Troubling Article In The Voice About Dean's I/P Stance

[DrFunkenstein]

For the most part, I think that Dean has the right idea on foreign policy (if not necessarily the right tools). But as a progressive, this is a real concern of mine.

<>

Last week 10,000 people showed up in New York's Bryant Park to size up the former governor. Under the yellow "Free Palestine" banner at the rear of the rally, the activists looked lonely. Or slightly lost. As he watched one of the opening acts, Jacques Englestein, a member of Jews Against the Occupation, allowed that Dean "is a step up from Bush."

The candidate's anti-war stance may have filled the park, but the broader foreign policy debate to come—one of two areas, along with the economy, that Dean recently said "every president must get right"—will be about more than just Iraq. And his positions on a variety of issues are far from clear.

Usually at this point in the campaign, said Gergen, "it doesn't get into specifics. If that were the case, John Kerry would be doing much better."

Veering away from the Middle East...worries some progressives, who say that apart from his anti-war positions, Dean's foreign policy agenda doesn't represent any substantive ambition or new direction. In his statements on the region, they say, he has shown a willingness to follow fashion rather than conviction.

These critics point to statements made by Dean about Saudi Arabia and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process as proof that inside the insurgent there is an unimaginative centrist just waiting to get out.

Maybe the campaign is not yet getting sophisticated advice."If he becomes the nominee," said Gergen, "the heavyweights of foreign policy will gravitate toward him." And Gergen admits that as the "heavyweights" join the campaign, progressives will probably be left out in the cold.

Dean said that his views of the conflict "are much closer to AIPAC"—the hawkish American-Israel Public Affairs Committee— than to the Jewish coexistence lobby Peace Now.

James Zogby, head of Washington's Arab-American Institute (AAI), says he was initially troubled by Dean's response to one of his questions at the Council on Foreign Relations. Zogby had asked Dean how he would handle comments from the religious right disparaging Arabs and Muslims. Dean replied that he would "stand up" against it but that he also felt "it should not have to be a white Christian president of the United States whose burden that is."

"We've got to ensure," he said, "that moderate Muslims everywhere stand up to the extremists and terrorists in their ranks."

Jacques Englestein found fault with Dean for "supporting Israel, but not supporting the Palestinians." He also criticized the candidate for not speaking out against the so-called separation wall—the wall the Israeli government is building ostensibly to deter attacks by militants.

Many have accused the Sharon government of using the wall to annex more Palestinian land. Even George Bush, in a joint appearance with Palestinian prime minister Mahmoud Abbas, said, "It is very difficult to develop confidence between the two sides with a wall snaking through the West Bank."

"Security is a great thing," said Englestein. "But this is a land grab."

Publicly, Dean has said only that "some degree of separation between Israelis and Palestinians is probably necessary." He is expected to take a more defined stand on the issue.

The former governor from Vermont is a foreign policy work in progress. The broad strokes articulated in his speeches include a vision for the restoration of American multilateralism, increased international cooperation, respect for the global environment, and a bid to unify the world. Considered from a lofty perch, Dean promises a different world than the one delivered by George Bush and his colleagues in government.

But the devil, of course, is in the details. While Dean will spend the rest of his campaign focused squarely on the challenge to his right, the left certainly won't settle for a pretender.

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0336/fahim.php

Note: Obviously, I've chopped up a pretty long article. Read the whole piece for yourself.

[Fredda Weinberg]

1. This could give you pause to re-examine your own perspective

have you considered the history of the conflict? For many of us who waited with bated breath for Clinton to negotiate with Arafat, this ceased to become a progressive vs conservative issue.

[DrFunkenstein]

3. Believe Me, I'm No Stranger To The Conflict

Try this article on for size.

http://fair.org/extra/0207/generous.html

Feel free to search their archives, too.

http://www.fair.org/international/middle-east.html

[jiacinto]

2. Sorry no Democrat is going to run on

a pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli platform. It just isn't going to happen.

[DrFunkenstein]

6. Why Run To Opposite Extreme of Dean?

Kerry supports fair, multilateral concessions that have the backing of most major Palestinian thinkers. Just because Dean is prostrated to Israeli extremists doesn't mean the only other option is supporting Palestinian extremists.

"Without demanding unilateral concessions, the United States must mediate a series of confidence building steps which start down the road to peace. Both parties must walk this path together - simultaneously. And the world can help them do it. While maintaining our long term commitment to Israel's existence and security, the United States must work to keep both sides focused on the end game of peace.

Extremists must not be allowed to control this process.

American engagement and successful mediation are not only essential to peace in this war-torn area but also critical to the success of our own efforts in the war against terrorism."

Kerry proposes a plan to truly stabilize the region, and give a Palestinian state a real chance at survival.

Dean on the other hand, promised SHARON HIMSELF to QUADRUPLE the military aid from $1 billion to $4 billion, while agreeing to the separation wall land grab.

[ProfessorPlum]

9. youch

I'd really like to see the link for the military aid promise. That's a stinkeroo!

[KaraokeKarlton]

19. You've got to look at Dean's goal more than what he has or hasn't said

His vision is a two state solution with a Deomcracy for Palestinians. Even if he did make such a promise to Sharon, that doesn't mean he wouldn't also make the same amount of aid available to Palestinians to rebuild their infrastructure. Dean has always demonstrated fairness and balance in his choices. Give him a chance to really dig into the facts and information and I suspect you'll feel a lot better about where he actually stands at that point.

[Nicholas_J]

77. Then let him state directly here and now

What he WILL do for the Palestinians, rather than you tell us just to trust him...

But what American demcratic Muslims think of Dean is and what he will do is just as important:

MWU! Helps Defeat Dean in MoveOn Primary
Well, may be we weren't completely responsible for Howard Dean falling short of the 50% he needed in the MoveOn.org virtual primary to gain the group's official endorsement, and all the campaign cash that would have entailed, but we'd like to think we played a small role in his defeat.

http://www.muslimwakeup.com/archives/000130.html

They did not even try to pull against Liberman in the efforts during the MoveOn primary.

I am sure again, that Muslims have a better idea of who their friend is , and who isnt.

They mostly support Kucinich.

[Tinoire]

40. I don't want to disillusion you but Kerry's stance on I/P

isn't that progressive. I've been following, fighting this conflict for 5 years and I assure you of this. Kerry regularly receives a lot of money from AIPAC and is as cozy with them as most Dems. If you need quotes, here are a few:

----------------------
Liberal apologists for Dean point out that the other major Democratic candidates for the 2004 presidential nomination – Senators John Kerry, Joseph Lieberman and John Edwards and Congressman Dick Gephardt – take similar positions on Israel and Palestine as does the former Vermont governor. Given that all four of them voted this past October to give President Bush the authority to unilaterally invade Iraq and are therefore even worse, so goes this argument, Dean should be supported despite his backing of Sharon’s occupation policies.

Many in the peace and human rights community may conclude, however, that any endorsement of Dean’s candidacy must be withheld as a means of pressuring him to back away from his support for the rightist Israeli government. Failing that, we may see large numbers of peace and human rights activists give up on the Democrats altogether and throw their support to the Green Party. ((Tinoire's note: No, no, no! There's still Kucinich even if he's not pro-Palestinian enough for some but at least he's even-handed!))

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0226-04.htm
--------------------

(April 15) - Last week, a day after the prime minister left Washington, a very successful demonstration of organized Jewish power in the US drew to a close.

AIPAC, the strongest political lobby in a town with hundreds of similar lobbies managed to bring numerous cabinet secretaries, senators, congressmen and administration officials to its policy conference. Many of these public figures vowed they would not abandon Israel in this difficult time, nor would they allow its capital to be divided, that they would oppose any cuts in assistance, and would never force Israel to capitulate to terror.

In a stirring speech, replete with quotations from the Bible, Vice President Al Gore reiterated statements to this effect. So did Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House, and House Minority Leader Congressman Richard Gephardt, as well as Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts who plans to run against Al Gore for the Democratic candidacy for president.

http://www.jpost.com/com/Archive/15.Apr.1997/Opinion/Article-1.html

----------
Last week at the American Israel Policy Affairs Committee (AIPAC) national conference in Washington, D.C., Democratic and Republican leaders addressed the conference. All agreed that Arafat was wrong. However, if you read Associated Press articles or watched CNN broadcasts about AIPAC, then you only heard House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemn Arafat and the complacent American press that helps him wage war against the innocent. The press did not mention a word about the speeches from Vice President Al Gore, Sen. John Kerry (D­ Mass.) and House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.), all of whom agreed with Netanyahu and Gingrich.

Earlier this month, both Democratic and Republican senators co-sponsored a bill to remember the 30th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem. Names on the original proposal include Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.), Alfonse D¹Amato (R.-N.Y.) and Jesse Helms (R.-N.C.).

How can our leaders on both sides of the aisle be wrong? When Democrats like Gore, Kerry and Gephardt agree with the likes of Gingrich, D¹Amato and Helms, it becomes clear who is right and who is mistaken.

http://www.umass.edu/rso/colegian/issues/9704/14/sections/edop/article2.html

[DrFunkenstein]

47. "Liberal apologists for Dean"

There is nothing wrong with Kerry signing the AIPAC statement condemning Palestinian violence. The issue is not that condemning Palestinian violence is bad, it is that doing so and turning the other cheek to Israeli violence is hypocritical, wrong, and dangerous.

Kerry differs significantly from all others except for Kucinich in calling for parallel concessions - which are the key to lasting peace in the Mid-East. Kerry says that the problem is extremists ON BOTH SIDES. Condemning only Palestinians - especially while giving Israel the helicopters to kill them with - will only continue the vicious circle of death. The only people who benefit are the extremists - both Arafat AND Sharon.

Perhaps someday, under different circumstances, these men can temper their stances and commit to peace. But for now, the violent oppression of innocent Palestinians is no better than violent terrorism against innocent Israelis.

[Tinoire]

51. I honestly don't know the details of Kerry's stance

I asked another poster but he didn't either. I would appreciate it if you could share what you have or point me to some sources other than his web-site...

I've been checking a lot in the Muslim Arab groups and next time I go there, I'll ask for their persepctive.

Thanks... and really, I would appreciate it but there's nu rush... My vote is definitely going to DK for the Primaries. I'll really need that info if Kerry wins.

Peace

[LuminousX]

64. Wow.

Can I see your source on that? Quadrupling military aid to Israel is a real bad idea. I haven't seen that specific proposal from Dean as of yet.

[DrFunkenstein]

80. Dean: $1 Billion Should Be $4 Billion

WASHINGTON -- On a recent trek around the capital seeking support from pro-Israel lobbyists and Reform movement activists, Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean may have been the only non-Jew in the room.

But Dean, the former governor of Vermont, should be used to that. It's the same way in his own home.

Dean, a Congregationalist, has a Jewish wife, and both his children, 17-year-old Paul and 18-year-old Anne, have chosen to identify as Jews.

...

Dean, considered a long shot when he first entered the race, has made a splash as of late, exceeding expectations in fund-raising in the first quarter of the year.

He has been aided by a key figure in Democratic and Jewish politics, Steve Grossman, the former president of AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby, and national chairman of Democratic National Committee.

...

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

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

I had another link detailing Dean's AIPAC trip and his meetings with Sharon, but I can't find it. If anyone can locate the "Dean Petition" thread at DU, it's there.

I'm so tempted to post the picture again, but I'll behave.

[mmm]

11. Kucinich comes damn close

he is no lover of Zionism, that is for sure.

[jiacinto]

14. Yeah

And that's probably one of many reasons why he won't even come close to getting the nomination.

[Tinoire]

31. Kucinich is not anti-Zionist, he's anti-Likud, the ONLY one who is

(Rambling post as I get ready to head home- sorry- I just want to clear up Kucinich and Zionism- you're using the wrong term.... The correct term for what he is is anti-Likud and anti-all the horrible things that were done in the name of Zionistm- which is the only position any self-respecting Progressive should be taking)

When you say "no lover of Zionism"- what do you mean? What exactly do you mean by Zionism? Be careful with that word because the Jewish Right has so muddled it that Liberal Jews will outright tell you

a. if Zionism means no more than the right of Jews to a homeland then I am a Zionist

b. if Zionism means land theft and oppression of the indigenous people, then I am not a Zionist

and I have those threads bookmarked. I'd stay about from that term as much as possible, except in a historical context, to avoid any misunderstandings.

Kucinich has never said or done anything to justify your statement, the way you stated and I highly doubt he has anything against Zionism (definition a.). Kucinich "observes kashrut, has an ex-Israeli Jewish girlfriend and knows most of the Haggadah (Passover narrative) by heart". I'll bet you 10-1 his girl-friend is a Zionist. She's a Croation-born Jew whose family moved to Israel and immigrated to the US by the time she was 5. For anyone collecting factoids :)
she's a labor lawyer who does a lot of pro-bono work.

http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.02.28/news5.html

I'll read somewhere that she does a lot of work with the progressive I/P peace/co-operation groups but can't find that link now... She is a member of "The Racial Fairness Project"
http://www.racialfairness.org/index.htm
------------


From "Why Muslims Should Support Dennis Kucinich"

Dennis Kucinich also opposes Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. He believes there can be no peace in the Middle East without justice for the Palestinians. He has even taken part in a teach-in to his fellow members of Congress to counteract the influence of AIPAC, the pro-Occupation lobbying group. He is the only one of the Democratic candidates to hold this view.

http://www.muhajabah.com/muslims4kucinich/archives/006138.php


Check this out, there are even Kucinich Meet-Ups in Tel-Aviv!
http://www.friendsofkucinich.com/israel.htm

Here's Kucinich's statement on his support for BOTH Israel AND Palestine:

(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.

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/issue_middleeast.htm


What Kucinich is against is the heavy, one-sided support we have given ONE-side in this conflict. All he wants is a more even-handed approach so that Israelis and Palestinians can work this out fairly.

I did a quick google on Kucinich /Zionism and here's what I found

August 2, 2001 - Congressman Kucinich cosigned a letter to President Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan urging that his country oppose the Zionism is Racism declaration at the UN Conference in Durban.

October 10, 2000, Congressman Kucinich sent a letter to Prime Minister Ehud Barak of Israel, urging Israel to use the utmost restraint when encountering Palestinian or Lebanese civilian populations and to continue to employ diplomatic efforts to restore peace and work with regional partners to revive the delicate peace process.

October 29, 1999 - Congressman Kucinich co-signed a letter to the Speaker of the House urging full and immediate funding for the Wye River agreement. As Israel and the Palestinian Authority move ahead with implementation of the Wye agreement and final status negotiations, it is vital for the future of the peace process that the United States also do its part in meeting its commitments and obligations.

October 31, 2000, Congressman Kucinich sent a letter to Chairman Yasser Arafat requesting continuous attempts to employ diplomatic efforts to restore peace in the Middle East, and to continue to work with regional partners to revive the delicate peace process
http://www.house.gov/kucinich/issues/internationalrelations.htm

Peace MMM

[Tinoire]

34. Peace is now "a pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli platform"?

Not sure what you mean by: running "on a pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli platform" but it's a damn good thing Jews for Peace and other Progressive groups aren't "regressive" enough to remain stuck in the mud so that kids kids on both sides blasted away on a daily basis. No need to answer btw. This is mostly for the lurkers and DUers who have open minds.

840 MEMBERS ENDORSE THE TIKKUN/KUCINICH RESOLUTION FOR PEACE IN THE MIDEAST

A Resolution for Middle East Peace
http://www.tikkun.org/community/resolution/

Whereas we recognize the humanity and fundamental decency of both the Israeli and Palestinian people, and wish to see them living in peace with each other, side by side in a safe Israel and a safe Palestine,

And Whereas we abhor acts of terror, violence and denial of human rights,

And Whereas the continuation of this conflict is destructive to the people of the Middle East, counter to the best interests and values of the United States, and might contribute to an increase in Anti-Semitism and anti-Arab sentiments both worldwide and in our own community,

Be It HEREBY RESOLVED THAT THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES URGES THE PRESIDENT TO:

Support dramatic steps for an immediate end to violence and terror in the Middle East by introducing an international buffer of genuinely unbiased and neutral forces to separate and provide protection for Israelis and Palestinians and meanwhile use all of the resources of the U.S. to bring about the following resolution of the conflict:

(a) Return of Israel to its pre-1967 borders, with minor border
modifications mutually agreed upon (to allow Israel to retain sections of Jerusalem with a Jewish majority as of 1993, and a few border settlements);

(b) Creation of an economically and politically viable Palestinian state in all of the pre-1967 West Bank and Gaza including East Jerusalem (except for the sections of Jerusalem that already had a Jewish majority by 1993);

(c) An international fund to provide reparations for Palestinians and to resettle Palestinian refugees in the new Palestinian state, and to provide reparations for Israelis who fled from persecution in Arab lands, and to resettle Israeli settlers within the pre-1967 borders of Israel;

(d) Recognition of Israel and the newly-created Palestinian state and peaceful relations with all surrounding Arab and Islamic states;

(e) Sharing of the water and other resources of the area and joint cooperation to preserve regional ecological balance;

(f) Active participation of Palestine, in cooperation with international forces, to protect Israelis from those who may continue to struggle against Israel even after it has returned to its pre-1967 borders, and active participation by Israel and in cooperation with international forces to protect Palestinians from those who may use acts of violence to destabilize or undermine a new Palestinian state;

(g) International guarantees of the safety and security of both Israel and Palestine, either through bilateral mutual defense agreements with the United States, or some similar arrangements with a credible international force which will protect Israel and Palestine from other states which may have hostile intentions;

(h) An international Truth and Reconciliation Commission, such as that which functioned in South Africa, to be created after the above points have begun to be implemented, and aimed at building a foundation for future trust and cooperation between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples.
-end-

<names, tons of them Jewish, SNIPPED> http://www.april6vt.org/events/tikkun.html

And who do you think those people are endorsing? Yepper- you guessed it! The Progressive from Ohio!

It's a damn good thing the Jewish Peace Groups backing Kucinich don't are working HARD to get him to the White House and make sure nobody confuses a progressive stance for "an anti-Israel platform".

Tikkun would take grave exception to your insinuations. Guess who their candidate is? KUCINICH :)
http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/index.cfm/action/tikkun/issue/tik0303/article/030312d.html Guess who the candidate of most if the I/P Peace Groups is??? Yepper! KUCINICH!

[JohnKleeb]

36. Hear about him getting the Gandhi award

Kucinich also you may not know this but a Jewish girlfriend. He wamts things to be fair, objective in Israel and Palestine. He has a terrific vision and I just wish people would take their blinders off and see that this man offers us plenty and a lot we will enjoy, and appreciate.

[Tinoire]

43. It looks like the blinders are coming off my friend! Kucinich #1 in Poll

If it's Dean, go with it. If it's Kucinich, go with it. My feeling is that THIS NOW is our chance to put the most progressive candidate we can in the White House. If we don't seize it, then we are fools. Look at this and take heart:


Who Will You Vote For President?


George W. Bush (80 responses) - 2.4%

Carol Moseley Braun (114 responses) - 3.4%

Howard Dean (1126 responses) - 33.6%

John Edwards (9 responses) - 0.3%

Dick Gephardt (221 responses) - 6.6%

Bob Graham (9 responses) - 0.3%

John Kerry (35 responses) - 1.0%

Dennis Kucinich (1685 responses) - 50.3%

Joe Lieberman (19 responses) - 0.6%

Al Sharpton (50 responses) - 1.5%

3348 total responses



http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-prez2004story,0,5467485.htmlstory?coll=ny-nationworld-nation-utility&vote8594962=1

[ProfessorPlum]

4. Is it just me

or does Sharon seem like he is much bigger and scarier than Dean in that photo? He also seems a little faded. Hopefully Dean won't turn around and get a huge heart attack.

For what it's worth, I would also like to see Dean a little less pro-Israel on I/P. I tend to be a bit of a relativist on this issue, and I think it is up to the Israeli state to make the peace by proving they can stop providing the Palestinians more reasons to be inflammed.

But that's a whole different can of worms.

I did appreciate your work on the petition - an excellent, proactive way to address the issue with regards to a candidate, without just using it to bash Dean.

[DrFunkenstein]

10. That Is Sharon's Actual Size

And he's always been a little vague.;)

[ProfessorPlum]

12. I thought so

man, he's really putting on the pounds.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

18. That photo is not propaganda!

I repeat....

[DrFunkenstein]

42. Does The Photo Really Concern You More Than The Actual Issue?

This issue is not set in stone for Dean. As someone that acknowledges that Dean may end up being the Democratic nominee, I hope that Dean can be swayed on this issue by his legions of fans. The article indicates that Dean is still in a position to change his one-sided stance. I'm not looking for a reversal. Just a more balanced position between the two parties concerned.

I am big enough to admit that, for example, I part company with Kerry over welfare "reform." I can't imagine anyone supporting it after reading "Nickel and Dimed." Is it really that hard to admit that your candidate is not a spotless saint?

(Note: If you look at actual hagiographies, even the saints were no saints, themselves!)

[dsc]

67. Even though you didn't address this to me

I have a similar problem. While I don't like his stand on this issue, and have never said I did BTW, that doesn't excuse your conduct. You, not he, chose to bring a photo that is nothing but a lie. I fail to see any, repeat any, difference between what you did here, and someone deciding to make up a quote by Kerry on Welfare Reform and posting it here. No matter how legitimate an issue may be lying, and that is what that photo is, is not acceptable conduct. You have yet to even acknowledge the fact that this is a photo shop photo. That is inexcusable.

[DrFunkenstein]

76. I Acknowledge That Sharon Is Not 50 Feet Tall

And that someone has actually made his face - get this - larger than it really is. And Dean actually has legs, as well. Don't want to mislead anyone into thinking he was an amputee.

[Flying_Pig]

5. And this....

"Dean said that his views of the conflict "are much closer to AIPAC"—the hawkish American-Israel Public Affairs Committee— than to the Jewish coexistence lobby Peace Now."

....is precisely why I have not signed on to Dean's campaign yet. Not that Kerry, or any of the rest of them, are any different. All seem to suck the AIPAC teat, which I find very troubling. As long as we align our foreign policy in the Middle East with the right-wing Likud extremists in Israel, there will be no peace, ever. Period.

The political reality is, AIPAC, through their powerful allies and friends in American media, present a challenge to any nominee who might be viewed as taking a more liberal position on ME issues. In my opinion, the "AIPAC friendly" media would kill any candidacy that did not take a pro-Israel (which right now, also means pro-Likud) position. Simple as that.

Does anyone else resent this intrusion into our electoral process here in the U.S.? I do. By allowing Israel, vis a vis third parties, like AIPAC and PNAC, to influence the operation of our government, our foreign policy, and our electoral process, we are essentially giving away our nation to foreign control, in direct violation of our Constitution. This intrusion must be stopped.

[renie408]

7. I emailed

the Edwards campaign to ask them about that and about some other stuff that has been bugging me. Not actual stands that Edwards has taken, but more the stands he has not.

[DrFunkenstein]

8. See Post #6 Regarding Kerry's Difference

n/t

[Flying_Pig]

13. Thank you for pointing out the Kerry...

differences. I will investigate this further, and if all proves correct, it appears John Kerry will be getting my support, and a check. How refreshing it would be, to have a president who might perhaps be a little more "even-handed". Problem is, will the AIPAC/PNAC allied media kill his campaign for it??

[Mairead]

16. Before you write your check, please also look at Dennis Kucinich's pos

[JI7]

20. true

i'm for kerry, but kucinich is very good on this issue and those interested should look into it.

[Flying_Pig]

38. Dennis is very good, ....but

I am afraid he does not have broad enough support within the Party, and among the public, to win election. I am sorry it's this way, and look forward to a time when people like Dennis CAN become our leaders.

[Tinoire]

45. Check out post #43 . Kucinich can win. IS WINNING with the people n/t

[dsc]

15. I would like a citation for that picture

If it is photo shopped it should be labeled as such. If it isn't give a citation.

[Mairead]

17. Surely you knew this already?

I have no idea whether it's original with them, but that's where Dr F got it.

(If you didn't know, try right-clicking and looking at 'properties')

[dsc]

21. What is this?

and I can't right click I have webtv. I don't ask for citations if I know where it came from. Again where is this picture from how fing hard is that to give a straight answer to?

[goodhue]

22. http://www.muslimwakeup.com/mainarchive/images/deansharon.jpg

Right clicking on image and selecting properties, reveals this URL:

[dsc]

23. thanks

but just what is that supposed to tell me about that photo. For me at least, it had only the photo. I want to know if it is a real photo or not. Is that really a great deal to ask? Evidently, for Dean bashers, it is?

[Mairead]

26. What do you mean, is it a 'real photo'?

Are you asking whether there was a time in which Dean stood in front of a giant back-projected image of Sharon and the Magen David?

[dsc]

28. Yes that is precisely and exactly

what I am asking. Because if he didn't, and people are using a cut and paste photo of him doing so, that is called lying. Again, I really, really, don't think it is out of line to ask if the photo is a real photo or not. Nor do I think it is out of line to request that if it isn't a real photo that it be labeled as what it is. So, one final time. Is that a photo of a real event, that really happened or not?

[Mairead]

57. Well, how would any of us know?

Nobody here is the originator of it, so how could we begin to know anything about it?

[dsc]

66. Then he has no business using it

I fail to see why it is acceptable to lie with a photo when it wouldn't be to lie with words. If I posted some quote that was made up about Kucinich you would be the first to quite rightly call me on it.

[goodhue]

27. Sharon's Man?

I don't know anything about the photo. Never seen it before a few minutes ago. I way simply providing the URL that you apparently can't get by right clicing on image. I have no idea whether Dean was in fact standing in front of such a back drop or whether photo was created. The photo apparently comes from www.muslimwakeup.com. Perhaps it first appeared in conjunction with this June 22, 2003 article entitled, Howard Dean: Sharon's Man?, written by By Ahmed Nassef.

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

[dsc]

30. Sorry

I didn't mean to get snippy but people are acting like I am asking for the secret of life here. Somehow I think if a Dean supporter were to post a photo of Kerry that was this symbolic with no link at all, and were to refuse to provide said link, some supporters of Kerry would be raising Cain. But I shouldn't have taken that out on you.

[Nicholas_J]

32. Muslim Wake up launched

An enormous vote against Howard Dean movement in the MoveOn.Org Primaries which was largely responsible fro Dean falling from having over 50 percent support on MoveOn, down to 44 percent. There was an older article in which they thank all of those who particpated to prevent Dean from getting the endorsement.

[Mairead]

25. Sorry, I put in the url...not thinking that DU would dereference it

So--I tried to tell you!

[CoffeePlease1947]

24. Oh, that TIE, that is the final straw!

How can I vote for a man that has no sense of fashion? j/k

Mike

[newsguyatl]

29. just wondering

off topic, but did you just stumble upon this via google? or did you specifically go to the villagevoice and see it?

[DrFunkenstein]

33. Sorry Guys, I Had To Drop Someone Off At The Airport

To answer this question, I normally read The Voice in print, but this specific article showed up in a Google search on Kerry.

Is the source of the picture cleared up? It is not the first time I posted it. I also used it for the Dean petition thread. Actually, I tried to find that thread, but I am terrible at those searches. I can never find what I'm looking for. If anyone sees it, can you post a link?

[Tinoire]

35. This Petition to Dean re Israel?

To: Dr. Howard Dean

As members of the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party, The Green Party, Progressives, Independents, and other parties interested in your candidacy, we would like to express our deep reservations regarding your stated positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Based on speeches and interviews given last year and early this year, you spoke often of the Israeli victims of terror, yet you failed to acknowledge the three-fold number of Palestinian civilians who have been killed by the Israeli Defense Forces, or the Israeli military's incursion and illegal occupation of large portions of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. These incendiary actions by the Israeli military have fueled much of the animosity in the region, and they must be acknowledged in any fair assessment of the situation. It is also important to recognize that the expropriation of land and settlement activities have been repeatedly condemned by the U.N. Security Council, and the United Nation's General Assembly has determined that Israel's occupation of the territories have "no legal basis".

Additionally, in an interview with The Forward earlier this year, you stated that your views are closer to AIPAC's (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) than APN's (Americans for Peace Now). We view AIPAC's positions as more hawkish and one-sided, resembling the vision of the neocons within the Bush administration; and APNs as multilateral, reaching out to all sides of the conflict. We understand that statements can be taken out of context and misread. Can you clarify this statement?

Lastly, you said in an interview with the Jerusalem Post that you support the $8 billion in loans recently given to Israel and would in fact increase the amount of annual aid from $3 billion to $4 billion {Alternet}. Consider the following facts:



1. Israel already receives close to 1/3 of all foreign aid--granted without any significant oversight on the part of the U.S.

2. The grant money alone is close to 20 times the amount going to the Palestinians to help them rebuild after years of demolition.
3. According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and the Washington Report for Middle Eastern Affairs (WRMEA), from 1949-2003 the U.S. has granted or extended in waived loans a total of $97.5 billion through 2003—which exceeds that given to all of the countries of South and Central America, sub-Saharan Africa, and the Caribbean combined with a total population of over 1.1 billion people.
4. With only 6.6 million people (smaller than El Salvador), the total U.S. taxpayer aid amounts to over $70,200 per Israeli household from 1974 to 2003.
5. Israelis have a longer life expectancy than Americans, and their per capita income is higher than African-Americans and Latino-Americans.
6. The Israeli military is already vastly superior to the militaries of all of its neighbors combined.
7. According to the World Bank, 70% of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are living on less than $2 per day and malnourishment and anemia among children in the territories are reaching catastrophic proportions due to rapidly declining economic conditions {BBC Report}


Do you think this is a fair and equitable relationship? Dr. Dean, we respect and fully support your agenda to transform health care, promote economic development, protect the environment, end our dependence on fossil fuels, and cultivate our relationships with other nations around the globe (instead of inflame them as the Bush administration has done repeatedly). The views cited above do not appear to be consistent with other, more peace-promoting and inclusive statements you have made. It is imperative that the suicide attacks on Israel stop. It is also imperative that the Israelis end their military incursions and occupation. We believe—as does most of the world represented in the U.N.— that the U.S.'s position has been decidedly one-sided, and has in fact exacerbated the conflict by unilaterally opposing U.N. Security Council resolutions and providing interminable military aid to Israel.

In light of recent events, we believe that our policy towards the Middle East will lie at the heart of America's foreign policy in the next presidential term. The repercussions of another reckless policy in the region could be calamitous. As voters who wish to support your candidacy but have serious concerns about your vision for the Middle East, we respectfully request that a clarification be made on the issues cited above. You should know that the members of MoveOn are very passionate about this issue. Many of us learned of these (apparent) associations after the primary vote. You should also know that the views of AIPAC do not represent the views of many Jewish-Americans as can be seen from the signatures below. A growing number of Jewish-Americans, Arab-Americans, and concerned citizens are working side-by-side to end the injustices of the occupation and implement a fair two-state solution as soon as humanly possible.


Sincerely,

The Undersigned {1308 signatures so far}

http://www.stop-us-military-aid-to-israel.net/deanpetition/

[Flying_Pig]

39. I just signed this one!

:hi:

[Tinoire]

44. Thank you! n/t

Peace

[JohnKleeb]

46. just signed it

Loads of diversity of signatures. I dont like this view, I know he has a Jewish wife but Cass me and you know about Dennis' gf right.

[Tinoire]

52. Thanks :)

Personally, I don't see why ANY of them made an issue of it this year :shrug: and as much as I'm not a Dean fan, I really admire his wife and wish they'd leave alone. Same thing with DK's girl-friend. Why Kerry had to go drag out a Jewish grand-mother is beyond me. One other candidate did this too but I can't remember which one.

You take care... it's off to bed. Meant to do that hours ago!

Peace

[JohnKleeb]

74. Well you have to read a bio on DK to know that he has a jewish g/f

Its not exactly common knowledge.

[dsc]

37. I have a very specific question

Is this a photo of an actual event which really took place or is it a photoshop cut and paste?

[DrFunkenstein]

41. Are You Asking If They Met Or Is Sharon Really 50 ft. Tall?

Dean really did meet extensively with Sharon in Israel during a trip paid for by AIPAC. If you are asking if they stood together for these photos, I'm assuming the answer is no. It certainly doesn't look that way. It comes from a website that brings together alot of information on this issue.

I'm not sure if that's what you're asking for, but I'm trying my best to help out.

[dsc]

55. Smart ass comments aside

He could have given a speech in front of a giant picture of Sharon (which is BTW what I was thinking of). You basicly need to label that picture as what it is. If I used a false quote to butress some argument against Kerry you would justifyably call me a liar. Well that photo is the same thing.

[Egnever]

48. Of course its a photoshop cut and paste

I am amazed you even need to ask.

[dsc]

56. Then he is lying everytime he uses it

without a label.

[Mairead]

61. It has the only label it needs: its origin

Dr F didn't create the damn' thing, and I very much doubt that he has any idea about its provenience. Why would he? It came with the article!

[dsc]

65. No it didn't

and even if it did he used it in several other posts. I asked him on a completely different thread for the info and got no where. I am not a mindreader. I had to ask close to a dozen times to finally get some idea from whence this photo came. That is in stark contrast to what happens when I am asked for links. You asked me one time and got it. Unless he has done so on this thread in some post I haven't read yet he still hasn't admitted that this is a jimmied up photo. The fact is nowhere in any of the three times he has used this photo has any label of any sort appeared. Not here, not in the petition thread, not in another foreign policy thread he has posted. I am not Carnac the magnificent nor should I have to be to find out where photos come from.

[Mairead]

69. "Jimmied up photo"?

Why are you taking egnever's word for it? What the hell does he know about it--he was there, maybe? As far as I can tell, nobody --that's NO body, not egnever, not me, not you, not nobody-- knows anything more about the damned photo than where it comes from, so where do you get off trying to beat on people as though they'd personally falsified some record?

You seem to spend a lot of time up on that high horse!

[dsc]

70. Which is it?

The poster of the photo makes fun of me for assuming that Sharon is 40 ft tall (which leads one to believe he also thinks the photo is fake) now your problem is that I shouldn't assume it is fake. Which is it? Am I out of line for asking about the photo due to the fact any fool should think it is a fake? or am I out of line asking about the photo due to the fact tha heaven forbid that posters should be required to know where things come from?

[Mairead]

71. I think you're out of line...

...for trying to beat people up because of gratuitous assumptions you yourself make.

Nobody knows anything more about the photo than what we see in front of us. We know what it looks like, we know where it's linked from. That's all we know. It might be a whole-cloth photoshop job, it might be a 'dramatic reconstruction' of something that happened during Dean's AIPAC-sponsored trip, it might be a real photo ditto. Doubtless someone knows, but five dollars gets you a donut that that someone is not present at DU.

As to the dopey '40 foot' snicker, it's worth what you paid for it, just like egnever's assertion was.

[dsc]

72. The 40 ft snicker

was by the PERSON WHO POSTED THE PHOTO. He did so, not once, not twice, but three seperate times. He was asked in at least two of them by me for a citation. I have yet to get one from him (I got one from you and another poster). I have repeatedly asked just what that photo represents. I don't think that is too much to ask. I would bet dollars to donuts that if I put up a photo that showed Kerry shooting a little girl in VietNam with no link, refused to give one despite several requests, refused to say if it was a real photo or not despite several requests, refused to label it in any way, shape, or form despite several requests I would be willing to bet that he would be first in line taking me to the woodshed.

And I bet that if I posted a photo of Dennis K in front of a giant picture of Milosovich with no link, refused repeated requests by you for a link, refused repeated requests as to the status of that photo, and made joking remarks implying it was fake, you would be leading the line to take me to the woodshed.

Why is this different?

[Mairead]

73. Actually it was 50 ft, but that's a quibble

The point is: how would Dr F know anything more about it than you or I? How could you possibly even expect him to do? He didn't create it--he linked to it! Are you suggesting he knows the person from whose web site he linked it? If you are, what evidence do you have?

Honestly, D, I think you've achieved escape velocity on this one.

[peaceandjustice]

79. dsc's question is fair

It completely changes the tenor of this debate if MuslimWakeUp has a photo of Howard Dean speaking at an event in front of a giant Ariel Sharon banner or if MuslimWakeUp altered photographs to create a PURELY EDITORIAL comment about where they think Howard Dean stands on I/P relations.

My personal guess, based on how clear the resolution of both Dean and Sharon are, is that it was photoshopped.

[dsc]

84. My god thank you

I was beginning to think I was in Wonderland or something. Thank god someone sees what I am saying.

[Mairead]

90. Don't breathe relief so quickly

Demanding that someone--Dr F--who has no causal relationship to the photo tell you about the details of its history is ...well, it's silly. That's like someone demanding that you explain why I pick or produce something--how in hell would you know? How in hell could you possibly be expected to know?

[dsc]

96. We'll see what your standard is

when people post crap like that on Kucinich. Somehow I doubt it will be what you are expousing now.

[Mairead]

75. And the photo does have a link!

Have you thought of getting something more capable than WebTV? I believe that technology is marketed to people who think that 'robot' is a misspelling of a boat that goes with oars, and that using a computer requires a level of technical expertise similar to driving the space shuttle. You seem well beyond that point. Perhaps it's time you upgraded?

[DrFunkenstein]

78. Jesus, I Was At The Friggin' Airport!

You really have gone off the deep end on this! Why would I hide the link? The website is very well-documented and the source of my initial knowledge about Dean's relationship to Israel. I used it as a visual shorthand, which is exactly why the initial website used (created?) it.

The second that I actually saw you requested it - after coming back from the airport in my, you know, real life - I was prepared to supply the link. I then saw that someone had done it for me, and didn't think I needed to re-post it.

What I can't figure out is why you are so much more concerned about that goddamned photoshop job than you are about the fact that Dean utterly compromised himself by flying to the Middle East on the dime of an hawkish Israel lobbying group promising military aid to morally bankrupt extremists that profit politically from the infitada, drowning out the voices of peaceful Israelis. That's what I can't figure out.

[dsc]

83. I requested it two days earlier

on a different thread (and got no answer then). And you still can't tell me if the photo is genuine or not yet it was presented as such.

[DrFunkenstein]

85. Why Do You Think This Is Some Sort Of Conspiracy?

I didn't respond to your request. Let's see:

1)I was desperately trying to cover my tracks before anyone discovered my crime.

2)I didn't see your request.

Hmm. Tough call.

Why would I hide the link from you? I encourage you to read it. And I said several times now that it is PAINFULLY FRICKIN' OBVIOUS that it is NOT a photo of an actual event.

I really can't believe this is still going on. Why don't you address the fact that Dean plans to QUADRUPLE military aid to Sharon? Take your time. No rush. Feel free to ask me if the picture is real or not a couple more times before answering.

[dsc]

86. Why is posting a pictoral lie

better than posting written ones? You posted a pictoral lie. There is no other word for it. The fact you posted a pictoral lie about an important issue is worse. And BTW the link on the picture leads only to the picture nothing else. No article, no text at all.

[DrFunkenstein]

87. Tell Me If This Is Pictoral Truth

<>

[dsc]

88. If you took out the coffins

then I would say it was OK. The problem with what you did is that you put two people together in a way that hadn't happened. You didn't say you used a cropped picture. You provided no link for anyone to find out if you did. Sorry a link to a picture with no text at all is utterly worthless. And that is all you provided.

Assuming you left out the coffins (which I am also assuming Bush wasn't present with) your picture here would be Bush in a variety of situtations he actually had been in. That is wholly different. If you can't see that then something is deeply wrong with your sense of what is and isn't honest.

[DrFunkenstein]

89. Are You Saying That Dean And Sharon Never Met?

That is a situation Dean has clearly been in. Their encounters are not made up. Do you believe that Dean and Sharon did not meet, and Dean did not promise to quadruple the military aid to Sharon's cause?

Just so there is no confusion - Howard Dean flew to Israel for several days paid for by AIPAC. When he was there he was given a tour of the region by AIPAC. During his stay, he met with Ariel Sharon and promised - if he were President - that he would raise military aid to fight Palestinians from $1 billion to $4 billion dollars. It was during this AIPAC-led tour that he came to decide that the separation wall was a necessity.

If you can't see there is something wrong with that, then there is something deeply wrong with your sense of what is and isn't wrong.

[dsc]

97. Yes he met with Sharon

but he sure as Hell didn't give a speech in front of a 50 foot picture of him. And quite frankly he should meet which Sharon. They are the closest ally we have in that region and one of the closest we have period. They democraticly elected the man (he got the most votes even). We don't get to pick and choose our allies leaders.

[Tinoire]

49. This was the first thing I looked into with Dean and I didn't like it

It's unfortunately the one issue where I absolutely refuse to budge until Dean convinces me that he is going to be any different than the past Presidents on this issue. So far what I'm seeing with every single candidate out there is more of the same old, same old kow-towing to AIPAC. Granted Howard Dean has no foreign policy experience but I was not reassured at all when he recently took off to Israel on an AIPAC-paid trip and met with Sharon whose talking points he seems to be repeating.

The liberal wing of America’s Jewish community is represented in the views of Americans for Peace Now (APN), which supports negotiations with the Palestinians based upon the principle of land for peace, that is, Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories in exchange for security guarantees. The conservative wing is represented by the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which supports the policies of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his government’s ongoing occupation and colonization of Palestinian land seized in the 1967 war, repression of the Palestinian population, and refusal to negotiate with the Palestinian leadership.

When asked by the Jewish newspaper Forward late last year as to whether he supported APN’s perspective, Governor Dean replied "No, my view is closer to AIPAC's view."

In November, Dean paid his first-ever visit to Israel on an excursion that was organized and paid for by AIPAC. He was apparently unperturbed at his sponsors’ close ties to a government that engages in a pattern of gross and systematic human rights violations and blatantly violates a series of UN Security Council resolutions and other international legal principles. During his visit, Dean did not meet with any Palestinian leaders or any Israeli moderates.

Dean also appears to reject the widespread consensus among Israeli peace activists and Middle East scholars that Palestinian terrorism is a direct outgrowth of the 35-year Israeli military occupation. Instead, Dean seems to argue that terrorism itself is the core issue. He also rejects calls by APN and other liberal Zionist groups that Israel’s requested $12 billion loan guarantee be linked to an Israeli freeze on constructing additional illegal settlements on confiscated Palestinian land, arguing that such aid should instead be unconditional. Pushing for such a dramatic and unconditional increase in financial support for the incumbent government just before Israelis went to the polls in January was widely seen as a not-too-subtle endorsement of Sharon’s re-election.

From the article: Howard Dean: Hawk in Dove’s Clothing? by Stephen Zunes, Feb 2003


DU- Jewish Democratic Council seeks to change MoveOn's website (Dean reaction)

DU- Howard Dean supports building the "fence" (Wall) in the West Bank

DU -Dean on Israel

Dean Blog - Dean is TOO weak on the Middle East

Dean Blog - Palestine/Israel conflict

Just keep reading... You have time to make up your mind and make the best choice. Talk to Jews for Peace - this is one of the main reasons they're going for Kucinich.

Peace

On edit: And contrary to popular opinion, Kucinich does have a chance. A great chance!


Who Will You Vote For President?


George W. Bush (82 responses)- 2.4%

Carol Moseley Braun (115 responses)- 3.3%

Howard Dean (1162 responses)- 33.4%

John Edwards (9 responses)- 0.3%

Dick Gephardt (222 responses)- 6.4%

Bob Graham (9 responses)- 0.3%

John Kerry (36 responses)- 1.0%

Dennis Kucinich (1770 responses)- 50.9%

Joe Lieberman (19 responses)- 0.5%

Al Sharpton (50 responses)- 1.4%

3474 total responses


http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-prez2004story,0,5467485.htmlstory?coll=ny-nationworld-nation-utility&vote8594962=1
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-prezpoll,0,4315446.poll?coll=ny-nationworld-nation-utility

[DrFunkenstein]

50. New Republic Thinks This Is A Good Thing

LEFT BEHIND
by Clay Risen

Candidate: Howard Dean
Category: General Likeability
Grade: B

As Howard Dean moves even further into the lead of the Democratic pack--his handlers say he'll have raised $10.3 million in the third quarter and he leads John Kerry in New Hampshire by 21 points--it's only inevitable that cracks will begin to appear in his progressive armor.

Indeed, as this week's Forward notes, a growing raft of single-issue, left-wing groups are taking him to task for some of his more centrist leanings, particularly on Israel, gun control, and medical marijuana. But does this really spell doom for Dean? Not at all. On the contrary, he couldn't ask for a more positive development.

Why? For one thing, Dean has already gotten more mileage out of the far left-wing than he could have reasonably hoped for, having used their early support to cement his image as coming from the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party."

Now that he's trying to strengthen his centrist bona fides, their support isn't so important. And given that he's held these particular centrist positions for years, it was only a matter of time before some groups started to raise eyebrows.

In any case, their votes were hardly secure--these are people who typically vote Nader, who long ago indicated that he would run against Dean if he got the nomination. Nor are we talking about all that many people--as noted in &c. today, the vast majority of progressives are still on board.

But most of all, their defection is the best possible advertising for Dean's centrism, and a solution to one of his campaign's stickier problems. Indeed, while he has always had mainstream credentials, his antiwar image has ensured that people will greet his attempts to tack to the middle with skepticism.

But when you get criticism from The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, even the most doubting of centrists have to rethink their assumptions about Dean's supposedly ideological tendencies. So for now, it seems that the Dean folks have managed to have their cake and eat it, too.

http://www.tnr.com/primary/index.mhtml?pid=640

[Tinoire]

53. IMO, this article is right on

I feel a bit sad for progressives I know who are beginning to re-examine their support. No matter though because there's plenty of time before the Primaries but it's till sad because I can tell there's a huge emotional investment in the Left's support for Dean.

TNR is a good magazine though I cancelled my subscription 2 years ago because they weren't balanced enough when it came to I/P. Their assessment on this issue means more to me that several others.

Peace and thanks

[Karmadillo]

58. I hope Dean doesn't prove himself unworthy of the movement

that's solely responsible for lifting him from relative obscurity to contender, but I fear there's a good possibility that's exactly what's going to happen. A centrist past suggests a centrist future. It wouldn't be the first time progressives weren't danced with by the one they brought to the dance.

[Tinoire]

59. I hope you're wrong. I hope I'm wrong

All my Dean supporting friends already know that this is a huge concern of mine. I really dread that day, if/when it comes which is why I stay out of the "Dean is back-tracking" threads. Great people have made such an emotional investment in getting him where he is that I would be TOO angry to ever vote for him if he's pulling that trick, which I've thought he was from the beginning.

I don't care if it's politics- it would be a vile thing to do.

The Time Is Now for a progressive and if we don't SEIZE this GOLDEN opportunity to get the right guy in, then we are FOOLS.

Peace

[CWebster]

60. Tinoire

You're beating it to death already. You claim to stay out of the "Dean is back-tracking" threads, but I can't even venture into the I\P forums because of the emotional pitch around the issue and the complete and utter disdain I have for the Zionist zealots we have right here, on this supposedly progressive site. That forum is ruled with an iron fist out of necessity and even your Saint of the common man didn't actually vote against the pep rally for Israel - anymore than his voting "present" would be sure political suicide.

There are political realities and the Jewish lobbies are a fact of contemporary political life. They ALL cater to them---ALL OF THEM, Hillary, Kennedy---all of them. This was the one concern I had about supporting Dean, and studied his responses for quite a while before I made a decision. There is room for improvement, no doubt, but I don't think Dean is a fool---considering the political realities he pursues a practical course. I do not idealize Dean, but I believe he has the strongest campaign to win as well as the potential to be a solid and engaging president who will work hard.

[Tinoire]

62. I hear you

and it's extremely unpleasant to hear the same canards and denials year after year but if we don't, then people will say there is no opposition to that iron grip- that's the main reason I stayed down there for over 2 years and am still speaking out. I know Kucinich didn't vote against that resolution but I respect that he refused to join the pep rally (a propos term btw) and instead issued an even-handed stance. That's what we need- an even-handed stance.

I'm not knocking you or anyone else for your support of Dean. Two of the people I respect the most when it comes to I/P, because they've gone down there and slugged out it, on my side, and have taken a lot of abuse as traitors from the zealots, are also 2 of Dean's biggest supporters on this board. That's more than enough to make me not write Dean off. I may end up voting for Dean if he wins the Primaries and clarifies his stance enough... but until then, I do want people to realize that there is another candidate with a different, more even-handed position with the record to prove it.

May the best man win.

On edit: I'm really happy you are aware and concerned enough to have looked at this closely. If more people did that, they would realize just how serious we are about it and we could make a change. Silence is the worst sin. Thanks!

[CWebster]

63. Good enough

Thank you for your continuing effort.

[Tinoire]

68. You too

and really, THANK YOU.

Sad political realities, I know... but let's just take heart because of more and more people saying they care. :)

[CWebster]

54. What's good for the goose...

http://www.aipac.org/documents/AIPACletter032502.html

"When asked whether the Israelis should have to give up their settlements in order to obtain peace, Kerry answered: “Not unilaterally and not before the fact, but the Mitchell proposal and American policy is that those settlements must stop and no one can sit with a straight face and look anybody in the eye and suggest that you cannot have those settlements be part of whatever a solution is going to be, but you need someone to negotiate with.� When then asked if he would negotiate with Palestinian Authority Yasser Arafat, he said, “Not with Yasser Arafat directly, no, but I think that you have to negotiate with the Palestinian Authority.� The right answer…sort of."

The usual waffling...

http://www.aaiusa.org/countdown/c120602.htm

[DrFunkenstein]

81. Sincerely

Sincerely,

Dianne Feinstein, Tom Daschle, Joseph Lieberman, Jon Kyl, Ron Wyden, Mitch McConnell, Bob Graham, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Jesse Helms, Kent Conrad, Richard Durbin, Jon Corzine, Jim Jeffords, Harry Reid, John D. Rockefeller IV, Christopher Dodd, Arlen Specter, Fritz Hollings, Daniel Inouye, John Warner, Paul Wellstone, Hillary Clinton, James Inhofe, Richard Shelby, Herb Kohl, Robert Torricelli, Carl Levin, John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, Russell Feingold, Evan Bayh, John Edwards, Orrin Hatch, Tim Hutchinson, Mike Crapo, Christopher Bond, Bob Smith, Mary Landrieu, Charles Grassley, Bill Nelson, Jim Bunning Tim Johnson, Blanche Lincoln, Susan Collins, John Breaux, Robert Bennet, Max Cleland, Wayne Allard, Barbara Mikulski, George Allen, Frank Murkowski

--

The whole point is that Kerry dismisses extremism on both sides. Arafat has not been a committed advocate of peace since the Taba talks collapsed. I see nothing wrong with condemning his two-faced behavior and still holding a balanced view.

<>

Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas is a vast improvement over Arafat. If Bush wasn't kissing Sharon's ass, we could actually begin to move forward.

[CWebster]

91. Please..

This whole marginalizing of Arafat is pure Sharon. Nothing else.

Clinton had Arafat at the whitehouse all the time- Bush would have nothing to do with Arafat, an advatage that Sharon- a damn war criminal (Arafat won the peace prize with Rabin),took advantage of in promoting his miserable greedy lies. Arafat had no choice but to turn down "Barak's generous offer" --it was a fucking sham. So why is it that everyone picks up this well-broadcasted LIE as the conventional truth? What makes you think that this perception, promoted by the likud neocons, is any different than any of the other twisted policies their haterd promotes?

[DrFunkenstein]

92. You May Be Right

Dean certainly agrees with you in the link you provided:

This week Dean traveled to Israel on a trip sponsored by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). After meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Dean stated: “I do not think that as long as Yasser Arafat is president there will be peace." He went on to say that he “did not fully appreciate the scale -- how everything is right on top of each other” and that “my assessment also is that terrorism is an enormous problem here and no peace is going to be made as long as the terrorism is going on." Before leaving, Sharon asked if Dean would support requests for new loan guarantees to Israel. Dean “promised him he would.”

http://www.aaiusa.org/countdown/c120602.htm

I disagree with you, though, as I stated above. I think after the Taba talks Arafat was committed more to remaining in power than stemming guerilla attacks. I think the Israeli siege of his compound was wrong, their open talks of his removal are wrong, but that doesn't make Arafat a great guy.

[CWebster]

93. It was for that very quote

that I experienced misgivings for quite a while about supporting Dean.

You accept Kerry despite his position on the war. Dean has shown moderation in his stance and I can only hope that he will evolve and you deal with Kerry's position in the way that is acceptible to you. We both weigh the pluses and minuses.

Arafat is a corrupt old fox but he shouldn't be blamed for the breakdown in the Taba talks where there was real progress being made. Sharon couldn't have that and his subsequent intentional visit to the temple mount with thousands of police, instigated the second Intifida and ushered inthe era of Bush-Sharon. Since then things have only deteriotated further.

[DrFunkenstein]

94. Kerry's Position Is Past, Dean's Is Future

I understand that you may come to terms with Dean's stance. In fact, I don't think you have much choice. But for me, the issue is that Kerry would have done very differently if he were President - he laid out exactly what he would have done, and I think he was dead on.

On the other hand, Dean's compromised position is precisely about what he will do as President, and I think he is dangerously wrong.

I also feel that Kerry has a brilliant, comprehensive plan for international affairs, while Dean relies mostly on progressive sentiments alone. As the article that started this thread points out, Dean has shown very little that is concrete in his foreign policy. It is hard for Kerry to fit his foreign policy onto a bumpersticker, but it is by far the best plan.

PS - Just to clear thing things up, I think that Arafat was wonderful at Camp David, and that the Taba talks pulled Israel out of many of the major commitments they made there. It was only then that Arafat pulled out of the peace process. Of course, what the American media remembers is Arafat's pull out, not Israel reneging at the Taba talks.

However, since the infitada began, Arafat has been extremely two-faced and has eroded international confidence in his role for peace.

[CWebster]

95. Rationalizations, Funk.

But he wasn't president, what matters is his responsibility for where he was when the die was cast. Saying he would've handled it differently had he been president is a forgone conclusion, but not acceptible cover for his failing in the Senate. He has had more than ample opportunity to challenge Bush but he was quiet for the past few years while this disaster unfolded on every front and the democratic base was seething with frustration..

As for Dean position on Israel, Kerry's isn't any better so it isn't as if he gains any points on that issue.


Arafat has been confined to his ruined compound while the construction of the settlements, roads and destruction of Palestinian lands and homes continues unabated and Israel violates more UN resolutions and collects more US foreign aid than any other country in the world. Let us be clear.

[DrFunkenstein]

82. Just So This Doesn't Get Buried...

Sorry for the dupe post. I just wanted to make clear what the picture was a visual shorthand for.

WASHINGTON -- On a recent trek around the capital seeking support from pro-Israel lobbyists and Reform movement activists, Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean may have been the only non-Jew in the room.

But Dean, the former governor of Vermont, should be used to that. It's the same way in his own home.

Dean, a Congregationalist, has a Jewish wife, and both his children, 17-year-old Paul and 18-year-old Anne, have chosen to identify as Jews.

...

Dean, considered a long shot when he first entered the race, has made a splash as of late, exceeding expectations in fund-raising in the first quarter of the year.

He has been aided by a key figure in Democratic and Jewish politics, Steve Grossman, the former president of AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby, and national chairman of Democratic National Committee.

...

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

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

I had another link detailing Dean's AIPAC trip and his meetings with Sharon, but I can't find it. If anyone can locate the "Dean Petition" thread at DU, it's there.