| To: John Carragher who wrote (111701) | 4/29/2005 7:06:50 AM | | From: kumar | | | | Israeli protests fail to block Russian arms sales to Syria
By Donald Macintyre in Jerusalem
29 April 2005
The Russian President, Vladimir Putin, made clear his determination to go ahead with the sale of anti-aircraft missiles to Syria despite strong pressure from Israeli leaders to revoke it.
Neither Russia nor Israel made any effort to disguise the open disagreement on this and other issues including Iran in talks which both Mr Putin and the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, nevertheless went out of their way to depict as cementing significantly improved relations between the two countries.
Mr Putin strongly defended his decision to sell SA-18 missiles to Syria, and disclosed for the first time in talks with the Israeli President, Moshe Katsav, that he had vetoed a contract also to sell longer range 185-mile missiles to Damascus on the grounds that Israel would not be able to intercept them. Mr Putin also pointed out Russia's arms sales to the region were worth only $500m (£260m) compared with America's$6.8bn.
Mr Putin said that, to come within range of the anti-aircraft missiles, Israel would "have to attack Syria. Do you want to do that?" He said the missiles could not be shoulder-fired and would not work if uncoupled from the Jeeps on which they were mounted. This is unlikely to allay fears in the Israeli security community.
But in an effort to narrow the differences between the two governments whose increased co-operation has been underpinned by trade worth $1.2bn Mr Sharon and Mr Putin agreed to swap information about "Islamic terrorism" which concerns both countries.
Mr Putin also saidhe would do everything to ensure the anti-aircraft missiles would not undermine Israeli security, promising: "Russian weapons will not endanger Israel." Israeli officials said Mr Putin, who told Mr SharonIsrael was a "strategic ally" in the "war against terror", now "understands our position better" on the Syrian missiles.
Mr Putin did not publicly repeat his call made in Cairo for a Middle East summit in Moscow, which has received short shrift from Israel and the US.
While aides to Mr Sharon had earlier reacted sharply to Russian plans to provide armoured personnel carriers and other equipment to the Palestinian security forces, both governments agreed to discuss ways in which Russia could help Palestinian security. But the Russian President, who will hold talks today with the Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, warned both sides not to take actions which would prejudice final status talks. This appeared to be a thinly coded warning to Israel not to prejudice talks on a final peace deal on borders and on Jerusalem by settlement expansion.
Meanwhile, Mr Abbas has used some of his toughest language yet on the need for all militant violence to stop. In a speech to Palestinian police, he said: "Whoever wants to sabotage [the truce] with rocket fire or shooting must be stopped by us, even if that requires using force."
On Iran, Mr Putin also sought to make more palatable what nevertheless remain deep differences with Israel and the US, saying he accepted that current steps to prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons were "not enough" and that Iran had to be persuaded to accept nuclear weapons inspections. But Ehud Olmert, Israel's Deputy Prime Minister, said Russia was itself selling Iran components which could be used for non-conventional weapons.
Although Mr Sharon has said that Israel does not intend any attack on Iran, the US Defence Security Co-operaton Agency told Congress this week it wanted to authorise the sale of as many as 100 large bunker-buster bombs to Israel, which has been widely seen as a warning to Iran about its nuclear ambitions.
news.independent.co.uk |
| | Politics for Pros- moderated | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| From: LindyBill | 4/29/2005 7:08:04 AM | | | | | | NEWS ANALYSIS
By Howard Gleckman
businessweek.com
Chuck Grassley's Toughest Task
The GOP senator admits that pushing Bush's Social Security revamp through his Finance Committee looks "impossible." But don't count him out
With President George W. Bush's efforts to overhaul Social Security in deep trouble, the fate of the White House's top domestic priority now sits squarely on the shoulders of Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles F. Grassley (R-Iowa), whose panel will try to draft a bill by summer. But Grassley tells BusinessWeek he'll abandon Bush's goal of creating private accounts if that's what it takes to pass legislation that restores financial stability to the retirement program (see BW Online, 04/28/05, "Grassley: 'It's All on the Table'"). "I'm hoping the Senate will decide to include personal accounts," he says. "But if they don't, the solvency issue is very important, and we should do what we can do."
With Social Security, Grassley is taking on the toughest assignment of his 24-year Senate career. A plain-spoken, mainstream GOP conservative who, at age 71, is already collecting his monthly Social Security check, Grassley has displayed a knack for building bipartisan coalitions on big issues. Working with a handful of conservative Democrats, he shepherded both of Bush's tax cuts and the massive 2003 Medicare drug law through a deeply divided Senate.
FARMER IN THE WELL. But while he strongly prefers including personal accounts in a final bill, Grassley knows that as of now he's at least one vote short of getting such a bill out of his panel. No Democrats on his committee -- or in the entire Senate -- support Bush-style accounts funded by payroll taxes. They're joined in their opposition by a handful of Republicans, including at least one GOP member of the Finance Committee, Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine. "I know it looks like an impossible task," Grassley told BusinessWeek Online on Apr. 26.
Grassley, who departs Washington to work his farm on many weekends, has been underestimated for years by Beltway insiders despite his big legislative victories. "A lot of people may have said, 'What's a farm boy from Iowa going to do with the Finance Committee?'" says former Democratic Senator John Breaux, "But he has surprised a lot of people. He's in the middle of everything."
And the farmer persona doesn't hurt a bit when it comes to putting together deals. "He plays the country bumpkin to the nines," says one business lobbyist, "But he usually delivers. He's got that stroke of populism that appeals to Democrats and moderate Republicans."
WARY DEMS. So far, a bipartisan coalition on Social Security has eluded Grassley. For months, he has been wooing Democrats, starting with senior committee Democrat Max Baucus of Montana. While Grassley and Baucus are friends who have worked closely on many bills over the years, Baucus is dead-set against Bush-style private accounts. Baucus says Grassley "is a very good man." But he adds, "Private accounts are a really bad idea."
Baucus isn't alone. While a handful of Democrats have been willing to talk about possible compromises, not a single one of the party's 45 senators has budged: They'll support no accounts paid for by reduced basic benefits or heavy government borrowing. And while many Democrats recognize the need to restore the retirement system's solvency by trimming promised future benefits, they're insisting that those cuts be modest and be accompanied by tax increases.
The level of distrust is so high that many Democrats, include Baucus, fear what they call a "bait and switch." Their concern: The Senate passes a bill without personal accounts. The House adopts big accounts in its bill, and a GOP-dominated conference committee approves a compromise that includes modest accounts. As a result, Dems insist that Bush publicly abandon the idea before they'll even discuss solvency -- a step the President is hardly likely to take.
NEEDED JUMP-START? Even the GOP is torn -- not only over accounts, but over Bush's next steps. Growing numbers of Republican senators, including South Carolina's Lindsey Graham, want the President to put a specific overhaul plan on the table. But Grassley insists such a move would be a mistake, accomplishing little more than giving Democrats a new target to shoot at. "Democrats would be zeroing in on the specifics," Grassley says. Bush has laid out account details, but he has refused to endorse any specific benefit cuts.
That leaves Grassley to try to repair the deeply frayed fabric of the Social Security debate. His talk of a Finance Committee bill by summer helps give Bush's plan a bit of much-needed momentum. But with polls showing public support for accounts continuing to erode, it'll take all of Grassley's considerable legislative skills to salvage Bush's top domestic priority.
Gleckman is a senior correspondent in BusinessWeek's Washington bureau |
| | Politics for Pros- moderated | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (111649) | 4/29/2005 7:11:28 AM | | From: Lane3 | | | | Would the "larger truth" argument also explain why the New York Times just editorialized that Bush seized upon democracy as a rational for the war in Iraq only after the WMD rationale was shown to be false?
I had just started reading Bush's transcript this morning when I came across the phrase, root causes, and I had to chuckle. I remember the discussion here on SI during the period between 9/11 and the Iraq war when the mere mention of that phrase drew an avalanche of ridicule, even accusations of collaboration. And what did we end up with as the Monday-morning rationale for the war? Why, it was a root cause, after all. |
| | Politics for Pros- moderated | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: LindyBill who wrote (111702) | 4/29/2005 7:20:18 AM | | From: John Carragher | | | | Putin said he had personally vetoed the sale of longer-range missiles to Syria out of concern for Israel's safety.
I expect the above is what i heard a few weeks ago. Long range canceled and only short range within Syria approved.
Putin also sought to allay concerns about the Syrian arms deal, saying the missiles should pose no threat to Israel.
"The missiles we are providing to Syria are short-range anti-aircraft missiles that cannot reach Israeli territory," he said. "To come within their range, you would have to attack Syria. Do you want to do that?"
Israeli warplanes bombed alleged militant training bases outside Damascus on Oct. 5, 2003, and have buzzed one of Syrian President Bashar Assad's palaces.
Putin said he had personally vetoed the sale of longer-range missiles to Syria out of concern for Israel's safety.
Officials who briefed reporters on the Putin-Katsav meeting said Putin said Russia had already signed a deal with Syria for missiles with a range of 300 kilometers. According to the officials, Putin told Katsav "then I checked and my experts told me that Israel has no way to intercept these missiles, so I canceled the deal."
"We are taking the opinions and concerns of our partners into consideration, and not changing the balance of power in the region," Putin said at the news conference. "Israel has no problem here."
moscowtimes.ru |
| | Politics for Pros- moderated | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| From: LindyBill | 4/29/2005 7:22:29 AM | | | | | | Good analysis of Brownstein's column. There have been a lot of posts here longing for a "moderate" approach and wondering what happened to compromise. What happened is the end of the "Fairness" doctrine. Conservatives finally had a good chance to make their argument and no longer have to serve as "tax collectors for the welfare state." The wishy-washy Republican Senators left now number only about five.
Don't Hold Your Breath Waiting For That "Moderate" Political Party
rightwingnews.com
By John Hawkins on Election 2008
Ron Brownstein wrote a column a few days ago for the LA Times that I've been meaning to discuss. It's called "Internet, Polarized Politics Create an Opening for a Third Party" and here's the crux of Brownstein's argument:
"We are now moving toward a very dangerous place for both parties," (Joe Trippi) says. "It is becoming much more possible for an independent or third party to emerge because they are leaving so much space in the middle."
The hurdles for an independent presidential candidate remain formidable. Even one that attracted a competitive share of the popular vote might have trouble winning many electoral college votes; the strongest candidate could still face the syndrome of finishing second almost everywhere, trailing Republicans in the red states and Democrats in the blue. To have any chance, an independent would need to nearly run the table in battleground states - like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania - that don't tilt decisively to either side.
Yet if the two parties continue on their current trajectories, the backdrop for the 2008 election could be massive federal budget deficits, gridlock on problems like controlling healthcare costs, furious fights over ethics and poisonous clashes over social issues and Supreme Court appointments. A lackluster economy that's squeezing the middle-class seems a reasonable possibility too.
In such an environment, imagine the options available to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) if he doesn't win the 2008 Republican nomination, and former Democratic Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, now that he's dropped his flirtation with running for mayor of New York. If the two Vietnam veterans joined for an all-maverick independent ticket, they might inspire a gold rush of online support - and make the two national parties the latest example of the Internet's ability to threaten seemingly impregnable institutions."
First of all, third parties don't win in America, they just split the vote. For example, the McCain/Kerrey ticket? Their chances of winning? Zero. The only question worth asking would be: which party would they hurt more and it would probably depend on who was on the top of the ticket. If it was Kerrey, it would be the Democrats and if it was McCain, it would be the GOP.
There are multiple reasons why a McCain/Kerrey ticket would have no chance. Brownstein discusses the biggest one in his column: even a strong independent ticket would have little chance in a state that tilts significantly towards one party or the other and quite frankly, that seems describes most states these days.
But there are two other huge problems an independent/moderate party would face.
To begin with, the energy in politics isn't in the center, it's on the sides. Put another way, conservatives and liberals just tend to care a lot more about their politics, which is why they, not moderates, provide most of the ideas, money, volunteers, and energy for their parties. Numbers wise, there may be a lot of moderates, but there aren't enough of them with a passion for politics to carry a political party on their backs.
But even if the moderates were as jazzed up as about politics on the whole as liberals and conservatives, there is no such thing as a "moderate" ideology. What it means to be a "moderate" literally changes from person to person. By that I mean, I can give you a pretty good description of what the conservative and liberal positions are on abortion, but what's the "moderate" position supposed to be? Ask 10 different moderates and they'll probably have 10 different answers. Same goes for foreign policy, gun control, judges, gay marriage, etc, etc, etc. You simply can't build a lasting political movement in this country if you can't even explain what your "moderate party" believes in.
Independent/Moderate candidates can't win at the presidential level, they can only play the role of spoiler. That's not going to change anytime soon... |
| | Politics for Pros- moderated | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| From: LindyBill | 4/29/2005 7:26:26 AM | | | | | | MICHAEL SILENCE points to this Gallup poll on what Americans would ask President Bush if they had 15 minutes, and observes:
Scroll way down the page and you'll find moral issues just got a response of 6 percent, and just 1 percent mentioned the courts and judicial system.
The war in Iraq, the economy and Social Security topped the list.
I'm not surprised by that, but some people will be.http://instapundit.com/archives/022716.php |
| | Politics for Pros- moderated | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: Ilaine who wrote (111648) | 4/29/2005 7:59:52 AM | | From: Mary Cluney | | | | I say this based on several arguments with my hard-left youngest sister, who insists that it doesn't matter whether something is true or not, if she feels that it is true, or feels that it should be true, then this must be taken seriously.
I kid you not.
For your youngest sister, you must be the sister from hell. You are better educated. You went to law school and you know a lot of stuff.
Your poor little sister probably did not apply herself in school as she should have, but she got by quite nicely without having to do any real hard work. In other words, she adjusted fairly well and she has terrific instincts as to what is right and wrong.
She can see that you are wrong all over the lot, but you have a great way with words.
The sister from hell is trying to make her kid sister feel like what she observes is all upside down - but in fact, of course she is right. She sees what is right and wrong from a purely innocent perspective.
So leave your kid sister alone <GGGG>. |
| | Politics for Pros- moderated | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: JDN who wrote (111696) | 4/29/2005 8:58:00 AM | | From: haqihana | | | | | JDN, Yes, that invasion from Cuba began quite some time ago. I don't blame them for wanting to get away from Castro, but we have just so much room to accommodate them. Maybe we should just go ahead, and blow Castro off the island, and make it our 51st state. (I'm not joking either) |
| | Politics for Pros- moderated | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| |
