Alright, Clark and Dean supporters, explain to me why I should support

[sistersofmercy]

your candidate. I am a Kerry supporter and quite frankly, I am not happy about his Saddam statement(yeah, I feel safer since Saddam's capture!?!) thought it was a huge mistake when he said it, idiotic statement, really.
OK, here's one of my pet issues, Israeli/Paletinian. Where's your candidate on this issue? Dean sort of did a flip-flop on this one, he had my ears in the beginning but then totally recanted and left me abandoned, stuck trying to figure out the duplicity of his proclamations.
Clark, I have no idea.
Here is what I think, peace in Israel is absolutely necessary for peace in the ME. The hardliners on both sides in Israel need to be dealt with expediently.
So as usual, I am stuck somewhere in between and I need to hear Kerry expound his statement in reference to Saddam further and thoroughly detail his I/P stance before I offer any additional support.

note to my fellow Kerry supporters, too bad, I needed to ask this question.

[XanaDUer]

1. Too Bad?

Chuckle! Of course you and anyone should be able to ask any questions you need to to make a choice for yourself when it comes to something as important as the next President of the US. :)

[robbedvoter]

2. Support Clark - because he didn't viciously attack Kerry for 1 year

Because he scores best against W and is on a big momentum. Because he's simply the best. Here's a 17 min presentation:
http://www.clark04.com/americanson/

[XanaDUer]

3. I like Clark, too

Thanks for the link, I'll check it out. :hi:

[sistersofmercy]

8. That's not what I asked, I asked where does your candidate stand

on the I/P issue. Clark really impressed me in the last debate more so than before, especially in the one on one afterwards. He needs to get a little more comfortable in front of the camera, understandably so.

[SahaleArm]

22. Clark's position from the the Arab American Institute

From http://www.aaiusa.org/clark.htm:

A summary statement from the Clark campaign to AAI regarding the Middle East states that “General Clark is strongly committed to playing a sustained and pro-active role toward reaching peace in the Middle East that includes a more focused effort to engage neighboring states and allies to end violence between Israelis and Palestinians -- and to work with Israel to forge a clear path toward Palestinian statehood. The General would appoint a senior level administration official who would remain in the region to help maintain momentum in the path to peace. At the same time, General Clark believes that Israel is the key U.S. ally in the region and has the right to defend itself, including going after terrorists who threaten Israelis -- because violence and terrorist actions will not work and must end. What is needed now is a shared commitment between Israelis and Palestinians to end violence and live in peace. On the Palestinian side, that means ending the violence and becoming a partner committed to a Jewish state that can exist in peace and security. On the Israeli side, it means engaging in serious negotiations -- and creating conditions conducive to the success of those negotiations – to create a viable Palestinian state. These steps must be taken on both sides to create hope among the Palestinian and Israeli populations for a better life. The U.S. must play a vital leadership role in this process.”

[sistersofmercy]

27. Well that happens to be a very nice statement but

He does tend to attribute more wrong to the Palestinian side with reference to terrorism and Israeli defense of it. But says nothing about the Israeli actions against Palestinian homes, etc that they were not provoked into destroying.

[SahaleArm]

30. The question of provocation is ambiguous

Now I don't think it's particularly helpful in bringing peace but weren't these the homes of suicide bombers? If you are looking for someone who embraces the ISM I doubt you'll find it.

[sistersofmercy]

42. OK I'll give you some facts from annual AI reports on

Israel, last year 2000 Palestinian homes were destroyed, 1000 Palestinians killed about 150 children included in this figure to target 35 SUSPECTED terrorists.
Roughly 180 Israelis of which about 48 were children killed by suicide bombers.
Does this seem as though someone happens to be provoking the terrorist? Does to me.

[SahaleArm]

44. AI is hardly unbiased - where's the source of their numbers?

In the Occupied Territories the Israeli army committed abuses which constituted war crimes. These included unlawful killings, obstruction of medical assistance and targeting of medical personnel, extensive and wanton destruction of property, torture and cruel and inhuman treatment, unlawful confinement and the use of "human shields". At least 1,000 Palestinians were killed by the Israeli army, most of them unlawfully. They included 150 children and at least 35 individuals killed in targeted assassinations.

Palestinian armed groups killed more than 420 Israelis, at least 265 of them civilians and including 47 children, The deliberate targeting of civilians by Palestinian armed groups constituted crimes against humanity.

Complicity exists on both sides: http://web.amnesty.org/report2003/isr-summary-eng

[sistersofmercy]

49. I believe they have activists who reside there and observe

collect data etc. Hardly biased at all what they're saying in the 420 Israelis but at least 265 civilians is that military targets were hit, something we never hear in our media. It is our media which has been completely skewed for decades.

[SahaleArm]

57. I trust ISM activists about as much as I trust Sharon hardliners.

Were they representatives of AI or ISM? I wish the AI pdf I found had a little more about the source of their information. I wouldn't trust most US media when covering foreign affairs - much of it is fluff. Does the UN keep track of this?

[MariaS]

34. Even though I will support Clark

til the end this is one area where you stated what I too noticed in Clark's stand on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. He has mentioned several times that Israel has the right to defend itself against terrorisim but says nothing about the atrocities committed against the Palestinians. Clark is such a fair man that I find it inconceivable that he would, if elected, take a onesided approach to the problems in Palestine. Something else that is obvious to me since I have taken an interest in the conflict is that politicans are extremely reluctant to say anything that can be construded as pro-palestinian. Look what happened to Dean when he said we need to be more even handed. I admired Dean for saying that but if I understand correctly he later restated his stand and caved too. I swore that I would not be a one issue voter and I am trying to look pass this issue with Clark. I truely believe that once in office he will do the right thing.

[sistersofmercy]

45. It's a status quo thing I have a problem with

it's unpopular to speak against the Israeli government but it needs to be said. There are both Israelis and Palestinians who are moderates that see the wrong being done on both sides and who would love to leave in peace.
I actually really liked that Dean said there needed to be a more evenhandedness in regards to I/P. But then he backtracked.

[SahaleArm]

47. Did you have a problem with Clinton/Rabin approach? n/t

[sistersofmercy]

53. No, I actually believed at the time it was going to work but we all know

what happened to Rabin.

[SahaleArm]

78. Without a Rabin on the Israeli end I'm not sure such a agreement...

will be possible. The other option is to strongarm both sides which won't work either. The key is to get amicable concessions from both sides, something that the Lukid won't allow.

[Tom Rinaldo]

52. I agree with your post

Other than the flag burning issue, I felt the most intrinsic discomfort with Clark for his statements about this conflict, and I am strongly in Clark's camp for many reasons altogether. I don't like deal breakers in general, because if I look long enough I always find several for everyone, or at least everyone who has a snail's chance to win the race. I wil say this, if I honestly believed that Clark would not be infinately more fair, skillful, and devoted to working his butt off to find a just resolution to this conflict than is Bush, I would not be supporting Clark for President. This issue is that important to me.

Clark understands very well that festering conflicts are dangerous and unstable. He clearly understands how the current perception of America in the Arab World undermines long term U.S. Security. And I sincerely believe that Clark believes in justice to the extent that it realistically is attainable. Clark knows how close Clinton came to bringing Peace to the region. I don't think he would be any less committed than Clinton was, or any less realistic about the concessions that would be required on both sides to pull off lasting Peace.

[GR]

4. Whose Saddam Statment Kerry Or Dean..

Tom Ridge proved Dean was right today when he raised the terror alert status to orange. Also, 51% of the American people believe that we are not safer.

Is that what you meant?

[sistersofmercy]

5. Kerry's

[mzmolly]

6. Dean has been consistant.

see here for more information on Howard Dean.

http://www.deanforamerica.com

Here are all of Dean's statements on Iraq. I have yet to find any contradiction on his position(s).

He's not anti-war, he's anti-bullshit war. Good luck with your decision. :hi:

I strongly encourage you to look over the dean site and use the search option, it's great.

[ibegurpard]

7. Here is Howard Dean's official stand on the Israeli/Palestinian

peace issue:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_policy_foreign_mideast

<snip>
"Howard Dean is committed to achieving a negotiated, comprehensive, and just peace between Palestinians and Israelis and remains optimistic about the chances for peace. The greatest asset in that effort is that majorities of both Palestinians and Israelis accept a two-state solution which would guarantee security, sovereignty, and dignity."
<snip>

[sistersofmercy]

10. That's a nice sugar coated neutral statement but

does he think one is more to blame than the other or does he see the situation as being mutually disagreeable?

[ibegurpard]

11. Sorry I can't speak for him

I've shown you his official stand...there is more at the link I provided.

[SahaleArm]

13. What are you looking for?

The biggest fallacy is that all the middle east will be peaceful once the I/P situation is solved, the complexity of middle east politics is much greater than Israel. Iran/Iraq, Shites/Sunnis/Kurds, the House of Saud, Osama Bin Laden, fringe and tribal groups fighting for power in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Solving the I/P conflict will help but the solution must be legitamite in the eyes of neighboring states.

[mzmolly]

14. HD feels that there should be a two state solution to the mid east

problem. His position on the issue was praised by Carter. Take a peek here:

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/Search?query=middle+east&inc=10

[w13rd0]

17. Part of the "challenge" is that to be an honest broker...

...one must step away from the "blame game" and actually be SEEN as an honest broker in the peace process. Consider how much that "nuanced" statement was jumped on, by both sides, and you'll see why it's been a challenge since Israel was established by the UN. I myself think the extremists on both sides of the greenline are insufferable assholes that use violence to enrich their own fortunes. From what I've read of Dean, he doesn't much care for extremists either. And I like that about him.

[Egnever]

19. More on I/P from Dean

Israel
Howard Dean supports the following for bringing peace to Israel
· a two-state solution, along with the majority of Israelis and Palestinians,
· full engagement of the United States in the peace process,
· an end to terrorist attacks on the Israeli people,
· the eventual withdrawal of Israel from the occupied territories.
Gov. Dean feels that the Palestinian Authority must use the full force of its power to stop the terrorist
bombings within Israel. He feels that as a leader, Yasser Arafat has generally failed at this. However, he
- 43 -
looks to the new leadership of Abu Mazen, Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, as an answer to
the region’s needs.
Gov. Dean also says that the Israeli government must invest in the communities of Palestinians so that
they can experience an effective sovereignty. And to achieve a lasting peace, Gov. Dean recognized that
Israel would have to withdraw from the occupied territories and close many of the settlements.
Gov. Dean recognizes that peace cannot be forced on either party, but must be achieved through the full
and mutual participation of both Israel and the Palestinian Authority. That being said, Gov. Dean feels
that the current administration has “neglected the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Authority”
and “squandered the momentum of the Clinton administration” in reaching peace in the region. Gov.
Dean supports the full engagement of United States in the peace process because “no other country but
the United States has the credibility necessary to facilitate negotiations and to mediate between the
parties.” For more than two years the Bush administration committed no resources to seeking peace in
the Middle East and even the administration’s “Road Map to Peace” is a mostly hands-off approach to
finding an amicable solution between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Gov. Dean would commit
resources at the highest level of his administration to work with both parties to seek a lasting peace.

[robbedvoter]

51. And here's Dean's flip flop on that:

"A former Vermont governor, Dean had vexed many members of the Jewish community last month when he recommended that the United States take a more “evenhanded” approach to brokering Israeli-Palestinian peace — a phrase generally taken to mean that the United States should not take Israel’s side.
Dean backers say the comment was distorted by his opponents.
Asked about his remarks during the closed-door meeting, Dean “covered his face with his two hands and shook his face as if to say ‘Oy, what a mistake that was,’ ” said David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee.
According to Harris, Dean said, “Israel is not just an ally, but a beacon of hope for people who were abandoned 2,000 years ago and who are afraid of being abandoned again. I will not abandon Israel, ever.”
cut
http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=13346&intcategoryid=3

[sandnsea]

9. Saddam is central to I/P

He fueled the Palestinian terrorism as much or more than anyone in the ME. If you believe that terrorism against us grows out of that, at least in part, then we are safer. Not instantly safe. Not everything is all over, quit worrying now. But safer in the long run, in the bigger picture.

Kerry's stand on I/P is Israel has a right to defend itself. Terrorism must stop. Peace must be a bilateral process. Each side takes steps together. The progress towards peace doesn't get bogged down because every final goal hasn't been agreed to. They make movement together. It makes sense to me.

[sistersofmercy]

12. That is skewed disinformation and I don't like it

He's not saying anything about what the government of Israeal is doing thus it is not a bilateral stance in the slighted. What he's not saying is unpopular but needs to be said. Guess Dennis will have to be the one to say it.

[SahaleArm]

15. The skewed view is that Arafat speaks for the Palestinian people n/t

[JohnKleeb]

16. we'd like to have ya aboard

IMO every person makes a difference. Kucinich without a doubt has the most solid postion on this IMO.

[askew]

23. Dean's explaination of his position for I/P

I have listened to Dean give his explaination of his position for I/P situation. The first thing he addresses his misstatement about being "evenhanded" in the negotiations and how he will never say this again, because he doesn't want to be misunderstood. He then states that there will always be a special relationship between Israel and the U.S., because of our past, HOWEVER, we must be an honest deal broker. He then talks about how the citizens of both sides want peace. He strongly stated that Palestine would have a great chance to be a stable democracy, if given a separate state due to their exposure to other democracies. He wants to send Clinton to the ME to work on the issue, because of his past success. And he stated if the first agreement did not work, he would keep trying and trying because it was so important.

Personally, I was impressed with the answer. I thought it seemed reasonable and fair. He wasn't ignoring our past relationship with Israel or supporting the terrorists, but, he stated quite clearly that we would have to be neutral in the peace process for it to work and he was recommending a two-state solution.

[JohnKleeb]

32. ok thanks

[sistersofmercy]

26. Hey JK would you please post DK's position?

I have the distinct feeling I know where he is on this one but would like the info.

[JohnKleeb]

sure

(Rep. Kucinich's statement on House Resolution 392, expressing "solidarity with Israel" as it battles "the terrorist infrastructure in the Palestinian areas" -- May 2002)

I declare my support for the State of Israel and for the security of the Israeli people. I also declare my support for a Palestinian state and for the security of the Palestinian people. So I will vote present today because I believe the security of Israel requires the security of the Palestinians.

I will vote present because I believe the United States can do better through honest brokering, and a principled commitment to peaceful coexistence.

Today, we are missing an opportunity to lead people of the Middle East toward a secure and stable future together. This resolution equates Israel's dilemma, which is the outcome of the Palestinian's struggle for self-determination, with the United States' campaign against the criminal organization, Al Queda.

Unfortunately, our own policy is undefined, amorphous, without borders, without limits, and without congressional oversight. For this Congress to place the historic Israeli-Palestinian conflict into the context of the current fashion of US global policy pitches Israelis and Palestinians alike into a black hole of policy without purpose, and conflict without resolution.

The same humanity that requires us to acknowledge with profound concerns the pain and suffering of the people of Israel requires a similar expression for the pain and suffering of the Palestinians. When our brothers and sisters are fighting to the death, instead of declaring solidarity with one against the other, should we not declare solidarity with both for peace, so that both may live in security and freedom?

If we seek to require the Palestinians, who do not have their own state, to adhere to a higher standard of conduct, should we not also ask Israel, with over a half century experience with statehood, to adhere to the basic standard of conduct, including meeting the requirements of international law?

There is a role for Congress and the Administration in helping to bring a lasting peace in the Middle East; however, this resolution does not create that role. After today we will still need to determine a course of action to bring about peace. This course will require multilateral diplomacy, which strengthens cooperation among all countries in the region. It will require focused, unwavering attention. It will require sufficient financial resources. And it will require that our nation have the political will to bring about a true, a fair, and a sustainable resolution of the conflict.

When this Congress enters into the conflict and takes sides between Israel and Palestine we do not help to achieve peace, but the opposite. Similarly, the Administration should consider that when it conducts a war against terrorism without limits the principle of war is quickened everywhere in the world, including the Middle East. When it talks incessantly about invading Iraq, the tempo of war is picked up everywhere.

If we truly want peace in the Middle East, this resolution is counter-productive. I will vote present because I do not believe that this resolution dignifies the role towards creating peace, which this Congress can and must fulfill.

[sistersofmercy]

35. Fantastic speech!

And I believe in the future Dennis will have more to say about this issue because it is central on the war on terrorism. Nobody seems to get that and I have to question why. Well it seems to me Dennis gets but that is why he is the best Dem available. I would like to hear more from him on this.

[JohnKleeb]

38. your welcome

He has the right views but because he isn't tall or particular good looking, I guess he is unelectable but still, I agree. He was at this meeting in a nearby town for a Muslim organization. He does have a good view on this I agree. Seriously, I think you should consider him.

[sistersofmercy]

54. Yes and with all else he will be the one to truly take a stand

As I have said before Dennis is an amazing man.

[JohnKleeb]

55. makes me proud I am a dem SOM

This guy is one of our best.

[sistersofmercy]

60. Yes ...

I just wish I could believe it possible, no offense, please, I'm not sure why I can't. I've told you why but he is closest to my Dem soul.

[JohnKleeb]

61. its ok

I think you'll have some awakening :).

[sistersofmercy]

65. I think I am already

O8)

[JohnKleeb]

66. heh

anyways, hes a great candiate. One person makes a difference.

[sistersofmercy]

69. True

I'm sort of in a doubletake that I'm not so sure I'm going to return from, I'm very displeased with recent events.

[sandnsea]

18. Here's more

He is also aware that remarks from a U.S. Senator have to be carefully measured. Which is why he criticized Dean's remarks earlier this year "If the president were to make a remark such as this it would throw an already volatile region into even more turmoil." It has been reported on numerous occasions that Dean's remarks actually had very specific meanings in the ME, meanings that I think most people weren't aware of.

Anyway, here's a little more and there's more at the link.

"No peace process will ever be successful unless Israelis and Palestinians are committed to that process and willing to take steps that each side finds difficult. Palestinian leaders must bring an end to the violence against Israelis, and find a way, with the help of others, to rein in militant groups. Israel must be prepared to meet its obligations…with respect to settlements. The absence of movement on these two critical issues only serves to convince each side that the other is not really serious about peace.” Regarding the Israeli security wall in the West Bank, Kerry stated, “I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government's decision to build a barrier off the green line, cutting deeply into Palestinian areas. We do not need another barrier to peace. Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israel's security over the long-term, they increase hardships to the Palestinian people, and they make the process of negotiating an eventual settlement that much harder.”

http://www.aaiusa.org/kerry.htm

[sistersofmercy]

24. Niceties but he's not taking a stand

Kerry needs to worry less about the establishment today and say what needs to be said, his view, plain and simple. Again this is a sugar coated unilateral stance. How about he talk about how the wall has cut into about 60% of the Palestinian water supply or does he not know that?
He says "with respect to the settlements" but again offers no specifics. Is it the fact the Palestinians living within blocks of Israeli settlements have their water shut off for long periods while they see their neighbors with beautiful green lawns? Or could it be that land was confiscated in order to build the settlements to begin with?

[sandnsea]

37. If you want a pro-Palestinian candidate

Kerry isn't it. The United States has two positions on the situation. One, a clear message to the Arab world that we will always defend Israel's right to exist. Two, the peace process and the negotiations involved are up to Israel and Palestine. Anything we say is generally carefully worded so as not to inflame either side. This is the approach that history has taught us works best over the long run. Like it or not.

[Egnever]

40. Shouldnt that read

This is the approach that history has taught us doesnt work over the long run. Like it or not.

[SahaleArm]

43. Defending the right of Israel to exist must be a tenet of any negotiation

That we put a high-level US representative at the table is important, but most important is ensuring the settlement is legitimate in the eyes of the Israelis, the Palestinians and neighboring states.

[sandnsea]

48. Well read what Dennis said

Kleeb posted it up above. We defend Israel's right to exist. We are an honest broker, we don't take sides in making demands on one or the other.

[JohnKleeb]

50. makes sense to me eh

they have the right to exist in my eyes and we ought not to take sides, and we must be an honest broker. Frankly that makes sense.

[sandnsea]

59. That's the US position

Has been for a very long time. It's Kerry's position.

The difference with Dennis is the extent to which he is willing to push the Palestinians into stopping the terrorism. That's the only real shift that's taken place in I/P negotiations over the last couple of years. The terrorism must stop.

[JohnKleeb]

67. ok thanks

[sistersofmercy]

62. I agree because it says nothing about Palestine's right to exist

and no one seems to get that.

[sandnsea]

64. A two-state solution

That says the Palestinians have a right to exist.

The right to exist, by the way, means the Arab world is not going to be allowed to wage war against Israel and drive all the Jews into the sea which is what some Arabs have stated in the past and what many Jews still believe.

[sistersofmercy]

68. That saying drives me up a wall

I'm so sick of that saying, "drive the Israelis into the sea" that has been so over used. Just look at the actually history after WWII and one can clearly see that the opposite just may be true.
It does not clearly state Palestine's right to exist, only Israel's and the two state solution is in fact a one state solution with flowery language of appeasement that is not working, obviously.

[sistersofmercy]

58. I'm not asking for a PRO- Palestinian stance but merely some

evenhandedness as far as both sides are concerned. How come Palestine's right to exist is also not included? Obviously the approach doesn't work because history, in this case, hasn't taught us a thing. It is now beginning to though, I believe.

[sandnsea]

63. Evenhandedness

That is actually descriptive of US policy that didn't work so well. It's a policy that the Israeli's felt didn't respect their right to protect themselves from terrorist attacks. It's a policy that the Palestinians felt didn't respect their right to an independent state. It was even-handed.

So we have moved a step forward from there, in some respects. The Palestinians have a right to an independent state, the Israeli's have a right to be free from terrorist attacks. So that's where we are. From what I understand Kerry to have said in his Dec 3 speech, we don't just stop there and wait. We continue to move forward whereever we can. Bilaterally, each side taking steps together. But the steps they decide to take are theirs alone. Because whenever we get into making demands on either side, the other side gets angry and we know what happens then.

We definitely need someone like Clinton to be engaged full time on this.

[sistersofmercy]

70. But you have to

admit that Sharon has taken this to an all time screw up more than ever, and yes it is the Israelis given right to deal with him next election and I believe they will. But for crying out loud, we don't have to agree with his administration's tactics much the same we don't agree with stupid bush*. All these hardliners IMO should lose their place in the world, we don't need them, they are counterproductive to peace.

[sandnsea]

72. A Senator can't make it worse

What would happen if Kennedy or McCain started making loud, strong, consistent statements against what Bush was doing? I mean really creating a total disruption. Would the Israeli's or the Palestinians work towards peace at all? Or would they hold out, hope for a different President, use America's own disagreement as a bargaining chip?? Our Senators have to be more careful than that, they have an international voice. People who are frontrunners in the Presidential campaign have to be more careful than that, they are beginning to have an international voice. People might like hearing rable-rousing here, but when you think of the consequences it can have around the world, it suddenly doesn't seem so appealing. I'd rather have a relatively quiet I/P, which it is compared to a couple years ago, and hope for some kind of progress than to have someone here run off at the mouth and stir up the fighting again. I think we'll get there if we are smart about it.

[sistersofmercy]

74. I hope so

We should have been there years ago. *sigh*

[quaker bill]

25. Buying into the Bushista war on terra?

Sorry,

The support Islamic fundamentalism is rooted wahabism which has it's roots and draws heavily on funding from Saudi Arabia. It is also native to the Sudan and has strong support in Egypt. Most of the groups had training facilities in Syria and Afghanistan.

Islamic fundamentalists had no love of Saddam and frequently called for his death. Most of Saddam's brutality was centered on suppressing Islamic Fundamentalism in Iraq.

Do you perhaps recall the Haj at about the 'mission accomplished' point of this fiasco? It was on CNN/MSNBC/FOX. The people were celebrating that for the first time in memory they were allowed to make the spiritual pilgrimage to the fundamentalist holy places.

That was exactly because Saddam suppressed the fundamentalist movement that is the source of I/P terrorism with military force.

The entire notion that Saddam was supporting and arming the very people he was using his army to kill is as stupid as it sounds. So is the notion that we are any safer with Saddam in custody.

[sandnsea]

39. Terrorism isn't real, it's a CIA ploy

Yeah, I know, I've heard it. Saddam's role in funding the Palestinian terrorists played a large part in the whole ME situation. As large as Saudi Arabia's. It's just unbelievable people would prefer to think Saddam was Mr. Wonderful. I don't understand people sometimes.

[slinkerwink]

20. Dean supports a two state solution to I/P

[sistersofmercy]

29. Alright that's a given but does he care to explain on how to bring

about this two state solution?

[mzmolly]

31. He actually said he'd send Clinton...

:)

[sistersofmercy]

36. Well that would be an improvement but I believe Kerry said the same

thing. I guess it comes down to me, when someone has the balls to say, "Hey the Israeli government hasn't exactly been peaceful, in fact under Sharon, has been quite provocative and is not currently part of the solution.

[sandnsea]

41. "Provocative and counterproductive measures"

I just posted that above.

"Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israel's security over the long-term, they increase hardships to the Palestinian people, and they make the process of negotiating an eventual settlement that much harder.”

[sistersofmercy]

71. OK

But if he's going to cite terrorism in reference to the Palestinians then perhaps he needs to referred to a few deeds done by the Israeli government.
But I didn't feel safer after Saddam's capture and that's a ridiculous assumption. In fact, I felt less safe and uncomfortable.

[sandnsea]

73. He referred to the wall

Specifically. In the other post.

And, no, you aren't going to feel safer or not in one day. That is a ridiculous assumption. In fact, I'll never feel safer no matter what because I live in a little tiny town in the middle of nowhere that is never going to be hit by a terrorist attack. It isn't about whether I personally feel safer. It's about whether the country as a whole is safer, our embassies abroad even. Overall, is a great big obstacle to peace removed. Yes.

Which doesn't justify an illegal invasion.

[sistersofmercy]

75. I just don't see it that way

I don't see "safer" on any level, I believe quite the opposite. But then again I think if something can be twisted and screwed up, well, it is the one constant from bush* to do so.

[sistersofmercy]

77. Thanks

I think you cleared up some things for me. It's been bugging me for days. I do like Kucinich too BTW.

[mjv135]

21. Read this

Clark stance on Saddam.

http://armedservices.house.gov/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

[corporatewhore]

28. Dean on Israel palestine

lthough often portrayed as progressive, former Vermont governor and Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean falls short on several issues important to progressives, with the Middle East being one of the more glaring.
(snip)
Last December, Dean told the Jerusalem Post that he unequivocally supported $8 billion in U.S. 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.
(snip)
In fact, Dean's alignment with AIPAC and their right-wing politics goes much deeper than aligning with the group’s platform. Last year, he named Steven Grossman, a former AIPAC head, as his campaign's chief fundraiser. Soon after, he flew to Israel on an AIPAC-sponsored junket.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16280
check out another great article on dean being a hawk in doves clothing http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0226-04.htm

[sistersofmercy]

33. Thanks corporatewhore, that's pretty much what I thought about

Dean's stance, status quo.

[neuvocat]

46. Uh, no.

Do your research and find your own reasons as to who would best represent you.

There's seven others out there. Don't just limit yourself to two. If you end up choosing Dean for example, great. Just don't let it be due to someone persuading you here.

[poskonig]

56. Values and personality matter.

Dean is the type of person that believes that one gets cooperation through mutual respect rather than strategy or power politics. Regardless of how successful he would be at tackling problems, this gives a general 'feel' of how Dean would approach them. Kerry in contrast has approached things with more of a strategic emphasis, and this shows in his voting choices and the way he defends stances. Dean seems more like the type of guy who would cut a deal to get people to get along, while Kerry would be looking out for the long term interests of the United States, Israel, and the other nations in the region. Both approaches have merit, and whichever one you prefer is a matter of taste. Putting too much emphasis on people without taking care of exigent matters is foolish, while looking at the world like it was a chessboard can piss people off. I'm more of an analytical person, and tend to feel Kerry has the edge on foreign policy matters, though I'm comfortable with Dean also.

[sistersofmercy]

76. Thank you very much to all who participated in the debate

Going to sleep now but plan to think about all that I've read. Truth is a really like Kerry but was just slightly put off by recent statements.

[JohnKleeb]

79. Ok SOM

Your welcome. Maybe in your sleep you will believe in the power of DJK. Good luck.

[Moderator]

80. I am locking this thread.

All discussion of the I/P situation should be posted in the I/P forum.


DU Moderator