The New York Times
As the nation learned so painfully on Sept. 11, nothing is more important to security than good intelligence. That means not only collecting reliable information about terrorist threats but collating it under one roof so connections and patterns can be spotted and timely warnings issued. President Bush has taken a sensible step in that direction with his decision to establish a new Terrorist Threat Integration Center and place it under the command of George Tenet, the nation's spy chief.
For too long there has been inadequate coordination among the dozen federal agencies involved in gathering intelligence about terrorist threats. Moving the analysis of information collected by the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Homeland Security, the Pentagon and other agencies into the new center should help curb turf rivalries and can reduce the likelihood that indications of another attack will be overlooked.
To be effective, however, the center, an expanded version of the C.I.A.'s existing counterterrorism shop, will have to be provided with sufficient resources. Without a corps of trained analysts, advanced computers and innovative software, the center will be unable to assess raw intelligence data quickly, sort out timely clues and bring them promptly to the attention of decision makers, including those in state and local governments. ...
The value of intelligence analysis coming out of the center will depend on the quality of raw data flowing in. Intelligence-gathering will still be scattered among different agencies, and Mr. Tenet will exercise only partial control over many of the larger organizations that are managed by the Pentagon. That fragmentation needs to be re-examined, but in doing so very clear distinctions must be maintained between the permissive rules of foreign intelligence gathering and the much stricter ones limiting government snooping on Americans.
Omaha World Herald
The central question to be asked about President Bush's broad Medicare reform plan is whether private competition can deliver on hopes of lowering taxpayer costs for the health care program.
Several factors point to the plan as a gamble, at best:
Severe shortcomings characterized the 1997 Medicare + Choice plan. Participation in the program is limited, many HMOs have pulled out of the program and, for most rural areas, it's not even available. The Bush administration, which is still developing the details behind the broad outline announced last week, says the new plan is not a revamp of Medicare + Choice, but the program's failings must be considered.
President Clinton's 1994 plan for managed competition and choice of insurance plans (sound familiar?) got a bad review from the Congressional Budget Office. The CBO concluded then "that the impact that managed competition would have on total health spending is highly uncertain."
Private insurance rates have been experiencing phenomenal premium increases, even though the vast majority of employer-sponsored plans include some sort of managed care. Will managed care do for the government what it hasn't done for the private sector?
Still, at some point, a big roll of the dice on Medicare is likely to be necessary. By 2030, the number of Americans on Medicare will almost double, to 77 million. The program faces another insolvency crisis at that point. Even without baby boomers' retirement, medical costs cannot keep growing faster than inflation without forcing either higher taxes or curtailed services.
None of that takes into account paying for a badly needed prescription drug benefit, either. (President Bush's plan to hold the drug benefit as a carrot for switching to a managed-care plan seems to stand little chance of passing.)
However Bush shapes the details of his plan before shipping it to Capitol Hill, it will of course emerge looking different after the process of debate and compromise. Whether or not Bush's plan to move to more managed-care options prevails, the Medicare debate is far from over.
Tucson (Ariz.) Citizen
President Bush can't have it both ways.
He can't invade Iraq and strengthen the U.S. economy at the same time, as he pledged to do in his State of the Union address Tuesday night.
Determined as he seemed to find a way to sit on both sides of the teeter-totter, Bush did so with mixed success, sending a strong, unmistakable message to Iraq, but continuing to push his tax-cut proposals in the face of a rapidly growing federal deficit and many domestic spending needs. ...
If Bush was hoping his speech might turn any constraint into a rallying cry to squash Saddam Hussein, it didn't work. Bush sounds as if he has his finger on the trigger and is itching to pull it. If anything, the response proved our national leaders must continue to proceed with caution. ...
But it will take a lot more than rhetoric to convince the world the time is right for war against Iraq.
That decision must be made in a calm, forthright manner, particularly when public opinion is divided and the consequences of war -- as measured in lives lost -- are so great, for both Americans and Iraqis.
If United Nations inspectors need more time, Bush should grant it -- up to a point. ...
If inspectors then find evidence of Saddam's duplicity and an arms buildup, a multilateral decision for war can be clearly and fairly made. ...
Bush could better tackle his mighty chores, both here and abroad, by sizing up reality rather than trying to sell his magical thinking to an unconvinced populace.
His thoughts on domestic issues were similarly tainted. In almost Clintonesque fashion, Bush pulled out a laundry list of needs: cheaper medicine for the elderly, better health care, better schools that leave no child behind, stronger businesses that fuel economic prosperity, lower taxes that leave consumers with more to spend.
But he offered no sensible plan for covering all of those costs unless -- contrary to his claims -- he wants the deficit to grow.
We remain unconvinced the president's tax-cut plan will boost the economy as Bush and his financial advisers predict.
It took a long time for the federal government to get out of debt -- one built over three decades of sometimes reckless spending by presidents and Congresses.
Now we're back at it -- and it could get worse, with the probability of war looming and the big spending the federal government must do to salvage Social Security and other mighty domestic needs.
It's not easy being the leader of the free world. Bush should start by mapping out a strategy that contains more logical consistency and by coming up with a spending plan that promises no more than available dollars can deliver.
New York Post
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's decisive re-election victory is a welcome -- and fortuitously timely -- result for the United States.
His victory is especially significant for the White House: Save for Britain's Tony Blair, no world leader has been as supportive of President Bush's war on terrorism as Sharon. Sharon leads a nation that understands -- perhaps better than any other -- the threat posed by Islamic terrorism.
Such support and cooperation in the region has been critical during the diplomatic run-up to any war with Iraq -- and will be even more so if military force becomes necessary.
Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that Bush and Sharon have forged perhaps the closest working and personal relationship of any U.S. and Israeli leaders.
Bush, in turn, has provided strong backing for Sharon's refusal to resume negotiations with Yasser Arafat while Israel remains under constant terrorist attack -- as well as his determination to answer such outrages with strong military reprisals.
Unfortunately, that has not stopped the terrorism. But it has fatally undermined those on the left who still cling to the now-discredited notion that Arafat is a legitimate partner for peace.
Sharon, who has made national unity the watchword of his administration, will attempt once again to form a bipartisan coalition; given Israel's legendary internecine political maneuvering, however, he may be forced to assemble a narrow government with right-wing and religious parties.
Either way, the fact that Ariel Sharon's principled and determined leadership has been returned to office is good news -- for Israelis and Americans alike.
