriticism of Jews -- and as both a Jew and an editor, I take anti-Semitismseriously. We should have asked Gandhi to clarify."

more . . . . .



=

Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/01/AR2007020100714.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Exxon Mobil's Profit in 2007 Tops $40 Billion

By Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 2, 2008; D01

Buoyed by soaring crude oil prices, Exxon Mobil announced yesterday that itset new records for U.S. quarterly and annual corporate profits in 2007, andChevron, the nation's second-largest oil company, also reported big gains inearnings.

Exxon broke the record it previously had set for profits by a U.S.corporation, earning $40.6 billion last year. It earned $11.7 billion in thefourth quarter, or $2.13 a share, up 14 percent from the fourth quarter of2006. Revenue for the quarter rose 30 percent, to $116.64 billion. Exxon'sprofit for the year came to $4.6 million an hour.

Chevron said its profit rose 29 percent, to $4.9 billion, or $2.32 a share.Chevron's quarterly revenue grew 29 percent, to $61.41 billion. Profits ofthe five biggest international oil companies have tripled since 2002.

Kenneth P. Cohen, Exxon Mobil's vice president for public affairs, said theearnings reflected the company's "long-term, disciplined approach" andinvestments made a decade ago when oil prices were low. With mountingexploration costs and increasingly remote oil prospects, Cohen said, thelarge revenues were needed to meet "the massive scale of the energychallenge before us."

But in Washington, the earnings were seen as outsized. Sen. Charles E.Schumer (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, issued astatement saying, "Congratulations to ExxonMobil and Chevron -- forreminding Americans why they cringe every time they pull into a gas stationand for reminding Washington why it needs to act swiftly to break ourdependence on foreign oil and roll back unnecessary tax incentives for oilcompanies."

more . . . . .



=

Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/01/AR2007020100714.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Exxon Mobil's Profit in 2007 Tops $40 Billion

By Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 2, 2008; D01

Buoyed by soaring crude oil prices, Exxon Mobil announced yesterday that itset new records for U.S. quarterly and annual corporate profits in 2007, andChevron, the nation's second-largest oil company, also reported big gains inearnings.

Exxon broke the record it previously had set for profits by a U.S.corporation, earning $40.6 billion last year. It earned $11.7 billion in thefourth quarter, or $2.13 a share, up 14 percent from the fourth quarter of2006. Revenue for the quarter rose 30 percent, to $116.64 billion. Exxon'sprofit for the year came to $4.6 million an hour.

Chevron said its profit rose 29 percent, to $4.9 billion, or $2.32 a share.Chevron's quarterly revenue grew 29 percent, to $61.41 billion. Profits ofthe five biggest international oil companies have tripled since 2002.

Kenneth P. Cohen, Exxon Mobil's vice president for public affairs, said theearnings reflected the company's "long-term, disciplined approach" andinvestments made a decade ago when oil prices were low. With mountingexploration costs and increasingly remote oil prospects, Cohen said, thelarge revenues were needed to meet "the massive scale of the energychallenge before us."

But in Washington, the earnings were seen as outsized. Sen. Charles E.Schumer (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, issued astatement saying, "Congratulations to ExxonMobil and Chevron -- forreminding Americans why they cringe every time they pull into a gas stationand for reminding Washington why it needs to act swiftly to break ourdependence on foreign oil and roll back unnecessary tax incentives for oilcompanies."

more . . . . .



=

Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020101910.html?hpid=sec-nation

U.S., Poland Closer to Deal on Missile Defense

By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 2, 2008; A16

The United States and Poland broke a logjam yesterday in negotiations overU.S. plans to build a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe, with theBush administration committing "in principle" to help Poland modernize itsarmed forces.

Poland is "satisfied that our arguments have got through," Foreign AffairsMinister Radoslaw Sikorski said. At a news conference yesterday withSecretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Sikorski said that "separate" dialogueswould now continue "both on the missile defense base and on themodernization."

Talks on the Pentagon's plan to place 10 missile interceptors in Polandstalled after the new Polish government, which took office in November,proved less receptive to the shield than its predecessor. With the publicincreasingly opposed to Warsaw's participation and neighboring Russiathreatening to counter with missiles aimed at Poland, Prime Minister DonaldTusk had said he was in "no hurry" for an agreement.

The Pentagon reacted coolly last month when Poland suggested Washingtonshould help rebuild its air defense systems to counter Moscow and shouldconsider signing a bilateral security agreement before negotiations onmissile defense continued. Poland is the top European recipient of U.S.military assistance, totaling $750 million since 2001.

Yesterday, however, Rice said that "the United States is very committed tothe modernization of Polish forces." She said that progress had also beenmade on missile defense during her talks with Sikorski, and that discussionswould continue when Tusk visits President Bush in early March and at NATO'ssummit in Bucharest in April.

more . . . . .


=


[Send your comments about articles to Rays.List@Comcast.net]
#####