ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is going on the offensive against news organizations and bloggers she says are perpetuating malicious gossip about her and her children. But political observers say the former Republican vice presidential candidate can't have it both ways: trotting out the children to showcase her family values, then trying to shield them from scrutiny.

Palin's criticism also raises questions about her motivations because she has said she is open to a presidential run in 2012.

"I think she's positioning herself. She's attacking the media as a way to generate support among a base she hopes will support her," said Leonard Steinhorn, a professor of communications at American University in Washington and an expert on the presidency.

Palin shied away from interviews during the campaign, although her children often accompanied her on her travels, including her oldest daughter, Bristol, who was pregnant at the time.

But in recent weeks, she has personally reached out to media outlets such as People magazine and The Associated Press to complain about information she claimed is wrong.

She slammed reports that 18-year-old Bristol Palin and the teen's fiance are high school dropouts. The governor insists the two are not dropouts because they enrolled in correspondence courses.

The couple last month had a son _ the governor's first grandchild.

The governor said she is speaking out to set the record straight, not because of any political aspirations.

"It's all about the family," she said. "I'm wired in a way that I can take the criticism. I can take the shots. But any mother would want to protect their children from lies and scandalous reporting."

In a Jan. 5 interview with conservative filmmaker John Ziegler, Palin also questioned whether Caroline Kennedy's quest for a New York Senate seat was as heavily scrutinized as her vice presidential campaign.

When her comments were reported, she chastised journalists for taking her remarks "out of context to create adversarial situations."

Steinhorn is not alone among experts who believe the first-term governor is trying to keep her name in the spotlight. A newcomer to national politics when she was nominated, Palin energized the Republican base but also attracted intense criticism that she had little substance.

Palin "does seem to have ambitions, and this is one way of staying in the public eye," said Janis Edwards, an associate professor of communication studies at the University of Alabama and an expert on women candidates. One of Edwards' classes monitored Palin's role in a project called "The Palin Watch."

Palin's grievances include what she calls "false stories" such as a talk show host's suggestion that she helped Levi Johnston get a job in Alaska's North Slope oil fields, circumventing eligibility rules since he does not have a high school diploma.

Johnston's father, an engineer for an oil-field services company, has said his position accounted for any help Levi received in getting the apprenticeship job.

Palin also lashed out at bloggers and others perpetuating Internet rumors that her 9-month-old son, Trig, is actually Bristol Palin's child from a secret previous pregnancy.

Her decision to strike back at news organizations seems to contradict the governor's earlier statements on how politicians should respond to media coverage.

Months before she was named John McCain's running mate, Palin attended a leadership forum in Los Angeles and was asked her opinion on then-Sen. Hillary Clinton's allegations that she was being unfairly treated by the media during the primaries.

Palin said Clinton did herself a disservice to even mention it. The governor said it bothered her to hear Clinton "bring that attention to herself on that level."

Palin said her opinion has not changed since the March 2008 event and insisted that defending her children is her only motivation.

"I'm not whining about the treatment of the press, but I am calling reporters on the family aspect of this," she said. "I think it's unprecedented in some respects what I have seen with my children."

It's not unprecedented. The children and spouses of high-profile politicians always draw attention.

Early in President George Bush's first term, his twin daughters, Jenna and Barbara, made headlines after an embarrassing run-in with the law for underage drinking.

So did Kitty Dukakis, the wife of former Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis, when she was treated for alcoholism after her husband's unsuccessful presidential campaign in 1988. She later suffered a relapse and was hospitalized after drinking rubbing alcohol.

Two weeks before President Obama's inauguration, his daughters Sasha and Malia were escorted to their new schools past a line of waiting photographers.

More Bushisms

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Beg Your Pardon?

After eight years of mischief and misdeeds at justice, Eric Holder has his work cut out for him.

* By: Kai Wright | Posted: January 16, 2009 at 1:34 PM


Here’s how bad things got in George W. Bush’s Justice Department. In August 2004, Voting Section Chief John Tanner sent an e-mail to Bradley Schlozman—more on him later—in which he asked for a cup of coffee. Schlozman asked Tanner how he takes his java and Tanner replied, “Mary Frances Berry style—black and bitter.” Yes, he meant that Berry, the celebrated black activist who chaired the U.S. Civil Rights Commission for over a decade.

Schlozman was so tickled he forwarded the e-mail to several ranking officials in the Justice Department, along with the note, “Y’all will appreciate Tanner’s response.” Little wonder half the voting-section staff left or got reassigned after the November elections.

That’s the mess Eric Holder will step into if confirmed to be the first black attorney general of the United States. Perhaps more than any other Cabinet secretary, he will be tasked with figuring out what went wrong over the last eight years—and setting it right. As Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee during yesterday’s confirmation hearing, “One of the things I’m going to have to do, in short order, is basically do a damage assessment.”

The outcome of that assessment is the not-so-subtle subtext of the partisan jousting that has preceded Holder’s certain confirmation. His nomination has predictably become a proxy for the old fight over the Bush Justice Department’s expansive conception of presidential power and its narrow ideas on things like torture. But the debate is now less about the past than it is the future. What everyone really wants to settle is whether Holder and Obama plan to hold the Bush administration accountable.

Sen. Arlen Specter opened the hearings with pointed questions on Holder’s role in Bill Clinton’s Marc Rich pardon, an interrogation that editorial pages around the country cheered in advance. Holder has repeatedly admitted he handled the pardon poorly—a level of self-criticism we still haven’t seen from the Bush administration—and he plainly did so again yesterday. He was similarly blunt about his role in offering clemency to Puerto Rican nationalists in 1999, pointing out that everyone from Jimmy Carter to Cardinal O’Connor supported the “reasonable” decision.

But the Republicans’ true aim in stirring up the pardon tempest over the last several days has been to erode Holder’s moral high ground—his 30-plus years of untarnished civil service in federal law enforcement. When the smoke of those manufactured controversies finally cleared, the real dispute finally came into view: accountability.

There have been numerous calls for prosecution of various individuals ranging from the vice president to attorneys at the office of legal counsel,” noted Sen. Orrin Hatch, who has already said he’ll vote for Holder. “Do you intend to undertake, order or support a criminal investigation of those individuals?”

Holder’s answer was deft, but blunt. “No one is above the law,” he said, a phrase he repeated many times during the afternoon. “We will follow the evidence, the facts, the law and let that take us where it should.” He added the official Obama talking point on Bush-era crimes: that we must be careful not to “criminalize policy differences.” But when Hatch pressed the point, Holder again refused to rule out prosecutions, saying he’d have to review the policy differences in question.

Similar exchanges recurred all day, as Republican and Democratic senators alike pursued the nagging question of accountability. Hatch, for instance, also wanted to know if Holder would try to revoke the immunity granted to telecom companies that helped the Bush White House spy on Americans without a warrant. No, said Holder, because Congress has written that immunity into law (a law which his new boss voted for, by the way).

Several Democrats asked about the shocking inspector general’s report in which the anecdote about Tanner and Schlozman’s e-mail exchange appeared. Published on Tuesday, the report found, among other things, that Schlozman illegally politicized the Civil Rights Division’s hiring process and then lied to the Judiciary Committee about it. Schlozman hired 63 lawyers based on his assessment of whether they were what he called “real Americans.”

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington has concluded it won’t bring charges against Schlozman, and that fact has greatly annoyed the committee’s Democrats. Several of them demanded a review of the U.S. Attorney’s decision, and Holder vowed to provide one.

"I will review that determination,” he told Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the first Democrat to ask about it. “Given the findings in the inspector general’s report,” he said, “I want to know why the determination was made not to pursue charges, criminal charges.”

The Democrats aren’t likely to see much political gain in long, messy prosecutions of the Bushies who abused the Constitution in the name of national security—people like Alberto Gonzalez and, yes, Dick Cheney. And while Holder was not willing to rule out such prosecutions, he was far more interested in promoting what is bound to be known as the Holder doctrine. “The president acts most forcefully and has his greatest power when he acts in a manner that is consistent with congressional intent,” he repeated again and again.

But Schlozman and his colleagues in the Civil Rights Division may face an entirely different calculus. Some of the Senate’s most powerful Democrats are enraged by the insult of Schlozman’s perjury. And Holder used some of his most emphatic rhetoric when talking about the mess Bush’s cronies have made of the division.

“What we have seen in that report I think is aberrant, but is also I think one of the major tasks the next attorney general is going to have to do. You have to reverse that,” Holder told Feinstein. Then later, to Sen. Chuck Schumer, “It is my intention to devote a huge amount of time to the Civil Rights Division and restoring” its “great traditions.”

One of those traditions is rooting out and holding accountable racist thugs who abuse power. Let’s hope that’s the first one Holder restores.

2008: The year the U.S. media lost relevance

By Nancy Morgan

What would happen if America won a war and no one reported it? Is it still news? What if a credible argument were made pretty much demolishing Darwin's
theory of evolution? If no media outlet conveyed this information to the American public, does that mean it is not a valid argument?

For decades, the old media, consisting of the big three networks and the newspapers of most major cities have had a stranglehold on what information gets disseminated to the public at large. The media elite have decided which issues qualify as news. Not surprisingly, the majority of the information that makes it to the airwaves or in print is overwhelmingly one-sided, reflecting a world-view steeped in progressive values and blatantly hostile to traditional values.

The old media elite, comprised of less than 1 percent of our population, has set the agenda and defined the issues in America for decades. More importantly, the old media has had the ability to relegate any facts that didn't conform to their version of reality to the ash heap. If it doesn't make the news, it's not news.

Also In This Edition


NORTHEAST ASIA:

South Korean industrial output slumps


Mideast / S. Asia:

Palestinians' Abbas: 'Hamas could have prevented massacre'


AFRICA/EUROPE:

Dictator Stalin voted third most popular Russian


By any measure, America and our allies have won the war in Iraq. Our mission has been accomplished. This is news, even though the media has failed to report it. Iraq's economy is on track, thanks to much improved security and increased production of oil. Iraq's fledgling parliament is operating. In other words, we won. The Iraqi people have won. Against tremendous odds.

Because American victory and military success don't fit the media's liberal version of America, most Americans remain unaware of the tremendous accomplishments that have been brought about, thanks to President Bush and our brave fighting forces. Instead, their focus emcompasses only the price we paid, not the victory achieved.

Ignoring inconvenient news and embarrassing facts is a tried and true tactic of the liberal media. A prime example is conservative author, Thomas Sowell. Sowell has written dozens of books dealing with race, culture, economics and other issues vital to America. More importantly, his facts have never been rebutted. Knowing there is no chance of disputing Sowell's studies and conclusions, the media elite have chosen to ignore him. He is simply not a part of their carefully fashioned reality.

That is the fate of any author or pundit who dares to swim against the progressive tide. Can you spell censorship?

Ann Coulter is another example. In her book Godless, Ann makes a credible argument that the theory of Darwinian evolution is a bogus science. The media responded to this serious challenge to one of its core tenets by simply ignoring it, focusing instead on Ann's cutting observation of four housewives from Jersey who lost their husbands in the 9/11 attack.

From their lofty position of moral self-righteousness, the media roundly condemned Coulter for her lack of sensitivity and empathy.

A majority of Americans are now somewhat aware of media bias. Increasingly, when reading a news story, Americans have the ability to recognize the obvious slant. This is all well and good. What is not well and good, is the fact that many of us are not made aware of all the news out there that is ignored — credible, relevant facts that are simply not reported.

How many of you are aware that at the recent UN gathering on global warming, 650 renown scientists made a credible challenge to the UN's conclusion that man-made global warming is a crisis situation requiring trillions of our tax dollars to remedy?

Once again, a credible challenge to a core tenet of progressivism was ignored rather than rebutted. This is media malfeasance.

Every American is entitled to enough information to make informed decisions. Instead, our media gives us only the information that fits the liberal template. This is manipulation of the worst sort. No matter how flat the pancake, there are always two sides.

The lack of reporting both sides of a story is having a pernicious effect on America, breeding anti-Americanism, victimology, feelings over facts and form over substance. The traditional values which made our country great, including those derived from Christianity, capitalism, the importantce of families are being cast aside.

The media would have us believe that inclusiveness, multiculturalism, equality and the environment are the most important themes facing our country today. And millions of Americans blindly accept their version of reality as gospel.

Just because the media says something is so, doesn't make it so. And ignoring relevant facts doesn't make them less relevant. Sadly, millions of Americans are still willing to let someone else do their thinking for them.

Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com. She lives in South Carolina.

Your Guide to the Coming Republican Civil War

by juliewolf
Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 05:56:51 AM PST

Many of you have heard reports about the coming Republican Civil War, which I will henceforth be referred to as THE WAR TO END ALL REPUBLICANS ("WEAR," for short)

But most of this has been discussed merely as a split between the camps of John Sidney McCain and Sarah Louise Heath Palin, specifically focusing on matters of the approach to the campaign.

But, in reality, there are several factions competing for the "soul" of the Republican Party, or at least the closest thing to a soul the party could dig out of a deep, dark, recess that's best not described in polite company.

So I've written up this handy little guide to help us all better understand who the various factions in the Republican party are, and what sides we can expect them to be taking in the upcoming WEAR.




First, let's start with the obvious broad categories:

BIG BUSINESS

Their likes are deregulation, tax breaks for the wealthy, making a lot of money no matter who or what it hurts, complete lack of accountability and offshore accounts to hide certain kinds of profits from the IRS.

Their dislikes are corporate responsibility, people who write them letters and anyone who attempts to regulate any aspect of their business.

They favor Republicans because Republicans are eager and willing to take large donations and, in turn, just sort of look the other way when they, I dunno, don't bother paying taxes on public property for forty years.

RELIGIOUS/"FAMILY VALUES" NUTCASES

Their likes are smug superiority, people like them, amendments banning same-sex marriage, the death penalty, gays who attack other gays and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Their dislikes are gays, Muslims, people who look like Muslims, people who aren't like them, people who dare to criticize them, elitists, vegetarians, Wiccans, abortion, people who are sane Christians, people who act too Jewish, gay or catholic.

They favor Republicans because they think Republicans will eventually overturn Roe v Wade and because Republicans pretend to like them in exchange for their support.

WARMONGERS/NEOCONS

Their likes are war, violence, and anything which makes them think America is superior.

Their dislikes are France, Europe, France, any country that's not the United States, France, Canada, and peacenicks.

Their likes are anyone who likes war as much as they do, especially if they're dark-skinned enough and crazy-sounding enough to justify us going to war with them. This means you, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

They like Republicans because Republicans are consistently thrilled to talk up war and violence, even when it's not in their best interest to do so.

LIBERTARIANS/ANTI-TAX NUTCASES

Libertarians like very small government and freedom. They hate excessive spending, big government and waste.

It is often unclear as to why they like Republicans.

RACISTS

Their likes are people who look like them and anyone who helps them justify their bigotry. Their dislikes are everyone else.

They like republicans because Republicans make them think they're not really racist.

USEFUL IDIOTS

Their likes are people who say the right kind of thing, regardless of their actions. Their dislikes are anyone who tries to correct their understanding of the world.

They like Republicans because they use catchy buzzwords and because they are idiots.

There are, of course, other categories we could discuss, but these will serve as basic categories for the discussion. There are plenty of people who overlap in this group. John McCain, for example, would fall into the Warmonger category, but he'd also fit directly in with Big Business. Many of his supporters fall into those categories as well as the Useful Idiot category because he can talk a good game about veterans issues, but actually does very poorly with them.

Sarah Palin, on the other hand, fits in easily with Religious Nutcases, Racists and Useful Idiots. In fact, assume that everyone I mention here includes that last group in some capacity from this point on. I'll focus instead on the other two: she's loved by religious nutcases because she is one and she's loved by racists because she gave them so much great rhetoric during the campaign so as to make them think that their racism and xenophobia was, on some level, acceptable.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is all Big Business and Family Values. My suspicion about Romney is that he is less someone with convictions then someone who was so sure that he needed to say certain things to get elected that he's actually convinced himself that he believes them. But he's got a strong base of support, just not strong enough that he didn't need to fund his own campaign with a whole lot of his own money.

But how about Mike Huckabee? He's clearly loved by the Religious Nutcases but seems to be anti-racism, at least in his rhetoric. He's hated by big business but somewhat in the libertarian category, except he believes in universal education. In other words, one of the popular Republican candidates has some campaign issues more in favor with Democrats than Republicans.

Which brings us to Ron Paul, who represents an entirely different aspect of the Republican party, with the vast majority of his support coming from Libertarians and Racists, and definitely not the religious nutcases nor the warmongers.

With the exception of John McCain, there is a good possibility that all these individuals will be running for President in 2012 and this is where the WEAR comes in.

There are lots of rumors spreading about what happened behind the scenes in the McCain/Palin campaign, which helps set the stage for the upcoming battle. I.e., Romney camp spreading Palin stories?, Palin aide fires back at McCain camp, etc. Most of you have seen much of this, so I won't bother reiterating.

But this is the basic dynamic: people from the Romney, McCain and Palin factions seem to really have it in for one another. Romney's appeal to the Family Values nutcases is damaged by the fact that he's a Mormon and most Family Values nutcases don't like anyone who's not a Christian (or, at the very least, an acceptably conservative Jew) and most assuredly do not think of Mormonism as "Christian." McCain's people pretty much hate Romney and now they seem to really hate Palin. They blame her for having hurt McCain's chances and being an all around crappy candidate and for "going rogue" from time to time. And then there's the whole Palin/underwear thing (which has nothing to do with Romney).

But the real gold here is that this scatters those categories I listed above. Libertarians are already finding problems with the Republican party, which has largely increased spending during their tenure and made government a lot bigger (and a lot more anti-freedom). Big Business will support anyone who helps them out, and turning the economy into a great big sinkhole really doesn't help big business all that much.

The religious nutcases are now split, with some going to Obama and most still preferring Republicans but willing to sit the election out if someone who's not sufficiently evangelical gets nominated. Granted, there are still plenty of racists, and they probably (if possible) like the Republicans a little more than they used to, but probably think of them as weak little sissies if they cooperate on Obama with anything.

So most of what's left for Republicans are useful idiots. And the great thing about useful idiots is that they're stupid enough to start chasing each other around with baseball bats rather than us. So when big business starts blaming religious nutcases and religious nutcases start blaming warmongers and warmongers start blaming libertarians who, in turn, blame everybody, well, hijinx ensue.

To me, this is going to be sort of like "Glengarry Glen Ross" crossed with a Keystone Cops movie.

Grab your popcorn, folks. This is going to be fun.

Russia hopes to avoid arms race despite Western fears

Russia may deploy missiles in its most western region of Kaliningrad in response to the U.S. anti-missile defence plans in Europe. The announcement was followed by a wave of criticism from Western leaders. But some analysts believe the West has overlooked the fact that the scenario can still be avoided.

With a new administration coming into power in the U.S., it remains to be seen whether Barack Obama will pursue Bush’s policy of deploying AMD elements in Poland and the Czech Republic - or remember Russia’s suggestion to set up an alternative anti-missile system in Azerbaijan.

In June 2007 Vladimir Putin proposed to George W. Bush that the two countries could jointly use a radar station in Gabala, which Russia rents from Azerbaijan, and a new radar under construction in Russia’s southern city of Armavir.

Back then Bush diplomatically hailed the idea - but made it clear the U.S. won’t renounce its plans. The result was the signing of an agreement with the Czech Republic and Poland in summer 2008 for deploying AMD elements on their territories.


Obama has not yet voiced his view on the subject, but there are already voices among America’s intellectual elite that the U.S. needs to change its foreign policy.

Ted Carpenter from the Cato Institute in Washington DC believes the United States needs to significantly cut its military spending “so it does not have the kind of military capability that frightens other countries.”

“The U.S. also has to avoid taking steps that needlessly antogonise other countries. In particular with Russia it is imperative that the United States abandons its goal of expansion of the NATO alliance and to abandon such projects as the missile defence system that it has proposed for Eastern and Western Europe.”

For the time being, the United States says it is disappointed with Russia's intentions. The Pentagon has stated it will continue with the AMD plans and that its position remains the same.

Nevertheless, U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack made assurances that Washington is open for dialogue with Moscow.

And despite strong words from President Medvedev some experts believe this is just a bargaining tactic ahead of his first meeting with Obama next week at the summit in Washington.

Political analyst Vladimir Kuzin said: “The placement of the conventional missile Iskander has not been started yet, so before November 15, Moscow and Washington have some time to think it over.”

According to President Medvedev’s aide, Arkady Dvorkovich, consultations are taking place with George W. Bush and president-elect Barack Obama concerning their bilateral meetings with Medvedev in Washington, but no arrangement has yet been reached.

International reaction

German Vice-Chancellor Frank-Walter Steinmeier expressed concern that the deployment of Iskander would lead to a new arms race.

He said: “President Medvedev's comments are certainly the wrong signal at the wrong time. Just as in the past, I called on the U.S. administration to seek dialogue with Russia. In the case of missile defence, it is necessary that Russia recognises the opportunity to seek dialogue with the U.S. so as not to set any new arms race in motion here in Europe. This is important.”

Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the EU Commissioner for External Relations, shares Germany’s position.

“The deployment of missiles in Kaliningrad will not improve security in Europe. I am asking myself how such statements are compatible with a new security strategy in Europe proposed by the Russian president,” he said.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk sees Medvedev’s statement as an indication of Russia’s new aggressive policy.

“In the event that the situation gets bad, the balance of power is already well known," he said. "So we should consider the announcement as a new political step, not a military one”.

Iskander missile complex

The Iskander short-range missile complex, which could be set up in Kaliningrad, is capable of striking targets at a range of up to 300 kilometres. With the deployment of the system in Russia's exclave on the Baltic Sea, the territories of the Czech Republic, Poland and the Baltic States would be within striking distance of Russia.

Kaliningrad borders NATO and EU members Poland and Lithuania.

US calls on Russia to resume missile defence talks

Washington says it wants to resume talks with Moscow over its missile defence plan in Eastern Europe. On Tuesday, Russia’s foreign minister confirmed the country’s position that if and when the U.S. goes ahead with its plans to build elements of its AMD, Russia will deploy Iskander missiles in its westernmost enclave, Kaliningrad.

Speaking in Moscow, Sergey Lavrov said:

”Russia's position, as voiced by President Medvedev, is that if the U.S. goes ahead with its plans and actually installs this radar in Europe, then one of the measures Russia will use to neutralise the inevitable threat to Russia's national security will be the deployment of Iskander missiles.”

”But only after the U.S. actually builds those radars,” he underlined.

The Iskander missiles Russia is proposing would be within striking distance of the planned U.S. sites.

Earlier, U.S. president-elect Barack Obama reportedly told Poland that there was no guarantee the proposed anti-missile shield will be built. The move could indicate that the next American government is preparing to change policy on the controversial defence system.

Britain’s Daily Telegraph reported on Monday that Obama 'did not make any promises concerning the anti-missile shield' in a telephone conversation with the Polish president Lech Kaczynski.

The source said that officials in Warsaw believe that now the chances of the project going ahead stand at no more than "over 50 per cent".

Radek Sikorski, the Polish foreign minister, was also quoted as saying that the worsening state of the American economy might force the president-elect to abandon, or at least delay the programme, in favour of domestic priorities.

The news has given a boost to Moscow, which is vehemently opposed to the missile shield. Russia is expected to hold off reaching agreements on defence with the U.S. until the new administration takes office in January.

"We have taken note of the U.S. president-elect Barack Obama's position on these issues. It inspires the hope that we will be able to deal with them more constructively in the coming period," Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told journalists in Sharm El Sheikh on Sunday.

Lavrov also said Russia would be ready for extensive consultations on the issue before the end of the year, but that agreements concerning both strategic offensive weapons and missile defense "will surely be negotiated with a new U.S. administration".

Meanwhile, the current American leadership is urging Russia to continue talks on missile defence.

U.S. State Department spokesman, Robert Wood, said Washington remained “interested in talking to Russia about missile defence and that they have nothing to fear from our missile defence system that we would like to set up in Europe".

Russia views U.S. plans to install 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic as aggressive. However, the U.S. maintains that the system is aimed at countering future rogue threats from the Middle East and Iran in particular.

The U.S. seems to have changed tack after President Medvedev's address to the Federal Assembly last week after the Russian leader said Moscow would be forced to place missiles in its westernmost Kaliningrad region, bordering Poland - if the U.S. went ahead with its planned bases in Poland and the Czech Republic.