Dean's middle east comments from washington post...

[opstachuck]

this seems to contradict what i'd heard earlier. it's a step in the right direction, i think. this kind of position would probably make it easier for us to internationalize troops in the region.

(and i hope this isn't redundant...)

Rivals Criticize Dean For Mideast Comment

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


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

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' longstanding 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."

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 even-handed role," he said.

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

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 soft on Israel by Jewish leaders to win the nomination, several party strategists said.

Dean believes his rivals are trying to slow his surge by manufacturing a "divisive issue." He specifically struck back at Lieberman, who is emerging as Dean's harshest critic on the campaign trail. "For Joe to raise this as a divisive issue in the Democratic Party is a major error on his part," he said. "I am deeply disappointed in him."

The Dean-Lieberman spat comes only days after the Connecticut senator warned of an impending "Dean depression" if the country were to follow Dean's trade policies.

[Sean Reynolds]

1. A change in the right direction is good.

Even if he is contradicting what he ONCE said. Dean has shown that he does grow in his ideology, and for that I applaud him.