SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : THE VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: calgal who wrote (5137)12/30/2003 10:10:06 PM
From: calgal  Respond to of 6358
 
Iraq War Ignites Strife Between Senators



Dec 30, 3:27 PM (ET)

By ALAN FRAM

(AP) Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. gestures during an interview with the Associated Press on Capitol Hill in...
Full Image


WASHINGTON (AP) - Between them, Democrat Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Republican Ted Stevens of Alaska have spent 80 years in the Senate, long ago forging a deferential bond that survived the Vietnam War, Watergate, an impeachment and record budget deficits.

But the often warm friendship between two of the most cantankerous and perhaps most feared power brokers in Washington has been frayed over the war in Iraq. Their solicitous exaltations of one another replaced by uncharacteristically gruff clashes in recent months.

"I don't know," Stevens, who turned 80 last month, said about his relationship with Byrd. "We'll just have to see what happens now."

Byrd, who turned 86 two days later, said his affection for Stevens is "too deep" to be hurt by one issue. But he added, "I think of this as I think of life, one day at a time, one issue at a time."


(AP) Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska gestures during a Capitol Hill news conference in this March 4, 2003...
Full Image

Byrd's 45 years in the Senate make him the second longest serving of the 1,875 senators in history, behind only the 47 1/2 years of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C. Stevens' 35 years rank him 20th.

The two men are linked by more than longevity.

They sit elbow to elbow on the Senate Appropriations Committee, where Stevens is chairman and Byrd the top Democrat and longtime chairman when his party had the majority. That panel is one of Congress' most crucial, responsible for 13 must-pass spending bills every year that control the purses of every federal agency and one-third of the $2.2 trillion federal budget.

It's also one of Congress' most rewarding committees for lawmakers, who use it to win roads, dams and other projects for the folks back home. Almost in a class by themselves, Byrd and Stevens have used their perches over the years to steer vast federal sums to their economically fragile states.

It's a committee that demands bipartisanship to function. Byrd and Stevens know that better than anyone - as they demonstrated just before Congress recessed for Thanksgiving, when they helped craft a massive $373 billion package combining seven overdue spending bills.

The House has passed the measure, and the Senate will deal with it when the next session of Congress starts Jan. 20. Its fate is uncertain, not because of any bad feelings between Stevens and Byrd but due to fights over provisions the Bush administration won on overtime pay, media ownership, meat labeling and other issues.

"I'm sure they'll try to work together," Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., another senior Appropriations Committee member, said of Byrd and Stevens. "They've got to work together."

Stevens and Byrd have survived past spats, such as disputes over their office space when Democrats took Senate control in 2001 and Republicans won it back two years later.

But their association was never as openly damaged as by the two-month congressional fight over Bush's request for funds to fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and rebuild both countries. Bush signed the $87.5 billion measure Nov. 6.

Stevens saw his role as championing the president's proposal, while Byrd was one of Bush's foremost critics and was determined to defend Congress' power of the purse. Neither saw reason to back down, such as at one September committee hearing with L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator of Iraq.

"I don't think I've ever been treated with such discourtesy as I have on this occasion," Byrd said after Stevens turned down Byrd's request for another hearing. "And I'm surprised, Mr. Chairman, that you would treat your old friend like that."

During that same session, Stevens told Byrd, "I'm not here for you to read me the New York Times," after the West Virginian read a headline from that newspaper. "I read it yesterday. Now, I have to go home, sir. Do you have any more questions for Ambassador Bremer?"

"Well, you're not going to rush this senator," Byrd responded.

At another meeting two days later, Stevens interrupted Byrd when Byrd persisted in talking after his allotted time had expired.

"Thank you for your courtesy," Byrd said in a tone that sounded sarcastic.

"Senator, I was courteous," Stevens replied.

That sparked a prolonged exchange that ended when Stevens asked, "Is the senator finished?"

"Go ahead, Mr. Chairman. You're in charge," said Byrd.

There were other acerbic confrontations as well, all in contrast with the gracious way they have interacted and helped each other for years.

Byrd has called Stevens the best appropriations chairman with whom he has served, and Stevens has returned similar compliments. Stevens did not block the Appalachian Regional Commission, which Byrd helped create, from funneling aid to West Virginia, and Byrd reciprocated when Stevens produced the Denali Commission to provide similar economic assistance for Alaska.

Stevens still recalls the concern Byrd showed when Stevens' first wife was killed in a 1978 plane crash, an accident that Stevens survived.

Now that Byrd's wife, Erma, has health problems, "I don't think a day goes by when I don't ask him" about her, Stevens said.

"We've shared periods of real highs and lows in terms of our family problems," Stevens said. "It's hard to put that in context of what we're doing right now in terms of war."



To: calgal who wrote (5137)12/30/2003 10:11:52 PM
From: calgal  Respond to of 6358
 
U.S. Sets Terms for Dialogue With Iran


Dec 30, 5:03 PM (ET)

By GEORGE GEDDA

(AP) Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, answers a question during a news conference in Kerman, Ian,...
Full Image


WASHINGTON (AP) - Citing positive developments with Iran, the State Department indicated interest Tuesday in opening a dialogue with the Islamic Republic so long as it adheres to its international commitments.

Meanwhile, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami said he sees no change in the 25-year U.S.-Iranian estrangement unless Washington changes its tone and behavior.

At the same time, Khatami thanked the United States for the relief it has sent following Friday's devastating earthquake in southeastern Iran.

Secretary of State Colin Powell alluded to "encouraging" moves by Iran in an interview with the Washington Post. He said Iran was demonstrating a "new attitude" on certain issues.

Without contradicting Powell, White House spokesman Trent Duffy, accompanying President Bush in Crawford, Tex., put a more negative cast on the situation.

"We've made clear to the Iranian government on many occasions our grave concerns regarding its support for terrorism, pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and other of its activities," Duffy said.

The normally frigid air between Washington and Tehran seemed to thaw slightly in recent days after Iran eagerly accepted the U.S. aid offer.

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage placed a phone call to Iran's U.N. envoy, Javad Zariv, who was in Tehran at the time of the tragedy.

Armitage called at 3 a.m. Tehran time with the assistance offer. To the surprise of U.S. officials, Zariv returned the call within 30 minutes. The United States is among the principal relief donors internationally.

Powell's upbeat comments apparently referred, in part, to Iran's recent decision to allow surprise inspections of its nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said there could be no forward movement unless Iran fulfilled that commitment.

"Iran's follow-through on its commitments to the IAEA and to the international community are critical," he said.

He also noted that the IAEA has made clear that Iran will suffer serious consequences if it does not live up to its pledges.

The Bush administration has accused Iran of attempting to conceal a nuclear weapons program that, it says, began in the mid-1980's. Iran has insisted that its nuclear programs are designed for peaceful purposes.

Much like Duffy, Ereli highlighted U.S. concerns about Iranian support for militant Islamic groups.

"It's important to note that Iran is among the world's major foremost state sponsors of terror," he said.

Discussing the relief effort, Ereli said the U.S. Agency for International Development has put together an 84-member team of experts.

The team includes 60 Boston-area doctors and other medical workers who arrived in the devastated city of Bam on Tuesday and began setting up a mobile hospital.

The team is expected to begin treating patients on Wednesday.

In addition, Ereli said prepositioned relief commodities were being sent from Dubai to Bam. They include 12,500 blankets and enough plastic sheeting to provide shelter for 3,000 families.

In Tehran, Khatami downplayed any suggestion that a warming trend with Washington was at hand.

While thanking the United States for its generosity, Khatami said, "Humanitarian issues should not be intertwined with deep and chronic political problems. If we see change both in tone and behavior of the U.S. administration, then a new situation will develop in our relations."

Besides Cuba, Iran is believed to be the only country in the world with which the United States does not maintain a political dialogue.

That situation has persisted since the hostage crisis of 1979-81, except for a brief period earlier this year when the two countries exchanged views on developments in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which border on Iran. The discussions were held under United Nations auspices.

The Clinton administration saw a possible opening toward more normal relations in 1997 with Khatami's election. In hopes of bringing about a thaw, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright apologized for past U.S. actions in Iran, including the coup that the CIA sponsored there in 1953.

But the initiative fell on deaf ears, partly because foreign policy decisions in Iran are in the hands of conservative mullahs known for their staunch anti-American stand.

Some analysts have suggested that Iran might respond positively to a U.S. crackdown on the Iraq-based Iranian exile group known as Mujahedeen Khalq (MEK), which is attempting to overthrow Iran's theocracy.

U.S. forces in Iraq disarmed the MEK after the Iraq war. The administration also closed down the Washington offices of another counter-revolutionary Iranian group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran.

Washington lists both groups as terrorist organizations. Iran praised the U.S. steps but refrained from making any reciprocal gestures.



To: calgal who wrote (5137)12/30/2003 10:13:11 PM
From: calgal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 6358
 
Do Democrats Need Religion? (6 Letters)

Published: December 30, 2003


ARTICLE TOOLS







Republican Party



Wallis, Jim







o the Editor:

In "Putting God Back in Politics" (Op-Ed, Dec. 28), Jim Wallis discusses the difference between Democrats and Republicans regarding religion but doesn't make a crucial distinction: God and organized religion are not necessarily the same thing.

The religion of the right is a political institution concerned more with exercising power over social behavior than with Jesus' anticonformist teachings of justice and compassion.

The separation of church and state, a tenet dear to most Democrats, provides for freedom of religion and inclusiveness. Its erosion under the present administration increases the politicization and polarization of religion and the exclusion of those who disagree.

Rather than engage the right on religious ground, Democrats need to support aggressively the social and personal values that their leaders in the past have espoused and many of us find lacking in the Republican agenda. That would be a truly moral stand.

MAUREEN W. ARMOUR
Naples, Fla., Dec. 28, 2003

To the Editor:

Re "Putting God Back in Politics," by Jim Wallis (Op-Ed, Dec. 28):

I'm one of those Southern Democrats who started as a Democrat, spent several years voting Republican, and five years ago came back to the Democrats for good. I realized that there were too many stands the Republicans have that don't coincide with my religious upbringing and the morals and principles I was taught were right.

My faith affects the choices I make in life. I hope the same is true for our elected officials.

SHARON FORD
Canton, Miss., Dec. 28, 2003

To the Editor:

Jim Wallis's Dec. 28 Op-Ed article speaks to me as a lifelong Democrat and Christian. It reminds me of what the theologian H. Richard Niebuhr said in his lectures at Yale: we all have a right to views of the Absolute, but none of us have a right to absolute views.

If politicians would heed that principle, they might avoid the arrogance too often associated with religion in political rhetoric. Better for us all the humility that begins, "It seems to me that the Bible says . . ."

DONALD W. SHRIVER JR.
New York, Dec. 28, 2003
The writer is president emeritus, Union Theological Seminary.

To the Editor:

Jim Wallis ("Putting God Back in Politics," Op-Ed, Dec. 28) suggests a new approach that could be helpful both for the Democratic Party and for America. Unfortunately, the leadership of our party shows neither the imagination nor the courage to take up such a challenge.

NICHOLAS CLIFFORD
New Haven, Vt., Dec. 28, 2003

To the Editor:

Re "Putting God Back in Politics," by Jim Wallis (Op-Ed, Dec. 28):

I agree that the Republicans have claimed the religious high ground in contradiction to their policies. The "Christian right" has always seemed to me an oxymoron. I would say that to be a Christian who takes the teachings of the religion's founder seriously precludes membership in today's Republican Party.

The current occupants of the White House, whatever they call themselves, have consistently chosen mammon and Caesar over God.

MARVIN BARRETT
New York, Dec. 28, 2003

To the Editor:

Jim Wallis (Op-Ed, Dec. 28) asserts that "Democrats deprive Americans of an important debate" by "withdrawing into secularism" and cites the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as an example of the effect of religious belief on the public sphere.

But Dr. King was not an elected official. He is the perfect example of how an individual's religious beliefs can have dramatic public effect.

The fact that religion should be kept out of the business of state does not mean that it should be kept out of our varied national discussions. It means only that the government should have nothing to do with it.

ALICE D. MICHTOM
Ithaca, N.Y., Dec. 28, 2003