In letter, Dean clarifies Mideast stance

[Freddie Stubbs]

Democratic presidential contender Howard Dean has written a letter to the head of the Anti-Defamation League, seeking to clarify his views on the Middle East after being criticized for saying the United States should be evenhanded in the region.

''There is no difference between our positions when it comes to my unequivocal support for Israel's right to exist and be free from terror,'' Dean wrote in the letter, dated Sept. 15. ''I stand firmly with you in the war on terror and have called on the Palestinian leadership to renounce violence and to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure that exists inside the Palestinian Authority.''

Dean added that ''the United States must remain committed to the special longstanding relationship we have with Israel, including providing the resources necessary to guarantee Israel's long-term defense and security.''

Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said yesterday that his concerns were allayed by Dean's letter, which was sent in response to an earlier one Foxman wrote to the former Vermont governor criticizing his campaign statements about the Mideast.

more: http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/266/nation/In_letter_Dean_clarifies_Mideast_stance-.shtml

[Muddleoftheroad]

1. Does Dean EVER mean what he says?

I am glad for the backsliding, I just don't trust it.

[EagleEye]

3. How was that backsliding?

He still believes the US has to be even-handed, trudted by both sides. How is that back-siding?

[blm]

12. That's BS. Dean promised Sharon MORE $$$ than Bush

for defense and said that Palestine must be a demilitarized state. YOU and others in the Deanut Gallery applaud his use of the term "evenhanded" as if Dean meant it. He later said he was wrong to use that term.

Take off the Deancolored glasses and examine all the different approaches he has taken on this issue. He has no policy. Has been adrift. Now he clings to Clinton's policy like a security blanket.

[Martin Eden]

24. Dean should avoid this quagmire

Dean's even-handed statement, and his later clarification, were both generalities. But the I/P issue is so incendiary that controversy erupts based on mere inferences of what the Dean policy might be. Hence the notion of being "even-handed" is interpreted by the Jewish lobby as a withdrawl of support for Israel.

IMO it is a mistake for any candidate to let his or her campaign get bogged down in the I/P quagmire. The problem has defied solution, despite decades of effort. A candidate who sticks his neck out too far will be decapitated.

If Dean had a truly enlightened view of the I/P situation and offered some potential solutions, it would do little to earn him votes in the US presidential election. But it could cost him big time. The Jewish lobby is very powerful, and suggestions such as Israel needs to obey UN resolutions and dismantle the settlements will, as a previous post so eloquently put it, relegate him to the Cynthia McKinney circular file.

Once elected, I believe the president is obligated to work towards peace and security for the I's & P's, but right now the only thing Dean will get by embracing this issue is burned. For now, uttering safe platitudes and generalities is the smart thing to do.

[Flying_Pig]

4. Backsliding? The man is attacked for simply saying that the...

U.S. needs to be "even-handed" in its foreign policy. God forbid, that we should be even-handed! God forbid, that ANYONE would ever say ANYTHING that even hints of sanity or fairness with regards to our ME policies!

I think it is disgusting, and traitorous, that Israel has so much influence on our foreign policy, and political processes. This nation is being PNAC'ed and AIPAC'ed to death! The world does not revolve around Israel, despite what its supporters here of the fascist Israeli Likud would have us think.

My resentment grows, every time I see one of our politicians cower in the face of their phony-ass anti-Semitic slurs. But with their supplicants and friends in the media, PNAC/AIPAC/Likud, appear to be in the driver's seat..... for now.

Someday, ......this will change, and for the good of this nation, that change can't come too soon.

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. Support not influence

Lots of us simply support Israel as an embattled friend. If China ever gets serious about taking on Taiwan, you will find that island nation has a ton of U.S. support as well.

[DrFunkenstein]

22. I Hope You Are Not A Dean Fan

Dean is so far up Sharon's ass, if the fat man farted Dean's face would be brown.

Pre-emptive Note: Sorry for that image, it's a line my family uses fairly regularly, and seems fairly accurate given Dean's history.

[EagleEye]

5. And btw talk about twisting and turning...

..how did "even-handed" get turned into Dean not believing Israel had a right to exist? Some campaigns are deparate.

[renie408]

16. Yeah...

I know I am going to get killed for being ignorant, but wasn't that a pretty innocuous mistake to make? I mean, it is hard to imagine getting burned for using 'evenhanded' in a sentence. Didn't he just mean that we should take a more level and equal course in the Middle East?

[Sean Reynolds]

10. Did you even read the article?

It's the EXACT same thing he's been saying......

[Nicholas_J]

13. That's Dean all over

HE cannot be trusted, and all the talk about him opening his mouth and saying the wrong thing is not a result of anger or passion, but SHEER ignorance about the things of which he speaks. He is simply a well trained monkey, who does fine at rallies, but must be prepped for policy speeches, and memorize by rote, key points on issues about which he has little of no understanding, and seems to lack even the ability to understand even if given time.

[Sean Reynolds]

14. Read the freaking article.

His stance is the GODDAMN same. Just because your candidate painted Dean as anti-Israel doesn't mean he is. :eyes:

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. I don't have a candidate yet

But I can tell the difference of "even-handed approach" and "There is no difference between our positions when it comes to my unequivocal support for Israel's right to exist and be free from terror."

Ask some of the Palestinian terror groups if that second statement marks an even-handed approach. That said, I prefer the second.

[renie408]

21. Not really

Hey, I am defending Dean...freaky, huh?

The only way it would NOT be evenhanded would be if he said "I unequivocally support the right of Israel to exist and to be free from terrorism (or whatever he said)." and tacked "and screw the Palestinians." to the end. He could ALSO think that Palestine has a right to exist and deserves the right to exist without terrorism. THAT is evenhanded. And that is what I believe. I believe that both Palestine and Israel should have the right to exist unmolested. How the hell you get there, I have no clue.

I do not know if this is Howard Dean's stand at all. I am just saying that his comments in the letter do not preclude evenhandedness.

Or did we figure out that evenhandedness was bad?

[DuctapeFatwa]

2. Unconditional support for Israeli war crimes is both Repub and Dem policy

Any politician who strays too far from the Gary Bauer-approved Rapture Ready doctrine of Sharon right or wrong will find themselves quickly relegated to the Cynthia McKinney circular file.

[Jim Sagle]

6. Except for Nixon, Carter, Bush Sr. and Clinton.

[DuctapeFatwa]

7. The policy is indeed bipartisan and goes back some 50 odd years

I imagine you are referring to the various "plans" or "accords" for delineating the borders of the concentration camps in which the Palestinian people would be imprisoned, and a couple of symbolic gestures made by Reagan and Daddybush.

However, you will note that the flow of cash and guns has not ceased, and the US continues to assist the Likud party in its systematic starvation of low income and elderly Israelis, as well as its long-standing and continuous Palestinian blood-feast.

[cprise]

8. I think it's creepy

Let see, Dean issues a statement that states a terrorism problem exists in Palestine, but appears to have nothing to say about Israel's problem.

''I am confident that the doctor is beginning to understand and is learning the nuances,'' - ADL

To paraphrase - "Yeah, he's finally getting it right."

[w4rma]

9. I do not like these Likud Party, ADL and AIPAC creeps (n/t)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

11. Personally, I think the comments Dean got so much flak over

are better than this follow-up letter. But this letter is closer to what I had understood to be Dean's position all along.

I don't like any of the candidates' I/P stance. I guess my view is kind of radical in that I don't think our alliance with Israel is in our national interest. Just what do we get out of it other than having a target painted on our foreheads, and the opportunity to give Israel money and weapons?

[renie408]

17. I'm with you

I can't ever get any of this straight. Is it because we need a strong ally in that region? Or just a general humanitarian deal because the Jews have a right to a homeland? I know that I support the right of Israel to exist and that, just from a humanitarian standpoint, the world should do what it can to protect that interest. But I also think that something should be done to raise the Palestinian quality of life. I think it would be a lot harder to recruit suicide bombers if they had more to live for or thought that their families had more to live for.

[cprise]

26. Palestinian quality of life??

What do you want, caged poodles?

Sheesh.

[Muddleoftheroad]

20. Israel is a friend

Your friends must just love you.

[renie408]

23. I am being unusually dense today

I know that was addressed to 'Fean...whatever' (is that Welsh, BTW??), but I am interested in learning more of what other people think on this subject and in educating myself.

Now, I know what I do with my friends, but I have to assume that the friendship between Israel and the US is based on more than bitching about husbands, borrowing clothes and watching each others kids. Oh, and we hang out at Starbuck's a lot. But I have a hard time seeing Sharon and Bush gossiping over two venti Chai tea lattes. What defines the relationship of 'friends' between countries?? Four billion dollars? I will be somebody's friend for four billion. But what about the other way around? I think that is what Fean... is trying to say. Is this a one sided friendship? Are we just getting warm fuzzies out of it or what?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

28. I believe we should base our international relations on three things

1. advancing the interests of the United States
2. our historic relationships
3. human rights

I'm not saying to abandon our treaty obligations of course, nor am I saying we should turn our backs on our friends. For example our oldest friend and ally, France.

But friendship, whether between countries or people, has to be a two way street. You may have an old friend who goes through some changes. Suddenly he's always borrowing your car and getting tickets. Borrowing money and not paying it back. Well you might still love him but chances are you'll start to distance yourself a little...

Maybe you've got an old friend, but, now you find out, he's beating his wife every night -- will your friendship continue, unchanged?

At the very least, you owe your friend some tough, honest talk. The kind we've heard from France, but Israel hasn't heard from us.

PS - it's elvish (Tolkien) so Welsh was a good guess... (Feanor)

[DrFunkenstein]

29. I'll Add My Two Cents

We should clarify that it is the US long term interests that we should base our foreign relations. Building a web of allied intelligence is absolutely vital to conducting a war on stateless terrorism, not to mention truly accounting for and ending the proliferation of nuclear materials.

We can promote stability and human rights in the Middle East as a long term goal through conditional economic measures that promote a middle class and have anti-corruption mechanisms in place. This is one of the main reasons I think Kerry has the most depth and vision in foreign policy. He has the experience and know-how to actually get these things accomplished.

[sandnsea]

15. Get it right the first time

That's my only problem with Dean on this issue. As I said at the time, if he wants to change U.S. I/P policy, that's fine, just stand behind it and say so. If not, he needs to use the words that explains his position accurately, the first time. The world is a nutty place, that's for sure. But we can't have Dean appearing to be just as fuzzy as Bush on these issues and expect to win.

[DrFunkenstein]

25. It's Called Triangulation

Dean is feeding the Left what it wants to hear while giving the most extreme elements of Israeli politics exactly what they want.

Let's take Howard Dean at his word: "I was a triangulator before Clinton was a triangulator.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0826-04.htm

"Dean's comments have caused awkward moments for his campaign co-chairman, Steve Grossman, a former head of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and a leader in the Jewish philanthropic community."

AIPAC is one of the most hawkish lobby groups that exist, and I would hardly put them in the same sentence as the word "philanthropic." Dean took a trip paid for by AIPAC, met with Sharon and Likud leaders, and toured Israel under AIPAC direction - coming to the conclusion that a separation wall is necessary. He met no Palestinian leaders.

---

Last December, Dean told the Jerusalem Post that he unequivocally supported $8 Billion in US loan guarantees for Israel. "I believe that by providing Israel with the loan guarantees...the US will be advancing its own interest," he said. His unconditional support for the loan package, in addition to $4 Billion in outright grants, went further than even some of the most pro-Israel elements in the Bush administration, like Paul Wolfowitz, who wanted to at least include some vague restrictions like pushing Israel to curtail new settlements and accept a timetable to establish a Palestinian state.

http://www.muslimwakeup.com/mainarchive/000119.html

Dean believes the Bush administration should be giving Israel $4 billion in military aid to fight terrorism, not the $1 billion it proposed last month.

http://www.jewishsf.com/bk030418/us02.shtml

And, finally, Dean's foreign policy speech at Drake. Note how one-sided it is.

When they have bothered to state them, the Administration's guiding principles in the Middle East are the right ones. Terrorism against Israel must end. A two-state solution is the only path to eventual peace, but Palestinian territory cannot have the capability of being used as a platform for attacking Israel. Some degree of separation between Israelis and Palestinians is probably necessary in light of the horrible bloodshed of the past two years. To be viable, the Palestinian Authority must become democratic and purged of corruption.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_speech_foreign_drake

---

To sum up: Dean says we shouldn't "take sides" - despite promising a leader of another country unconditional financial aid (more than even Paul Wolfowitz would concede). That's 4x the military aid ($1 billion to $4 billion) and 4x the guaranteed loans ($2 billion to $8 billion). He also supports unilateral concessions from the Palestinians, and a "separation" wall that even George W. Bush has reservations about.

How very Presidential.

Now let's compare to Kerry's foreign policy speech at Georgetown:

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.

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

Now tell me who is truly the "honest broker" here?

[DrFunkenstein]

27. My Posts Usually End Conversations On This Subject

I'm surprised Dean people keep bringing up the topic, as if Dean were now doing something beyond cheap triangulation on the issue. You'd think people would have had enough of it with Clinton.