From the March 7, 2003 print edition Jim Freer  

For more than a year, watchful eyes in the South Florida banking community have wondered whether the problems of Terremark Worldwide (Amex: TWW) could spill over on its primary lender, Ocean Bank.

Executives of Ocean Bank, the largest commercial bank based in South Florida, did not return phone calls this week.

But on Monday, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. released data that indicates an answer of "not as of Dec. 31."

That data is in Ocean Bank's year-end Call Report to the FDIC, the most-detailed information available on the privately held bank whose owners are based in Venezuela.

The report shows that Ocean Bank continues to have an alarmingly high number of nonperforming or problem loans, but that income from other loans has enabled the bank to continue to post solid profits.

Ocean Bank's major business is commercial real estate lending to clients including developers of offices and condominiums in South Florida.

The bank's commercial loan clients include Miami-based Terremark, owner/operator of the NAP of the Americas, the world's fifth tier-1 network access point.

The NAP is a high-speed electronic interchange where data is transferred from one major carrier to another. It occupies the second floor of the Technology Center of the Americas building under a 20-year lease. Its business has suffered in the telecom industry's meltdown.

Ocean Bank's 2002 net income was $45.5 million, for a 1.1 percent return on year-end assets of $4.1 billion. That gave the bank an ROA above the 1 percent that is the banking industry's standard for strong profits.

Ocean opened in December 1982 and has reported a profit for each of the 20 years it has been in business.

Seeds of a future income dip

But the FDIC's new report on Ocean Bank included some numbers that often indicate the prospect of a future drop in income for a bank.

The bank closed 2002 with $98.4 million in loans that are nonperforming – those that are 90 days more delinquent and those that no longer accrue interest.

Ocean Bank also had $1.1 million in real estate owned (REO) property. That's basically properties taken in foreclosure.

The $99.5 million total gave Ocean Bank a 2.4 percent ratio on nonperforming loans and REO to total assets.

The national average for banks and savings & loans was 0.9 percent on Dec. 31, according to the FDIC.

Ocean Bank's ratio was slightly higher than 1 percent for several quarters until the quarter ended June 30 – when it rose above 2 percent.

Of Ocean Bank's nonperforming loans at the end of last year, $97.7 million were in nonaccrual status. That category traditionally has the highest prospects for charge-offs or writedowns.

And a look at Ocean Bank's data, which includes a level of reserves that is strong by most standards, leads to questions about whether and when the bank might have to take a hit on problem loans and about how such a step could impact its balance sheet.

Linda Townsend, senior regulator for South Florida for the state government agency that is the primary regulator of Ocean Bank, said she and her staff are monitoring the bank, but not to any greater extent than they watch other banks with large amounts of nonperforming loans.

"Ocean Bank has shown a history of being very prudent in adding to its reserves and, when necessary in charging off loans," said Townsend, bureau chief for South Florida in the Florida Department of Financial Services' Bureau of Financial Institutions.

Townsend said Ocean Bank is among South Florida banks whose problem loans have grown due to the economic slump that is impacting real estate markets and due to problems in Latin America that are impacting many businesses in South Florida.

"There are indications that they [Ocean Bank] are managing it well," she said.

Townsend said her agency is not permitted to identify any nonperforming loans at Ocean Bank or other banks.

Ocean Bank's Call Report shows that during 2002 it added $47 million to its reserves for potential loan losses.

Reserve ratio draws attention

The bank had $84.9 million in reserves at year-end for a ratio of 90 percent to its nonperforming loans.

That ratio is high, considering that many banks whose problem loans have been growing have reserve ratios in the 50 percent to 60 percent range.

Townsend said she cannot comment on reserve ratios of particular banks.

"Speaking generally, you would be concerned about a bank even with a high percentage of reserves if a lot of the nonperformers are in auto loans," she said.

In Ocean Bank's case, she said, the portfolio is heavily laden with real estate, which regulators generally regard as strong collateral.

Research, including a review of Ocean Bank's Web site, shows no instances in which the bank has publicly identified borrowers for any of its loans in non-performing status.

But bankers and other business people are monitoring Ocean Bank's loans to Terremark, which operates at the Technology Center with the NAP.

In a filing with the SEC on Feb. 14, Terremark said it is negotiating a restructuring of its

$44 million in debt owed to Ocean Bank.

Terremark said it owes $1 million in unpaid interest on that credit.

In the filing, Terremark said it had obtained a letter from Ocean Bank waiving any current default under its credit agreement resulting from past due interest or from $22.6 million in liens that creditors have on the TECOTA building.

The waiver from Ocean Bank is through March 31.

That deadline is raising questions about whether and when the bank might take charges on its Terremark loan or on other problem loans.

Townsend said her agency has no indications that any such actions are pending.

Ocean Bank's Call Report for Dec. 31 shows $50.1 million in commercial and industrial loans that are in nonaccrual status and

$29.3 million in construction and land development loans in that status.

Precursor to a writedown?

If a bank charges off or writes down a large total of nonaccrual loans, it subtracts the amount from its loan reserves.

In quarters when a bank takes such action, it usually adds money to those reserves – often under orders from regulators.

Money a bank adds to reserves is reported as an expense, which reduces a quarter's income and in some cases can lead to a quarterly loss.

Ken Thomas, a Miami banking consultant, said he does not know which of Ocean Bank's loans are in nonaccrual status.

But he said that when large real estate loans are written down, a bank usually gains recovery on a large amount within several quarters, often through sales of property.

Thus, he said, Ocean Bank's current level of reserves might enable it to cover a large share of any writedowns.

Thomas said he feels that Ocean Bank has "strong management, and a good track record including managing of their portfolio."

At the end of last year, Ocean Bank had $327 million in Tier I capital, a figure similar to equity. Its ratio of that capital to assets was 7.92 percent – almost twice what regulators require for adequate capitalization.

But Ocean Bank's nonperforming loans are a main reason the bank is rated only in the high "adequate" range by Bauer Financial of Coral Gables.

For the quarter ended Sept. 30, Ocean Bank has a three-star rating from Bauer Financial, which rates banks on a one to five scale, with five being the highest, based on factors that include profitability, capital and loan delinquencies.

E-mail contributing writer Jim Freer at jimfreer@aol.com.

www.sun-sentinel.com Posted March 14 2003

You can exercise the adventurous side of your palate as well as your high-school Spanish at Karibe, where plates of tequenos y pasteles and arepitas con nata arrive alongside bandeja paiza, pabellon nacional and parrilla criolla. Huh?

Don't fret if you didn't get most of that. It's tricky -- unless you're well versed in the cuisines of Venezuela, Columbia and Cuba. If not, look to the helpful staff at this friendly spot. They'll explain the menu (in Spanish with English subtitles) with as much detail as you're willing to take in. The result should add up to a better understanding of three cuisines, and, perhaps, your new found status as an aficionado.

You might recognize the word tostones on this menu, but you probably haven't had them the way they make them here -- Caracas-style. Listed as an appetizer ($5.99), the portion is enough to share with several people or can be a meal in itself since it fills up a dinner-size plate with layers of goodies. The base is large discs of crisply fried green plantains topped with shredded lettuce, peppers, onions, enough shredded beef (ropa vieja) to more than satisfy, a dusting of Parmesan cheese, and several plops of yellow ballpark mustard, of all things. Pick it up and eat it like pizza or with a knife and fork and enjoy this multidimensional discovery of textures and flavors.

If you visit when the Columbian gem ajico is the soup du jour ($2.99 per cup; $4.99 bowl), you're in for a treat. The broth is clear and flavorful, filled with boneless chicken breast, potatoes and sliced corn on the cob. A taste delight in itself -- even better with two accompanying accoutrements -- a dollop of rich crèma (the Mexican version of crème fraiche) and capers.

Even the house empanadas ($1) are a different experience from the norm. These tidy packages have a gritty corn meal crust instead of the usual flour dough and are plump with nicely seasoned ground meat and potatoes.

Or, enjoy queso frito ($2.99), delicious triangles of fried queso blanco that pulls like taffy when you eat it. Tequenos y pastels ($5.99), golden brown fried dough twisted attractively around more queso blanco makes great finger food, but my favorite first course is cachapas -- a Venezuelan style open-face arepa ($4.50). The foundation is a sweet corn studded crisp fried pancake (like the best corn fritter you ever ate) topped with cheese and ham, pork, chicken or beef.

Regular arepas are more like sandwiches ($2.50 with any of the same fillings) and come wrapped in deli paper, while arepitas ($3.50) are mini versions of the bigger model.

For a garlic-lover's main course, have filet de pollo ajillo ($7.95) a massive portion of sauteed chicken breast fillets in telltale garlic sauce with peppers and onions.

There's also good churrasco ($9.95) and lechon asado ($7.95), or try a Columbian country platter -- a steal at $8.50 for a feast of thin cut pork chops, chicharrones, a palomilla steak, a meaty chorizo chub and arepitas -- all topped with a fried egg. There's a similar platter from Venezuela called parrilla criolla ($11.95), another meat-eaters smorgasbord with some of the same ingredients as well as grilled chicken breast.

We loved the full flavors of the tomato based sauce in cazuela de mariscos ($10.95), a stewlike combination of mussels, squid, fish chunks, scallops, tiny shrimp and imitation crab. But most of the seafood was overcooked by American standards.

Most desserts don't match the rest of the meal and that's too bad. The flan de caramelo we did try ($2.50) was uneventful, as was tres leches ($2.50). Skip dessert and concentrate on the rest of the tasty geographical menu at this melting pot dedicated to Latin American fare.

Please phone in advance to confirm information on hours, prices, menu items and facilities. For review consideration, please fax a current menu that includes name and address of restaurant to 954-356-4386 or send to Sun-Sentinel, 200 E. Las Olas Blvd., Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-2293.

If you would like to contact dining correspondent Judith Stocks, e-mail her at judithstocksreviews@yahoo .com or write to her in care of the Sun-Sentinel.

www.scoop.co.nz Friday, 14 March 2003, 11:01 am Press Release: US State Department

Remarks to the U.S. Senate Youth Program

Richard L. Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State Benjamin Franklin Room Washington, DC March 4, 2003

Well thank you, Mr. Rordam and Mr. Willis [Albert Rordam and Larry Willis, participants in the Senate Youth Program] and thank you all. That s as nice an introduction as I ve ever had, and I m very grateful.

Now let me welcome all of you to this beautiful Ben Franklin room at the Department of State. Let me give you the advertisement first. The advertisement is it s paid for entirely by private funds, no public money We have to tell our Members of Congress that when they come here and see such a splendid place, because they immediately think about cutting our budget. [laughter] These are all your fellow citizens donations. And they make us quite proud, and it very much represents the history of our country.

This is quite fitting, I think, that a room such as this should be known as the Ben or Benjamin Franklin room. Not just because it is the site of many festive occasions, and good food and an occasional glass of wine. But also because this is where some of the most serious affairs of statecraft are concluded and conducted. And as you have no doubt already been reminded, Ben Franklin was this nation s first diplomat.

Some 226 years ago, Ben Franklin traveled to France to secure assistance in our struggle to establish an independent state. Now, I believe we all were taught about Lafayette and about the Statue of Liberty, about the longtime connection and affection between France and America. But I don t recall ever learning in school how hard it was to actually forge that link. Indeed, Franklin s primary mission in France was to persuade a very reluctant King and his court to abandon the policy of neutrality they had held at the time and to actively support the American cause against the British. It was slow going. At one dinner, a condescending nobleman turned to Mr. Franklin and said; It is a grand game you are playing in the colonies with the British what a fine spectacle you are offering us. A frustrated Franklin shot back Yes, but the spectators unfortunately are not paying up. [Laughter.] I believe the French have a saying, what is it, the more things change, the more they stay the same? [Laughter.]

Certainly, the work of diplomats hasn t gotten any easier in the centuries since. Nor, apparently, has our relationship with France. But in most other aspects and respects, I think it is safe to say that the world is seeing a great deal of change right now. And indeed, your visit to this city comes at a particularly eventful time. This week started in Pakistan with the capture of Khalid Sheikh Muhammed, whom we believe to be the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, and it will end on Friday with the report of UN weapons inspectors, Mr. Blix and Dr. el-Baradei, on Iraq s disarmament. Now I m sure all of us are watching with some interest the destruction of a few al-Samoud missiles in Iraq, but those missiles are simply a drop in the bucket. According to the United Nations, Iraq still has thousands of chemical and biological munitions and warheads, as well as tons tons of chemical and biological weapons and precursors. And we haven t said a thing about the 25,000 liters of anthrax. But of course, Iraq is hardly our only concern at the moment. We were speaking at the table about the developments on the Korean Peninsula, where 37,000 American men and women continue to serve, and on any given day, about 140,000 of our citizens are present in Seoul or the immediate environs. The tough talk coming out of Pyongyang would, for that reason and more, be of direct concern to us in any case, but it is especially troubling given that we now know that government is actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Actively pursuing that program while six million North Koreans are at risk of starving to death. The situation is grim, but I do believe, as our President said, that we will be able to grope and crawl and fight our way through to a diplomatic solution. And, of course, this Department is going to be working closely with our allies and our partners in the region, in northeast Asia, toward that very end.

And just last week, you may have seen in the papers, Afghan President Hamid Karzai came to Washington to discuss the future of that country. While there is no question that the 23 million people of Afghanistan are far better off today than they were under the rule of the Taliban and al-Qaida, there is still plenty of work to be done. Both in terms of ongoing military operations against terrorists and the international humanitarian effort to stabilize the situation.

While I would say that Iraq and North Korea and Afghanistan are certainly some of the main focal points for State Department activity now, they are not our only priorities. We have Americans today being held hostage by drug-running thugs in Colombia and violent unrest cropping up in Cote D Ivoire and in Venezuela. This morning, some of my colleagues testified on Capitol Hill about the Millennium Challenge Account, our new foreign aid program, which will deliver billions of dollars to countries most in need and most able to put the money to good use, for the benefit of their citizens. And tomorrow, Congress will look at our HIV/AIDS programs and prevention around the world. I should note that this terrible pandemic has the potential to be one of the most destabilizing and disastrous international tragedies in my or your lifetimes.

Moreover, these priorities don t even begin to account for the day to day work that goes into forming this nation s foreign policy. In fact, the people sitting at your tables, hosting your visits here today, in many cases, my colleagues, are a good representative sample of our work. They do everything from negotiating the finer points of treaties and agreements to sharing our nation s best values and best visions with the rest of the world. Many of your hosts basically keep this building running, including by making sure the thousands of visitors who come here are treated right and, along with our own employees, are kept safe. Basically, the bottom line is that what the people in this room do every day, in fact, everything we do in this Department, it all matters, in an immediate and sometimes in an urgent way. And it often has a lasting effect.

Now, as the Deputy Secretary of State, it s my job to keep track of all of this work, both as the Chief Operating Officer to Secretary Powell, who s the Chief Executive Officer, and also as an adviser to the President. I can tell you that I ve fought battles in my time for this country in war. I built my own business in a time of peace. I ve traveled around the world. I ve tried to cherish my family here at home. But the fact is that nothing, nothing, has been quite like working here.

Working in government, especially in this place at this time, is really in a way like being in the center of a maelstrom. It s exciting. It s terribly addictive. And, I must admit, it can be exhausting. But I have to tell you that this is the life, the life of public service, that no matter what I do and where I go, keeps calling me back to Washington.

I m going to make an assumption that all of you are at least seriously considering a career in public service. You d not have been selected for this program, indeed, for this prestigious program, if you weren t. And I d like to say that this is an important time for you to make that choice. Indeed, I think it s an important time for all of our brothers and sisters to make a choice.

September 11th taught us all that we can no longer afford to look at the safety and security of our lives as somebody else s responsibility. It s no longer a matter of someone else s son or daughter, or for some of you in this room, maybe your father or mother, defending our interests halfway around the world. Because the front line of this fight is not only in the caves of Tora Bora. On September 11th, it ran through the 104th Floor of the North Tower. And the 4th Corridor of the Pentagon E-ring. In October of last year, 2002, it ran through a nightclub in Bali. And last weekend, it ran through an apartment in Pakistan. The stark truth is that our way of life is under attack. And in that sense, all Americans are on the front line. And so we all need to know what it is we stand for and we all need to take a stand.

We need to know that we stand for liberty of belief and for freedom of action. Fairness. Justice. Full protection of the rule of law. The right to opportunity for all. The energy and optimism of the American spirit. But we also need to know that we are hardly alone in holding these values. No one in this world wants to be denied the right to worship God, or to speak or to think freely. No one wants to hear the midnight knock of the secret police, come to take away a loved one in the dead of night. No one wants to be denied the ability to put food on the table or children in school.

And that is why today, we are taking a stand in Afghanistan and in Iraq. I know there is a tremendous amount of concern around the world and in our own country and in this room, I m sure, about both situations. And in particular, how to handle Saddam Hussein. I think it s quite understandable. I ll tell you that one of the more difficult challenges of governance is learning to ask the right questions. But finding the right solutions is, without a doubt, and order of magnitude more difficult. There is rarely an obvious way to address even the simplest foreign policy matter. War is, without question, never going to be this nation s preferred solution. Never. War is horrible. And as Vietnam veterans, I think both Secretary Powell and I believe we have a special responsibility to do everything in our power to see that the mistakes our government made then are not repeated today.

At the same time, we as a nation can t allow a sensible reluctance to fight prevent us from using force if force is necessary to protect and defend thisnation. And the fact is that this nation, and, indeed, the United Nations, cannot afford to stand idly by while Saddam Hussein, a ruthless, ambitious dictator with no regard for international law and the will of the community of nations or even for the welfare of his own people, keeps and continues to amass chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

And I think all Americans, regardless of whether we are marching in formation or in protest, we all share a fundamental belief that this is a nation worth defending. So today, we must all be prepared to take a stand not just in Afghanistan and not just in Iraq, but also here at home.

There is a scene toward the end of Shakespeare s Macbeth where, after amortizing his soul and nearly every shred of his humanity to ambition, Macbeth has a moment of clarity, when he realizes what he has done and he speaks with devastating insight about the futility of life. It is a tale told by an idiot, he says, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. And while Macbeth s circumstances were extraordinary, to say the least, far too many people in our country will reach the end of their lives to find themselves haunted by that same sentiment. But all of you in this room today have a chance to see something different when you stop and you take stock of your lives and yourselves, because you have a chance to live a life of significance.

At a remembrance ceremony this past September 11th, our President said; There is a line in our time and in every time, between the defenders of human liberty and those who seek to master the minds and souls of others. Our generation has heard history s call and we will answer it. So, in these coming years as you define your futures, I challenge each of you to find your own way to answer that call, to rediscover for your generation what it truly means to be an American in this world. And to redefine the concept of citizenship as a personal test of commitment, as well as an affirmation of the dynamic values and durable ideals that make us all American.

Indeed, I hope this week in Washington helps you in that endeavor and I certainly appreciate the opportunity to talk with all of you, the next Greatest Generation. [End]

Released on March 13, 2003

www.upi.com From the National Desk Published 3/6/2003 1:16 PM BOSTON, March 6 (UPI) -- New York Times

With yesterday's barely veiled French and Russian threat to veto a war resolution, the United Nations Security Council appears to be rapidly approaching a crippling deadlock over Iraq. That would be the worst of all possible outcomes. It would lift the diplomatic pressure on Iraq to disarm and sever the few remaining restraints that have kept the Bush administration from going to war with its motley ad hoc coalition of allies.

The rupture in the Security Council is not just another bump in the road in the showdown with Iraq. It could lead to a serious, possibly fatal, breakdown in the system of collective security that was fashioned in the waning days of World War II, a system that finally seemed to be reaching its potential in the years since the end of the cold war. Whatever comes of the conflict with Iraq, the world will have lost before any fighting begins if the Security Council is ruined as a mechanism for unified international action.

The first casualty is likely to be the effort to use coercive diplomacy to disarm Iraq. ...

There may be a few days more for diplomacy to play out on Iraq, but it is already clear that the great powers on the Security Council, particularly the United States and France, have brought the United Nations to the brink of just the kind of paralysis and powerlessness that they warned would be so damaging to the world.

-0- Washington Times

During a visit to The Washington Times last week, journalists from Venezuela detailed the physical dangers they are facing. And to the extent that the freedom of the press gauges the health of a country's democracy, the intimidation and harassment of the media in Venezuela signals a wider problem for the society and, if instability spreads, for the region.

Luis Alfonso Fernandez is probably Venezuela's most famous reporter. He and his cameramen covered, from the rooftop of a building in Caracas, snipers opening fire at protesters during the infamous demonstration against President Hugo Chavez on April 11 that killed 17 persons. Later, on April 13, as supporters of Mr. Chavez protested a short-lived coup, 23 protesters, probably supporters of the president, were killed.

Mr. Fernandez ... documented a member of Mr. Chavez's party in the City Council of Caracas shooting at protesters. Mr. Chavez has charged Mr. Fernandez for fabricating his report in a computer. ...

Last month, the Chavez government began "administrative procedures" against media outlets for airing reports unflattering to the government. ...

Regardless of how Mr. Chavez and his supporters regard the objectivity the press in Venezuela, the president would make a big mistake to limit its freedoms. After all, Mr. Chavez can use speeches and state-owned outlets to counter any perceived subjectivity or inaccuracies.

Weakened accountability could well result in serious human rights abuses in Venezuela, as seen in other places in the world.

-0- Washington Post

North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il has one big advantage in his face-off with the Bush administration: He has a clear strategy. His regime is racing to produce nuclear weapons, while taking steadily escalating steps to force the United States into direct negotiations at which Pyongyang can demand political recognition, security guarantees and economic bribes. Most experts believe North Korea has the means to achieve at least one of those aims, and maybe both. Once it opens a reprocessing plant now being readied, something that could happen within weeks, it will be able to produce one nuclear bomb a month. If that doesn't succeed in bringing Washington to the table, Mr. Kim can always use military provocations, like the attempt last weekend to force down a U.S. surveillance plane on North Korean territory.

There are no easy answers to the North Korean challenge, but the Bush team seems incapable of any answer at all -- or at least, of any coherent answer. ...

Though Mr. Bush was right to restore it as an option, military action must be a last and desperate resort, because it would risk mass destruction in South Korea. Multilateral pressure may be the best approach, because the Clinton administration strategy of trading economic and political concessions for unfulfilled North Korean promises has been discredited. But if direct contacts between Washington and Pyongyang could serve some purpose, they should be tried. At a minimum, the administration could clearly communicate what specific steps the North must take to restore its relations with the outside world -- and what actions will not be tolerated by the United States. Talking to this ruthless and untrustworthy regime is surely distasteful, and may well be fruitless. But it is better than doing nothing.

-0- Christian Science Monitor

The views of Americans about whether to go to war, as in Iraq, can be influenced by they way the US media has covered -- or couldn't cover -- past wars.

In Vietnam, for instance, wide-open access for journalists helped expose inherent problems in that war and made Americans gun-shy of more wars -- for a while. In Somalia, they saw US soldiers humiliated by local thugs. In the Gulf and Afghanistan wars, however, the Pentagon had learned to keep reporters away from fighting units.

Americans now have grown accustomed to what seem like relatively "clean" wars -- usually just flashes on CNN. Many of war's tragedies go unheard and unseen, like a tree falling in the forest.

But in its plans for war in Iraq, the Pentagon has decided more media coverage is better than less. It hopes journalists will present the "facts" and counter misinformation. It's started to "embed" some 500 journalists inside military units and will allow them to record almost any action that won't compromise a US victory. The journalists have had to agree to pages and pages of rules to gain that access. Local commanders will have much authority over what they do and can impose blackouts.

This experiment bears careful watching. While Americans may benefit from reports of frontline action, they must also ask if journalists will become too "embedded." How much will reporters compromise impartiality and their freedom to roam to maintain such access?

A journalist's first rule is not to become part of the story. Yet by relying on the military for protection (and room, board, flak jackets, etc.), the media expose themselves to being targets, as well as being codependent on their subjects. News organizations eager to cover the war (sometimes too eager) must alert their audiences to the conditions imposed on these journalists.

-0- Chicago Tribune

It's hard to know what France, Germany and Russia intended Wednesday when they said they would not let the United Nations Security Council approve a resolution authorizing war against Iraq.

Maybe the three nations are serious. Maybe they're stalling for time by threatening to block the council's Resolution 1441, which gave Saddam Hussein one final, immediate chance to disarm -- a distant 119 days ago. Or maybe the Europeans were just testing Bush's determination to make the nations that approved 1441 stand by its threat of enforcement. Those yes voters, of course, included France and Russia; Germany has since joined the council.

The appeasers did not have the limelight to themselves. Secretary of State Colin Powell charged that Iraq is hiding machinery to make new al-Samoud missiles even as it hands over other missiles for disposal by the UN. ...

President Bush is correct to pursue international approval for an attack on Iraq. But at some point he needs to choose:

He can defer to those who want the inspections fiasco to drag on and on and on with no hard conclusion and no enforcement.

Or he can say that as the heat and wind build in Iraq, he will not imperil his troops by asking them to fight in more dangerous weather because nations that voted for Resolution 1441 now pretend it doesn't exist.

-0- Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

If the Bush administration wants its position on global climate change to be taken seriously, it needs to get serious about keeping a presidential promise and coming up with a plan to address the issue. Granted, the administration has much on its plate right now. But so far, appearing serious on climate change seems to be missing from that plate.

At least that's the impression one gets from a report released last week by a panel of the National Academies, which commended the administration for addressing global warming but criticized the administration's draft plan for having serious gaps. ...

What the administration needs to do is change the appearance by demonstrating that it is serious about finding out what's really going on with the climate. It can start by paying heed to the National Academies report and making the necessary changes in the final plan, due out next month.

-0- (Compiled by United Press International)