McCain close by distancing Bush

• Story Highlights
• Voters weighing up risk of change of Obama against experience of McCain
  
• McCain web site and ads asking what an Obama presidency would be like
  
• McCain also promoting differences between himself and President Bush
  
• Obama asking Reagan's question: Are you better off now than four years ago?
  

By CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider

Economists have devised elaborate forecasting models to predict this year's election. What goes into the models?

The economy (bad). The president's popularity (low). Attitude toward the war in Iraq (weary). Desire for change (high). Put 'em all together, stir briskly and what forecast comes out? A huge Democratic landslide.

Strange, then, that the polls are showing a close race. Why? Two reasons -- John McCain and Barack Obama.

Imagine what this campaign would look like if President Bush were running for re-election, or if Vice President Dick Cheney were running to succeed him.

Landslide would be an understatement. But McCain is not part of the Bush Administration. He takes pains to make that clear. "We've disagreed over the conduct of the war and the treatment of detainees, over out-of-control government spending and budget gimmicks, over energy policy and climate change," McCain said in June.

A whopping three quarters of Americans believe things are going badly in the country, according to the latest CNN poll conducted by the Opinion Research Corporation.

Voters who feel that way have a very low opinion of President Bush (21 percent approval). But their displeasure does not seem to extend to McCain. Fifty-six percent say they like McCain.

Obama has a problem, too. He's new, he's young, he's relatively inexperienced and he doesn't have strong national security credentials. His race? That doesn't seem to be nearly as big a problem. At least as many whites seem to be voting FOR Obama because he's black -- and therefore a political outsider -- as are voting against him because he's black.

Still, a lot of voters see Obama as risky business. Democratic Obama blames the problem on Republicans. "What they're going to try to argue is that somehow, I'm too risky," Obama said last month. "We know we didn't do a good job, but he's too risky."

McCain's negative ads are keeping the focus on Obama. Obama dominates the Republicans Party's web site. By nearly two to one, voters say they are paying more attention to what kind of President Obama would be than what kind of President McCain would be. The election is turning into a referendum on Obama.

It's supposed to be a referendum on President Bush and the status quo. The country's mood is as bad now as it was in 1980, when Jimmy Carter was running for re-election and Ronald Reagan promised change.

People saw Reagan as risky, too. The 1980 election was close until the last week of the campaign, when Reagan asked voters, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" Here's Obama, addressing voters in Florida last week: "I want to ask you a simple question, maybe a familiar one. Are you better off now than you were four years ago, or eight years ago?"

Obama is promising change. The downside of change is risk. If you want change, you have to take risks. The two go together.

All AboutDemocratic Party • Barack Obama • John McCain • Republican Party

Find this article at: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/14/ct.change.risk

SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close

Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.

� 2008 Cable News Network

Bush hits Russia on 'bullying and intimidation'

Image via Wikipedia

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush on Friday accused Russia of "bullying and intimidation" in its harsh military treatment of Georgia, saying the people in the former Soviet republic have chosen freedom and "we will not cast them aside."

Bush ratcheted up his rhetoric against Moscow as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was in Tbilisi, Georgia to pursue a diplomatic solution to the week-old crisis. Standing alongside Rice, pro-Western President Mikhail Saakashvili said he had signed a cease-fire agreement with Russia that protects Georgia's interests despite concessions to Moscow.

Rice said all Russian troops "must leave immediately" and said she had been told that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev will sign an identical pact.

The rush of events came as Bush began a two-week holiday from Washington. He left the White House after his remarks and flew to his ranch in Texas. Rice is to arrive there early Saturday to brief the president about the showdown between Moscow and Tbilisi over two separatist provinces in Georgia.

"Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity must be respected," said Bush, speaking just outside the Oval Office.

With just five months remaining in his administration, Bush faces one of his biggest foreign policy challenges in dealing with a suddenly assertive Russia, along with unfinished wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the deeply troubled search for peace in the Middle East. Bush's influence is waning as the world turns its attention to the race to determine who will succeed him.

Bush said that Russia, with its air, sea and land attacks in Georgia, had damaged its relations with the United States and other Western powers.

"Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century," the president said. "Only Russia can decide whether it will now put itself back on the path of responsible nations or continue to pursue a policy that promises only confrontation and isolation.

"To begin repairing relations with the United States, Europe and other nations and to begin restoring its place in the world, Russia must respect the freedom of its neighbors," Bush said.

The White House has hedged on what consequences Russia might face. The administration is considering expelling Russia from international groups such as the Group of Eight industrialized nations. Questions also have been raised about U.S. cooperation with Russia in space.

"We need to see where this all ends up," White House deputy press secretary Gordon Johndroe said on Air Force One, flying to Texas with Bush. "We are hopeful that we can continue cooperation with the Russians — and that's across the board. But a lot of this depends on Russia, and what Russia's actions are in the near future. Right now their actions have been inconsistent ... with the fundamental principles of a Europe whole, free and at peace. So cooperation on a wide range of issues going forward depends on the actions that Russia takes."

Even before the crisis in Georgia, tensions between Washington and Moscow have been rising over disputes such as the independence of Kosovo, NATO's expansion toward Russia's borders and U.S. plans for a missile defense system in Eastern Europe. Moscow was infuriated when the United States and Poland reached a deal Thursday to install a U.S. missile defense base on Polish territory.

Still, Bush said, "The Cold War is over. The days of satellite states and spheres of influence are behind us."

The United States has rushed humanitarian aid to Georgia, using U.S. military planes that put American forces in the midst of the showdown with Moscow.

"Moscow must honor its commitment to withdraw its invading forces from all Georgian territory," Bush said.

The president said Americans might be perplexed why the United States had drawn a line in the sand in defense of Georgia, an impoverished country that is largely unknown on the world stage.

"In the years since its gained independence after the Soviet Union's collapse, Georgia's become a courageous democracy," Bush said. "It's people are making the tough choices that are required of free societies. Since the Rose Revolution in 2003, the Georgian people have held free elections, opened up their economy, and built the foundations of a successful democracy."

Aligning itself firmly with Washington, Georgia sent troops to Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush visited Georgia in a show of solidarity and promised that the United States would stand with the former Soviet republic.

"The people of Georgia have cast their lot with the free world, and we will not cast them aside," the president pledged on Friday.

Bush on Friday called President Toomas Hendrik Ilves of Estonia to talk about the situation in Georgia.'

Hosted by

Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Bush begins raising money for McCain

By JENNIFER LOVEN

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush starts raising money for John McCain's campaign next week, but with the three fundraisers closed and McCain attending only one, there will be almost no chance for the public to see the outgoing and incoming Republican party leaders together.

The White House announced Friday that Bush will be the main attraction at events for the likely GOP presidential nominee on Tuesday and Wednesday in Phoenix, Salt Lake City and Park City, Utah. In addition to building up the McCain campaign account, the fundraisers will also benefit the national Republican Party, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said.

All are being held in private residences, and one in Utah is being hosted by McCain's former GOP rival, Mitt Romney, a potential vice presidential pick for the Arizona senator.

During the Bush presidency, the press has nearly always been banned from fundraisers in private homes. Former President Clinton sometimes allowed the press into such fundraising settings, at least for his remarks.

Bush press secretary Dana Perino said the fundraisers are closed because it has been the McCain camp's policy to close all money events. "That's their practice and we will respect it," she said. She added, however, that it is possible the two men would appear together waving at television cameras in Arizona upon arrival or departure of the president's plane.

The press has nearly always been banned from Bush's fundraisers in private homes. Former President Clinton sometimes allowed the press into such fundraising settings, at least for his remarks.

Bush's low approval ratings have raised questions about whether he will help or hurt McCain, especially as the Democratic candidates have argued that a McCain administration would amount to a third Bush term. In the latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll last month, 28 percent approved of the job Bush is doing, his lowest rating ever in the survey.

Bush and McCain have not been together since March 5, when the president officially announced his endorsement of the likely GOP nominee in the White House's Rose Garden. Officials have declined to elaborate on how much they might campaign together, either to raise money or do traditional campaign rallies.

But the White House and the McCain operation have been coordinating their messages behind the scenes. Perino said a few of Bush's people have been designated to trade information with McCain's aides.

"We want to make sure that we're not stepping on each other's toes or getting in the way of something that they want to accomplish," she said.

For instance, McCain and Bush gave Cuba speeches this week, McCain's on Cuba's independence day, Bush's a day after. Bush announced a minor change in policy, and Perino said the White House offered to give McCain's camp the details ahead of time. However, she said, no one from the campaign called back to take them up on it.

Bush has headlined numerous fundraisers for the Republican National Committee this election cycle, starting last year. That money will certainly be used in large part to boost McCain's campaign. But the events next week are the first involving Bush that directly funnel cash into McCain's campaign.

During Bush's three-day trip, he is also holding official presidential events at a Mesa, Ariz., cable company Tuesday and at the U.S. Air Force Academy commencement Wednesday. Under the complicated formula for allocating the cost of presidential travel when he is doing party events, the presence of official events on his schedule dramatically reduces the cost to McCain's campaign for Bush's campaign appearances.

Hosted by

Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder

The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder By Vincent Bugliosi, Vanguard Press Posted on May 24, 2008, Printed on May 24, 2008 http://www.alternet.org/story/86232/ The following is an excerpt from Vincent Bugliosi's new book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. With respect to the position I take about the crimes of George Bush, I want to state at the outset that my motivation is not political. Although I've been a longtime Democrat (primarily because, unless there is some very compelling reason to be otherwise, I am always for "the little guy"), my political orientation is not rigid. For instance, I supported John McCain's run for the presidency in 2000. More to the point, whether I'm giving a final summation to the jury or writing one of my true crime books, credibility has always meant everything to me. Therefore, my only master and my only mistress are the facts and objectivity. I have no others. This is why I can give you, the reader, a 100 percent guarantee that if a Democratic president had done what Bush did, I would be writing the same, identical piece you are about to read. Perhaps the most amazing thing to me about the belief of many that George Bush lied to the American public in starting his war with Iraq is that the liberal columnists who have accused him of doing this merely make this point, and then go on to the next paragraph in their columns. Only very infrequently does a columnist add that because of it Bush should be impeached. If the charges are true, of course Bush should have been impeached, convicted, and removed from office. That's almost too self-evident to state. But he deserves much more than impeachment. I mean, in America, we apparently impeach presidents for having consensual sex outside of marriage and trying to cover it up. If we impeach presidents for that, then if the president takes the country to war on a lie where thousands of American soldiers die horrible, violent deaths and over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, including women and children, even babies are killed, the punishment obviously has to be much, much more severe. That's just common sense. If Bush were impeached, convicted in the Senate, and removed from office, he'd still be a free man, still be able to wake up in the morning with his cup of coffee and freshly squeezed orange juice and read the morning paper, still travel widely and lead a life of privilege, still belong to his country club and get standing ovations whenever he chose to speak to the Republican faithful. This, for being responsible for over 100,000 horrible deaths?* For anyone interested in true justice, impeachment alone would be a joke for what Bush did. Let's look at the way some of the leading liberal lights (and, of course, the rest of the entire nation with the exception of those few recommending impeachment) have treated the issue of punishment for Bush's cardinal sins. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote about "the false selling of the Iraq War. We were railroaded into an unnecessary war." Fine, I agree. Now what? Krugman just goes on to the next paragraph. But if Bush falsely railroaded the nation into a war where over 100,000 people died, including 4,000 American soldiers, how can you go on to the next paragraph as if you had been writing that Bush spent the weekend at Camp David with his wife? For doing what Krugman believes Bush did, doesn't Bush have to be punished commensurately in some way? Are there no consequences for committing a crime of colossal proportions? Al Franken, on the "David Letterman" show, said, "Bush lied to us to take us to war" and quickly went on to another subject, as if he was saying "Bush lied to us in his budget." Sen. Edward Kennedy, condemning Bush, said that "Bush's distortions misled Congress in its war vote" and "No president of the United States should employ distortion of truth to take the nation to war." But, Senator Kennedy, if a president does this, as you believe Bush did, then what? Remember, Clinton was impeached for allegedly trying to cover up a consensual sexual affair. What do you recommend for Bush for being responsible for more than 100,000 deaths? Nothing? He shouldn't be held accountable for his actions? If one were to listen to you talk, that is the only conclusion one could come to. But why, Senator Kennedy, do you, like everyone else, want to give Bush this complete free ride? The New York Times, in a June 17, 2004, editorial, said that in selling this nation on the war in Iraq, "the Bush administration convinced a substantial majority of Americans before the war that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to 9/11 … inexcusably selling the false Iraq-Al Qaeda claim to Americans." But gentlemen, if this is so, then what? The New York Times didn't say, just going on, like everyone else, to the next paragraph, talking about something else. In a Nov. 15, 2005, editorial, the New York Times said that "the president and his top advisers … did not allow the American people, or even Congress, to have the information necessary to make reasoned judgments of their own. It's obvious that the Bush administration misled Americans about Mr. Hussein's weapons and his terrorist connections." But if it's "obvious that the Bush administration misled Americans" in taking them to a war that tens of thousands of people have paid for with their lives, now what? No punishment? If not, under what theory? Again, you're just going to go on to the next paragraph? I'm not going to go on to the next unrelated paragraph. In early December of 2005, a New York Times-CBS nationwide poll showed that the majority of Americans believed Bush "intentionally misled" the nation to promote a war in Iraq. A Dec. 11, 2005, article in the Los Angeles Times, after citing this national poll, went on to say that because so many Americans believed this, it might be difficult for Bush to get the continuing support of Americans for the war. In other words, the fact that most Americans believed Bush had deliberately misled them into war was of no consequence in and of itself. Its only consequence was that it might hurt his efforts to get support for the war thereafter. So the article was reporting on the effect of the poll findings as if it was reporting on the popularity, or lack thereof, of Bush's position on global warming or immigration. Didn't the author of the article know that Bush taking the nation to war on a lie (if such be the case) is the equivalent of saying he is responsible for well over 100,000 deaths? One would never know this by reading the article. If Bush, in fact, intentionally misled this nation into war, what is the proper punishment for him? Since many Americans routinely want criminal defendants to be executed for murdering only one person, if we weren't speaking of the president of the United States as the defendant here, to discuss anything less than the death penalty for someone responsible for over 100,000 deaths would on its face seem ludicrous.** But we are dealing with the president of the United States here. On the other hand, the intensity of rage against Bush in America has been such (it never came remotely this close with Clinton because, at bottom, there was nothing of any real substance to have any serious rage against him for) that if I heard it once I heard it 10 times that "someone should put a bullet in his head." That, fortunately, is just loose talk, and even more fortunately not the way we do things in America. In any event, if an American jury were to find Bush guilty of first-degree murder, it would be up to them to decide what the appropriate punishment should be, one of their options being the imposition of the death penalty. Although I have never heard before what I am suggesting -- that Bush be prosecuted for murder in an American courtroom -- many have argued that "Bush should be prosecuted for war crimes" (mostly for the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo) at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands. But for all intents and purposes this cannot be done. *Even assuming, at this point, that Bush is criminally responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 people in the Iraq war, under federal law he could only be prosecuted for the deaths of the 4,000 American soldiers killed in the war. No American court would have jurisdiction to prosecute him for the one hundred and some thousand Iraqi deaths since these victims not only were not Americans, but they were killed in a foreign nation, Iraq. Despite their nationality, if they had been killed here in the States, there would of course be jurisdiction. **Indeed, Bush himself, ironically, would be the last person who would quarrel with the proposition that being guilty of mass murder (even one murder, by his lights) calls for the death penalty as opposed to life imprisonment. As governor of Texas, Bush had the highest execution rate of any governor in American history: He was a very strong proponent of the death penalty who even laughingly mocked a condemned young woman who begged him to spare her life ("Please don't kill me," Bush mimicked her in a magazine interview with journalist Tucker Carlson), and even refused to commute the sentence of death down to life imprisonment for a young man who was mentally retarded (although as president he set aside the entire prison sentence of his friend Lewis "Scooter" Libby), and had a broad smile on his face when he announced in his second presidential debate with Al Gore that his state, Texas, was about to execute three convicted murderers. In Bush's two terms as Texas governor, he signed death warrants for an incredible 152 out of 153 executions against convicted murderers, the majority of whom killed one person. The only death sentence Bush commuted was for one of the many murders that mass murderer Henry Lucas had been convicted of. Bush was informed that Lucas had falsely confessed to this particular murder and was innocent, his conviction being improper. So in 152 out of 152 cases, Bush refused to show mercy even once, finding that not one of the 152 convicted killers should receive life imprisonment instead of the death penalty. Bush's perfect 100 percent execution rate is highly uncommon even for the most conservative law-and-order governors. Vincent Bugliosi's most famous trial, the Charles Manson case, became the basis of his classic, Helter Skelter, the biggest selling true-crime book in publishing history. His forthcoming book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, is available May 27. © 2008 Vanguard Press All rights reserved. View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/86232/

Georgia's President Takes Bid To Join NATO to Washington

WASHINGTON -- Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili warned NATO countries not to appease Russia by rejecting his country's hopes to join the alliance.

Following a White House meeting Wednesday, he was sanguine that President George W. Bush could persuade NATO allies to put Georgia on track for membership when Bush attends NATO's summit in Bucharest, Romania, April 2 to 4.

A strong supporter of Georgia's aspirations, Bush is expected to meet resistance from some European leaders, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Georgia's chances of joining a program leading to NATO membership will require the unanimous support of all 26 member countries.

Bush said he would press the issue at the summit.

"I believe that NATO benefits with a Georgia membership. I believe Georgia benefits from being a part of NATO," Bush said at a joint appearance with Saakashvili.

Saakashvili said efforts to resolve differences with Russia over Georgia's two breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia had become entangled in Russia's disagreement with Western countries over Kosovo. Russia has warned that Kosovo's declaration of independence from Serbia last month, and the West's recognition of it, could fuel other separatist movements.

On Thursday Saakashvili met U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who had just returned from Moscow.

The State Duma will vote Friday on a resolution calling for the Kremlin to consider recognizing Abkhazia and South Ossetia if Georgia joins NATO. The resolution is not binding.

AP, Reuters

US House panel chair probing Bush proviso on Sudan

By Susan Cornwell

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A senior U.S. lawmaker said on Friday that he would hold a hearing on whether President George W. Bush had undermined a new law designed to promote divestment from Sudan by expressing reservations about it as he signed it.

Rep. Barney Frank said the February 8 hearing will focus on the "negative implications" of the statement Bush issued late last year, as he signed the new law allowing state and local governments to divest from companies doing business with Sudan.

In a document called a "signing statement," Bush expressed concerns that the law could interfere with his right to direct foreign policy, and said he would not allow it to do so.

"As the Constitution vests the exclusive authority to conduct foreign relations with the federal government, the executive branch shall construe and enforce this legislation in a manner that does not conflict with that authority," Bush said in the statement.

The February 8 hearing will be held by the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee, which Frank chairs. Frank plans to call witnesses from the grass-roots organizations that had sought the legislation.

"We will have people from the (Save) Darfur movement, who will say, he's undercutting the very reason we wanted the bill," Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, told Reuters.

The legislation was aimed at pressuring Sudan to end the violence in the Darfur region, where 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million displaced in a four-year conflict that Bush calls a genocide.

Some 20 U.S. states have initiated divestment efforts because of the conflict. But the effort in Illinois was challenged in court, so the new law seeks to provide a legal framework for state and local governments, mutual funds and pension funds to divest from companies involved in Sudan's oil, mining, power and arms industries.

"The purpose (of the law) is to tell people they can go ahead and divest, without fear of being sued," Frank said.

But, he said, if Bush reserves the right to overrule the law, people will still be afraid to divest in companies that do business with Sudan.

Bush has frequently used signing statements to express reservations about laws. Some of his critics have argued that he has used them to expand presidential powers.

U.S. companies are generally barred from investing in Sudan already, so the divestment mostly affects foreign companies.

The Save Darfur Coalition, an alliance of more than 180 faith-based, advocacy and human rights organizations, has asked investors to divest their holdings in companies such as Malaysia's state-owned Petronas, India's Oil and Natural Gas Corp Ltd, and PetroChina Co Ltd, whose parent company, China National Petroleum Corp, is helping Sudan drill for oil.

© Reuters 2008. All Rights Reserved. | Learn more about Reuters

Bush Signals Troop Level May Stay Stable

By Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 1, 2008; Page A05

LAS VEGAS, Jan. 31 -- President Bush asserted Thursday that he would not be pressured into making further troop cuts in Iraq beyond the five combat brigades already scheduled to come home by the middle of the summer.

"We have come too far in this important theater, in this war on terror, not to make sure that we succeed," Bush told a friendly audience at an event sponsored by a conservative think tank. "I will be making decisions based upon success in Iraq. The temptation, of course, is for people to, you know, say, 'Well, make sure you do the politically right thing.' That's not my nature. That's not exactly what we're going to do."

The comments were the latest indication from the administration that it may keep the number of troops in Iraq at roughly the same level they were before last year's buildup of U.S. forces, possibly through the end of Bush's presidency. Under existing plans, the levels are gradually falling about 5,000 troops a month, from roughly 160,000 to 130,000 by July -- or approximately where they stood before Bush sent reinforcements to Iraq seeking to curtail spiraling sectarian violence.

Last fall, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates suggested that troop levels could continue falling, reaching 100,000 by 2009. But U.S. commanders in Iraq have suggested they would like to see a pause to determine whether recent security gains have taken root, and in recent statements -- such as his comments here -- Bush has indicated that he looks favorably upon such an approach.

The continuing signs that there will be a sizable U.S. troop presence in Iraq beyond the Bush presidency is becoming an increasing source of consternation for Capitol Hill Democrats, who have complained of recent steps from the White House to forge a long-term U.S. plan for Iraq.

"Presidents in the past such as Dwight Eisenhower knew that success meant creating a proper diplomatic environment in order to end a nation's military involvement," Sen. James Webb (D-Va.) said Thursday in response to the president's comments. "We are emphatically not seeing that kind of leadership from George W. Bush."

Democrats have criticized White House plans to forge a long-term security accord with the Iraq government, saying Bush wants to tie the hands of the next president -- a characterization the White House sharply disputes.

Democratic lawmakers have also complained about the "signing statement" Bush issued Monday in signing the defense authorization bill, in which the president suggested he might ignore language that bars funding for permanent U.S. bases in Iraq as well as U.S. control over Iraqi oil resources.

White House officials said their primary concern was that the bill's language regarding oil revenue could theoretically inhibit them from protecting Iraqi oil fields should that become necessary. "The bottom line is this: We do not need and we will not seek permanent bases in Iraq," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. "This is our policy and has always been our policy."

In statements this week, lawmakers castigated Bush for his latest signing statement. "The suggestion that he may disregard a law overwhelmingly approved by Congress, coupled with the president's intent to sign a long-term agreement obligating the United States to defend the Iraqi government from internal and external threats, only reaffirms to Americans that there is no end in sight to the war in Iraq," said Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Bush was in Las Vegas to continue three days of fundraising for the Republican Party and to highlight his recent State of the Union message. He also addressed the criticism that improvements in Iraqi security over the past year have not produced a corresponding political reconciliation, noting the recent passage of a law allowing former Baathists to return to government service, Iraqi work on developing a budget and the sharing of oil revenue throughout the country.

"You're watching a democracy evolve," Bush said.

"And it's important that we help them."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/31/AR2008013102420.html