www.upi.com From the National Desk Published 3/1/2003 10:06 AM View printer-friendly version

New York Times

Nothing so far has shamed President Bush into adopting a more aggressive policy toward the threat of global warming. He has been denounced by mainstream scientists, deserted by his progressive friends in industry and sued by seven states. Still he clings stubbornly to a voluntary policy aimed at merely slowing the growth of greenhouse gas emissions, despite an overwhelming body of evidence that only binding targets and a firm timetable will do the job.

Now there is fresh criticism from sources Mr. Bush may find harder to ignore. Last week Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, Mr. Bush's most loyal ally in the debate over Iraq, gently but firmly rebuked the president for abandoning the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on global climate change and for succumbing to the insupportable notion that fighting global warming will impede economic growth. ...

The prime minister's approach is everything Mr. Bush's is not. It conveys a sense of urgency, calls for common sacrifice and offers a coherent vision of how to get from here to there. It is, in short, a recipe for the leadership that until not too long ago the world had been looking to America to provide. -0-

Washington Times

President Bush's Wednesday night speech on his vision for the post-war Middle East revealed an American president fully seized of a classic Wilsonian passion to nurture -- nay, force -- democratic government on a troubled world. It also revealed a president coldly determined to disarm rogue states of their weapons of mass destruction.

In the chancelleries of Iran, Syria, Libya, North Korea and other rogue states, policy planners will surely be studying closely the president's words: "Across the world we are hunting down the killers ... And we are opposing the greatest danger in the war on terror -- outlaw regimes arming with weapons of mass destruction. ... The passing of Saddam Hussein's regime will deprive terrorists networks of a wealthy patron ... And other regimes will be given a clear warning that support for terror will not be tolerated." Whether those words induce change or defiance in the threatened states, the next year or two are likely to be over-brimming with international high drama, change -- and possibly conflict.

For any American president, the threatened release of such military violence can only be justified -- both internally in his conscience, and externally by the public -- if it is premised on a high moral cause. And it is in President Bush's speech that we saw last Wednesday one of the highest American presidential expressions of belief in the universality and imminence of Democracy: "It is presumptuous and insulting to suggest that a whole region of the world or the one-fifth of humanity that is Muslim is somehow untouched by the most basic aspirations of life ... freedom and democracy will always and everywhere have greater appeal than the slogans of hatred and the tactics of terror." ...

President Bush is not a man for whom words are particularly friendly or an end in themselves; he uses them only for the truth of the matter stated. But he may be our most stubborn, determined and action-oriented president since Andy Jackson. Intellectuals talk breezily about democracy, and then talk about something else. We suspect that having said these words this week, President Bush intends to go about the practical business of trying to implement them. It will be stunning if he succeeds, a bloody mess if he fails, and not many alternatives in between. -0-

Washington Post

U.S. OFFICIALS long sought to play down the danger that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez poses by pointing out that his acts rarely matched his words. Mr. Chavez, who was elected president after promising a socialist revolution for Venezuela's poor majority, might talk about confiscating property, supporting leftist guerrillas in neighboring Colombia or admiring Fidel Castro and Saddam Hussein, but in practice he mostly remained within democratic boundaries.

Yet now the gap between Mr. Chavez's inflammatory rhetoric and his actions is narrowing. Having survived a strike by his opposition, Mr. Chavez has proclaimed 2003 the "year of the offensive"; so far he has taken steps to bring the economy under state control, eliminate independent media and decapitate the opposition. ...

Spain recently joined with the United States, Brazil, Chile, Mexico and Portugal to support a negotiated political solution to the crisis through the mediation of Cesar Gaviria, the secretary general of the Organization of American States and a former president of Colombia. The opposition, which at times has supported anti-democratic means of ousting Mr. Chavez, now endorses Mr. Gaviria's proposal for a new presidential election or a referendum on Mr. Chavez's recall. The current constitution would allow for a referendum to be held as early as August; that may be the easiest and best way out. But Mr. Chavez knows he would very likely lose a fair vote, and he will likely do everything possible to prevent it. That's why it is essential that the Bush administration join with the "group of friends" to insist that Mr. Chavez release his political prisoners, stop his revolutionary "offensive" and commit to a decisive vote. It may be democracy's last chance. -0-

Boston Globe

Saddam Hussein's last-minute acquiescence to the UN inspectors' demand that he begin destroying more than 120 Samoud 2 surface-to-surface missiles falls far short of compliance with the UN Security Council's terms for full and complete disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Conversely, if Saddam refused to destroy his Samoud 2 missiles, that act of defiance by itself would not justify the use of military force to disarm the Iraqi dictator.

The Samoud 2 missiles are proscribed weapons because in test firings they traveled beyond the limit of 150 kilometers, or 93 miles, permitted in the UN cease-fire resolutions that Saddam accepted in 1991. The sound reason for limiting the range of Saddam's missiles was to protect Iraq's neighbors from a serial aggressor.

Spokesmen for Saddam have a point -- however technical -- when they complain that the missiles were tested without warheads or guidance systems. Their argument is that the Samouds' range might not have exceeded 150 kilometers if they had been carrying the extra weight of warheads and guidance systems, which they would carry if fired in a combat situation.

More important, the missiles are not weapons of mass destruction, even if they may qualify as potential delivery systems for such weapons within a short range.

This distinction is worth making because the core of the case for forcing Saddam either to comply with the Security Council's demands or be disarmed by force rests upon the danger of allowing this particular mass murderer, with his history of cruelty against his own people and recklessness, to hoard stores of anthrax, botulinum toxin, VX nerve gas, Sarin, and mustard gas. ...

It is because of this threat -- not his Samoud 2 missiles -- that Saddam must be disarmed. In the report he will present in public next week, the chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, laments that Saddam's response to his disarmament obligations has been ''very limited.'' If Saddam is to be disarmed without a war, he will have to open his underground tunnels and bunkers to the weapons inspectors and lead them to his instruments of mass murder so they can be destroyed, much as the inspectors are planning to destroy his short-range missiles. -0-

Rocky Mountain News

Terrorists and the rogue states that support them will stop at nothing to take innocent lives and destroy democracy. This is a lesson our nation and the world learned on Sept. 11, 2001. It is also why the work the United States does to secure nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in Russia is the first line of defense preventing such weapons from falling into the hands of the terrorists and states that would harm us.

This security imperative is embedded in the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, an act of the U.S. Congress, that over the past decade has evolved to include a wide range of nonproliferation, disarmament and demilitarization projects in Russia. It was reaffirmed by President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin in two U.S.-Russian summits and the G8 communiques last year.

But as Rocky Mountain News reporter Ann Imse has shown us in her revealing three-part series on the public health disaster at Mayak, the former Soviet nuclear weapons production facility, such efforts are unlikely to succeed unless the Kremlin moves out of the woods of autocracy instead of deeper into them. ...

Mayak is a grim microcosm of totalitarian socialism's many failures. Which is why, in poll after poll, Russians continue to value democratic ideals and practices. They know truth, as symbolized in the gold- crowned tooth of Mayak worker Gennady Krasnov, is easier found wherever liberty flourishes. -0- (Compiled by United Press International)

www.morningjournal.com By PATRICE M. JONES, Knight Ridder Newspapers March 01, 2003

CARACAS, Venezuela -- The lifeblood of Venezuela's economy, its oil industry, is slowly rebounding, analysts say, after a crippling strike disrupted exports to the United States and left Venezuela's president clinging to power. Venezuela's energy minister, Rafael Ramirez, had a rosy forecast for Washington officials last week. He described the emergence of a reorganized, leaner, better-run state oil company that is recovering well despite operating with about 40 percent fewer workers. But despite progress, many analysts say Venezuela's sick oil industry is far from full recovery. Venezuelan officials say the oil giant should be close to producing 3.1 million barrels daily -- nearly matching prestrike levels -- by the end of this month. But analysts and oil experts say those claims are too optimistic and could hide dangers both for Venezuela and its most important client, the United States. Analysts say the state oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela S.A., was severely damaged by the strike and it could be years before the company restores its worldwide reputation, if it ever does. Venezuela lost billions of dollars in oil exports during the two-month strike that fizzled in early February. The government fired 16,000 workers who took part in the stoppage, which was aimed at pressuring the government of President Hugo Chavez. With the dismissals, much of the oil company's knowledge and expertise from its senior managers, scientists, economists and technicians was lost. ''You cannot take a something that took decades to build and rebuild it in a few months,'' said Ramon Espinasa, former chief economist for the oil company and now a consultant for the Inter-American Development Bank. ''There are many reasons to believe the government's statements about the future are not very credible,'' added Michael Gavin, managing director in emerging markets research for UBS Warburg investment bank. The fallout for Venezuela if its oil industry does not fully recover could be devastating. Oil has long been Venezuela's claim to international prestige, and its most important economic engine. Venezuela's government depends on oil for half its revenue and 80 percent of the country's exports. Once the world's fifth-largest oil producer, Venezuela has long been a major supplier for the United States, accounting for about 15 percent of U.S. oil imports last year, or about 1.5 million barrels a day. ''Venezuela was by far the most reliable market for the U.S., and so the strike meant a very important change and rethinking,'' Espinasa said. Energy analysts have questioned whether other producing countries with spare production capacity, mainly Saudi Arabia, could replace both lost Venezuelan and Iraqi oil should war erupt in Iraq and Venezuela's problems are not be resolved. On Wednesday, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said at a Senate hearing it might be two to three months before Venezuelan imports return to normal. Adding to the uncertainty is Venezuela's continuing political instability. In the past week, Chavez has launched a crackdown on the architects of the nationwide strike that included a walkout in the oil industry as well as a strike among businesses and unions. Business chamber leader Carlos Fernandez was recently placed under house arrest and is facing up to 26 years in prison for his involvement in the strike. Seven other strike leaders, all former oil managers, also have had warrants issued for their arrest, although they are fighting to nullify the arrest order in the courts. ''Chavez is desperate to arrest anyone who opposes him,'' said Juan Fernandez, a former financial planning manager at the oil company, who is among the group of seven that could face jail time. ''To prove they have things under control and that they have the power, they will continue the arrests,'' he said. But there is also a problem in Venezuela's oil fields, where only minimal staffs are handling everything from managing computer systems to restarting inactive fields. Sand built up in some wells that were left inactive during the strike, which means now that some wells will have to be redrilled and some could simply be worthless. Experts estimate between 300,000 and 400,000 barrels a day of production could be permanently lost. On the other hand, Ramirez told Washington officials of current successes. Production has risen from nothing when Venezuela's December oil strike began to the current level of just over 2 million barrels a day. Striking workers recently pegged the level at 1.58 million barrels a day. And while Venezuela's government says it will reach prestrike production by the end of the month, many analyst forecast the company is likely to reach only about 2.3 million barrels daily by the end of the year.

www.elkharttruth.com Sat, Mar 1, 2003 By Kim Kilbride Truth Staff

GOSHEN -- Jason Shenk, a Goshen High School student, said he puts his faith in God, not weapons.

Friday, he had the opportunity to share his beliefs with other Goshen students on why the United States should not invade Iraq. Six of his classmates also voiced their views on the topic during a student forum modeled after National Public Radio's "Talk of the Nation."

Each of the seven panelists was given two minutes to present his or her position. Afterward, they discussed several pre-established questions about the merits of a war with Iraq. At the end, they took questions from their classmates in the audience.

Following is a snippet of what they had to say.

Mike Deranek said he's concerned because Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction that he could be passing on to terrorists.

Jason said he has admiration and concern for U.S. soldiers being sent to the Middle East, but he doesn't agree with the orders they've been given.

"Let's not show the same disregard for human life as terrorists," Jason said.

Chris Null said he's in favor of a U.S. invasion of Iraq.

"For the sake of national security, we can't wait for Saddam's smoking guns," he said.

Michael Albert said he represented the middle-of-the-road view.

"I was previously pro-war," he said. "I would fight my opponent until the end. Then I realized I didn't have enough information to support my pro-war feelings."

Jessica Brubaker described herself as a nonpacifist who is against military intervention in Iraq.

"Many civilians would be killed in Baghdad (if there was a pre-emptive strike)," she said. "I also don't believe war should be started, so that way we could have cheaper gas."

Nick Mellot said if Hussein doesn't destroy all of his missiles, the United States will have to remove him from power.

"He's killed thousands of his own people," Mellot said. "Mr. Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and the rest of the world ... He needs to be removed from power quickly, or else we will pay the ultimate cost."

Norbert Bodendorfer is a foreign-exchange student from Germany. He said Iraq has shown no aggression toward the United States and therefore should not be invaded by U.S. forces.

Q: Will a war with Iraq lead to more terrorism?

Michael: "Yes, terrorist activity will increase. They'll use this as another way to hurt America."

Chris: "It will help stop terrorism because we'll be able to catch the terrorists by taking away one of their safe havens -- Iraq."

Norbert: "Terrorists can hide anywhere. I was in the town in Germany where police were all over looking for terrorists."

Q: What legal authority does the United States have to invade Iraq?

Nick: "U.N. Resolution 1441 is basically what we're operating on. Hussein is defying it. If the U.N. doesn't want to support this, it'll fall apart too."

Chris "We're the last superpower and so we must take out people who aren't willing to work for world peace."

Q: Does this whole issue revolve around oil?

Nick: "Iraq is the second largest land-based oil producer in the world ... (If that was all the United States was interested in) we could instead go to Alaska or Venezuela."

Mike: "I don't think so. We don't get all of our oil from the Middle East as news reports would have us believe."

Jessica: "I believe we are going for oil. Iraq switched to Euros. U.S. companies are missing out on a very lucrative oil business."

Q: "Have all possible diplomatic resolutions been exhausted?" Emily Wigley, an audience member, asked.

Jason: "There are nonviolent options that haven't been explored. It's incredible. We spend 200 times more on war efforts and the military than on peace efforts."

Q: "Is President Bush insisting on going to war with Iraq because we didn't win the war on terrorism after 9-11?" asked Justin Dolezal.

Jessica: "Bush knows he can get public support for it by using the guise of 9-11."

Q: "How can Christians say war is OK?" another student asked.

Michael: "God tells us we need to be obedient citizens to government. You're obeying God by following your government," he said.

Chris: "The Bible also tells us we can defend the weak."

With two lines of students still formed to ask questions, Goshen's principal Jim Kirkton, ended the forum by saying how proud he was of Goshen High School students.

"This was a real exercise in academia," he said. "Everyone knows their topic and was well prepared. What you saw today is something you'd normally see on a college campus," he told the audience.

Contact Kim Kilbride at kkilbride@etruth.com.

edition.cnn.com Friday, February 28, 2003 Posted: 1554 GMT

CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) -- If you thought Venezuela's political crisis seemed to be dragging for an impossibly long time -- you were right.

In a bizarre mass-malfunction, Venezuela's clocks are ticking too slowly due to a power shortage weakening the electric current nationwide. By the end of each day, the sluggish time pieces still have another 150 seconds to tick before they catch up to midnight.

"Everything that has to do with time-keeping has slowed down. If it's an electric clock, it's running slow," said Miguel Lara, general manager of the national power grid.

"Your computer isn't affected. Your television isn't affected. No other devices ... just clocks," he added.

The meltdown has taken a total 14 hours and 36 minutes from Venezuela's clocks over 12 of the past 13 months, he said.

Pointing fingers If you're two minutes late to the office, and everybody else is too, there's no problem.

-- Rene Osurna, shipping company employee

In a country fiercely divided between friends and foes of its leader, President Hugo Chavez, it isn't surprising some opponents have jokingly blamed the clock chaos on the president.

But instead it appears to be Mother Nature that lashed out against Father Time. The river powering a major hydroelectric plant in southeast Venezuela lost force due to a severe drought in February 2001. To prevent blackouts, the country slightly lowered the frequency of the current.

At least one time expert was caught off guard.

"It's the most bizarre thing I've ever heard of," said Dan Nied, head of the U.S.-based School of Horology, or the science of time measurement. "But yes, clocks would slow down."

For common quartz clocks, the slight drop in frequency slows the vibration of the crystal that regulates time keeping, he said, adding, "People must be going nuts."

What's the problem?

Venezuelans have taken their time troubles in their stride. An air traffic controller casually said that his office corrected its clocks every few days or months, without incident so far.

"Yes, it's been happening here. But we correct the clocks every three months and there's no problem," he said.

Many people on the streets of Caracas were only vaguely aware that their clocks had been slowing down.

"I wake with the sun," said Rene Osurna, who works at a shipping company. "And if you're two minutes late to the office, and everybody else is too, there's no problem."

www.canada.com BRUCE STANLEY AP Saturday, March 01, 2003

A recent surge in Saudi Arabian oil production should help cool sizzling prices when crude shipments from the Persian Gulf reach U.S. ports within a month, industry analysts said yesterday.

Prices eased a day after spiking to a 12-year high in the United States on concerns about tight supplies.

Some analysts said OPEC member countries were pumping furiously and argued that the current market turmoil would ease once fresh barrels hit the market.

"A lot of the crude produced in January has not yet arrived. The situation may change drastically," said a senior source at the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

Fears of a war with Iraq are partly to blame for the latest run-up in prices.

April contracts of U.S. light sweet crude climbed as much as $2 on Thursday to peak at $39.99 a barrel in New York, the highest level since October 1990, when Iraq occupied Kuwait. Yesterday, the April contract fell 60 cents to settle at $36.60 in New York.

Concerns that a war might create supply shortages have inflated prices by at least $5 a barrel, said the source, speaking on condition of anonymity from OPEC's headquarters in Vienna, Austria.

However, analysts said OPEC could probably make up the 2 million barrels a day that Iraq would be unable to export if fighting broke out in the Gulf. OPEC supplies about a third of the world's oil.

The cartel's most powerful member, Saudi Arabia, says it can produce up to 10.5 million barrels a day.

That is substantially higher than the 8.5 million barrels a day that the International Energy Agency, a watchdog for oil-importing countries, said the country was producing in January.

"I think they're well above 10 million barrels, and pumping," said Peter Gignoux, managing director of the petroleum desk at Salomon Smith Barney.

Much of this additional crude is already on its way to the U.S. East Coast, a journey lasting about 45 days.

The United Arab Emirates and other OPEC members that aren't already producing at full capacity could boost the cartel's output further to help make up for any missing Iraqi barrels.

The recent price spike was most pronounced in the United States, the world's biggest importer of crude. While Iraq has been a factor in this surge, analysts said cold weather and the fallout from a strike in Venezuela's oil industry have played a bigger role.

"We've lived without Iraqi oil before. This doesn't bother me," Gignoux said.