| Summary of DEBKAfile Exclusives in Week Ending March 19, 2009 | |
| Moscow signals harder position on nuclear-armed Iran DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis 13 Mar.: A Russian strategic arms control expert, Vladimir Dvorkin, said Thursday, March 12, that Iran could produce an atomic weapon in “one or two years,” allowing Tehran to broaden its support for Hamas and Hizballah. Dvorkin, as head of the strategic arms research center at the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow and a former general of Russia’s Strategic Rocket Forces, is a highly respected authority in the West. This was the first time a Russian figure had predicted Iran would be nuclear-capable within so short a period, DEBKAfile’s Moscow sources stress. Its correlative linkage to a heightened threat from Hamas and Hizballah has never been heard from Moscow, or even explicitly from Washington or Jerusalem. It was the second pointer to a tougher Russian stance on Iran’s nuclear weapon aspiratoins. On March 10, the Russian news agency Interfax quoted an unnamed Moscow source as stating that “Russia may shelve delivery of its advanced S-300 air defense missile system to Iran” – if decided at the political level. France to help develop Saudi, Egyptian, Gulf nuclear programs 13 Mar.: France has injected fresh momentum into the Middle East nuclear race by inviting Gulf nations to take a minority stake in the French nuclear giant Areva (CEPFi.PA), DEBKAfile’s military sources report. After a meeting with French president Nicolas Sarkozy Friday, March 13, the emir of Kuwait, Sheikh Jaber Moubarak Al-Hamad Al-Sabah, said the two leaders discussed the possible purchase of French military materiel and the issue of energy and nuclear reactors. He also referred to Kuwait and other Gulf countries taking a one-to-five percent stake in the world’s biggest builder of nuclear reactors. Paris has a separate deal with Egypt. The Bush administration signed contracts for building nuclear power-generating industries with Saudi Arabia (Dec. 2, 2008) and the United Arab Emirates (Jan. 15, 2009). DEBKAfile: Potential Gulf involvement in the French nuclear industry has four key aspects: US-born Somalis go missing, feared recruited for jihad Suspicions were aroused when last December, Shirwa Ahmed, a naturalized US citizen, died in a suicide bombing in northern Somalia. Ahmed, 27, was a 1999 graduate of Minneapolis’s Roosevelt High School. US law enforcement agencies are concerned that young jihadists could return to the US and follow a similar path to the British Pakistanis who carried out the London bombings of July 2005 after visiting radical mosques in Pakistan. British Muslim extremists were also suspected of involvement in the Mumbai terrorist outrage last November. March 14 Briefs: – Nine nations agree to share intelligence on Hamas arms smuggling activity – especially by sea. Two Israeli police officers die of injuries in Jordan Valley shooting 15 Mar.: DEBKAfile’s military sources report Israeli and Jordanian army units in a big manhunt on both sides of the border for the gunmen who shot dead two Israeli police officers in an ambush of their van on Highway 90 near Masuah in the Jordan Valley Sunday night, March 15. “The Imad Moughniyeh Martyr’s Brigades” claimed the attack in an anonymous call to the French News Agency, but military sources say this is a fabricated name. The incident is under investigation, including the possibility that the assailants infiltrated from Jordan, a hypothesis borne out by the professional way the attack was carried out, indicating a better standard of military training than displayed in terrorist attacks by West Bank Palestinians. The perpetrators set their ambush at a bend in the road where conditions force traffic to slow down and waited in a dark spot far from the nearest habitation for a police or military vehicle to pass by. Even in the nearest houses no one heard the shots. Al Qaeda: We shot the Israeli policemen near Masuah 16 Mar.: Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the murder of two Israeli policemen Sunday night outside Masuah in the Jordan Valley Sunday night, March 15, DEBKAfile’s counter-terror sources reveal. The claim appeared Monday in a leaflet circulated in Jordan and the West Bank announcing that the shooting of the two Israeli policemen was al Qaeda’s first operation “on the West Bank” and there were more to come. The victims were David Rabinovich, 50 from Rosh Ha’ayin and Yehezkiel Ramzarkar, 42, from Maale Ephraim. “Our team waylaid the Israeli security vehicle on Highway 90 and killed its passengers,” the leaflet stated. It also revealed that the killers set out on their mission immediately after Osama bin Laden’s last tape was aired by Al Jazeera Saturday, “to carry out his orders.” It does not specify whether they came from Jordan or the West Bank. Bin Laden stated that, as the Americans start pulling out of Iraq, jihad must be relocated to “the Palestinian territories.” DEBKAfile’s counter-terror sources point to his key phrase as being: “Jordan… is the best and widest front, and from Jordan the second launching will be toward the West Bank.” |
March 16 briefs:
– Ex-president Khatami pulls out of Iran’s presidential race leaving Ahmadinejad virtually unchallenged for second term. Prime Minister Olmert: No more concessions to Hamas for Gilead Shalit’s release 16 Mar.: Outgoing prime minister Ehud Olmert explained in a dramatic address to the nation Tuesday night, March 17, why last-ditch negotiations for Gilead Shalit’s release after three years in captivity had failed. He said Hamas had spurned Israel’s latest offer to release many hundreds of convicted prisoners, including terrorists guilty of murdering many Israelis. That was it, he said; the list is final. Any more would cross a red line and hazard Israel’s national security. Hamas spokesmen responded: We can wait for Binyamin Netanyahu [the PM-designate who is due to establish a new government within days]. The Palestinian radical group is demanding the freedom of 1,500 convicted terrorists, including 450 hard-case multiple murderers. Israel has offered to free 325 hard-cases, of whom 144 must be exiled to the Gaza Strip or abroad, for fear their presence on the West Bank will re-ignite the Palestinian suicide terror industry which Israeli put down two years ago. Monday night, when Olmert’s envoys to the indirect negotiations, Shin Bet director Yuval Diskin and special negotiator for prisoners Ofer Dekel, returned empty-handed, Olmert accused Hamas of hardening its position, reneging on past understandings and raising new, excessive demands. He was taken aback, DEBKAfile revealed, after receiving word from Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak that Syrian president Bashar Assad had ordered the extremist Hamas to drop its all-or-nothing ultimatum and lower its demands form 100 to 90 percent. This hope was dashed when put to the test. Labor’s Barak’s tempted by Netanyahu’s four-portfolio proposition 18 Mar.: Ehud Barak, defense minister and Labor leader, is close to a decision to take his party into Binyamin Netanyahu’s coalition government, tempted by his latest offer, according to DEBKAfile’s political sources. He is battling fierce opposition inside his party but believes he can swing round the majority of the central committee when it meets next week. Netanyahu will next week ask the president for more time for coalition negotiations. Although he has ratcheted up a majority of 61-65 Knesset members, Israel’s prime minister-in-waiting is very reluctant to lead an administration made up of right-of-center, nationalist and religious parties. To lure Labor, our sources report he is offering that party the ministries of defense, social welfare, pensioners and one without portfolio, two deputy ministers and two powerful parliamentary chairs – Finance and Constitution. The designated prime minister is willing to pick Israel’s ambassador to Washington together with the Labor leader. Saudis create anti-Israeli Palestinian “militia” in Gaza to combat Hamas Recruiters promise greater militancy against Israel than Hamas and Jihad Islami combined. The new Gaza group is intended to complement the pro-Saudi organization established in southern Lebanon in January, part of a new Riyadh project to establish a chain of Islamist, Taliban-style fighting cadres under Saudi control for combating the pro-Iranian and al Qaeda terrorist organizations strung across the Middle East. This grand design is the brainchild of the Saudi intelligence chief Prince Muqrin Abdul Aziz. High Russian official: Moscow is gradually fulfilling S-300 air defense contract with Iran 18 Mar.: According to Western intelligence sources, Moscow keeps on changing its position on delivery of five sophisticated Russian S-300 anti-missile, anti-air missile systems sold to Iran for $800 million for four reasons: 1. Fluctuating levels of tension ahead of the first summit between the Russian and American presidents in London on April 2. Wednesday, March 18, an unnamed official of Russia’s Federal Service of Military-Technical Cooperation issued another muddled statement: “Russia has not delivered the S-300 air defense systems” – then: “Meanwhile the contract is being fulfilled gradually,” followed by:”Further fulfillment of the contract will mainly depend on the current international situation and the decision of the country’s leadership” and “Russia has no intention of giving up the estimated hundred million-US dollar contract.” March 18 Briefs:– Israel High Court allows demolition of home of first “tractor terrorist” who killed three people in Jerusalem in July 2008. Incoming FM Lieberman urges strategic partnership between Israel and Russia19 Mar.: Tapped as foreign minister in the future Netanyahu government, Avigdor Lieberman says relations between Israeli and Russia “must and can rise to a level of strategic partnership.” In an unusual interview with the Russian Interfax news agency, the leader of the right-of-center Israel Beitenu said Wednesday, March 18: “However paradoxical it may seem, the global economic crisis gives Israel new opportunities to reach the Russian market after many Western companies abandoned it.” He added: “The same refers to military-technical cooperation. Israel has quite a few things to offer Russia in this sector – from electronic systems for fighter jets to drones.” Israel Beitenu came third in the February general election. |
Category: News
-
DEBKA Reviev
-
Invitation to talk Turkey
March 18, 2009
COMPANIES looking to trade with Turkish firms are invited to a free advice clinic in Manchester next week.
The session will be held on Monday at the Royal Bank of Scotland’s offices in Spinningfields. It is being organised by international trade advisers from The Export Network and representatives of Istanbul-based training and support outfit Doga Innovatory. Companies can book a 45-minute slot to talk over issues.
Turkey is the 15th largest market in the world, and exports from Britain totalled £5.5bn in 2007. Around 1,800 UK companies have interests in Turkey.
For more information, contact Simon Watson at the RBS via [email protected].
Source: www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk, March 18, 2009
-
Why Turkey Matters To The U.S.
Melik Kaylan, 03.17.09, 12:00 AM EDT
Obama will need all of his diplomatic skills in Ankara.
President Obama’s upcoming state visit to Turkey on March 30 brings up the question: Why is Turkey important? What benefits accrue to the U.S. and its global strategy to have Turkey on board, and what is lost by the absence thereof? Yes, yes, NATO ally, moderate Islamic democracy, bridge between Europe and Asia, but what in practical terms does it all mean?
Mr. Obama’s visit will surely furnish a massive photo-op on many levels–he will demonstrate how, in his administration, diplomacy will be the first recourse in a way that never convincingly happened in the Bush era. There will be a lot of noise about showing respect to Muslim nations; words like “dialogue” and “dignity” will be intoned gravely. The visit will make Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan look like a real statesman again after his mercurial behavior at Davos toward the Israeli president. But beyond the diplomatic and symbolic, what?
Not so fast. Actually the diplomatic and symbolic matter tremendously in this region, something that the younger Bush grievously underestimated and the older Bush understood precisely. In Turkey specifically, such things matter for a host of reasons. Like the U.K. and Russia, Turkey suffers from post-Imperial confusion about its role, its identity and importance in the world
The Turkish language as spoken in Turkey no longer translates easily across borders to other Turkic countries, and former Ottoman non-Turkic provinces have adopted other languages. Unlike Russia and the U.K., Turkey feels painfully isolated, under-informed, unarticulated. Nobody understands the Turkish point of view automatically, the way Aussies might understand the Brits or Belarusians the Russians. Conversely, it’s not easy for Turks to eavesdrop on or gain clues from other cultures. As a result, they are prone to all sorts of paranoias.
During the second Gulf War, Turks developed acute suspicions about the long-term goals of the second Bush administration. Highly placed sources in the Turkish military told me that before the war they had sounded out their American counterparts on pre-war U.S. clandestine activities in the Iraqi Kurdish zone.
Here’s what the Turks said in effect: “We kept being told, no, the U.S. keeps no secrets from you–but we knew otherwise. We had pictures of secret meetings with local Kurdish tribal leaders. We had sources there for years. We also knew that Iranians had spies everywhere, that the U.S. was blundering into minefields. We could have been helpful, but we were kept out in the cold. So we wondered, what are they up to with the Kurds that they don’t want us to know?”
Even then, top Turkish leaders, Erdogan and the generals, publicly endorsed formal collaboration with the war. One top general said on television that even though the military was against the war and didn’t think it was good for Turkey, they understood that being locked out of it would be worse. He advised cooperation.
In the end, a handful of Turkish parliamentarians mistakenly voted “no” to U.S. plans, that is to give U.S. troops access to Iraq via Turkey. The parliamentarians thought the “yes” vote was locked in, and they could grandstand harmlessly by voting “no.” Suddenly, it was up to the Speaker of the House to cast the deciding vote, and he knew that his political career would be finished if, with all the cameras rolling, he voted “yes”–because a “yes” vote was seen as agreeing with the entire George W. Bush project for the region, known in Turkey as the “Great Middle East Project.”
A top U.S. bureaucrat who happened to be in parliament visiting–a close friend to the Bushies–told me, “It was very frustrating: such an important event and I was the only American there. I was there completely by accident. Not officially at all. If I’d been empowered, I could have talked to a few of them, twisted a few arms, made assurances, soothed egos and changed the vote. That’s all it needed. And no one was there to do it. The administration has only itself to blame.”
See what I mean about the importance of diplomacy? Now, what about the “Great Middle East Project?” The Turks were convinced of a long-term neoconservative-designed blueprint to change the borders of the region. Pundits and papers discussed it incessantly. In this scenario, the Iraqi Kurds would be emboldened to unite with the Turkish Kurds to create a “Greater Kurdistan,” which would become a new, more pliant, client state of the U.S.
This paranoid vision simply didn’t take into account how the U.S. functions, especially these days. That kind of thing was possible during the British or Russian Great Game era but really makes no sense in the present. Nevertheless, the Turks were convinced that U.S. strategy planned for a fragmenting of their country as the Brits had intended after World War I, and as happened unintentionally with Bosnia and Kosovo more recently.
In many cases and places, diplomacy and symbolic actions matter. A lot. In the case of the second Gulf War, it mattered in unintended but important ways. The absence of massed U.S. troops in the north didn’t affect “Shock and Awe.” All the problems arose after that, with the occupation, when the allies could already move forces freely anywhere within Iraq. And when the Turks finally offered to send in 10,000 troops to help the allies, it was the Kurds who nixed it. Still, inadvertent damage ensued from the misunderstandings. The Turks grew noticeably warmer to Moscow. Erdogan began to make friends with Iran and Damascus, and stoked pan-Muslim sentiments for his own political gain.
None of these new friendships are good for Turkey. Or for the West. President Obama’s first task then is to re-convince the Turks of America’s good intentions. He should clear away the paranoias and show how Turkey benefits if the U.S. succeeds. Having a nonregional friend is a tremendous asset for the Turks–they should take another look at their neighbors and wake up. But Mr. Obama should also find ways to re-initiate the westernization process in Turkey. Money and support should flow from Europe, too, not just to industry and politics but to culture and education, to counteract the Islamizing influences from the oil states.
What are the practical benefits to the U.S.? Let us list them: Turkish troops in Afghanistan. Freer NATO naval access to the Black Sea to bolster Ukrainian and Georgian morale. Turkish help for Georgia. A pro-U.S. Turkish flanking threat to distract Iran. Ditto Syria. The continued flow of non-Arab, non-Russian oil from Azerbaijan to the world. Increased U.S.-friendly Turkish influence in Central Asia’s Turkic states to counteract Russian and Iranian influence (remember those U.S. bases?). A secular Muslim buffer in the region against Islamization.
If the U.S. and Turkey act in unison, as they did in the Cold War, Turkey can tip the balance as a pro-Western force in the region’s new politics. But it will take all of President Obama’s diplomatic and symbolic skills, sustained over time, to turn things around.
Melik Kaylan, a writer based in New York, writes a weekly column for Forbes.com. His story “Georgia In The Time of Misha” is featured in The Best American Travel Writing 2008.
Source: www.forbes.com, 17.03.2009
-
Poor Richard’s Report
Turkey, U.S.: Strengthening Ties as Ankara Rises
March 19, 2009 | 1837 GMT ADEM ALTAN/AFP/Getty ImagesTurkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip ErdoganSummary
U.S. President Barack Obama will visit Turkey on April 6-7 and meet with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The United States and Turkey have many areas of mutual interest, including Iraq, Middle Eastern diplomatic efforts, Iran and Central Asia. Obama’s visit indicates that his administration recognizes Turkey’s growing prominence, and it gives the United States a chance to coordinate policy with a rising power.Analysis
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan confirmed late March 18 that U.S. President Barack Obama will be visiting Turkey on April 6-7. In an interview with Turkish news channel Kanal 7, Erdogan said he had invited Obama to attend a meeting of the Alliance of Civilizations initiative in Istanbul on April 7, but “did not expect” Obama to arrive a day early for an official state visit to Ankara. “Combining the two occasions is very meaningful for us,” he added. Obama’s trip to Turkey will follow a visit to London for the G-20 summit on the global financial crisis, a NATO summit in Strasbourg, France, and a trip to Prague to meet with EU leaders.Obama’s decision to visit Turkey this early in the game highlights his administration’s recognition of Turkey’s growing prominence in the region. The Turks have woken up after 90 years of post-Ottoman hibernation and are in the process of rediscovering a sphere of influence extending far beyond the Anatolian Peninsula. The Americans, on the other hand, are in the process of drawing down their presence in the Middle East in order to free up U.S. military capabilities to address pressing needs in Afghanistan. With the Turks stepping forward and the Americans stepping back, there are a number of issues of common interest that Obama and Erdogan will need to discuss.
The first order of business is Iraq. The United States is putting its exit strategy into motion and is looking to Turkey to serve as an exit route for U.S. troops and equipment from Iraq. The Turks would not have a problem with granting the United States such access, but they also want to make sure that U.S. withdrawal plans will not interfere with Turkey’s intentions of keeping Iraqi Kurdistan in check. With key Kurdish leader and Iraqi President Jalal Talabani retiring soon and Kurdish demands over the oil-rich city of Kirkuk intensifying, the Turks want to make clear to the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in Iraq that Ankara promptly will shut down any attempts to expand Kurdish autonomy. Turkey will not hesitate to use the issue of Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) fighters hiding out in northern Ir aq as a pretext for future military incursions should the need arise to pressure the KRG in a more forceful way, but such tactics could run into complications if the United States intends to withdraw the bulk of its forces through northern Iraq. Therefore, the decision on where to base U.S. troops during the withdrawal process will be a political one, and one that will have to address Turkish concerns over the Kurds. Washington likely will see this as a reasonable price to pay, as it has other problems to handle.
Related Special Topic Page
Turkey’s Re-Emergence
Beyond Iraq, the United States is looking to Turkey as the Muslim regional heavyweight to take the lead in handling some of the knottier issues in the Middle East. The Israeli-Syrian peace talks that went public in 2008 were a Turkish initiative. These negotiations are now in limbo, with the Israelis still working to form a new government, but the Turks are looking to revive them in the near future. Turkey, Israel, the United States and the Arab states all share an interest in bringing Syria into a Western alliance structure, with the aim of depriving Iran of its leverage in the Levant. However, the Syrians are setting an equally high price for their cooperation: Syrian domination over Lebanon. These negotiations are packed with potential deal breakers, but Turkey intends to take on the challenge in the interest of securing its southern flank.Iran is another critical area where the United States and Turkey see eye to eye. The fall of Saddam Hussein and the rise of the Shia in Iraq have given Iran a platform for projecting influence in the Arab world. But the Turks far outpace the Iranians in a geopolitical contest and will be instrumental in keeping Iranian expansionist goals in check. Erdogan’s outburst over Israel’s Gaza offensive was just one of many ways Turkey has been working to assert its regional leadership, build up its credibility among Sunnis in the Arab world and override Iranian attempts to reach beyond its borders. At the same time, the Turks carry weight with the Iranians, who view Turkey as a fellow great empire of the past and non-Arab partner in the Middle East. Washington may not necessarily need the Turks to mediate in its rocky negotiations with Iran, but it will rely heavily on Turkish clout in the region to help put the Iranians in their place.
Some problems may arise, however, when U.S.-Turkish talks venture beyond the Middle East and enter areas where the Turkish and Russian spheres of influence overlap. Turkey’s influence extends into Central Asia and deep into the Caucasus, where the Turks have a strong foothold in Azerbaijan and ties to Georgia, and are in the process of patching things up with the Armenians. As the land bridge between Europe and Asia, Turkey is also the key non-Russian energy transit hub for the European market, and through its control of the Bosporus, it is the gatekeeper to the Black Sea. In each of these areas, the Turks bump into the Russians, another resurgent power that is on a tight timetable for extracting key concessions from the United States on a range of issues that revolve around Russia’s core imperative of protecting its former Soviet periphery from Western meddling.
The U.S. administration and the Kremlin have been involved in intense negotiations over these demands. Washington is still sorting out which concessions it can make in return for Russian cooperation in allowing the United States access to Central Asia for supply routes to Afghanistan, and in applying pressure on Iran. As part of these negotiations, Obama will be meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev at the G-20 summit and later in the summer in Moscow. Though it is still unclear just how much the United States is willing to give the Russians at this juncture — and how flexible the Turks will be in challenging Russia — Washington wants to make sure its allies, like Turkey, are on the same page.
But as STRATFOR has discussed in depth, Russia and Turkey now have more reason to cooperate than collide, and recent diplomatic traffic between Moscow and Ankara certainly reflects this reality. In areas where the United States will want to apply pressure on Russia, such as on energy security for the Europeans, the Turks likely will resist rocking the boat with Moscow. The last thing Turkey wants at this point is to give Russia a reason to politicize its trade relationship with Ankara, cause trouble for the Turks in the Caucasus or meddle in Turkey’s Middle Eastern backyard. In short, there are real limits to what the United States can expect from Turkey in its strategy against Russia.
Obama and Erdogan evidently will have plenty to talk about when they meet in Ankara. Though the United States and Turkey have much to sort out regarding Iraq, Syria, Iran and Russia, this visit will give Obama the stage to formally recognize Turkey’s regional prowess and demonstrate a U.S. understanding of Turkey’s growing independence. Washington can see that the Turks are already brimming with confidence in conducting their regional affairs, and can expect some bumps down the road when interests collide. But the sooner the Americans can start coordinating policy with a resurgent power like Turkey, the better equipped Washington will be for conducting negotiations in other parts of the globe.
Tell STRATFOR What You Think
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
© Copyright 2009 Stratfor. All rights reserved. -
President’s Budget Strategy Under Fire
Sen. Judd Gregg called the administration’s push for a budget shortcut the opposite of bipartisanship. (Susan Walsh – AP)
Tactic May Break Obama’s Bipartisan Pledge, GOP Says
By Lori Montgomery Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 18, 2009; Page A01Senior members of the Obama administration are pressing lawmakers to use a shortcut to drive the president’s signature initiatives on health care and energy through Congress without Republican votes, a move that many lawmakers say would fly in the face of President Obama’s pledge to restore bipartisanship to Washington.
Republicans are howling about the proposal to expand health coverage and tax greenhouse gas emissions without their input, warning that it could irrevocably damage relations with the new president.
“That would be the Chicago approach to governing: Strong-arm it through,” said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), who briefly considered joining the Obama administration as commerce secretary. “You’re talking about the exact opposite of bipartisan. You’re talking about running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them in the Chicago River.”
The shortcut, known as “budget reconciliation,” would allow Obama’s health and energy proposals to be rolled into a bill that cannot be filibustered, meaning Democrats could push it through the Senate with 51 votes, instead of the usual 60. Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton both used the tactic to win deficit-reduction packages, while George W. Bush used it to push through his signature tax cuts.
Administration officials say they have not made a final decision about whether to use the maneuver. But White House budget director Peter R. Orszag said yesterday that it is “premature to be taking it off the table.” Meanwhile, key administration officials, including White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, are pushing for reconciliation instructions in the budget proposal that Democrats are scheduled to unveil next week, congressional sources said.
“I’m aware and the president is aware of the concerns that have been expressed, especially by Republicans, about its use,” Orszag told reporters at a luncheon organized by the Christian Science Monitor. “We’d like to avoid it, if possible, but we’re not taking it off the table at this point.”
House Democratic leaders also are pressing strongly to use reconciliation in hopes of avoiding a repeat of the debate over the economic stimulus package, when a more expansive proposal adopted in the House was modified to appease moderate Democrats and Republicans in the Senate.With 58 Senate seats, Democrats need the support of at least two Republicans to block a filibuster. But they could pass a reconciliation bill without any Republican votes – and without the support of troublesome moderates in their own party.
Some moderate Democrats are arguing that reconciliation would empower their party’s liberal wing while undermining a critical aspect of Obama’s popular appeal – his promise to work across the aisle.
Just yesterday, in promoting his budget request, Obama said he was open to a healthy debate and invited Republicans to offer alternatives to his proposals. “With the magnitude of the challenges we face right now, what we need in Washington are not more political tactics, we need more good ideas,” he said. “We don’t need more point-scoring, we need more problem-solving.”
Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) said reconciliation would send the opposite message, creating “kind of a divisive atmosphere.” Lincoln, a member of the Senate Finance Committee who has been working for months with GOP colleagues to lay the foundation for health-care reform, said circumventing that painstaking process “would just be sticking them in the eye.”
Lincoln is one of seven Democrats who last week joined 21 Republican senators in declaring their opposition to using reconciliation to expedite Obama’s plan to auction off permits for the release of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, a proposal known as cap and trade. That legislation “is likely to influence nearly every feature of the U.S. economy,” the letter says, adding that any move to put it on a fast track or to limit debate “would be inconsistent with the administration’s stated goals of bipartisanship, cooperation, and openness.”
Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which is handling health care, also has spoken against reconciliation, arguing that he would rather have a health-care plan that can win broad, bipartisan support than a narrowly drawn proposal passed only by Democrats. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, has argued against reconciliation as well.
“There are many more problems with using reconciliation than is commonly appreciated,” Conrad said yesterday, after he and House Budget Committee Chairman Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (D-S.C.) met with Obama at the White House. The topic of reconciliation came up “in passing,” Conrad said, but no decisions were made.
One big problem, Conrad said, is that reconciliation was conceived as a way to force hard budget choices, such as tax increases or spending cuts, not as a means to advance substantive legislation.
Clinton, for example, rejected reconciliation for his own ill-fated health-care proposal, as did Republican congressional leaders when they enacted a Medicare prescription drug benefit, in part because reconciliation is permitted only for spending and revenue provisions. All the administrative language necessary to create a new health-care program or a new cap-and-trade regime could be cut, leaving major initiatives looking like “Swiss cheese,” Conrad said.
G. William Hoagland, a former budget aide to Senate Republican leaders, said measures enacted through reconciliation also are temporary, which is one reason the Bush tax cuts will expire in 2010. “Do you really want to set up a new health-care system just to have it expire?” he said.
Jim Horney, a budget analyst at the left-leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, agreed that those rules create obstacles to using reconciliation for Obama’s initiatives. But he said reconciliation is hardly a declaration of war on Republicans.
Several past reconciliation bills, including a student-loan measure in 2007, won bipartisan support, Horney said. He added that it’s “a little odd that Republicans who thought it was hunky-dory to push through the Bush tax cuts now find it unbelievably offensive that you might use reconciliation, even as a backup.”
Republicans argue that changing the tax rate is very different from adopting a sweeping reform of health care or energy policy.
“This is a game-changer for how the nation’s economy relates to energy,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), the senior Republican on the Senate Energy Committee, said of the cap-and-trade proposal. “If we do it quickly, shame on us.”
Staff writer Steven Mufson contributed to this report.
-
Only 25% of Britons believe evolution
EVOLUTION SURVEYS UNDER THE MONOPOLY OF THE DARWINIST DICTATORSHIP
An opinion poll was conducted in Britain. But the result came as a shock to Darwinists. The level of belief in the theory of evolution, in Darwin’s homeland, Britain, where Richard Dawkins’ atheist and Darwinist propaganda is most intense, emerged at a mere 25%. Britain’s best-known dailies immediately carried the story. This important and major development came as a real shock to Darwinists. It was the loudest declaration of Darwinism’s defeat.
The result of the survey, carried out nationwide on the Guardian website on 2 February, 2009, was announced as follows: “Only 25% of Britons believe Darwin’s theory of evolution”. This headline, which reflected the poll findings, was altered within a few hours. This defeat being carried in the headlines was unacceptable to the Darwinist dictatorship. For that reason, the headline to the report carried in the publications in question was swiftly changed in a matter of hours. The new report did not repeat that the level of belief in Darwinism was very low. The poll findings were distorted. The genuine report, which was carried for a brief period of time, was suddenly changed. Once again, people had been deceived under the influence of the Darwinist dictatorship.
The incident did not end there. The results of this poll in Britain must have been particularly unwelcome, for Darwinists lost no time in resorting to another method in order to cover them up. “We have conducted a new poll,” they said. They gave the result of the poll they claimed to have conducted among 2000 people to the press. Under the influence of the Darwinist dictatorship the captions in the British press were swiftly altered. The British people were announced to be “evolutionist” by this false poll based on the opinions of 2000 persons.
The fact is that this was a dirty trick by the Darwinist dictatorship that has taken the whole world under its sway and deceived people for many years.
These intrigues have long been an effective technique for this sinister dictatorship that strives to spread Darwinist propaganda. Formerly, Darwinists used to draw pictures of imaginary ape ancestors, discover perfectly complex fossils of extinct life forms and claim that these were transitional fossils and maintain that a whole country was evolutionist, and people would duly believe them. That was because Darwinists kept the real scientific evidence carefully hidden away and nobody knew that Darwinism was a lie. They imagined that the equine series they saw in museums and the peppered moths they read about in school books were true, and were duly convinced because they knew nothing more. Whatever the Darwinist dictatorship said, went.
But then something happened that Darwinists never expected.
THE DARWINIST DICTATORSHIP WAS DEALT A BODY BLOW: BY ATLAS OF CREATION.
The fossils so carefully hidden away were suddenly revealed. THERE WERE 100 MILLION FOSSILS THAT PROVED CREATION. These all belonged to perfect, flawless and complex life forms, and many were living fossils. People realized that a tiger is the same today as it was 50 million years ago. A squid is the same today as it was 100 million years ago. And people also realized THAT NOT A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FORM FOSSIL EXISTED. Most important of all, they realized THEY HAD BEEN DECEIVED. The scientific facts were before their eyes. There was now no way of deceiving people by holding back the scientific proofs. Unable to produce any scientific evidence, and thus forced to rely on propaganda alone, Darwinism was abandoned.
Demagoguery and propaganda are old Darwinist techniques. But that age is now over. It has no more influence over people who are now aware and have seen the scientific evidence. People are abandoning evolution in droves and turning to belief in Allah (God). This is now showing itself very clearly and with powerful evidence in all countries. That is why Darwinists are in such a panic and such despair.
Darwinism has been totally routed. It has been demolished. The Darwinist system that regarded people as ignorant and insignificant has realized that it can no longer deceive them. Nobody falls into the traps of the Darwinist dictatorship any more. They can make as much propaganda as they like, but nobody in the world really believes in Darwinism any more.
Mar 17, 2009
Source: www.harunyahya.com, Mar 17, 2009