Rivals Criticize Dean For Mideast Comment

[Khephra]

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.

Five days after Dean told supporters in New Mexico that "it's not our place to take sides" in the conflict, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) accused him of advocating a "major break" from the United States' long-standing policy of explicitly siding with Israel in the Middle East.

"If this is a well-thought-out position, it's a mistake, and a major break from a half a century of American foreign policy," Lieberman said in a statement. "If it's not, it's very important for Howard Dean, as a candidate for president, to think before he talks."

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."

more........................

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

Am I not correct in thinking that the "no sides" policy was the same policy that was working for Clinton?

[ET Awful]

1. You are correct

And so is Dean. Showing favoritism for Israel not only damages the peace process, but also alienates the entire region. If you want to know one of the core causes of terrorism against US interests, you need look no further than our blind support of Israel.

[userdave2061]

8. Showing favoritism for Israel is one of the core causes of terrorism?

Hardly. THE core cause of terrorism is the sick mind of the terrorist.

Making lame excuses for the targeted killings of innocents is the absolute refusal to lay the blame where it belongs...on the ones commiting the terror. To express otherwise only gives the terrorist an excuse to contine their sick and hateful killings.

[Dhalgren]

13. I think that it is a ridiculously simplistic

view to try and remove "terrorism" from the motivation of the "terrorists". Terrorism isn't some kind of crime of passion or pathological serial crime, it is a method of waging war. There is no disernable difference between fire bombing a city from 10,000 feet in the air - and there by killing men women and children - and the bombing of a bus by a suicide bomber (except that the suicide bomber kills fewer people and doesn't get to go back to the officer's club and have a few with the boys). To try and remove the reasoning behind terrorism from the act, is playing into the hands of those do not want the status quo changed.

Remember, the founders of this country were concidered terrorists by the British government and, as Ben Franklin said, would have been hanged as such had they been captured. Simplistic answers to difficult questions never give satisfactory outcomes.

[ET Awful]

14. Exactly Dhalgren

If you just say "terrorism is caused by terrorists" that's like saying "gun deaths are caused by guns". It doesn't look at the root cause.

The fact is that something must happen to initiate the hatred and the desire to carry out a war by unconventional means.

These guys didn't just wake up one morning and say "I think I'll start hating America today." They saw the situation in Palestine and saw their families abused by Israel with the full unconditional support of the US. They watch the US send troops into their holiest lands and leave them there. There are root causes there, to ignore the fact that one of the primary root causes is the US support of Israel is to ignore the blatantly obvious truth.

[CWebster]

19. Excellent post

.

[TahitiNut]

22. " (ditto)

:thumbsup:

[tedzbear]

31. I agree!!!!!!!

Right on Dhalgren.

[Romberry]

58. Nice post, Dhalgren

If Republicans remade "Star Wars", the rebels would be called terrorists.

[Voltaire99]

82. Take note, Dean: Palestinians aren't the illegal colonizers

I will grant you this, Dean supporters. It took some courage for Dean to make this comment.

But not taking sides is no answer, particularly when US tax dollars have funded the illegal expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. It's clear whose side we ought to be on if we care about decency and justice: that of the oppressed.

[Zhade]

94. This is an excellent point. Thank you for addressing it.

I do think that part of "not taking sides" would include the cessation of funding for Israeli military endeavors, which would be a good start, though certainly not an acceptable end.

[Malikshah]

92. Terrorism is a symptom

Dean's a doctor--

This would work for him--

Terrorism is a symptom.
You treat the symptom, naturally.
If, however, you only treat the symptom and do not deal with the
cause of the symptom, the symptom will simply recur

The solution--diagnose the problem. Eradicate the cause of the symptom and voila, no more symptom.

Too long have folks on all sides of the issues (not just this one) focused on the symptom alone.

And, no-- it's not easy to eradicate the cause of the symptom.

Furthermore--with idiots like * misdiagnosing the symptom as "they hate our way of life" ... well--let's just say that's a major case for a malpractice suit.

The Palestinian-Israeli conflice is much the same.

[Zhade]

95. Solid analysis, Malikshah.

If we consider that the "War On Terrorism" is very parallel to Israel's "War On Terrorists", then the issue crystallizes.

I think it's pretty insane to be against BushCo's WOT yet accept Sharon's WOT. If the United States cannot eradicate terrorism by simply killing every (Bush-designated) terrorist on Earth, but instead will only create more in a vicious, endless cycle - how can intelligent people agree with the Israeli government's contention that killing every (Sharon-designated) terrorist will eradicate terrorism against Israeli citizens? It is a completely contradictory and unassailably illogical viewpoint.

[maggrwaggr]

105. I think it's ridiculously republican

the guy sounds like a commentator from Fox News.

Hello, Dave? What channel you on?

[colorado_ufo]

136. Well said.

:thumbsup:

[The Stranger]

17. It is exactly this sort of overly simplistic, black and white thinking

that creates terrorism in the first place. It is an attempt -- perhaps an intentional attempt -- to avoid addressing the causes underlying the problems that give rise to terrorism.

Congratulations.

[leesa]

18. Ummm, Israel does targeted killing of innocents all the time.

Where ya been? Israel is a huge terrorist organization. Their government's policies suck.

[Noordam]

23. So the Israel dropping bombs on apartments to get

"Humas" only to kill civilian, the Israel pilot should be declared a terrorist and shot,,,,, right.

[TahitiNut]

25. "sick mind of the terrorist"

From "the only good indian is a dead indian" to the "Final Solution", warmongers and genocidal megalomaniacs have always dehumanized and demonized the 'enemy'. In doing so, memes are propagated which preempt any thoughts of negotiation, hearing grievances, or demonstrating empathy or compassion. And every one of these are essential to "winning the peace" ... without which no war can ever be 'won'. This is a symptom of nihilism ... the 'lose-lose' mindset of self-destructive zealotry.

Besides, anyone who doesn't see 'terrorism' in a strategy of 'shock and awe' isn't using the sense that God gave a banana slug. :shrug:

[rustydad]

33. Well.....

...is dropping a 500 pound bomb onto an apartment building in an attempt to assasinate a Hamas leader who lives in a wheelchair not "terrorism"? Get real, Israel has been the single most terrorist state on the planet. We should never again give them a penney of financial aid. Cut the stings and they will either cut bait or move on. Bob

[Arun29]

46. Actually it isTHE CORE CAUSE

Ever listen to what the gripes are in the Arab world? What the reasons were most of the Hamburg cell turned to extremism? What Bin Laden says in his tapes? Why the Palestinian unemployment rate is over 50% and the child poverty rate too? What every Arab I personally know says about the "war on terror"?

Israel, Israel, Israel. Their illegal occupation under every6 international law there is of foreign territory that has gone on for over 36 years, and the United States letting them get away with it while throwing several billion in aid and military help their way, is the chief reason for hatred towards the US in the arab world period.

Take some time to read about what "the sick twisted minds" of the terrorists are thinking. Why they are able to recruit more, including pretty 16 year old Arab girls to do suicide missions.

I have said all along, if we make Israel end the occupation, we will due more to win the war on terrorism than any Dept. of Homeland Security could ever do period. If you show the average Arab that the US really is trying to help the Palestinians out of the cespool they live in, you marginalize the right wing fundemantalists and Bin Laden & Company become quacks in the Arab world. War on terror won and over.

Why is it that we give more foreign aid (12 Billion) to a tiny 1st world country than the whole of sub-saharan Africa? Why do we let them hijack our foreign policy and kill the goodwill on our balance sheet? It is about time a politician stood up to the Jewish lobby in defense of OUR COUNTRY (THE US, this is our country, not Israel's)and I predict Dean brings more voters into the process with this stance than will lose right wing leaning Jewish voters. There are only a million from what I believe that vote, and any Jew that wants peace, should seriously consider the possibility that a truly nuetral US is the only way to bring peace.

It is obvious Sharon only wants to radicalize the PALs to help him build his settlements in the name of "security". Any reasonable strategic analysis leaves that as the only conclusion. You don't see India buiilding Hindu settelements in Pakistani Kashmir do you? Roadblocking, checkpointing, and choking off commerce in Pakistan do you? Curfewing and punishing a whole society for one man's act of terrorism? No, because that would be extremely counter-productive to the peace process.

Furthermore, why does Sharon call for a complete end to violence before any peace talks? Since Islamic Jihad is a terrorist organization hellbent on the destruction of Israel, why in the hell would you want to give them the power to dictate whether or not there will be peace talks, when they most assuredly will bring violence forth to stop the peace process??? It is ass backwards and proves Sharon has no interest in peace.

[CWebster]

47. bravo

.

[userdave2061]

73. Wrong. There is NO EXCUSE for targeting innocents

That issue is black and white. Perhaps the conflict has many branches but I'm not going to go into a history lesson here.

There are wrongs happening between both sides but the issue of targeting and blowing up children is not up for debate. No excuses for targeting innocent people an ANY side.

[TahitiNut]

76. Then why do the US and Israel do it?

(and then dehumanize it by calling it "collateral damage") :puke:

[userdave2061]

83. Israel targets hamas terrorists while hamas hides among innocents

There is no comparing hamas terrorists to innocent kids being targeted.

The keyword is "targeted". I should not have to waste words on the obvious.

[The Stranger]

87. And that is where you are exactly wrong.

Claiming that you "target" someone who is in an occupied apartment building does not exculpate your murdering those you claim you did not "target." In fact, the whole notion of you "targetting" becomes a lie.

It is actually Terrorism, plain and simple. People become terrified that they will be bombed while they are home in their apartments. They are oppressed militarily, destroyed economically, demoralized pyschologically.

And that is what Terrorism is all about.

[userdave2061]

89. Then they should stop harbouring the terrorists

Nuff said.

[Forkboy]

110. I guess the 12 year old that was killed today

was harboring terrorists.

[Classical_Liberal]

119. What happened at Hiroshima userdave?

? What about careless, reckless killing of civilians which what Sharon is guilty of. What about the targeted removal of Palestinians from their homes so Israelis can move in?

[TahitiNut]

134. Uhhh... userdave2061 is ...

Thankfully.

[Zhade]

96. OF COURSE there's no excuse.

I haven't seen anyone say "Oh, yeah, kill innocent Israelis, it's all good."

No one here wants ANYONE innocent to die. Most people, I hope, want NO ONE to die.

That said, thank you for commenting on the fact that there are wrongs on both sides. Too often this fact is ignored.

[TahitiNut]

74. Yup (nodding head) n/t

:thumbsup:

[userdave2061]

85. So you justify the terrorism?

It sounds like you accept the hamas actions as justifable due to the actions of Israel.

I don't.

[DrWeird]

91. So the US bombing of Hiroshima was terrorism?

After all, we targeted innocents.

[Zhade]

97. Yes, that would be defined as terrorism.

It stopped widespread systemic terrorism from the Axis leadership's war machine, but it was terrorism nonetheless.

[TahitiNut]

114. Yup. And "MAD" was merely stalemated terror.

"Duck and cover, kids." (Wanna be burned to a crisp?)

Threaten an entire nation with total and indiscriminate destruction. No matter how you cut it, war has gone total. The old rules that some person working in a factory (making bombers?) or the fields (making C-rations?) wasn't a 'combatant' went out the window in WW2. To pretend that the overwhelmingly weakest side in an assymetrical conflict (can we spell predation?) is going to "play by rules" that favor the strongest (who break those rules in different ways) is deluded.

[Classical_Liberal]

120. Do you justify settlements

Sounds like you really think someones bad responce to them justifies ignoring them?

[atreides1]

140. Then Israel is a Creation of A Sickness(Jewish Terrorists)

Then Israel is the creation of sick minds, or doesn't the bombing of
the King David Hotel in Jerusalem count as a terrorist act.

But like other sheep it's easy to forget history. After all, it's the winners that write history, not the losers.

[jos]

2. Yes, Joe and John

We're supposed to take sides, but we're also supposed to broker a peace deal.:crazy:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. Dean's way is the only one that might lead to peace

If the US is to help in the peace process, the US must not take sides. Otherwise, any agreement reached will be suspect in the eyes of the Palestinians. It is the perception of the US as being a trained attack dog for Israel that has spawned a lot of hatred towards us that led to the attacks of 9/11.

[piece sine]

6. how do we NOT takes sides on Israel?

After 50 years of unstinting support...do you just say "Never mind; now we're neutral!" And what do you think Hillary's gigantic Jewish constiuency is going to say about that? Mr. Schumer, any opinion of ditching Israel so we cozy-up to the PLO.... Do people here think that would suddenly make all the angry Arabs love us? DOn't pretend Islamic hatred of the west is just a passing fad. It goes back a thousand years!

[IndianaGreen]

12. That's the red herring that Lieberman and Kerry are using

This has nothing to do with Israel's right to exist, or to America's iron-clad commitment to stand alongside Israel against terrorism.

The real issue at hand is whether the US is going to play a neutral role as a power broker for peace, as President Carter did at Camp David, or continue to pursue the Bush policy of photo ops and knee-jerk support of whatever Sharon does.

[piece sine]

28. tell it to the Jewish Democrats!

Supporters of Israel and the Israelis themselves won't touch your reasoning with a 20 foot pole. Ther's no waffling when it comes to Israel's security. You can't pledge your unwaivering support and at the same time declare your neutrality. And without solid Jewish support, there is Democratic victory in 2004. Poof! 90% of the Jewish-American vote goes to Bush. This may be the most serious mis-step Dean has yet made, and I'm a Dean supporter (so far.) My Jewish friends are apoplectic this morning about Dean's comment.

[CWebster]

29. Jewish-American knee-jerk allegiance to Israel

even when it is a fascist state would threaten to realign sentiment with Neocon interests?

Not a pretty picture.

[tedzbear]

32. I imagine Dean supports Israel's right to sovereignty but...

...does not support their illegal occupation of Palestine. Hopefully once elected he will broker a fair and truly balanced peace summit unlike the one sided pro Israel charades of the past.
:kick:

[piece sine]

54. Did Dean really say this???

Fro m the Jerusalem Post:

"The two-state solution is a solution that I support and I believe is the ultimate way to peace in the Middle East. And we're going to have to be the honest broker.

The Americans are the only people who can broker that, and I wish the president had spent more time on the Middle East and less time on Iraq." Huh?!

Somebody get the the good doctor a map and a copy of the DNC's top donor fundraising list! What he's said so far is a prescription for failure and is starting to push me into the Kerry camp. Why?! No Democrat passes go and collects $200 without the American-Israel lobby's blessing. And I mean nobody. Just again the big guy..."Bill, can Hill do without Jewish contributors?"

[jos]

63. What's wrong with what he said?

That's exactly what Clinton's policy was. And it didn't hurt him with the Jewish community.

[fujiyama]

137. But Clinton did it

differently than Dean. He never said "we should be neutral". He would usually make warm and fuzzy statements about peace and prosperity for both sides and leave it at that. That and for most of the time, the situation there wasn't as volatile. The latest wave of terror really started around the end of '00. Many Jewish Americans have been shaken up by it and are somewhat parandoid and fearful with regard to the exstence of the Jewish state. Unfortunate and a bit irrational, but understandable to some extent.

I really like Dean (and really do agree for the most part with his statement). I just think that this is an issue not worth touching. I would rather have stuck to the usual criticism of this administration's mideast policy, which was that he wasn't involved as much as the previous one...We should help our friends in the peace process, we should provide hope for the Palestinians, etc etc...

Hell, if it were up to me I wouldn't be spending $3b+ in military aid to any country, but some things are better done quietly when your in the WH (if possible with given political pressures), rather than announced in a way which is sure to bring about criticism (unfair or not).

[Zhade]

93. And you nothing wrong with this?

No Democrat passes go and collects $200 without the American-Israel lobby's blessing. And I mean nobody. Just again the big guy..."Bill, can Hill do without Jewish contributors?"

Doesn't that seem to suggest just a tad bit too much influence from Israeli politics on OUR country? That's what your comment appears to be saying. Can you clarify?

And I don't care if Hillary loses votes, if it means stopping the madness in the Middle East.

It might benefit you to seek out the neoconservative ties to the Jerusalem post, by the way.

[piece sine]

109. Reality check

The American Israeli lobby is disproportionately Democratic and, from Wall Street to Hollywood, are disproportionately generous to the Democrats. They indeed wield a hugely disporportionate influence on the entire country but ESPECIALLY the Democrats. There's nothing you or anyone can do about. That is just the way it is. After Hilter's Holocaust, Jews said "never again" and to this day, they mean it with every fiber of their being. It truly will never happen to the Jews again.

Democrats -- and for the most part all Americans --are comfortable locking arms with Israel because history, morality and ethics demand it. And it's truly the right thing to do.

As a native New Yorker, now transplated in D.C., I've never known a dayt I haven't respected the steel, the backbone and the focus of my Jewish friends who defend Israel.

[IndianaGreen]

111. "Never again" does not mean "Do it to someone else"!

You speak as if the Jewish community in America and in Israel are monolithic and marching in lockstep. You are also confusing support for Israel with support for the policies of the Sharon government.

AIPAC speaks for all American Jews as the NRA speaks for all gun owners, which means they only speak for most of their members, but not for the Jewish or gun owning population at large.

BTW, as we have seen with the way CANF holds US-Cuba policy hostage, campaign contributions and sound foreign policy are not mutually inclusive.

[Zhade]

115. You're right - it won't happen to THEM.

However, Sharon and his fellow right-wingers are doing a good job of turning Israel into everything they ever hated about the Nazis, and all under the noses of truly good and honest Jews.

[Classical_Liberal]

124. Didn't Moran get in trouble with "the Israelis Lobby"

and Jewish activist groups for saying what you are saying?

[piece sine]

135. I'm not in Congress, Moran is

One of the perks of not holding public office is freedom to speak with candor and frankness, and in a clear voice. I'm a gentile who supports the 2-state policies of Carter and Clinton. But Israel can only walk into such an agreement feeling secure and unthreatened. Therein lies the rub.

[IndianaGreen]

108. Are you advocating abandoning the policies of Carter and Clinton?

because the 2-state solution is precisely the policy they were pursuing with America as the peace broker.

Are Lieberman and Kerry now endorsing the radical racists policies advocated by the most extreme elements in American and Israel, such as Tom DeLay, Newt Gingrich, and the followers of the late Meir Kahane?

Most Jews in America and in Israel support the 2-state solution. The problem is how to get there from here. The 2-state solution as been the stated policy of the United States since the Oslo Accords. Was Bill Clinton an enemy of Israel? It was his policy!

[piece sine]

117. The 2-State policy is SOLID

And I'vew never known a Jewish person who didn't support it. remarks.

[Classical_Liberal]

123. Are you saying "THE JEWS" control American elections

I am insulted!

[piece sine]

127. Heavens no!

I'm saying the Jewish-Americans control the Jewish-American vote. And when that voting bloc exerts itself, it certainly influences the Democratic Party. And once you've done that -- de-facto -- you're a player in the national elections.

If you mean "control" to mean the menacing intentions the Elders of Zion crap-ola, then it's like, "hell no!"

[Classical_Liberal]

133. What did Moran get in trouble for then?

?

[durutti]

35. Many Jews Are Not Zionists

And many more are critical of the Sharon government's policies.

It's obvious that the current Israeli policy has done nothing but increase the threat to Israel's security.

[StandWatie]

70. loaded term

Mainstream zionism from 1947 would be aghast at what Israel has become.

[jos]

64. I'm Jewish

and it doesn't bother me one bit. I think your numbers are way out of wack. Most Jews will vote Democratic if Dean is the nominee. Don't pay attention to the ones who scream.

[ldf]

118. My Jewish friends are apoplectic this morning about Dean's comment....

and maybe it's about time that jewish people realize that they do NOT make america's foreign policy.

we need to drop the policy that israel's sh*t doesn't stink.

dare i say it, but being "fair and balanced" is the only way we will ever find a way out of this mess.

and a start would be insisting that israel return to it's united nations agreed upon borders.

all the rest is nothing but an occupation.

damn. i said i would never get involved in these threads......

[fujiyama]

138. Jews do NOT make American foreign policy?

Excuse me, but people of various religions make foreign policy. I know you probably meant ISRAELIS don't make American FP. I know it seems like semantical wrangling, but it's an important distinction.

Remember all Jews aren't necessarily Israeli (though I do worry about a person having dual citizenship with any foreign nation working in our govt).

[Classical_Liberal]

122. The Jews who are apoplectic probably aren't democrats.

Polling indicates most Jewish voters want a peace settlement. You are presenting anecdotal evidence.

[StandWatie]

52. it hasn't been fifty years

Israel didn't have much to offer at first other than a population where many of the citizens were former inhabitants of the Soviet Union and could be debriefed for intelligence.

It wasn't until post '67 that the relationship really became gross and in your face favoritism.

[piece sine]

57. I'm not so sure....

The US Relationship with Israel pre-dates the '67 Yom Kippur War by at least two decades. The US and Britain, that is. We have always been by Israel's side; we sanctified its very existence. Still do. Always will. And in the Middle East, they will always be first among equals in America's eyes.

[StandWatie]

59. not at first

The Soviets were bigger on "supporting Israel" than we were, up until the fifies nearly a quarter of their arms came from Chechosolovakia (almost all the arms used in the '48 war came from there).

Israeli's in general were very resistance to being brought into the Cold War at all but Ben Gurion was solidly sold on the idea of being brought into the US camp around the time of the Korean War but the US needed their friendship like a bullet to the head. It was a pain in the ass for us and our ARAMCO puppet regime in Saudi Arabia. It wasn't until the US pretty much gave up on the middle east that it finally cemented it's relationship with Israel.

Good book on the subject is Dangerous Liason by Cockburn.

[Classical_Liberal]

121. Most Jews want peace, and Hillary and Shumer

are chickens who are kowering to neocon elements in the Jewish community who will vote repuke anyway.

[CWebster]

4. Now, that was expected from Lieberman, but KERRY!!!!!!!!!!

It has been one bombshell after another from Kerry---from his support of the disasterous Iraqi invasion to his casual dismissal of the 2000 presidential election, to his shameless military grandstanding -but this is the last straw. I never cared for Kerry on a gut level, but now I fear that should he win the nomination we will risk losing the election. Kerry's increasingly DLC tempered policy positions forecast limited challenge to the Rightward shift in the party establishment- causing greater division than over. NO to Kerry.

[hang a left]

7. I am going to agree here.

I want to like Kerry. But I am most sure he cannot be trusted. He has suspicious connections, that must be scrutinized.

[Voltaire99]

84. Kerry's an establishment man through and through

This is precisely the reactionary response one should expect from him. You don't rise in today's DLC-dominated Democratic Party without kowtowing to the line on Israel; it's part of the doctrine.

[Classical_Liberal]

125. I agree

. Both Lieberman and Kerry know that the policy of Clinton was nonfavoritism but they are distorting reality for the neocons that caused the war, and will vote repuke no matter what.

[xchrom]

5. joe and john are out of touch

because wisdom is conventional doesn't make it right.
how can anyone with a lick o'sense say that what we have been doing is working?
blind support of israel has blindedd the u.s. to the whole of the middle east -- except of course for the oil. but we have never cared for the people. and that's hardly a disguised fact.

[userdave2061]

9. They may be out of touch with terrorist apologists

But they are singing the same tune as most realistic people and refuse to assign blame for terror on anyone except the murderous terrorist.

[Dhalgren]

15. After the events of this past summer

I don't think the US is in any position to label anyone "murderous". We need to start viewing events and movements and currents on the world (and national)stage in a more mature, adult fashion rather than just giving trained responses to all input. Everything isn't black and white and as long as we continue to act as though it were, we will lose.

Kerry no longer has any standing, what so ever. I have defended him in the past from unwarrented attacks on his record and character, but he is dead wrong, here.

[userdave2061]

77. Not everything is black and white but targeting innocents IS.

Not only are those who target innocents murderous - they are inhuman and should be discovered before they act and locked up or neutralized.

[maggrwaggr]

100. Dave? I've seen your other posts Dave ....

And I can't help but wonder why you're here ....

[StandWatie]

72. realistic?

You think you are living in the real world with your worship of state power as always noble and beset by chaotic forces of evil?

[userdave2061]

80. Your assumptions are wrong.

My only point is that there is NO EXCUSE for targeting innocents. The rest of the conflict is up for debate.

[StandWatie]

81. ever hear of Qibya?

Sabra, Shatila?

It would take Hamas, IJ, et all a thousand years at the rate they are going to kill as many innocent civilians deliberately as Israel has.

[userdave2061]

86. Payback is no excuse

A whole lot of nasty crap happened not too long ago...witch burning, lynchings and on and on...

That is no excuse.

[StandWatie]

90. it's not the distant past

Sharon himself did the Qibya massacre so I suppose the Israeli's who get blown up should quit "harboring" him or they wind up being "collateral damage". (This is not what I think but it seems a logical extention of what you believe).

[arendt]

103. "terrorist apologists" - what will you say next? "preborn children"?

How can anyone have a discussion when you are
so quick to slap debate-terminating slanders
on them?

Your phrase "terrorist apologist" is classic
agitprop. These people "are" terrorists. Therefore
anyone who sees it differently "is" an apologist.

Nice black and white world you have there.

Why don't you go back and play in it?

arendt

[maggrwaggr]

106. Nice. Dave needs to go back to ....

well you know, that other place.

I wouldn't want to have my post deleted now, would I?

:) :0 :)

[Aries]

10. I'm glad Dean said what he said

and also agree with him that Lieberman and Kerry are acting in a divisive manner. I had actually wondered what Dean's Middle East position was, and am more likely to work for his election given this statement.

This quote in the WP story is interesting:

"...Several Democrats predicted Dean would pay a political price for his remarks. Democratic candidates receive a significant amount of money and support from the Jewish community. It would be hard for any Democrat considered unsympathetic toward Israel by Jewish leaders to win the nomination, several party strategists said...."

The Jewish leaders referred (and especially their followers) might benefit from reading Nothing Sacred by Douglas Rushkoff.

Unquestioning support of Israeli policies doesn't do the Democrats or the country any long-term good.

[maggrwaggr]

101. I agree. Again, Kerry panders. Dean leads.

it seems to be what he does the best.

Dean leads. Kerry panders. Simple as that.

I like Dean's approach. America can't broker jack shit in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict if it's "siding" with Israel! It's just fucking stupid to think it can!

Again, Dean opens his mouth and I like what comes out. Keeps happening. Weird.

[IndianaGreen]

11. I don't know if Kerry understands the role of "peace broker"

Of course Kerry understands! He is just trying to make cheap political hay by associating himself with the despicable and extremists comments made by Lieberman over the weekend.

Kerry the pathetic opportunist, waffles in the direction of Lieberman!

Hey Kerry, how about telling that bs to Presidents Carter and Clinton?

These damned American politicians that continue to speak of Palestinians as lower life forms without any legitimate grievances, not because they really believe this, but because they seek to fatten their campaign coffers with AIPAC's blood money.

I suggest that our "expert" on foreign policy, John Kerry who voted for the Iraq war, takes the time to read the requirements of impartiality imposed on the United States, and the other members of the Quartet, on the Roadmap to Peace.

I encourage the Kerry supporters to e-mail the following URL to Senator Waffle, for his reading pleasure:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman
April 30, 2003

A PERFORMANCE-BASED ROADMAP TO A PERMANENT TWO-STATE SOLUTION TO THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT

The following is a performance-based and goal-driven roadmap, with clear phases, timelines, target dates, and benchmarks aiming at progress through reciprocal steps by the two parties in the political, security, economic, humanitarian, and institution-building fields, under the auspices of the Quartet (the United States, European Union, United Nations, and Russia). The destination is a final and comprehensive settlement of the Israel-Palestinian conflict by 2005, as presented in President Bush's speech of 24 June, and welcomed by the EU, Russia and the UN in the 16 July and 17 September Quartet Ministerial statements.

A two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will only be achieved through an end to violence and terrorism, when the Palestinian people have a leadership acting decisively against terror and willing and able to build a practicing democracy based on tolerance and liberty, and through Israel's readiness to do what is necessary for a democratic Palestinian state to be established, and a clear, unambiguous acceptance by both parties of the goal of a negotiated settlement as described below. The Quartet will assist and facilitate implementation of the plan, starting in Phase I, including direct discussions between the parties as required. The plan establishes a realistic timeline for implementation. However, as a performance-based plan, progress will require and depend upon the good faith efforts of the parties, and their compliance with each of the obligations outlined below. Should the parties perform their obligations rapidly, progress within and through the phases may come sooner than indicated in the plan. Non-compliance with obligations will impede progress.

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/summit/text2003/0430roadmap.htm

[ozone_man]

16. It seems Kerry has no leadership qualities, just another politician

who holds his finger in the wind to see what is a safe stand to make. His voting for the Iraq war will cost us dearly, including possibly a health care system as Dean proposes and the loss of respect all over the world.

"Of course Kerry understands! He is just trying to make cheap political hay by associating himself with the despicable and extremists comments made by Lieberman over the weekend."

[JohnOneillsMemory]

42. Kerry has decided that the ends justify the means and he wants to win.

Last week I wrote about how moving Kerry's actions against the Vietnam War were to me in response to WPitt's post about Kerry's war record. Indiana Green wrote that this was not the same Kerry 30 years later. He certainly isn't and nor should he be. I suspect he's learned that speaking the uncut truth frequently gets you nowhere if your audience isn't receptive or doesn't even have the mental tools to understand. Becoming and remaining a politician, sadly, requires keeping in mind just how ignorant, superstitious, chauvinistic and indoctrinated your constituents are. Yes, it appears Kerry has chosen to walk the middle of the road to have a chance to do any good at all rather than be dismissed from the game of power. I somehow still believe his heart and mind are in the right place and he intends to survive the ugly and degrading process to gain control of the presidency and change course. Don't forget that former security advisor Rand Beers left the White House team to join Kerry as his national security advisor. Kerry must know what's at stake in this election: I find it hard to believe he's just another 'waffling opportunist.'

[CWebster]

43. You mean selling out?

If Martin Luther King or Gandhi were willing to compromise so easily the battle wouldn't be worth fighting. You don't triumph over what you want to change by becoming part of it.

[Classical_Liberal]

126. not taking sides is already the midde road

Kerry's position is moving right, period! That is what I have come to expect from the Dummycrat Leadership Conference though.

[THUNDER HANDS]

20. I'm fully in the Kerry camp, but Dean is right about this

I think the U.S. has to be an impartial arbitor in the Middle East. Of course, that's hard to do when you're ponying billions of dollars to one side and disrespecting and embarassing the other side.

Though Dean is obviously right about the situation, it was a stupid thing, politically, for him to say.

Israel is the 3rd rail of foreign policy for Americans, and especially Democrats.

[tedzbear]

34. But support for Israel does not mean blind acceptance of illegal acts.

"Israel is the 3rd rail of foreign policy for Americans, and especially Democrats."

As a Democrat, I cannot blindly support Israel's current illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories. I demand a fair and balanced peace summit unlike the previous charades of the past. As long as we give Israel's army a blank check every year and allow it to overrun Palestine, peace will never occur.
Instead, genocide will result.
:kick:

[Dhalgren]

51. Absolutely right!

We have to "not take sides" - or, another way of saying it - we have to support both sides equally. We have to start gaining some credibility in the I/P conflict or we should just stay out of it, alltogether. We can't seem to do that, so let's be even handed in our approach.

[Hawkeye-X]

39. Then you should be questioning yourself _WHY_ you should continue to ...

support Kerry.

He's nothing but an ambitious Washington insider who KNOWS he has no chance whatsoever to win an election if he gets the nomination.

Since JFK, no other Senators has ever won an Presidential nomination or election. Repukes, yes, but ever a Dem? No.

Think Bob Dole, think Jack Kemp as an example (or two).

Hawkeye-X

[THUNDER HANDS]

49. I'm still going to support Kerry

I am less sure of his chances in the primary, to be honest, than I was a few weeks ago, but I do think he'll end up being the last one, or one of the last two, left standing at the end.

I'm supporting him because I agree with more of his positions on issues than I necessarily do with Dean.

Although they are very, veeeeeeeeery close.

I think, if I could have a perfect world, I'd love to see Dean as the nominee and have him pound Bush for a few months, then have Kerry as president.

Because while I think Dean is the better campaigner. Kerry would make the better president.

You can talk about LBJ and JFK all you want, but they were from the Congress, and did wonderful things through that body when they became president.

This election is going to be a mandate on Bush, and whether the country trusts him or not. No matter who the Dems put up, lest it be Sharpton, Braun, Kucinich or Lieberman, they have an excellent opportunity in 2004.

Kerry can beat Bush just as easily as Dean could. But I think Kerry would be a better president. In fact, if elected, I think John F. Kerry would go down in history as one of the greatest presidents ever, alongside FDR and Lincoln.

[bspence]

21. BUT DEAN IS RIGHT!!

I mean, Israel aren't innocent little sheep here. Both sides have done some pretty bad stuff in their respective pasts. Siding with both Israelis and Palestinians would actually HELP the climate in the Middle East, not hurt it.

How can the Palestinians respect the US as being an impartial mediator if we take sides? I don't agree with Leiberman, either. I don't think we've historically been solely on the side of the Israelis.

Lieberman needs to head out to the GOP. Dems don't need any help from insiders trying to criticize our candidates. His comments fracture and hurt the democratic party.

[LizW]

24. We have a long-standing policy of siding with Israel?

Has anyone told Jimmy Carter?:eyes:

I'm obviously no foreign policy wonk, but, silly me, I thought we were the supposed leaders in brokering peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Now I learn that we're siding with Israel and that even a statement of the desirability of neutrality from a presidential candidate is cause for outrage.

If we're with Israel, then, hell's bells, what have we been doing screwing around with all these "peace talks" all these decades? I'm being sarcastic, of course, but do we really live in a world where maintaining neutrality in a thousand year old religious and political conflict is a bad thing?:crazy:

Edited for my spelling error.

[Rose Siding]

27. They'll call for MORE "clarification!"

But that has so been done.

snip>
In an interview, Dean sought to clarify his statement but did not back down from his belief that the United State cannot negotiate peace unless it is seen as a neutral party in the region. "Israel has always been a longtime ally with a special relationship with the United States, but if we are going to bargain by being in the middle of the negotiations then we are going to have to take an evenhanded role," he said.
end snip>

That's the kind of clear headed thinking that will shield Dean.

[tedzbear]

36. Right on!

LizW don't worry about your spelling. You get an A.

[wellst0nev0ter]

26. It's About Time Someone Started Being Neutral

If you read "Shattered Dreams" by Charles Enderlin, you'll see that the Clinton administration was anything BUT neutral in their treatment of the Palestinian situation. Time and time again, they chose to negotiate from the Israeli position and rudely and routinely dismissed Palestinian entreaties to abide by long-standing international doctrines.

I just hope it's not too late for Dean's plan to work, and I hope Dean doesn't become a victim of some AIPAC campaign.

[Rose Siding]

30. I wonder if Joe and John have considered

the international impact of stirring this pot just now? With all the global sentiment that the US is anti-Arab, you'd think they'd be more diplomatic and not portray themselves as being unable to arbitrate btwn I/P with neutrality.

Maybe it's even important for IRAQ to see an even handed approach in the ME. Yeah, MAYBE!

They only fancy themselves as skilled in foreign policy.

[tedzbear]

37. They are simplistic morons when it comes to foreign policy...

...that's why I support Dean.
:kick:

[CWebster]

38. nah

In Kerry case, he is a whore for AIPAC. He knows where the bread gets buttered.

[Sideways]

48. ShitFire Word from The ME

I live in Oman and Omanis are quite polite and respectful of Americans. Yet today as I sat in a coffee shop and locals were discussing American politics one of the group approached me and asked me about the upcoming 2004 election.

"Are you for the Bush?" he asked. I nearly spewed my coffee. Not do you support Bush, do you like Bush, but "are you for the Bush?"

I nearly wet my pants. That aside the guy ripped into a list of Democratic challengers that would leave most Americans bewildered.

Including "Edwards looks like someones lost son. Do Americans hate Sharpton because he is black? And is Kerry as pathetic as his hair?"

I know this means nothing but it was a ripping good chat.

BTW Holy Joe just got a "fuck off" from the group.

[Beacho]

40. Boo hoo! po' lil' Isreal

While I have sympathy for the people of Isreal, I have no sympathy for the policies of their government.

I'm disgusted that we, as a nation, are supporting the building of an apartheid state.


I'm also disusted with the Palestinians, who have other options to fight for their rights.

The tactics of Ghandi would do them more good, than the tactics of Islamist hate mongers.

As for Deans' comments, I believe that they are right on the money and solidifies my support for the man.

[Rose Siding]

44. There's some inexplicable confusion

that not supporting Sharon's policies implies a lack of support for Israel.

Odd because when citizens of other countries assure me that they are anti-*Bush* and his policies, and not anti-American, I can understand it easily.

[Larkspur]

60. The Palestinians tried non-violence but Israel either deported

them or arrested them anyway.

The problem is that Israel and the Palestinians hate each other so much that they need a referee. The United States is big enought to do that job, but it must be as fair as possible to both sides.

[imhotep]

41. This was a threat bythe DLC

the DLC is warning Dean that if he doesn't side with Israel he will be killed. Lieberman specifically has just threatened to murder Howard Dean and should be arrested.

[Zhade]

98. It does seem to have a threatening tone. Creepy.

NT

[denverbill]

45. Experience doesn't make you any smarter Lieberman.

You voted for the Iraq war, and so did you Kerry.

Instead of attacking your own party members, why not stick to attacking Bush? Oh, that's right, it's because you side with Bush 90% of the time.

[nolabels]

50. This a ruse debate, The Israeli-Palestinians are the same people

Should be a discussion about why the US bankrolls militaristic Zionist that have created there own personal enemies thru extractions of their substance and belongings in a country constructed by Imperial Colonists (wonder where that lesson was learned).

This ideal that the aftermath of WW2 created this problem by sweeping the problem under the rug is always ignored. In effect telling the people persecuted in Europe and elsewhere to go away and don't cause problems for the victors of the war that are dividing up the globe.

Don't ignore the problem, fix it or at least acknowledge it. Why don't they just call up the UN to come help them out?

[Zhade]

99. I've often wondered if a two-state "solution" really would be one.

After all, we saw how "separate but equal" worked here in America.

Just last night I was lying in bed thinking up a name for an integrated Palestinian-Israeli state. I just don't feel that segregation will do less harm than good.

[maggrwaggr]

102. Just give the Palestinians cable TV and SUV's and they'll be happy as

we are.

I've never understood that. "hmmm, let's see, we'll keep these people oppressed in a ghetto with absolutely NOTHING to do, no jobs, no hope, no money, no nothing, and then if they get mad about it we'll kill them with our American-supplied tanks!"

YEAH, that'll work.

Give them money, jobs, televisions, entertainment and they'll be so busy wondering who's the next "Palestinian Bachelor" is gonna choose from his 25 vestal virgins that they won't notice they're being oppressed.

[Classical_Liberal]

129. Your right

which is why I advocate letting the settlers stay in the West Bank, provided they seek citizenship or resident alien status like the Palestinian citizens of Israel. Israel will be a majority Jewish state but granting Palestinians full rights. Palestine a majority Arab state granting Jews full rights. It is the Tikkun solution. Read about it at Tikkun.org

[David__77]

53. I support the statement "Don't take sides."

This is a plus factor as far as I'm concerned. US foreign policy must be determined differently than in recent times.

[StandWatie]

55. The Times is anti-semetic

Several Democrats predicted Dean would pay a political price for his remarks. Democratic candidates receive a significant amount of money and support from the Jewish community. It would be hard for any Democrat considered unsympathetic toward Israel by Jewish leaders to win the nomination, several party strategists said.

Better start writing letters, you know that's code for "Jews run the country" :eyes:

[Arun29]

61. Anti-Semetic?

There is nothing anti-semetic about stating a fact, it would be diffcult to win the nomination without the support of the Dem Jewish lobby.

Your sophistry is truly sickening to me. Go get an account at freerepublic because this sort of bs doesn;t go over well here.

Can one not state a simple fact without being accused of anti-semitism? Much less actually criticize Israeli policy, god forbid. The old anti-semetic line is always used when one criticizes Israel. I suppose if I criticize US foreign policy I am anti-american. Or of I criticize the Yankees trades I am not yankee fan?

Here's a clue for you . . . I think the Israeli lobby is hijacking my country's foreign policy and causing terrorism against the US. Alas, my girlfriend is Jewish. Can you reconcile that in your peabrain?

[StandWatie]

62. chill out..

I was joking.

note the eyeroll smily.

[Arun29]

66. Sowwy!!!!!

Sorry, I thought it might be a joke. Was just responding after I saw the headlines blasting about the attack in Israel today, while there is barely a mention of an Israeli raid earlier today in Hebron that killed 5, including a little boy. So damn sick of the jewish lobby or whatever it is, trying desperately to paint the brutal occupier Israel as the poor, poor victim.

[Classical_Liberal]

130. It was a very cleaver and revealing joke though

when a democrat makes claims of the israelis lobbies power that the israeli lobby claims itself with it's threats against any dem that doesn't kow tow, the Israelis Lobby launches a jihad. Look at Moran.

[userdave2061]

88. causing terrorism against the US?

Nonsense. There is NO EXCUSE for targeting innocents. The ONLY person that can cause terrorism is the terrorists themselves.

As I write this I see on TV another cafe bomb just went off in Israel. Yet another one of the excusable militants exercising their right of protest right?

[maggrwaggr]

104. Hm, Dave, maybe Israel should kill a few more Hamas.

It's working so well now, isn't it?

What do you propose, Dave? Nuking them all into glass? Making the fences higher? Cutting off their water?

[Romberry]

56. Well...it's like this. Howard Dean is right

You can't be the peacemaker if you "take sides" can you? If you "take sides" you are partisan. It's like turning to Tom DeLay to "make peace" between the Republican and Democratic Party. Who, other than Republicans, would sign on to that?

Negotiating peace requires some degree of neutrality. Dean isn't talking about abandoning support for Israel, he's talking about not taking "their side" in the peace process. I say good for him. It's time for someone to stand up and tell them they need to get those settlements out of occupied lands.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

65. As a foreigner, I'm completely astounded

:wtf:
How can such a level-headed, sensible, moderate, and completely CORRECT sentence draw so much flak? Jeezaz H. Christ on a crutch.

Please don't become a nation of mandatory zealotry.

[Ripley]

67. It has already happened.

Thanks for your sympathy anyway.

My spouse and I had our first serious discussion about what we will do in 2004 if Smirk steals the election again....we both want to leave. I don't know how we'll do it, but we don't want to be here anymore if that happens.

Yeah, lots of people will say "you have to fight." Bullshit. I'd like to live my life, not fight the fascists.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

69. Brazil is a wonderful place

1) Leftists can get elected if enough people vote for them -- and people do. Also, the one with the most votes wins.
2) Any $$$ you have saved will last loooooong (a can of Coke goes for US$ 0.30, a huge meal at a restaurant for US$ 3, a good apartment rents for $200 or less in the big cities)
3) No DMCA, no Patriot Act.
4) Beaches. Itsy bitsy teeny weeny bikinis (yellow-polkadotted or otherwise)
5) You can drink alcohol if you're over 18.
6) Metric system.
7) Your 5yo kid won't be suspended if he kisses a 5yo girl in kindergarten.
8) As a bonus, you get yours truly to show you around Rio.

What's not to like? :toast:

[Ripley]

71. Wow, thanks, I'll keep that in mind.

But isn't it really hot there? I was thinking more like Canada or Germany. With the way global warming is going, I figure those two countries will be similar to southern US in a few years. That, I am used to, but hotter I couldn't handle.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

75. People say Rio summer is like NYC summer

Never been to NYC, but that's what people say. It's bearable for six months -- the other six I live running from air-conditioned room to air-conditioned room, being the hopelessly Caucasian person that I am.

OTOH, there are mountain cities (700-1000 meters above sea level) 100 km or less from Rio with gentler climates. Petropolis, Teresopolis and Nova Friburgo come to mind. I lived in Petropolis and worked in Rio for a few years.

If you want to continue this conversation on less volatile storage, my e-mail is j(CUBAN-DICTATOR'S-SURNAME)@vialink.com.br. :hi:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

78. Disclaimer

I can only read that e-mail outside work hours. Speaking of work, I should do some of it now. Bye!

[Zhade]

68. Dean is exactly right on this.

He's looking more like my candidate every day.

Muslims the world over are rightfully enraged at our enduring one-sided support of Israel on the one hand, and cosmetic support for political expedience of Palestine on the other.

I'm not excusing terrorists. In my opinion, the militants would be far better off targeting the Israeli soldiers who willfully kill innocent Palestinians - which is still not what I'd like to see. Sabotage of the IDF's military apparatus that is used to bulldoze Palestinian homes with families, including women and children, still inside? Sure, go for it. I'm not against property damage if the cause is right.

(FLAMERS: I'm not anti-semitic, so don't bother lobbing that one at me, as I will not reply.)

[noonwitch]

79. A president should not take sides, Dean's right.

Both sides have done some pretty atrocious things to each other. I truly believe that the average palestinean and the average israeli want peace, that it's the leadership on both sides fueling the war.

Israeli soldiers demolish homes of alleged terrorists-is there any type of due process involved, like a hearing and order, or is it a military order? They also intentionally killed an american citizen with one of their bulldozers-this act should have been condemned by Bush, even if he does support Israel. In other times, the military shot live ammo at children throwing rocks. What kind of threat are rocks when you've got tanks and the best weapons US tax dollars can buy? They're building a wall to make a ghetto for the palestineans-doesn't this sound familiar to them?

Palestinean bombers target civilians, along with the military. This should be condemned because it is terrorism and it is henious.

We should cut off all funds to both sides, encourage our allies to do the same, until they stop killing each other. At least they won't be using our tax dollars to kill each other at that point.

[David Zephyr]

107. Now We Know What Lieberman's Attack on Dean Tonight Will Be

n/t

[somapala]

113. wHAT DO YOU EXPECT FROM lIEBERMAN.

IS THIS LIEBERMAN IS A DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE OR REPUCK?

[somapala]

112. WHO IS THIS LIEBER(LOVERBOY)MAN?

[Beacho]

116. Hmm, Deporting non violent protestors

"The Palestinians tried non-violence but Israel either deporte
them or arrested them anyway."

I'd like to hear more about this, if possible. I know that a Ghandi type campaign would scare the pants off the elites of Isreal. Nobody ever talks about the labor of palestinian 'wetbacks' and their importance to the Isreali economy. That's what this is really about, more so then the 'conflict of 5k years' blah-blah, IMO. Like I said before, just a hebrew version of South Africa. The Isrealis would prbably shit their pants if palestinians actually got up and left. For a comparison think what would happen to our economy if migras stopped coming north.

[Classical_Liberal]

132. Yes they deport nonviolent protestors with regularity

The Palestinian Non-Violent Resistance Movement
http://www.amin.org/eng/abdel_jawwad_saleh/2003/may.html

To minimize non-violent resistance among Palestinians, Israel has systematically dismantled and discredited moderate political forces in the Occupied Territories. Other comparable occupying forces are known to have used this tactic with success. The South African apartheid regime devastated the leadership of black communities as a means to weaken ANC non-violent resistance initiatives.

In the first days of Occupation, a dynamic voluntary work movement sprang up under the guidance of democratically-elected Municipal Councils. This movement created jobs, built schools, established youth clubs, and created public libraries. Passive resistance demands strong leaders. The Palestinian non-violent resistance movement had a surplus. Seven years later, in 1973, the establishment of the Palestinian National Front provided a much-needed central leadership with representatives from all the Occupied Territories. It's goal: to collectively confront the Israeli Occupation by non-violent means. What did pacifism gain? Over the next ten years, the Israeli Occupation Authority dissolved Palestinian Municipal Councils, deported its elected leaders and attempted assassinations of others. On December 10th, 1973 (ironically the International Day for Human Rights), eight of the most moderate leaders, among them a mayor, of the Occupied Territories were deported, with no charges given and no access to legal defense.

Then came further deportations, arrests, and the imposition of Israeli-controlled local governments. As the Israeli's intended, the immediate effect was an incredible weakening of the non-violent resistance movement. This was followed by months of closures in cities and villages, humiliations, incessant harassment, searches of houses, bulldozing of hundreds of homes, uprooting of vineyards and olive groves, filling up of wells, construction of tens of thousands of housing units in settlements and large scale confiscation of land, all in violation of international law.

[Dem4EverMore]

128. No side is all good. Hamas killings are sometimes needed

If it was not for the defensive Hamas bombings then Israel would overrun the land they occupy. It's sad that some innocent kids have to die but it can be justified due to the oppression of Israel.

[BeFree]

131. That's it, Dean has my vote

I liked Dennis, but this clinches it. If he has the guts to speak out like this, well, that about does it for me.

[whirlygigspin]

139. trolls & little green footballs

just read a link to this page there,

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=8122_Dean-_US_Should_Not_Take_Sides

man, do these people have issues.
I Felt like had stumbled in on a klan meeting.
--lots of nazi-esque comments about exterminating the
virmin palestinians, type stuff--

Sick people. I hope they can find a better life.

(I think I'll need a long shower after this one)
Pray for these people, they need it bad.