Dean: fiscal conservative and social progressive

Aside from the covers this week of Time, Newsweek & USNews & World Report, and the Larry King interview tomorrow, here's a really good interview from Business Week: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_32/b3845085.htm It's clear and concise; if you haven't read much about him yet, this is a great place to start.

Howard Dean will be on television 3 times in the next two days.

Tonight at 9 pm EDT, Dean will be on Larry King Live on CNN. The Governor will be on during the first half of the show, and live calls will be taken after the second commercial break, approximately 20 minutes into the show.

Tomorrow morning, Dean will be interviewed on NBC's Today Show during the first half hour of the broadcast (between 7 am and 7:30 EDT). Check local listings for air times near you.

And tomorrow night, CSPAN will broadcast live the AFL-CIO's Presidential Candidates Forum in Chicago, begining at 8 pm EDT.

Another take on Dean's approach to gay marriage vs the Bush approach!!

On Belief

Steven Waldman

White House Word Play

Does Bush's ambiguous phrasing reflect a growing acceptance of gay unions?

In the course of the last 24 hours, the President and the Pope seemed to signal the beginnings of a vigorous conservative counteroffensive against the idea that homosexual unions should be legally sanctioned.

In a statement released today by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican reaffirmed that “The homosexual inclination is…'objectively disordered’” and went on to state that “there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family.” In fact, the Vatican stated, politicians who support gay marriage are “gravely immoral.”

President Bush Wednesday responded to a question about the morality of homosexuality by stating, “I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or the other.”

But look closely and there’s an important difference between the approach taken by the Vatican and by the Pope. While the Papal statement refers not only to marriage but any “legal recognition to unions,” the President used only the word “marriage.”

Actually, that’s not so conservative. Most of the Democratic candidates for president said the same thing in their debate before a leading gay rights group. President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which stated that marriage was "between a man and a woman.” Even Howard Dean, the Vermont governor who has signed the most far-reaching gay union law, opposes "gay marriage”.

In an interview with the gay newspaper The Advocate, Dean explained the Vermont “civil union” law like this: “What the bill says is that marriage is between a man and a woman but that same-sex couples have all the legal rights of marriage if they enter into a civil union. So it’s not gay marriage. The difference is really about religion. Marriage was a religious institution until the evolution of civil law. What the legislature did, which I thought was very smart, was to divide the concept into civil and religious marriage. We don’t tell churches who they can and cannot marry. But we do say with civil unions that everybody is equal.”

The Vatican left no room for ambiguity, attacking all forms of legal sanction. U.S. conservatives' proposal for a constitutional amendment is quite clear also, banning not only marriage but “marital status or the legal incidents thereof.”

Why was Bush more vague? Is it because the White House has thrown in the towel on civil unions? Is that now viewed as the moderate middle ground?

<

Hey folks, I personally like Dean and I think he stands the best shot for unseating "W" (unless the Demos 'draft' Hillary at the convention). But certain things about Dean haven't been expoited by the GOP yet, namely his crying (over his brothers death?), or the fact that he has admitted being treated for a mental illness.

Neither faze me, but the idea of a Dean admin. won't sit well with the flyover state people once Carl Rove gets working on it.

Dean makes more and more sense the more I hear him expound his program. Besides-- he's breath of fresh air, young(ish), and seems energetic... the old tired days of Kerry, Gephardt, Liebermann and Al Snore... oooops, Gore, are over. Peace........:9

RE: An Even Better Choice - Draft Wesley Clark!

http://www.draftclark2004.com/

http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/

http://www.draftclark.com/

RE: An Even Better Choice - Draft Wesley Clark!

He all but announced last night on "Real Time with Bill Maher" I was quite impressed with the way he handled the Iraq War questions with sensitivity and poise, he's obviously a superb communicator (unlike the *Chimp-in-Charge*). According to one of the links below, he's cool with gays in the military, anybody know any of his other stands on gay related issues?

>http://www.draftclark2004.com/

>

>http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/

>

>http://www.draftclark.com/

He's the first announced candidate that I'm even slightly interested in voting for. I think his combination of 34 hears of *active* military service (4 star General) and left centrist politics could take him far.. Of course I wonder how he would feel about support cumming from this particular segment of the population

RE: An Even Better Choice - Draft Wesley Clark!

He'll make a great VP for Dean.

Dean/Clark 2004!

>He'll make a great VP for Dean.

I was thinking the exact same thing! He'd be the perfect answer to Dean's weakness in foreign policy and military circles (not that I think Dean's any weaker then Bush in these areas, and certainly not nearly as weak-minded).

Kerry makes my skin crawl, and the way he, Looserman, and Gephardt are backpedaling from their "lets do everything the republicans want" platforms looks pretty bad. The 'Sure, we gave Bush carte blanc to do whatever he wanted in Iraq, but we didn't think he'd actually use it...' crap doesn't seem like it'll fly.

I do agree that now that we're there we can't cut and run, leaving things to develop into another Afghanistan (hell, we're now letting Afghanistan develop into another Afghanistan!), so I'm glad Dean is starting to say that as well. Though I'm not sure it's practical to expect the UN to swoop in and fix everything, after they've been so poorly used by this administration.

Hmm... an increasingly unpopular war, with more and more troops being needed to accomplish the vague mission but the politicians who started it being too chickenshit to provide them, so instead we get regular american deaths with little progress... Have to say, it's starting to sound familiar... Except that the warmongering profiteers are fully in power now and bilking us out of 5 BILLION a WEEK in the process of making no progress... The media's on a tight leash... Soldiers will be punished for straying from Rummy's talking points if a reporter does get to them...

Seems to me we've gone beyond failing to learn from the past into a bizarre competition to see how much worse we can do!

RE: Israeli lobby targets Dean!

Democratic hopefuls jab Bush at debate

Lieberman, Dean at odds over Israel

By BOB DART

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

BALTIMORE -- The nine Democratic candidates reserved most of their barbs for President Bush during a campaign debate Tuesday night, but Joe Lieberman opened fire on rival Howard Dean, accusing him of abandoning Israel.

"It doesn't help, Joe, to demagogue this issue," retorted Dean, the Vermont governor who has become the surprising front-runner in the campaign.

Lieberman, the senator from Connecticut, pounced on comments Dean made last week, saying Dean would alter America's "unique relationship" with Israel if elected president.

"He has said he wouldn't take sides," said Lieberman, "but then he has said Israel ought to get out of the West Bank and an enormous number of settlements" should be demolished.

Dean said he was following the lead of former President Clinton. "We need to be trusted by both sides," he said.

In a 90-minute session, the candidates attacked Bush on everything from Iraq to health care with rehearsed one-liners.

"How many Americans have to lose their jobs before George Bush loses his?" asked Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri, questioning Bush's economic policy.

There should be a "big sign on the White House saying 'This president is hazardous to your health,' " said Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, criticizing Bush's alleged lack of a health insurance plan.

The Rev. Al Sharpton said that Osama bin Laden "has made more videos than a rock star" but still can't be found by "Bush's intelligence agencies."

This second major debate of the 2004 campaign season was held at Morgan State University, a historically black college near Baltimore.

Broadcast live on Fox News Channel, it was the first of two debates that will be sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus. Brit Hume of Fox News moderated.

The panelists were Juan Williams of National Public Radio; Ed Gordon of Black Entertainment Television; and commentator Farai Chideya.

Some of the sharpest criticism of Bush's foreign policy came from Sen. Bob Graham of Florida.

Asked if Bush had intentionally misled the nation in selling the war with Iraq, Graham said flatly, "yes."

He said Bush has a "blank check mentality" on the war in Iraq and that "we can't trust this president with a blank check."

Sen. John Kerry charged the president with an "act of negligence of remarkable proportions" for failing to have a postwar plan in Iraq.

Among the candidates who serve in Congress, only Graham and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio voted against the resolution supporting the war.

Kucinich criticized Gephardt for not opposing the president while he was the Democratic House leader.

"I wish you would have told [bush] 'no' when he asked for advice before going to war," Kucinich said.

Former Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun said Bush "frittered away our international goodwill" and has since been "spending money like a drunken sailor."

Find this article at:

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0903/10demdebate.html?urac=n&urvf=10631881640450.11698112601107657

RE: Lieberman plays the race card

Posted on Thu, Sep. 11, 2003 Miami Herald

Lieberman puts Dean on the defensive over Israel issue

Connecticut senator: Candidate is flip-flopping on foreign policy

BY PETER WALLSTEN

[email protected]

Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean and his campaign spent much of Wednesday defending his stance on Israel amid a barrage of attacks directed largely by one of his opponents, Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman, marking the most negative personal exchanges in what has so far been a cordial campaign.

The Israel issue first erupted during a debate Tuesday in Baltimore among the nine Democratic candidates, when Lieberman lambasted Dean for saying last week that ''it is not our place to take sides'' in the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians and that ''enormous numbers'' of West Bank settlements will ``have to come out.''

Those sentiments, first quoted by The Associated Press last week, are generally associated with critics of Israel who believe the United States is biased in its dealings with the peace process, prompting Lieberman to accuse Dean of wanting to reverse a half-century of close U.S. ties with Israel.

CRITICIZES FLIP-FLOPS

Lieberman, who arrives today for a two-day fundraising swing in South Florida, home to one of the nation's largest Jewish communities, escalated his attacks Wednesday, calling The Herald to say that Dean's shifts on the Israel issue fall into a broader context of flip-flops by the former Vermont governor and raise questions about his fitness to be president.

He said Dean's contortions on the issue reflect a pattern by a candidate who is new to the national stage. He compared Dean's shifting language on Israel to his recently changed position on Cuba, from opposing the trade embargo to supporting it.

''It's either that he's inexperienced in foreign policy or that, in fact, he wants to take America in a different direction in terms of Middle East negotiations,'' Lieberman said in a telephone interview. ``In either case, it's not good.''

A `MISSTATEMENT'

Dean and his aides were quick Wednesday to call his earlier comment a ''misstatement'' and accused Lieberman of exploiting an emotional issue out of desperation to salvage his struggling campaign.

''It's cheap politics, way below the belt,'' said Dean's campaign manager, Joe Trippi, in a phone interview. ``There's no question about Howard Dean's support for Israel's existence, and for Lieberman to raise it is unbelievable.''

Dean, appearing on CNN on Wednesday, called Lieberman's attacks ''despicable,'' and said that he now understands the sensitivity of his remarks. But he reiterated his view that the United States be an unbiased broker in the Middle East peace process, saying that his position mirrors that of former President Bill Clinton.

''We should defend Israel if necessary,'' Dean told CNN. ``However, we are also the only country capable of bringing peace to the Middle East, and when we sit at the negotiating table we do need to have the trust of both sides or we will never succeed.''

Dean aides moved Wednesday to assert his Israel bona fides, noting this his wife, Judith Steinberg Dean, is Jewish and that their children were raised in the Jewish faith. Dean is a Congregationalist.

At Tuesday night's debate, sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus, Dean drew cheers from the crowd when he replied to Lieberman's criticisms.

''It doesn't help, Joe, to demagogue this issue,'' Dean said. ``We're all Democrats and we need to beat George Bush in order to have peace in the Middle East.''

AWKWARD POSITION

The conflict underscores a potentially awkward reality for Dean: While Jewish voters are critical for fundraising and votes in the Democratic primary and the general election, their staunch support for Israel differs from the view held by many in the party's left wing, who are drawn to Dean for his stand against a war in Iraq that was justified, in part, to ensure Israel's security in the region.

More than four out of five Jewish voters backed Democrat Al Gore in 2000 -- perhaps because of Lieberman's presence on the ticket as Gore's running mate. Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew and the Democratic candidate most fervently in favor of the war in Iraq, was credited with helping Gore nearly win Florida by energizing the Jewish base in South Florida.

The sparks also signal a turning point in the Democrats' campaign, as one-time front-runners such as Lieberman are forced to move aggressively against Dean, the former dark horse who has solidified his position as the one to beat. So far, only Lieberman has taken on Dean in person.

While Dean insisted Wednesday that his position falls in line with that of every U.S. president since Israel's founding, it appeared the issue will not go away so easily.

Several congressional Democrats, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, circulated a letter Wednesday chastising Dean for his remarks and saying that U.S. foreign policy must be 'based on unequivocal support for Israel's right to exist and to be free from terror. . . . It is unacceptable for the U.S. to be `evenhanded' on these fundamental issues.''

RE: Jews rally against Dean despite his Jewish wife

House Democrats Criticize Howard Dean's Comments on Policy Toward Israel

9/11/03 8:48AM

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean is coming under attack from House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and several of her colleages for his remarks on Israel.

"This is not a time to be sending mixed messages," Dean's critics said in a letter circulated Wednesday by Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., and signed by Pelosi and more than two dozen other Democratic House members who are supporting other candidates. "On the contrary, in these difficult times we must reaffirm our unyielding commitment to Israel's survival and raise our voices against all forms of terrorism and incitement."

Dean said last week at a rally in New Mexico that an "enormous number" of Israeli settlements must be removed to make progress in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "It's not our place to take sides," he said.

During a Democratic presidential debate Tuesday night, Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman accused Dean, the front-runner in the race, of turning his back on Israel.

Pelosi, Berman - who is Jewish - and several others who signed the letter are supporting Rep. Dick Gephardt's presidential candidacy, while others back Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.

New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a Dean supporter who is Jewish, said he was comfortable with Dean's position, although he said Dean initially used some language that could concern some pro-Israelis. But Nadler said Dean's clarifications since then should have cleared that up.

"This is sent out by Gephardt supporters and it should be seen for what it is - a political document trying to exploit his statement before he has a chance to clarify it," Nadler said.

Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said she did not sign the letter because of her endorsement of Gephardt, but because she was concerned about Dean's comments on Israel.

"It is unacceptable for the U.S. to be `evenhanded' on these fundamental issues," the letter said.

During the debate Tuesday night, Dean defended himself by saying he and former President Clinton held the same view on the issue - that the United States must have the trust of both sides to negotiate between the two countries. He repeated that argument during an appearance Wednesday on CNN's "Wolf Blitzer Reports."

"I believe the position that I take on Israel is exactly the position the United States has taken for 54 years," he said on the show. But he acknowledged that saying there should be an "evenhanded policy" toward the Israelis and the Palestinians may have been a poor choice of words.

"I have since learned that is a sensitive word to use in certain communities," he said. "So perhaps I could have used a different euphemism. But the fact of the matter is, at the negotiating table, we have to have the trust of both sides."

RE: Lieberman plays the race card

Yep, seems all Lieberman can do is take whiney cheap shots... We *are* too in-bed with Israel, and Dean called it as he saw it. It is unfortunate though, as it will probably cost him votes. But it's not like anybody's going to vote for Lieberman instead...

You think maybe that's the whole point? The party establishment is using him to attack the outsider so their prettyboys (only time anybody would describe Kerry like that...) don't have to get dirty attacking the popular candidate?

RE: An Even Better Choice - Draft Wesley Clark!

>He'll make a great VP for Dean.

Hey Ricky - good call. Given that you are someone who sucks up every Dean-related nugget the minute it's pooped out, I'm sure by now you've seen the reports that he has asked Gen. Clark to "join his campaign." Clearly, Dean has been Clark's preferred candidate from the beginning, and whether Clark is going to be Dean's VP or whether he's merely going to be a "top national security adviser" destined for one of the premiere cabinet positions, this combination is, in my view, extraordinarily formidable.

Say what you want about Dean - this has been, thus far, one of the shrewdest and most effective presidential campaigns that I can remember. And its defining characteristic is not potent, Clinton-like political manipulation, but rather, a candidate who actually says what he thinks and means it. In our political system, a candidate who does that will attract huge numbers of adherents regardless of political ideology.

One last thing: I am happy to confess error over my initial views of Dean as some McGovernite/Mondale liberal, an impression formed by being sucked into the stupid-unquestioning-media-propaganda vortex. Dean is anything but a doctrainaire liberal, and the fact that he can nonetheless appeal to orthodox liberals, alienated independents and even some conservatives demonstrates that the true model of his appeal is more akin to John McCain and even Ross Perot's early successes than any of the failed Democratic candidates to whom the media attempted, unsuccessfully, to tie him.

Hey, VaHawk - you should take another look at him vis-a-vis his ability to appeal to the flyover states. He is one of the most ardent defenders of states' rights against a centralized federal government in the race - his views on gun control ("Maybe New York and California need it because of their high crime rate, which is fine, they can have it - but don't impose those restraints on states that don't need it and don't want it, such as Vermont") will appeal to many such voters - not merely because of his opposition to excessive gun control laws, but more importantly, because of his defense of the right of states to govern themselves and not be sucked into an omniscient federal government - one of the central promises made by the Founders to induce the states to agree to the U.S. Constitution - a promise which has been steadily eroded over the last 70 years and which needs a serious reversal, as Dean apparently recognizes.

RE: Jews rally against Dean despite his Jewish wife

I think the pols are grossly out of touch with their Jewish constituents. If they were clued in, they'd realize that Lieberman's position (not that it's exclusively his) reflects the views of a relatively small group of activist leaders in the Jewish community who essentially support the policies of whatever the current Israel government in power happens to be. These folks believe it's not appropriate for American Jews, living in the (relative) comfort and safety of the U.S., to tell the Israelis what they should do when it comes to matters affecting Israel's security and survival.

Most American Jews, I believe, are closer in their thinking to Howard Dean's views. They DO think they have a right to give Israel advice, especially when they're contributing hundreds of millions of dollars every year to support Israel. They DO believe that the U.S. needs to be more "even-handed" if it's to be an effective broker in achieving a peace agreement. That means deploring the terrorist tactics of the Palestinians and pushing them hard to rein in the radicals, but it also means deploring the never-ending Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and applying hard pressure on Israel to withdraw from the bulk of the settlements, and to start doing that NOW to establish their bona fides.

Just a few days ago, one of the most respected thinkers in the American Jewish community published an op-ed column in the NY Times calling on the U.S. to start applying financial pressure on Israel to get them to start withdrawing from the occupied territories. The "usual suspects" in the Jewish community leadership jumped on him for that, but from what I can see, most American Jews would support such a move if it would get the Sharon government off the dime, once and for all.

F-ing FAUX News...

Anybody else notice their lead political story yesterday?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97007,00.html

Nobody would accuse Fox of JOURNALISM, but the headline and the flip-flops, most of which are debatable whether his position has changed at all... I don't go to Fox for news, I doubt any thinking person does, but it's good to see the "right's" propaganda machine in all its naked glory once in a while... though it's bad for the blood pressure of anybody that's taken journalism, debate, or logic classes at any time! But they've trademarked Fair and Balanced...!! x(

RE: NY Times Editorial 9/12/2003

For those who didn't see today's NY Times. The Times seems to be solidly in Dean's camp on this one!

Middle East Math

No one who witnessed the first years of Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation will forget them — the tentative embraces, the joint patrols and business ventures, the mutual visits by ordinary citizens. Tomorrow marks the 10th anniversary of the handshake and signature by Yitzhak Rabin and Yasir Arafat on the South Lawn of the White House, a luminous moment of hope that turned into a vicious tangle of mutual disdain symbolized by yesterday's ill-conceived announcement by Israel that it was planning to expel Mr. Arafat. The problem all along has been that certain things never changed — anti-Israel terror and incitement on the Palestinian side, extensive Jewish settlement building in the West Bank and Gaza Strip by Israel. Together, they have brought the process to its knees.

The two are not equivalent. You cannot equate blowing up children on a bus with building on land someone else considers his. But you needn't do so to recognize that the one step Israel can and must take now is to freeze the construction of settlements and dismantle the newer settler outposts. This is the necessary course not only because the American-sponsored peace plan, or road map, requires it, and not only because such a move might drive the Palestinians to do something significant on their side, like arrest or disarm a few terrorists. Ending settlement in the occupied lands is central to the survival of the Jewish state.

Consider the cost. At a time when Israel is suffering soaring unemployment, a slashing of welfare benefits and a crisis in its state education budget, it is devoting hundreds of millions of dollars to the roads, housing and security needed for 235,000 settlers. They enjoy mortgage subsidies, aid to build and maintain schools and clinics, and whole army units for their defense, since they are such ripe targets for terrorists.

The real argument lies in the demographics, which become crushingly clear for a state that seeks to define itself as Jewish. There are 3.2 million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, with an annual growth rate of 4.2 percent, among the highest in the world. Because of impressive medical gains over the last 30 years, the infant mortality rate among Palestinians has dropped to 20 per thousand, from 70 per thousand.

In Israel itself, there are 1.3 million Arabs and 5.4 million Jews. This means that the number of Jews and Arabs living between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River — in Israel and the occupied lands — is approaching parity. By 2020, Jews will be a minority. The longer Israelis continue to settle in the West Bank and Gaza, the harder it will be to cleanly divide the land between two nations with separate identities. Talk of two states will end. Two options will remain: an apartheid state run by a heavily armed Jewish minority, or a new political entity without a Jewish identity.

The conclusion is clear. Israel must begin to plan its exit from the West Bank and Gaza not only to permit the creation of a viable, contiguous Palestinian state but to preserve its own future. Polls show that most Israelis understand. They do not want to drain their treasury and lose their children to protect West Bank settlements. At the Democratic presidential debate on Tuesday night, Senator Joseph Lieberman criticized former Gov. Howard Dean for calling on Israel to dismantle most of its settlements. "That's up to the parties in their negotiations, not for us to tell them," the senator said.

We strongly disagree. True support for Israel means helping it see through its pain and rage to its own best interest. You do not have to believe in Mr. Arafat's sincerity or the Palestinians' good will to grasp the need for a radical course shift. You need only understand the meaning of self-preservation.

RE: An Even Better Choice - Draft Wesley Clark!

I had posted several months ago that should Clark decide to run, he would be the "sleeper hit" for the Democratic nomination. The thing that could hurt him the most should he decide to run is him waiting too long to enter the race.

But Clark a VP for Dean? Fuck that. Dean is not worthy. Clark has way too much going for him to play second fiddle to someone like Dean. Although Dean is making great mileage "within" the Democratic base, he doesn't have a rat's ass chance in hell of beating Bush without winning over the centrists and independents. And I don't believe he can do that. However, I do believe Clark can.

The ideal ticket IMUHO would be: Clark/Lieberman

P.S. Although I am not really a fan of Dean, I'm apparently one of the few who think he had it right the FIRST time on the Mideast problem. He should have stuck to his guns. Afterall, it is possible to call Israel our friend, promise to defend her if needed, ... and STILL be opposed to their policy on settlements!

RE: An Even Better Choice - Draft Wesley Clark!

You and those like you are the big variable. Those of us on the left want a real Democrat, damn it, and will not stomach a religious conservative in the executive branch whether he's whatever Bush is (Halliburtistant?) or Jewish. It's not that Lieberman is Jewish that's the problem, mind you, just he's not nearly as secular as many feel our leaders need to be. PLUS he seems to be Democrat in name only (and a whiney bitch at that...) in all his recent actions, even if he did march with King. If it was Lieberman/Clark I'd vote for Nader *if* Bush wasn't so much more dangerous then he seemed at first. Clark/Lieberman, just don't see it, and how the hell long can you wait to start running?

Clark is exactly what we need to get our foreign policy un-fucked, but he's too weak domestically. Dean stumbles a little (though not nearly as much as the opposition/Fox would have you believe) with foreign policy and such, but his domestic record is pretty damn stellar, and it's quite possible many conservatives will realize they want somebody who's for balanced budget first, social programs second over a congressman that's wasted god knows how much in pork and is in special interest's pockets or a president who thinks a half a trillion dollars is nothing as long as it's going to the pockets of the rich and his particular friends...

So the question becomes, do you object to Bush enough to vote for Dean if it came down to it? I still think if Clark joined him they'd be damn near unstoppable, maybe not perfect, but the most palatable choice to everybody.

RE: NY Times Editorial 9/12/2003

>The two are not equivalent. You cannot equate blowing up

>children on a bus with building on land someone else considers

>his. But you needn't do so to recognize that the one step

>Israel can and must take now is to freeze the construction of

>settlements and dismantle the newer settler outposts.

While I agree with much of this NYT Editorial, and your last post, I have to say that I fail to comprehend the deep moral outrage about suicide bombing in response to the zionit military occupation of Palestine. If we wanted a fair fight, we would - as in boxing - arm both sides equally and let them go at it. Heavy-weights don't fight fly-weights because that would not be seen as a fair fight. So when one side has F-16s, F-18s, tanks, assault weapons, not to mention, nuclear, chemical and biological WMD and the other side has rocks and stones, suicide bombing is a logical response to the immoral and illogical military asymetry that the world has permitted Israel apartheid regime to amass and use against the Palestinian majority with lethal effect. There can be no place for that kind of moral relativism.

BTW, Tri I am glad to see that you have accepted the demographic point that I have made here on many occasions and which you and your other on-line Zionists have denied and screamed anti-semitism in response.

RE: NY Times Editorial 9/12/2003

Everyone interested in the subject has been aware of the demographic issue for years. It's hardly a new discovery! There's no question that if Israel doesn't give up the occupied territories that it eventually will be demographically outnumbered. However, that isn't the only reason that Israel needs to extricate itself from this hideous situation.

As for the rest of your posting, it's just ridiculous. There is no "moral" issue whatsoever involved in the type of armaments Israel possesses vis-a-vis those the Palestinians possess. Israel evidently has nuclear weapons, but it has never used them against the Palestinians or against anyone else during formal wars, even when the threat and provocation were extreme. Except for having and using aircraft (jets and helicopters) against the Palestinians, the level of force and weaponry Israel has used in the conflict with the Palestinians has been proportionate to the threat.

I am sorry to say that I don't believe that the Palestinian crowd you shill for would exercise similar restraint. I am firmly convinced that if the Palestinians had WMDs they would use them against Israel at the first opportunity. As it is, your loathesome friends haven't the slightest compunction about sending desperate fools to blow themselves up in efforts to kill Israeli civilians engaged in civilian activities, including Israeli Arab civilians. I can't wait for the day you happen to be on one of those buses, or in one of those cafés or pizzerias, or at one of those supermarkets, when one of your heroes decides to blow up more innocent people. Not that you're innocent, of course. You're an apologist for terrorism, and that makes you an accomplice, in my book. As far as I'm concerned, you can't become a martyr soon enough for me! Then, among other things, the world can rest assured that you aren't continuing to use the Palestinian people's money to hire overpriced escorts and stay in deluxe Paris hotels while they're wallowing in misery back home. . . x(

RE: NY Times Editorial 9/12/2003

>As for the rest of your posting, it's just ridiculous. There

>is no "moral" issue whatsoever involved in the type of

>armaments Israel possesses vis-a-vis those the Palestinians

>possess. Israel evidently has nuclear weapons, but it has

>never used them against the Palestinians or against anyone

>else during formal wars, even when the threat and provocation

>were extreme. Except for having and using aircraft (jets and

>helicopters) against the Palestinians, the level of force and

>weaponry Israel has used in the conflict with the Palestinians

>has been proportionate to the threat.

I suppose you have forgotten the use of Canadian passports to use biological weapons against two "operatives" in Jordan that brought condemnation from Canada, a threat of the end of peace with Jordan from the King, an instruction to release the serum to reverse it from the U.S. and the release of the wheel-chair bound Sheik they tried to kill last week from an Israeli jail?

As for the rest, if you see proportion in using attack helicopter and F-16s against unarmed civilians, good luck to you? You only show your moral bankruptcy. Why are you so afraid of having a fair fight? The last time there was a fair fight in 1973 the Arabs were about to relegate Israel back to the old testament until Kissinger convinced Nixon to threaten to use nuclear weapons (as Kissinger at long last admits in his latest book) and the Soviets once again froze in their feet.

RE: Jewish Lobby crusade against Dean continues

Posted on Mon, Sep. 15, 2003

Having a Jewish wife won't save Howard Dean

BY ZEV CHAFETS

New York Daily News

(KRT) - Howard Dean has an Israel problem.

Last week, in the presidential free-for-all in Baltimore, Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., blasted Dean for saying during a campaign stop a few days earlier that he wouldn't take sides in the Middle East. Dean added that he'd be "evenhanded," which in standard State Department English means pro-Palestinian. Later, Dean pleaded ignorance of the significance of the coded phrase.

If so, his lack of diplomatic sophistication makes the pre-presidential George W. Bush look like Henry Kissinger.

Lieberman also accused the Vermont Volcano of breaking a tradition of bipartisan presidential support for the Jewish State that goes back to Harry Truman.

This is false, as Lieberman certainly knows. There is no such tradition.

Yes, President Truman recognized Israel - it was three years after the Holocaust, what was he supposed to do? - but he withheld military aid when it was most needed, during Israel's War of Independence.

Dwight Eisenhower sided with the Arabs in the 1956 Suez crisis. John Kennedy traveled to New York to meet Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion because he didn't want to greet him at the White House.

The first openly pro-Israel President was Lyndon Johnson. Richard Nixon didn't care for Jews but supported Israel in the 1973 war.

Ronald Reagan was a Warner Bros. Zionist, but his successor, George Bush, was strictly House of Saud. During the Gulf War, Bush sat back and let Israeli cities get splattered with Iraqi Scud missiles. His son, George W., it should be said, is the most pro-Israeli president in history.

Dean has denounced Lieberman's complaint as "despicable" and proclaimed himself to be a friend of Israel in the mode of Bill Clinton. Nice try. Clinton, who served at a time of apparent peacemaking, did take on the role of honest broker, but he did it with Israel's blessing. Nobody in Jerusalem ever seriously doubted Clinton's essential sympathy and support.

Dean looks a lot less like Clinton than like Jimmy Carter, the president most associated with what Dean calls "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." Carter, an instinctive appeaser and champion of Third World dictatorships, took the Arab side in the dispute over the West Bank and Gaza, labeled Israeli settlements illegal and generally tried to turn American public opinion against Israel.

Dean's unmistakable ideological resemblance to Carter won't help the Vermont Democrat among supporters of Israel.

Here's a hint to the Dean campaign: He won't be able to hide behind Bill Clinton - or Dr. Judith Steinberg.

On a campaign stop in Iowa, Dean was asked by a woman named Norma Jean Sharp about his position on Israel. According to The Weekly Standard, Dean replied, "They'll be all right. ... I'm not going to let anything happen to Israel. My wife is Jewish."

Jewish relatives are a dime a dozen in this year's Democratic field, from John Kerry's long-lost grandparents to Wesley Clark's departed Yiddishe papa. Hell, even Joe Lieberman has a Jewish wife.

Besides, marriage is a thin reed these days. As far as I know, Dean and Steinberg are as solid as Ma and Pa Kettle. But let's face it - these days, half of all marriages wind up in divorce.

What if Steinberg decides she doesn't want to be First Lady and takes a hike? What if a despondent President Dean falls for Queen Noor (she likes short guys) or Hanan Ashrawi or one of the Dixie Chicks?

Improbable, OK, but matrimony makes strange bedfellows (look at Phil Bronstein and Sharon Stone).

And it is not much of a basis for a Middle East policy, either.

RE: An Even Better Choice - Draft Wesley Clark!

Very astute assesment, James.

RE: NY Times Editorial 9/12/2003

Point well taken. When I tried to say less artfully what the Times says, a certain person immediately labeled me an (you guessed it!)