Kerry sides with Lieberman against Dean on Middle East Comment

[dolstein]

Rivals Criticize Dean For Mideast Comment

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 9, 2003; Page A02

Howard Dean came under fire yesterday from two rivals for the Democratic nomination for saying the United States should not "take sides" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

. . .

Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) said: "It is either because he lacks the foreign policy experience or simply because he is wrong that governor Dean has proposed a radical shift in United States policy towards the Middle East. If the president were to make a remark such as this it would throw an already volatile region into even more turmoil."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45122-2003Sep8.html

Gee, I wonder whether DU'ers will go after Kerry the way they went after Lieberman. Or will the double standard continue?

[dolstein]

1. Bump

NT

[IrateCitizen]

6. You must be getting confused with the time you spend on FR, dolstein

On DU, the preferred term is, "KICK!" :evilgrin:

[dolstein]

11. I've never been on Free Republic

Though it sounds like you have :-)

[IrateCitizen]

18. I know you are, but what am I???

I'm like rubber, and you're like glue...
Whatever you say bounces off of me, and sticks to you!

:bounce:

[IrateCitizen]

2. I vehemently disagree with both Kerry and Lieberman on this issue

Both sides (Israel and Palestine) are headed up by gangsters. Arafat and his cronies all have multi-million dollar mansions while the majority of Palestinians eek out their daily existence in poverty. Sharon is no better than a common thug.

Call me crazy, but as much as I disavow the use of terrorism against civilians by the Palestinians; I also cannot accept the policies of assassination or stealing of land perpetrated by the Israeli government under either Likud or Labor leadership. Neither are policies worthy of a true democratic state.

Kerry and Lieberman are BOTH wrong on this issue. However, I have also heard Dean say some rather harsh things on the I/P situation, and I don't know if I truly believe him on the "not taking sides" thing either.

Of course, dolstein, I have always been one of those "fringe leftists" you so despise, who has chosen to criticize Lieberman for different matters entirely. ;-)

[Walt Starr]

7. You are absolutely right

When both sides are comprised of evil thugs, the violence will never end.

[Jacobin]

3. Glad to know where Kerry stands. Now I know I like Dean

[Forkboy]

4. Peas in a pod

[blm]

5. I think Kerry is strategically trying to trip Dean up,

because Dean is adrift on this issue, and it is becoming more obvious to longtime observers.

Kerry has said that we need to be seen as neutral, honest brokers in the Mideast. Dean had no policy but was ProSharon after his visit with him last January. He came back supporting Sharon's "wall". Some of his supporters became upsat by this, and now Dean is in a muddle, backtracking where he can, shifting as needed for his campaign.

I think Kerry going after him is more about strategy than honest disagreement. Kinda like Dean attacking Kerry pretending to be antiwar, when he was actually close to Kerry's position on the resolution as per his support of Biden-Lugar version of the IWR.

from the January Georgetown speech:
>>>>>>
Israel's security will be best assured over the long term if real and lasting peace can be brought to the Middle East. I know from my own trips to Israel that the majority of the Israeli people understand and expect that one day there will be a Palestinian state. Their frustration is that they do not see a committed partner in peace on the Palestinian side. Palestinians must stop the violence - this is the fundamental building block of the peace process. The Palestinian leadership must be reformed, not only for the future of the Palestinian people but also for the sake of peace. I believe Israel would respond to this new partner after all, Israel has already indicated its willingness to freeze settlements and to move toward the establishment of a Palestinian state as part of a comprehensive peace process.

Without demanding unilateral concessions, the United States must mediate a series of confidence building steps which start down the road to peace. Both parties must walk this path together - simultaneously. And the world can help them do it. While maintaining our long term commitment to Israel's existence and security, the United States must work to keep both sides focused on the end game of peace. Extremists must not be allowed to control this process. American engagement and successful mediation are not only essential to peace in this war-torn area but also critical to the success of our own efforts in the war against terrorism. When I visited the region last year, in meetings with King Abdullah of Jordan, President Mubarak of Egypt, and Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, it became clear that September 11th had changed the imperatives of these countries. The Bush Administration has missed an opportunity to enlist much greater support in the peace process and needs to focus on this urgent priority- now.
>>>>>>

[jos]

8. I've asked this question on other threads

So I'll ask it again: How is the U.S. supposed to bring about a peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians if it favors one side over the other; in other words, if it can't be an honest broker. If the U.S. wants to favor one side over the other, then it should just get out of the peace-making business and let a truly neutral party attempt to resolve it. But that's the last thing the current Israeli government wants. It wants the U.S. to appear to make an effort at reaching a settlement while at the same time backing Israel to the hilt.

[dolstein]

14. My response to that is . . .

How is ANYONE going to bring about peace as long as Palestinian terrorist groups remain hellbent on the destruction of Israel one innocent civilian at a time? I simply don't see how the United States can assume the role of "honest broker" until the Palestinian Authority commits itself 100% to the dismantling of these terrorist groups.

[CWebster]

24. Events do not occur in a vacuum.

And Israel just keeps building roads criss-crossing Palestinan territory and razing olive groves and burning farms and bulldozing homes and closing schools and imposing curfews, and talking about resettling Palestinians - and with one of the mightiest militaries in the world, funded by the US, whines about the palestinians "driving them into the sea".

[G_j]

30. seems like that discussion

is supposed to be in Foriegn Affairs. correct?

[jos]

44. Why should they?

As long as Israel continues to tighten its grip on the west bank through increased settlement activity and land confiscations. Why is it incumbent on the Palestinians to take actions, but Israel gets off scott free?

[Pab Sungenis]

9. I hate to say it, but....

Howard Dean is right. We shouldn't be involved.

First, this is a quagmire going back fifty years, and the hatreds fueling it go back millennia.

Secondly, if we ARE going to keep insisting on taking sides, then we have to get on the right side. By holding back Israel, we've essentially been siding with the Palestinians, and as the continuing violence has underscored, they are the ones in the wrong.

[hedda_foil]

12. You totally misconstrued Dean's position which was about evenhandedness

Treating Israel and Palestine with a far greater degree of parity rather than just dumping the problem which would make it far worse as Bush proved in his first two years in office.

[dolstein]

17. Evenhandedness between terrorists and Israel?

Sorry, but that kind of talk doesn't exactly insire confidence. I realize that there are many DU'ers around here who consider Israel to be a terrorist state, with no greater legitimacy that the Palestinian groups that are sponsoring the suicide bombers who target Israeli civilians. I'm not one of those people. And I certainly hope Howard Dean isn't either. However, one can't help but notice how many anti-Israel DU'ers seem to be flocking to Dean's candidacy.

[Jacobin]

31. How is Israel NOT a terrorist state?

[G_j]

34. please DON"T do it!

:scared:

take to your bunkers!!

[lindashaw]

36. Anyone who is elected president will have to take a stand here...

there will be no middle ground. If the United States fails with Israel/Palentine, there just will be no way out for us in Iraq. Israel/Palestine doesn't depend on Iraq, Iraq depends on Israel/Palentine. Sad but true. How can any president broker a peace if their sympathies are one-sided? It doesn't make sense to "take sides" and broker the peace. So, Dean was wise to keep as close to the middle of the road as possible. Either that, or whoever is president will have to let some other country solve this.

[Larkspur]

38. Not all Palestinians are terrorists

It's the equivalent of saying that all Catholics in Northern Ireland are IRA members.

Whether we like it or not, Arafat is the legally elected leader of the Palestinians. He won it fair and square. Jimmy Carter oversaw that election where 88% of the Palestinians voted and out of that group 80% supported Arafat. I know that Dean and other candidates would prefer not to deal with him, but bypassing Arafat only makes his position among the Palestinian people stronger and aborts or handicaps the ability of other potential leaders to challenge Arafat without looking like US-Israeli stooges.

The best way to handle Arafat is to let the Europeans and other Arab nations pressure Arafat to deal honestly with the US brokered peace deal. The US would have to pressure Israel to withdraw it's illegal settlements and stop it's apartheid policies against the Palestinian people.

[G_j]

41. Dolstein,

from the rules section,

"Due to continuing problems, discussion of Israeli/Palestinian issues is limited to the Israeli/Palestinian Affairs forum, and is governed by a special set of rules which are available in that forum. If a discussion is primarily about U.S. policy in Israeli/Palestinian affairs, it is still allowed in other forums. Discussion of other Middle East issues is also allowed. If a thread is on a different topic, but later goes off-topic and becomes a discussion of Israeli/Palestinian issues, the moderators may move the thread to the Foreign Affairs/National Security forum."

[tinnypriv]

43. Are you serious??

"However, one can't help but notice how many anti-Israel DU'ers seem to be flocking to Dean's candidacy"

Dean's middle east position is considered essentially a joke within the peace movement.

His latest comments have improved the situation somewhat, but not much.

Are you literally on another planet?

[shance]

62. How dare you Dolstein.

Why don't you get off what superiorist attitude you have and take a look at the truth.

What the Israeli fundamentalists are inflicting on the Palestinians is nothing short of genocide.

The Palestinians are fish in a barrel waiting to be slaughtered. Please dont kid yourself. Yes they are REACTING in violence? What other choice do they have when they have no place to live, being inhumanely treated, are essentially being backed into the ocean?

OF course we dont have the opportunity to view the real side of what is happening from our (good ole) American press.

I would think of any individuals that would understand this concept, it would be individuals of Jewish heritage. I am amazed and very disheartened by a racist fearful attitude with many Israelis. The Jewish culture has suffered probably the most of any culture or religion and yet what is this tremendous disconnect?

Does ones suffering have to evolve into cruelty towards another? I dont think so and have seen too much evidence to the contrary.

Im not blaming this solely on Israelis and yet at this point they bear perhaps more responsibility in my opinion because the lever of power and money rests in their hands, and in our hands as well.

Seems to me many Israelis are focusing on the wrong perpetrators. What ultimate satisfaction can there be in that?

Bottom line, you cant throw people off land and expect them to take it, ESPECIALLY when they have no where else to go.

People need a home. What the Palestinians are existing on and in, is no home, its a prison.

Of course, this responsibility of location should ultimately be placed on bad decision making on the part of Great Britain and the US, not on the Israelis, for putting the state of Israel there to begin with. There were plenty of other (great) places back in 1917, when Israel was founded by Great Britain.

[TheBigGuy]

26. Oddly enough that is Pat Buchanens position too.

He says we should disengage as we are not really an honest broker here as we usually side with Israel.

[Forkboy]

32. he's right

[tinnypriv]

10. Makes sense!

Saying you're only going to be 99% pro-Israel instead of full totalitarian 100% is surely going to bring unabashed joy to the Arab world....

Wait, I thought they were unhapppy that the US was too pro-Israel? So confirming that belief is going to calm 'em down? Eh?

What are Kerry and Joe smoking? :crazy:

[CWebster]

13. Wrong Dolstein

it is expected of Lieberman--it is contemptible from Kerry.


Hmmm, time to write Dean another check.

[Rose Siding]

15. Bingo

Love your attitude, CWebster!

[StopTheMorans]

22. CWebster, great line

"it is expected of Lieberman--it is contemptible from Kerry". And Dolstein, the "Lieberman, the misunderstood man of the century" threads are getting tiresome IMHO, which doesn't mean much. The man is a DINO, plain and simple. I don't like Kerry for this, but he's still not Lieberman on almost every other issue.

[dolstein]

25. Why is it "expected" of Lieberman and not of Kerry?

As far as I can tell, Lieberman's position on Israel and Kerry's position are indistinguishable and always have been. Why would it come as any suprise that Kerry would take objection to Dean's statement? And in case you haven't noticed, Kerry and Dean have been sniping at each other longer than Lieberman and Dean.

[CWebster]

27. Lieberaman was gung-ho to attack Iraq

as was Israel.

Kerry at least went through the motions of expressing reservations.

I thought your point was that Kerry wouldn't suffer the same scrutiny?

[StopTheMorans]

28. but Kerry is/was a Liberal Democrat

Lieberman continues to make the most crass and pointed comments about other Dems. in the debates and in public appearances (his meet the press "if the dem. party nominates someone as left as Dean, then we deserve to lose". These kinds of comments only keep giving me more reason to believe that Lieberman is the same old DINO ass.

[lcordero]

16. I'm not fooled by any of those three stooges

To whatever they have to offer, no thank you.

[bleedingheart]

19. I say they should all focus on Bush because

the situation over there is getting worse because Bush doesn't care at all...

[buddhamama]

20. i disagree with both Lieberman and Kerry

shouldn't be a big surprise though to anyone who knows me, never been a big advocate for black and white think.

[Walt Starr]

21. If either Kerry or Lieberman receives the nomination

I will vote for them

There will be no signs in my yard on a heavily traveled street, no bumperstickers on my car, no donations from me and no campaign work done by me.

All they get is my vote. Period.

[CWebster]

33. Yo Walt

Wearing a new hat today? LOL!

[Walt Starr]

35. Said yesterday I would be ABB

The French made me do it (after readin how 83% of the French voted for Chirac even though most hated him to keep a fascist out of power).

I'll vote for whoever, but these two are so despicable I would have to take a shower afterwards. Oh, and I won't forget to bring along my puke bucket should either win the nomination.

[CWebster]

39. Oh well

I decided this morning I wouldn't be ABB. Gotta draw that line somewhere.

About the French...you are referring to the article from Commondreams?
As I recall that was an effort to rally support around Dean in the primaries to promote his candidacy over less palatable choices to win the nominee?

[Walt Starr]

42. I thought it was to drum up support against the recall

???

:shrug:

Still convinced me to vote for twhoever stands the best chance of getting this fascist regime out of power.

[RogueTrooper]

23. I was of the understanding

that Dean was advocating a return to Clinton's position. What is wrong with that?

[HazMat]

29. Dean doesn't grasp the situation

Look at what's happening with Bush, he thinks in black and white, not nuances. The whole either/or, "with us or against us" mentality. It would be a disaster to have another simpleton like that in office.

[BurtWorm]

37. How do you come to this conclusion?

I can't tell if you're joking or not.

[blm]

48. Gary Hart said so.

Read my post above. Kerry is trapping Dean right now, because Dean is adrift on this issue.

[StopTheMorans]

50. well then, I guess that Dean will probably continue to "trap""

Kerry on the issue(s) he is adrift/equivocating on (no need to start the flaming here, this conversation has been elucidated ad nauseum).

[blm]

55. Doctor meets the Prosecutor. Let them have at it.

.

[StopTheMorans]

57. will do:)

I'm a reformed Kerry supporter, and from watching them both speak in public, the prospect doesn't frighten me. Like 'em both, but via Kerry's actions and many infuriating statements during/since the war, I'm in the Dean camp now. Kerry's still a good guy, just hope he doesn't get the nomination and continues to serve Massachusetts well as the junior senator. That said, here's the standard disclaimer so I don't get flamed: I will vote for him if he is nominated:)

[RogueTrooper]

40. I think you have given us a good reason why bush is

a disaster but what was your reasoning about Dean?

[HazMat]

45. Dean and Bush are stylistically very much alike

Both:

1.) are supposed to be the "everyman you can have a beer with".

2.)appeal to the far wing of their respective parties by using hot-headed rhetoric and "John Wayne" swagger.

3.) keep it as simple as possible. talk and think in black/white blurbs instead of nuances.

4.)take pride in being unarticulate and pig-headed.

5.) Don't deal with issues when confronted with tough questions. For example, Dean avoided the question about the $87b with "I'm not in Congress" (that doesn't stop him from having an opinion on many other Congressional votes), and had a very hard time explaining to Paula Zahn about how he'd actually bring in 70,000 international troops. "But how Governor?" Dean just kept saying that "I'd do it" without giving any substantive explanation. There are countless other examples where Dean can't give a thorough explanation when pressed -- it's the main reason he was so awful on MTP. He's been crafty to this point (especially on his Iraq stance), but I am sure he will be ripped to shreds in the later debates. His positions are riddled with holes large enough to drive a truck through.

[seventhson]

46. Better to have a BFEE fascist like Kerry?

Your comments are so Rovian.

This is a delicate negotiation.

In order to broker a peace one must be neutral. We will not achieve peace if we favor one side DURING negotiations.

And

To compare Dean to Bush in any way shape or form is complete idiocy.

Dean is an MD. A governor who balanced his state's budget. He's no nonsense. Not a loser whose acheivements are all due to his Poppy.

And Dean is NOT a cheesy redneck richboy who'd be fun to get drunk with.

Insanity

Rovian paranoia from the Kerry camp.

[StopTheMorans]

49. I agree

that post(s) showed a complete lack of knowledge of the candidates, if you're going to bash, do it with some credibility, comparing any dem (besides lieberman) to shrub is not instructive, it is just plain wrong. None of them are close, and you know it, even stylistically.

[paulk]

56. So now Kerry is a Fascist?

It's bullshit rhetoric like this from the "Dean camp" that is one of the primary reasons I can't support Dean! The majority of his supporters here on DU seem to be little short of FANATICS, willing to say anything to denigrate an opponent.

[StopTheMorans]

58. you "support" the candidates

their "supporters" don't get elected, and I think that many here need to make the distinction. So what if their supporters annoy you? Does that really translate into a valid reason to dislike/not vote for the candidate? BTW: Kerry is my #2 choice.

[paulk]

63. actually, I think the kind of supporters a candidate attracts

does say something about the candidate.

Isn't the candidate a reflection of his/her constituency?

[StopTheMorans]

64. to an extent

but I don't think that always holds true. And here, you are dealing with a very small cadre of very fervent supporters from many candidates (I actually was completely turned off by a few Clarkies earlier in the day, but that has nothing to do with my feelings on Clark). You can't generalize and make the leap from the beliefs/actions of a candidate's online supporters on one forum to the beliefs/actions of all of the supporters for the candidate to the beliefs/actions of the candidate himself, it just isn't realistic. Just my opinion.

[CentristDemocrat]

47. What was Dean's quote?

[blm]

51. Gary Hart: Dean's quote, "Gary, what do I do?"

Dean has no real policy here and is in flux with it. He went from meeting with Sharon last January and being firmly behind Sharon's "wall" to pulling his Mideast pages on his site that were criticized as too proSharon, and now, to adopting a position closer to Kerry's without the ability to explain it properly.

Kerry is baiting and trapping Dean with his remarks.

[CMT]

52. Actually I think Dean is right

and it may cost him Jewish votes in November but the US (as Jimmy Carter has suggested) should be an honest broker in the middle east if we are ever going to truly bring about peace. That means being outspoken when we think Israel is wrong and equally vigilent with the Palistinians. This does not mean we will ever move away from the long standing US policy to defend Israel.

[sandnsea]

60. Which Dean needed to be clearer on

His remarks didn't necessarily sound like this is what he was saying. And that's all Kerry, in particular, was responding to. Lieberman, who knows, I don't listen to him.

[Robin Hood]

53. Screw these morons.

They were wrong. They were stupid. Now they want to over look that? Obviously Dean has enough common sense to know that we should have never gone into Iraq, and he was/is right.

The rest can take their little army men toys and go home, it's over for them.

[sangh0]

54. "Not take sides" is empty rhetoric

It's a message that says "I'll be fair" but it doesn't explain what fair is.

[sandnsea]

59. If, If this is his policy

"If this is a well-thought-out policy." That's what Kerry said. Obviously thrown at him from a reporter and Kerry replied with the qualifier. Funny how the poster doesn't bother adding that.

And the US has always been Israel's staunchest defender. That is US policy and if Dean is promoting a switch in decades-old US policy, then that is a BIG deal.

It amazes me how people who are supposed to be reasoned, liberal thinkers attach themselves totally to one side of the I/P debate and completely ignore the historical context in which the situation arose. Things are seldom black or white and there isn't a clearer example of that then the I/P/ME conflicts.

[w4rma]

61. Dean = Clinton on I/P, IMHO. Kerry and Lieberman lose more respect.

… Clinton sent Jimmy Carter to negotiate … ally to the US In the 1993 signing of the Oslo Accords, the US asserted itself as a so-called neutral broker in a …
http://www.ahoranow.org/body_pdg_section_i.html

…
For more than 50 years, the United States has backed Israel as its closest ally in the region, providing the Jewish state with billions of dollars in military and humanitarian aid. Dean does not advocate breaking the U.S.-Israeli alliance, but believes the only way to bring peace to the Middle East is for the president to broker a deal without playing favorites. A top Dean adviser said the former Vermont governor is doing nothing different from what President Bill Clinton did when he reached out to Yasser Arafat and the Palestinians as a path to peace.
…