Cuba, along with Iran, Sudan and Syria, is named in the State Department's annual list of state sponsors of terrorism - but with the Obama administration showing signs of wanting to improve relations with Havana, the language on the island nation's purported ties to terrorists appears a little less bellicose than it has in the past.

Critics of U.S.-Cuba policy would like to see Cuba removed from the list entirely.

Full language from this year's report and last:

THIS YEAR'S REPORT

"Although Cuba no longer actively supports armed struggle in Latin America and other parts of the world, the Cuban government continued to provide safe haven to several terrorists. Members of ETA, the FARC, and the ELN remained in Cuba during 2008, some having arrived in Cuba in connection with peace negotiations with the governments of Spain and Colombia. Cuban authorities continued to publicly defend the FARC. However, on July 6, 2008, former Cuban President Fidel Castro called on the FARC to release the hostages they were holding without preconditions. He has also condemned the FARC's mistreatment of captives and of their abduction of civilian politicians who had no role in the armed conflict.

"The United States has no evidence of terrorist-related money laundering or terrorist financing activities in Cuba, although Cuba has one of the world's most secretive and non-transparent national banking systems. Cuba has no financial intelligence unit. Cuba's Law 93 Against Acts of Terrorism provides the government authority to track, block, or seize terrorist assets.

"The Cuban government continued to permit some U.S. fugitives including members of U.S. militant groups such as the Boricua Popular, or Macheteros, and the Black Liberation Army to live legally in Cuba. In keeping with its public declaration, the government has not provided safe haven to any new U.S. fugitives wanted for terrorism since 2006."

LAST YEAR'S REPORT

"The Government of Cuba remained opposed to U.S. counterterrorism policy, and actively and publicly condemned many associated U.S. policies and actions. To U.S. knowledge, the Cuban government did not attempt to track, block, or seize terrorist assets, although the authority to do so is contained in Cuba's Law 93 Against Acts of Terrorism, as well as Instruction 19 of the Superintendent of the Cuban Central Bank. No new counterterrorism laws were enacted, nor were any executive orders or regulations issued in this regard. The Government of Cuba provided safe haven to members of ETA, the FARC, and the ELN. It maintained close relationships with other state sponsors of terrorism such as Iran and Syria.

"The Cuban government continued to permit more than 70 U.S. fugitives to live legally in Cuba and refused almost all U.S. requests for their return. These U.S. fugitives include convicted murderers (two of them killed police officers) as well as numerous hijackers, most of whom entered Cuba in the 1970s. The government returned one American citizen fugitive when that person sailed his boat into Cuban waters and it was determined that he was wanted on fraud charges in the state of Utah. The Cuban government stated in 2006 that it would no longer provide safe haven to new U.S. fugitives entering Cuba.

"The Cuban government did not extradite suspected terrorists during the year."

The congressional Republican leadership hyperbole-fest continued Thursday, with House GOP leader John Boehner saying his voting card was "the most dangerous credit card in the history of the world."

Republicans have ratcheted up the rhetoric lately, calling the Democratic-authored 2010 budget "the most harmful in American history," and comparing their legislative tactics to those of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

Thursday, Boehner was talking about how much Democrats have hurt the nation this year.

"I've often called this the most dangerous credit card in the history the world: the voting card for a member of Congress," he said, referring to the card members used to cast votes. "And Democrats have proven over the last 100 days this is the most dangerous credit card in the history of the world."

Here's why, he explained: "Their record on spending and debt is staggering, but our economy is growing weaker, and it's not going to get any better by growing the size of the government here in Washington."

Read more about GOP rhetoric.

A member of Energy Secretary Stephen Chu’s security detail advance staff contracted Influenza A while in Mexico in connection with President Obama’s recent trip there, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said a few minutes ago.

Gibbs did not identify the staffer, but said he'd spread the flu virus to three family members in Maryland and that further testing was being done to try to nail down whether it was the swine flu virus. In any event, the staffer and his relatives were all reported to have recovered and the staffer was back at work today.

Gibbs said the staffer did attend a working dinner on April 16, the same day he began to feel ill, but that he had not been within six feet of the president. More information is expected to be released later today.

It's probably never a good thing when your spokeswoman has to put out a statement explaining what you REALLY meant.

Vice President Joe Biden went on NBC's Today Show this morning, where Matt Lauer asked him, if a family member was thinking of taking a commercial flight to Mexico in the next week, in light of the swine flu, would Biden think it was a good idea? Lauer said that "this is by no means a gotcha type of question, I promise."

Said Biden, "I would tell members of my family, and I have, I wouldn't go anywhere in confined places now." Biden said it wasn't just about not going to Mexico but that if "you're in a confined aircraft when one person sneezes it goes all the way through the aircraft." That even goes for the subway, Biden said. "So from my perspective, what it relates to is mitigation."

"If you're out in the middle of a field and someone sneezes, that's one thing. If you're in a closed aircraft or a closed container, a closed car, a closed classroom, it's a different thing."

Soon after, Biden spokeswoman Elizabeth Alexander issued a statement to White House reporters. It said, “The advice he is giving family members is the same advice the Administration is giving to all Americans: that they should avoid unnecessary air travel to and from Mexico. If they are sick, they should avoid airplanes and other confined public spaces, such as subways. This is the advice the Vice President has given family members who are traveling by commercial airline this week. As the President said just last night, every American should take the same steps you would take to prevent any other flu ..."

The U.S. Travel Association's president and CEO, meanwhile, issued a statement "regarding recent comments that might discourage Americans from using public transportation or commercial aviation." The statement from Roger Dow said according to expert advice "swine flu should not discourage people from traveling to or within the United States.

"Elected officials must strike a delicate balance of accurately and adequately informing citizens of health concerns without unduly discouraging travel and other important economic activity."

Sen. Roland Burris, D-Il., thinks swine flu is giving pork a bad name. So at Wednesday's Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee hearing, Burris asked Anne Schuchat, the Center for Disease Control's interim deputy director for science and public health programs, if health officials could give the disease a new name.

"I've been in contact with pork producers in the great state of Illinois and they're requesting that we come up with some other name for this influenza or this virus because they call it swine flu but you always hear the reports saying it has nothing to do with swine," Burris said.

Schuchat told the junior senator from Illinois that health officials call the disease H1N1 influenza. Burris was unimpressed.

"That's not sexy," he responded.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano disagreed.

"I just call it H1N1," she told the committee. "And actually after you say H1N1 a few times, it does roll off the tongue."

Good news for Republicans: Arlen Specter's defection can be a great development for the GOP, even though the nation may suffer for awhile.

That's the word from Texas Sen. John Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

In a post Wednesday on the Powerline blog, he explains why the Pennsylvania senator, who said this week he will become a Democrat, will hardly be missed by Republicans:

"First, his departure likely spares Republicans from spending valuable resources in what would have been an expensive and divisive Republican primary - a primary battle that Specter appeared extremely unlikely to win. Indeed, Specter cited recent polls showing him trailing former U.S. Representative Pat Toomey (R-PA) by more than 20 points as his main decision to bolt the Party," Cornyn writes.

Second, "in the unfortunate and unlikely event that Senator Norm Coleman loses his legal battle in Minnesota, Harry Reid will now have his long-coveted 60-seat, filibuster-proof supermajority in the United States Senate. With Nancy Pelosi firmly in control of the U.S. House of Representatives and President Obama just 100 days into his administration, Republicans will have lost the ability to impact legislation in any meaningful way."

As a result, Cornyn explained, "the Democrats will be able to pass their left-wing agenda completely unchecked, and if they intend to fulfill their campaign promises, the American people can look forward to higher taxes, socialized medicine, record deficits and the loss of secret ballots for our workers."

Here's the logic: "While this would unquestionably damage our country's interests in the short-term, the complete absence of any checks and balances in Washington could have a significant impact on next year's midterm elections.

"Democrats would own everything that happens in our government. They will be unable to cast the GOP as 'obstructionists' who are blocking Obama's agenda, robbing them of one of their oft-repeated political attacks."

Read Cornyn's comments.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., used President Barack Obama's 100th day in office and the House of Representative's passage of the federal budget Wednesday to once again blast congressional Republicans as the party of "No."

But the San Francisco Democrat offered a novel suggestion for solving the problem of an uncooperative House and Senate GOP brain trust: have mainstream Republican voters revolt against them.

"By and large, I say to Republicans 'Take back your party ...'" Pelosi told reporters before one of her press aides shouted "Last question!" But Pelosi added: "If I may go one step further, I would say our country needs a strong Republican Party ..."

"Not too strong," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., interrupted.

One of Sen. Arlen Specter's complaints about Republicans is that they're too few moderates, and those who once were prevalent in the northeast are fading fast.

So, a reporter asked Tuesday of Specter, "Did you feel at all pushed out by Republicans here?"

Specter, who said he was switching to the Democratic party rather than face a tough GOP primary challenge for his seat next year, laughed.

"What about Republicans here?" he asked the Capitol press mob. "Well, first I have to find out how many of you here are Republicans. Will you raise your hands?"

None went up. (After all, reporters are taught to keep their political leanings to themselves).

Specter chuckled. "That's what I thought," he smiled and said. "You take the Fifth."

You have to wonder if the news media got hoodwinked again.

The Times doesn't come right out and say it, but ...

That's the finding of a new Gallup poll.

Fifty-one percent of Americans favor an investigation into the use of harsh interrogation techniques on terrorism suspects during the Bush administration. Forty-two percent oppose an investigation.

But that's balanced out by the finding that 55 percent believe in retrospect that the harsh interrogation techniques were justified, while only 36 percent say they were not.

Gallup noted that the 51 percent is a fairly low percentage, given that levels of support for other probes of government malfeasance have been in the 60s and 70s. Republicans, of course, oppose an investigation, Democrats favor one and independents are evenly divided.

One other finding: if there's an investigation, the vast majority believe the last group to conduct it should be Congress.

Read the poll results