Dean just lost my support

[Comadreja]

HOWARD DEAN: Here's where I am on Israel. I do support the stance of supporting the assassination of Hamas leaders. They are terrorists and want to kill people and children. I do not support Sharon’s stance on taking over the Palestinian territories. That's a mistake and it is not going to make Israel safer. There are differences that I have with both John Kerry and president Bush on that issue. Again, you have to look at the whole picture. No question that John Kerry will make a much, much better president than George Bush and I have to go. Thank you.

AMY GOODMAN: Does assassinating leaders make the world leaders make the world safer? -- England condemned it. France condemned it. Germany condemned it. Japan condemned it.

HOWARD DEAN: I disagree with you folk on this one. Those people are trying to kill women and children. I think people who kill women and children are wrong, whether they’re Arabs, Jews or Americans. We shouldn't be doing it.

AMY GOODMAN: Would you put Sharon in that category? ---

AMY GOODMAN: And that was Howard Dean getting up from the Pacifica radio table.

Dammit! Who does that leave who isn't in Likud's pocket? Kucinich? DAMN DAMN DAMN DAMN DAMMIT on you spineless Democrats! FUCK KERRY! Might as well let Bush take it another 4 years. At least the GOP will get the blame that way. I will not lift my finger for the DNC, although I was prepared to work my heart out until Nov.

[Snoggera]

1. So

Vote for Kerry.

If you say fuck Kerry, you are either ignorantly angry, or just plain ignorant.

Nothing personal.

[Comadreja]

8. I'm Seriously angry and seriously mislead, don't patronize, please

Tell me whyn I should vote for kerry, since Kerry takes a similar stand on Israel? The rest of the world is aghast at the US for our blind support of the Likudist murderers, and Kerry takes the same tack as Bush. treason!

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[aquart]

32. "Zionist" murder, Axel?

"Acting on Israel's orders," Axel?

Take your vote to Nader. He has the poison cup ready for this country. So what if it tastes like Koolaid.

It doesn't have to be Nader. There are many eager arms waiting to receive you and use you. You will be happy and wanted and full of "useful" work.

Isn't it wonderful when those full of hatred condemn hatred in others?

Rejoice, Axel. Rejoice.

[Mick Knox]

38. Why would you think that?

Our Israel policy has been consistent. I dont know what about Dean or Kerry made you think any different. Besides that.. Dean support is irrelevent as declaring your support of Mondale is over.

[bloom]

79. At least at one point

Dean made a comment to suggest he didn't support the US continued blind support of Sharon and the the Zionist way of doing things. I don't know if he said anything about Hamas or not....

I think it gave some people hope that there was a political candidate who would even say that.

[Larkspur]

90. Look in the quote at the top

HOWARD DEAN: Here's where I am on Israel. I do support the stance of supporting the assassination of Hamas leaders. They are terrorists and want to kill people and children. I do not support Sharon’s stance on taking over the Palestinian territories. That's a mistake and it is not going to make Israel safer. There are differences that I have with both John Kerry and president Bush on that issue. Again, you have to look at the whole picture. No question that John Kerry will make a much, much better president than George Bush and I have to go. Thank you.

The Hamas leader is not a head of state and Ristani was stupid to publicaly threaten violence against Israel. He should have done the Kerry-twist and used nuance language to say he would make peace with Israel and defend Palestinians from Israeli aggression.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bigbillhaywood]

45. Forum rules

I'm still fairly new to DU, but I understand the rules to be this. If you really think the guy is a Nazi (I'm not so sure he is), the proper thing to do is alert the moderator. Making such public accusations is contrary to the discussion guidelines. The reason being calling people Nazis, Fascists or Freepers without just cause leads to wild accusations and tends to stifle dissent. If the guy is really a Nazi, he should be ejected. But if you're just name-calling b/c you strongly disagree it is another story.

[Selwynn]

46. No longer necessary.

.

[nonconformist]

12. I dunno... vote for Kerry because of domestic issues?

Basing your vote on a single issue is never a good idea. But if you're holding out for a serious, viable presidential candidate that will take a really strong stance on Israel, you're kidding yourself.

[madfloridian]

13. I won't patronize.

It worries me that he said it, but he was not himself in that interview.

There is pressure on him to conform to Kerry's views, maybe not from Kerry himself, but from his advisors from DLC/PPI.

I think it is coming down to his having to believe certain ways to remain within the party structure. He did not plan to really launch the "change" part of DFA until after the election......the party is very important to him.

Hard to figure out what is going on.

[LandOLincoln]

71. Oh PUHLEEEZE! How much longer are you going to keep

your head in that bag regarding HD? May I recommend a nice Zinfandel instead of that Koolaid you keep sucking up?

Y'know, I can't help comparing Dean's childish reaction to Goodman's tough questioning, with the way Wes Clark handled a (literally) hysterical Jeremy Scahill back in January/February. WC insisted on talking to Scahill despite his staff's attempts to drag him away, and managed not only to calm the shrill little asshole--you really had to hear it--but to address each of his questions calmly and rationally.

Now, mind you, while I totally agree with Goodman's line of questioning in this case, and firmly believe that in a just world Ariel Sharon would be right alongside Yasser Arafat in the dock in The Hague--along with Wolfowitz, Perle, et al--Dean's reaction is a good indication why (1) he tanked in the primaries, and (2) Clark the experienced diplomat is Kerry's official surrogate.

[madfloridian]

91. Dean did not avoid the question out of fear or lack of knowledge.

Please show proof that Clark is Kerry's "official surrogate." You keep claiming it. I was not aware he had "official" surrogates. If so, I am very glad Dean is not one.

I know that Dean is speaking in many places, not always for Kerry, but on other issues. The new campaign scheduler says he is a surrogate for Kerry, which may explain his evasion of the Sharon thing. He got slammed for trying to fair in September. See the Pelosi letter I posted here.

Boy, I feel so odd that you get so angry when I am not even referring to you. I don't insult Clark or you. Hope it made you feel better.

[Christ was Socialist]

2. Are you off your rocker?

Hamas would murder any israelii at first chance. in fact they only have 30% support from palestinians. They preached the destruction of israel and prevent the process from moveing ahead. And before you jump your guns I am neutral and want a palestinian state. But you are letting your ideology blind you. I can't condone it, but one bullet pre 1933 to a little man in germany could have saved 50 million people. Next thing you will be telling me is assinating bin laden is morally reprehensible. You must be more pragmatic. Arafat is another story, but you are coming to the defense of Al Queda lite.

[ComerPerro]

3. So don't vote for Dean in November

That will show him, eh?

[JI7]

4. did Dean just leave the station or something ?

when it says dean got up from the table does she mean he just left and didn't come back ?

anyone listening to this, what happened ?

[madfloridian]

9. He was at the March, being interviewed at an outdoor table.

Yes, he got up and walked away. You have to see the video to understand.

[Comadreja]

10. Check it out

At Democracynow.com

[GregW]

5. OK - see ya!

[Kagemusha]

6. Hey, my fear was they were gonna do Arafat in

and hand the whole Palestinian movement to Yassin. At LEAST they didn't do that...

[nonconformist]

7. I wouldn't say this was "spineless"

Yes, there are many Democrats that need to grow a pair, but Howard Dean isn't one of them. You may disagree with his stance on this issue, but Dean isn't the kind of person to toe the party line. If he said it, that means that's how he feels. Disagree with him, but don't assume that he has suddenly become spineless.

[wabeewoman]

14. Disappointing

I'll admit. What ever happened to trials? My objection is that even with a trial, sometimes the wrong person is convicted so what are the chances they are killing some innocent people- isn't there an international law against this? And we've seen innocent bystanders killed while the 'target' is being killed. It is also a bully action-what do you think the outcry would be if Hamas were regularly assassinating Israeli? How would we feel if another country decided to come in and assassinate our leaders -well, ok, bad analogy. And lastly, Israel is not killing women and children when they make their little incursions into Gaza???

[madfloridian]

17. I am disappointed, but I feel there is stuff going on.

If you watch the video and read the transcript, it is not typical Dean. He has never walked out of an interview.

[Nlighten1]

15. And the Israelis NEVER kill women or children.

Riiiiiiiight.

[bigbillhaywood]

22. They most certainly do, but that doesn't give Hamas and Palestinian

Islamic Jihad the moral green light to do the same.

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

31. It does give Hamas the green light to

assassinate Sharon in my opinion. Wouldn't want to be hypocritical now.

[bigbillhaywood]

37. I guess that'd be okay, but it won't happen. Hamas chooses

"targets of opportunity"--i.e. civilians. The only Palestinian group with a shot in hell of assasinating a major political figure is the Marxist PFLP (they've done it before). But I think Sharon is pretty well protected-- he may be the most hated Israeli PM since Begin.

[Jim Sagle]

40. So let them try. It beats killing kids in discos and school buses.

[bigbillhaywood]

44. You won't get any argument from me there. n/t

[Selwynn]

47. One form of terrorism does not "beat" another form of terrorism.

Both Sharon and Hamas engage in it.

[bigbillhaywood]

50. I don't consider the killing of political or military targets by either

side to be "terrorism".

[Selwynn]

51. Neither do I.

And the point still stands.

[bigbillhaywood]

53. Right, but I believe the discussion was something like

Assasinating Sharon beats blowing up kids in discos. According to my definition of terrorism, assasinating Sharon would be legitimate military resistance, blowing up a disco morally reprhensible terrorism. Although, I guess it depends on what kind of disco. Some of that music really sucks and the people can be obnoxious. (Sarcasm on)

[Selwynn]

54. Right, I understand

[Nlighten1]

67. Are you serious?

If someone killed my wife and daughters I would never rest until I got revenge.

[Comadreja]

84. This whole assasination discussion..

just shows how infected the US perception of things has become by chaining itself to Sharon. Our country's position in the world of civilized countries is rapidly approaching untenable because of this blind support.

[madfloridian]

25. He said "we" should not do it. As in Arabs, Jews, and Americans.

It was near the end of the transcript.

[aquart]

36. The Palestinians NEVER kill women and children. Never. Nuh uh.

The argument being that the Israelis have a better kill ratio and this is unfair?

Or it would be more fair if the Israelis did not retaliate at all?

Please tell me what proportion would satisfy your conscience. Fifty-fifty?

[Nlighten1]

68. Of course they do...

but BOTH sides are guilty and BOTH sides need to stop. Only a fucking idiot would take sides between two genocidal waring parties.

[MissMarple]

16. Perhaps she was being impertinent, or

a bit immature in her line of questioning.

[LandOLincoln]

72. Bull. She asked a perfectly good question.

Ariel Sharon is a war criminal by any standard, and Dean should have been prepared for that line of questioning.

Now, mind you, as a lifelong hothead, in his shoes I probably would have done the same thing. That's one of many reasons why I would never, ever run for public office.

But Dean has, and continues to do, therefore WHY THE FUCK WASN'T HE PREPARED FOR THAT QUESTION?

[madfloridian]

89. Dean does not agree with Kerry on this issue.

He talked in September about treating both sides fairly, and then came the Pelosi/Berman et al letter.

SO......there could possible by other reasons for this.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
September 10, 2003

The Honorable Howard Dean
P.O. Box 1228
Burlington, VT 05402

Dear Governor Dean:

We are writing to respond to your comments on the Middle East at a recent
campaign event and in Tuesday's candidate debate and explain why we believe
it is wrong to say the U.S. should "not take sides" in the
Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

American foreign policy has been - and must continue to be - based on
unequivocal support for Israel's right to exist and to be free from terror.
The Palestinians have at best been ambivalent about their willingness to
accept Israel's existence and from Yasir Arafat on down they have promoted
or acquiesced in the use of terrorism as a tactic in their struggle. It is
unacceptable for the U.S. to be "evenhanded" on these fundamental issues.

All of us want a genuine peace process to succeed, and all of us accept the
legitimacy of a Palestinian state once the Palestinian leadership and people
recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state and not only renounce
the use of violence but at last take action to dismantle the terrorist
infrastructure inside the Palestinian Authority. Time and time again, the
Israeli people have shown their willingness to take risks for peace. But
they will only do so with the knowledge that U.S. support for Israel will
not waver.

It is important for America to help facilitate a peaceful resolution of the
conflict, but in playing this role we must be true to our values and make
sure that all parties clearly understand our policies. This is not a time to
be sending mixed messages; 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.

Sincerely,

Howard L. Berman
Nancy Pelosi
Robert Matsui
Steny Hoyer
Martin Frost
Nita Lowey
Tom Lantos
Edward Markey
Chet Edwards
Ben Cardin
Steve Rothman
Steve Israel
Gary Ackerman
Barney Frank
Rahn Emanuel
Adam Smith
Anthony Weiner
Chris Bell
Adam Schiff
Hilda Solis
Robert Menendez
Shelley Berkley
Robert Andrews
Joseph Crowley
Jose Serrano
John Larson
Ellen Tauscher
Dennis Cardoza
Patrick Kennedy
Linda Sanchez
Harold Ford Jr.
Brad Sherman
C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger
Alcee Hastings


http://www.house.gov/berman/letter_new.html

[Jim Sagle]

93. Great letter. Thanks for reposting it.

:yourock:

[Canadian_moderate]

18. Why should he support terrorist?

I totally agree with Dean on this. Hamas are terrorists and they don't deserve our support. They are no better than Sharon.

I truly hope the majority of Palestinians don't support Hamas. Any reasonable person can see that they also add to the endless cycle of violence. They're religious extremists.

[rman]

62. then why does he support Sharon?

why does Dean support Sharon's taking out terrorists in the middle of population centers, thus killing of women and children in the process?

[madfloridian]

19. Here is the Pelosi letter he got when he tried to play fair to both sides.

Since what he says affects Kerry, he is in rather of a spot right now.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
September 10, 2003

The Honorable Howard Dean
P.O. Box 1228
Burlington, VT 05402

Dear Governor Dean:

We are writing to respond to your comments on the Middle East at a recent
campaign event and in Tuesday's candidate debate and explain why we believe
it is wrong to say the U.S. should "not take sides" in the
Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

American foreign policy has been - and must continue to be - based on
unequivocal support for Israel's right to exist and to be free from terror.
The Palestinians have at best been ambivalent about their willingness to
accept Israel's existence and from Yasir Arafat on down they have promoted
or acquiesced in the use of terrorism as a tactic in their struggle. It is
unacceptable for the U.S. to be "evenhanded" on these fundamental issues.

All of us want a genuine peace process to succeed, and all of us accept the
legitimacy of a Palestinian state once the Palestinian leadership and people
recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state and not only renounce
the use of violence but at last take action to dismantle the terrorist
infrastructure inside the Palestinian Authority. Time and time again, the
Israeli people have shown their willingness to take risks for peace. But
they will only do so with the knowledge that U.S. support for Israel will
not waver.

It is important for America to help facilitate a peaceful resolution of the
conflict, but in playing this role we must be true to our values and make
sure that all parties clearly understand our policies. This is not a time to
be sending mixed messages; 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.

Sincerely,

Howard L. Berman
Nancy Pelosi
Robert Matsui
Steny Hoyer
Martin Frost
Nita Lowey
Tom Lantos
Edward Markey
Chet Edwards
Ben Cardin
Steve Rothman
Steve Israel
Gary Ackerman
Barney Frank
Rahn Emanuel
Adam Smith
Anthony Weiner
Chris Bell
Adam Schiff
Hilda Solis
Robert Menendez
Shelley Berkley
Robert Andrews
Joseph Crowley
Jose Serrano
John Larson
Ellen Tauscher
Dennis Cardoza
Patrick Kennedy
Linda Sanchez
Harold Ford Jr.
Brad Sherman
C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger
Alcee Hastings


http://www.house.gov/berman/letter_new.html

[countmyvote4real]

48. If any nation is or must be recognized as a "X-faith" state

there is bound to be a democracy problem. Why don't they just deal with it in terms like "blue and red?"

[ShaneGR]

58. I agree with what they wrote

There isn't anything in that letter I disagree with.

[NashVegas]

81. The Problem with that Stance

By insisting a Palestinian state await on unconditional disarming and acceptance, it locks the both the Israelis and the Palestinians into a pattern of infinite conflict: there are no spatial boundaries. There's a lot more to it than a theoretical state: there is the matter of future squabbles.

Look into the history of Israel's water feuds with its neighbors and its Palestinian inhabitants. Look at how the spatial boundaries of a proposed Palestinian state keep changing. What hope is there, really, that if the Palestinians do lay down their arms, they're going to get a fair deal? I figure they're about the same odds that the Palestinians' hatred towards their neighbor, Israel, will suddenly turn cooperative and admiring even if they did get a good shake.

We don't allow Israel to fight for finite (spatial) gains outright, militarily, so they allow the settlers to do it for them, underhandedly. And everytime the Arabian neighbors have gone after Israel, they've gotten their asses handed to them. Our overarching interest in that corner of the world is what keeps the conflict moving indefinitely and will continue to do so until the last drop of oil is wrung out from under it.

[bigbillhaywood]

20. Uh, I'm pro-Palestinian, but I'm not sure how to respond to this rant.

What exactly enrages you so much about Howard Dean's response? That he's okay with assasinations of Hamas leaders? I think assasinating Hamas leaders maybe politically stupid and provoking more violence, but to be honest with you, it doesn't exactly elicit my moral outrage. I mean, this is not Israel using human shields, killing kids or bulldozing homes (all of which do elicit my outrage). They're engaging in a purely military struggle against some nasty fucks (Hamas). And I will tell you, you will find few people on this board as sympathetic to the Palestinian struggle as I am. If you are outraged about the civilians that are killed while in the firing line of the Israeli rockets targeting Hamas, that's one thing, or if you want to say that it will provoke mmore violence, okay, but I'm not shedding any tears for Hamas. I'm okay with legitimate armed resistance against Israel, but bombing children is just plain murder (and Hamas has no problem with that).

As to the other part of your post, did you just now figure out that the vast majority of Democrats are in AIPAC's pocket?

[makhno]

23. Well

While supporting assassination, he also said: I do not support Sharon’s stance on taking over the Palestinian territories.

This, to me, indicates a rather important difference in position between Dean and Kerry.

On a more general level, however, Dean has probably learned by now that you simply don't fuck with Israel in American politics. Hence his uncharacteristic reaction when pushed into a corner he was not prepared to either abandon or openly defend.

[bigbillhaywood]

24. Good point, nessie. n/t

[brainoverload]

26. There's a phrase that comes to mind...

"cutting off your nose to spite your face."

Didn't we already go down the road of "there's no difference between Bush and the mainstrem Democrats"? Haven't the last 3.5 years proved that to not only be a silly statement but a darn near fatal statement?

If the only acceptable president is someone who agrees with you on 100% of the issues than you best vote for yourself. Otherwise support the candidate who best supports your positions (yes - positionS)and work to change their mind on issues where you seriously think they are mistaken.

[Comadreja]

29. Oh yeah Really?

And go up against the almighty Zionist voter bloc? Be realistic, and deny the very foundation of our society and civilization, a trial by jury, due process, justice, and fairness? If Kerry is elected, what changes can we expect if he tows the Zionist line? This is the very heart of the East/West conflict, the injustice perpetrated on the Palestinians by European Jews, with the support of the military superpower, the US. IF there is no fundamental change here, then what change can we expect elsewhere? Isn't Kerry as firmly under the thumb of the M/I complex as Bush?

[bigbillhaywood]

33. Every President is under the thumb of the M/I complex, Bush just seems

to enjoy it more and is shameless about it.

[rockymountaindem]

27. Why do people seem to care more about Israel/Palestine than the US?

It seems that some people on this board will let a candidate's views on this issue determine their vote. I support Israel, and I hope there will be an equitable agreement between the two sides soon, followed by peace. However, no matter what a candidate says with reguard to this issue, I would still vote for that candidate if he/she had a good agenda for America. I like Israel, and I support its right to self-defense, but I live in America, and that's more important.

[bigbillhaywood]

30. Here's the reason...

1. Israel is the top recipient of US economic and military aid.
2. Israel is not only a US satellite/client state, but a regional military superpower in an oil rich region.
3. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict plays into larger issues in the Arab and Muslim world, including terrorism.

So, as you can see, there is a large investment for people on both sides of this issue to be battling out politically in the US, since our country is Israel's benefactor.

Also, for many Palestinian sympathizers such as myslef, this issue is of much larger importance, it symbolizes global oppression like Apartheid South Africa did for many in the 1980s. It is also a glaring example of the US supporting "rogue" regimes. It's my hard-earned tax dollars that pay for the bulldozers demolishing Palestinian homes, and I'm more than a little pissed off about it.

[Jim Sagle]

42. Funny - it's even MORE important to me, and I'm on the opposite side.

[bigbillhaywood]

43. Well, we won't get into a debate of whom it means more to, but I guess

you see my point. The political reality of US support for Israel is what makes for such an intense debate in American political circles (non-mainstream ones, that is. Most US politicians are arguably pro-Israel).

[AntiCoup2K4]

34. The reason it's important...

..Is that the PNAC policies which now dominate both Bush and Kerry's foreign policy agendas were first written by the Likud party of Israel in the mid 90's. It's all part of the same fucking plan.

Hamas is a creation of the Israeli government (Mossad) just as Al Qaeda is a creation of Poppy Bush's CIA. And while they are obviously far from blameless, there's no doubt that things over there have gotten worse since Sharon, a convicted war criminal, escalated it.

And for the record, as a long time supporter of Howard Dean, I am very troubled by his apparent endorsement of Sharon's assassinations.

[LandOLincoln]

75. Once again you and I agree, Anti--except for the HD part, of course.

I'm gettin' worried...

[neverborn]

87. Huh?

Sharon has been convicted?

BTW, agreed on all counts.

[Comadreja]

82. Because our Gov. has chained itself to Israel

And we are beginning to catch its diseases. Our military is adopting IDF tactics in Iraq. Worse, we have become a mutual target for Arab rage and world condemnation, seen as the enablers of a virulently racist scofflaw nation. Need proof of how we've already been affected...just read Osama's reasons for the 9/11 attack...support for Israel is right atthe top. Justice is what drives me in this whole process, and I cannot just overlook the wretched perversion of justice that is Israeli Palestinian policies.

[bigbillhaywood]

28. Just face it, mainstream politicians have very little to gain and very

much to lose by taking on Israel. All of Israel's human rights abuses would end in a second if the US threatened to withdraw aid. But unless you're counting on a social revolution in November, don't expect US Middle East Policy to change election day (or any election day). This is why I rarely vote and try to spend time doing more meaningful organizing.

[Serenity-NOW]

35. Dean lost your support? Ummm is he back in the race or something?

[Comadreja]

83. No, but his endorsement of Kerry is

And it means very little to me now. My involvement in this fight was well beyond just my vote, but I am a delegate to the state convention and waiting to hear from ACT and other grassroots efforts which will be working for Kerry. I potentially could have gotten some more votes for Kerry beyond my own, but only because HD endorsed him. I really hope Howard reconsiders his stand on this. I wonder if he would read a letter from me on it?

[loudsue]

41. VERY powerful picture on your first few posts, Axel.....

That's how I picture Sharon. Beyond scary.

Israel, Palestine, G-Brittain, Australia, Iran, Saudi Arabia.....ALL are being governed or "ruled" by religious fundamentalist extreme right wing conservatives. Be they Jewish, Christian or Muslim, they are all right wing extremists.

Caught in the crossfire are the innocent, peace-loving, home-building citizens: the Jews, the Americans, the Palestinians, the English, the Iranians, the Aussies, the Saudis.

Hammas, Sharon's thugs, bush's thugs, Blair & Howard's thugs, al Qaida....they're answering the call of their extremist leaders. They're currently ALL terrorists who are pointing fingers at all the other terrorists.

Until they're all placed in a big room together with lots of nasty guns and chemicals, and manage to blow each other up, we're all being held hostage to their propaganda and terror. If they pick each other off one at a time, I don't have any objection. If they gang up together to out one of their number at a time, that's ok, too. As long as they all get what's coming to them in the end, and leave the rest of us in peace.

The problem is, they all want to take the rest of us down with them, to show how popular they are....how "right" they are. Why each country doesn't put the lot of them in jail is beyond me.

Palestinians aren't Hammas, anymore than Israel is Sharon's LIKUD, anymore than you and I are repukes. THEY are the troublemakers. We are the citizens who are losing our loved ones. Until right wing extremists are all locked up, the rest of the world has to suffer and die.

It just is.


:kick:

[Canadian_moderate]

49. Interesting...Blair is a conservative?

Or a fundamentalist?

He may have been pro-war (barely), but he was stuck in a corner. Besides this position, he is still clearly a social-democrat, at least by American standards.

[bigbillhaywood]

52. Disagree, for the same reason I don't think Clinton is a liberal

They are both conservatives in liberals clothing. Both presided over unprecedented giveaways to corporations, dismantlement of social programs, military interventions and deregulation of big business. Sure Bush is 10 times worse than these guys, but it doesn't mean they aren't conservatives anyways.

[Canadian_moderate]

55. I don't know about you,

but I consider liberals moderates. Socialists are not necessarily liberals.

In most countries, liberals are pro-free enterprise with the obviously necessary regulations and social programs.

While I fully support liberalism, I cannot say the same for socialism.

[bigbillhaywood]

56. I mean liberal in the American sense, what people elsewhere would

consider "labour" or "social-democrat" (to use your words). I do not mean liberal in the classical sense meaning essentially "libertarian". Does this clear up my point any?

[Canadian_moderate]

59. I'm sorry about the misunderstanding, but

you guys have butchered the word "LIBERAL". ;o)

To me, liberty doesn't exactly equate socialism. No offence meant.

[bigbillhaywood]

61. None taken. But you guys have butchered the meaning of the word

"bacon". Canadian bacon my ass, it's ham. By the way, we butcher a lot of things, we're Americans. Can't wait to get back to Quebec again, one of my favorite places, oh, I mean favourite places.

[LandOLincoln]

76. Blair is also a born-again Xian. You see how it all comes

together?

[ShaneGR]

57. Are liberals becoming anti-jewish?

I see the star of David, I see flames. Not a good thing. But it stays up.

Why?

[bigbillhaywood]

60. Not too fond of the image myself, problem is that Israel has decided

to use the Star of David as a national symbol. Since I don't believe Israel is above criticism more than any other nation, I think using the Star of David in a critical political context is justified since it is a national symbol. I would not choose to use it because it could be construed as anti-Semitic, but that doesn't necessarily mean it IS anti-semitic.

[Comadreja]

85. It's also an occult symbol

Represents the Wanderer in Tarot. Appears Israel borrowed it.

[rman]

63. are liberals becoming pro-Sharon?

i see dead women and children, a people suppressed, nuclear weapons.

[bigbillhaywood]

65. uhhh...becoming? Most liberal Dems have always been OK with

the Israelis running roughshod over Palestinian civil/human rights. That's why I'm not sure what the origianl poster was thinking. Did this Axel guy really think the Dems wanted to change the US's Israel policy? This is a country that has had a nuclear guarantee of protection from the US for almost 40 years now.

[Selwynn]

64. The truth is a good thing.

And Sharon is accurately reflected in the picture.

I am not anti-Jewish. I am however, anti-LIKUD.

[Merlin]

66. Please! That's anti-Israeli. There's a big difference. n/t

.

[LandOLincoln]

77. Not anti-Jewish, but ALWAYS anti-Zionist.

And we have a lot of Jewish support, within Israel and outside as well.

[Tinoire]

78. Both Sharon and Bush are beasts from the Apocalypse

serving the same master to the same evil end.

The picture is highly appropriate.

When Iraqis make one of George Bush and put stars & stripes in the background, you won't hear a damn peep out of me.

If Sharon wants the Israeli flag respected, he better make it respectable and the same goes to George Bush and every PNAC/Likud-loving neo-con out there.

Death and destruction is what those two are deliberately bringing to the world- a new holocaust, blood offering to the same entity Hitler served. Check out the occult aspects of this entire war. Sharon and Bush must be exposed for what they are. EVIL men unleashing EVIL upon this world.

There your Illumati, the concept so many scoff at as a harmless little bunch, right there.

[gpandas]

88. not becoming anti-jewish but...

but staying anti-oppression of weaker people. note the parallels between the jews in palestine and the americans in iraq. we will probably be fighting longer than even the j/p.

[truthspeaker]

69. I also don't have a problem with assassinating terrorist leaders

They are legitimate military command and control targets. Why should Hamas et al be able to command violence against Israeli targets and not expect violence back?

BTW, the descriptions "terrorist leader" and "command and control target" also apply to Sharon.

[RetroLounge]

70. And what were you doing to support Dean?

I thought so...

RL

[leesa]

73. So then I guess he also supports the execution of the leaders

of the US military murdering women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan as we speak.

[DaveSZ]

74. Hamas leaders are terrorists that kill women and children

Would you also have a problem with killing Bin Laden?

I'm sorry but I agree with Dean's position (not with Sharon's land grab though).

[revcarol]

80. Kucinich is the only candidate with fairness regarding I/P, still for

Israel, but realizes the issues, and war crimes and keeping the W. Bank and assassinations by Israel are not part of his policies. So send him some bucks.

Maybe you should have investigated Dean before supporting him. AIPAC all the way, as many here pointed out. Kerry also.

And Bush. The ME is f*****, no matter WHO is elected.

[Comadreja]

86. Agreed

But his position on Sharon and extra-judicial killings was not discussed on his website or anywhere else I ever came across. There are many rational Israelis who are against Sharon and the whole murderous business, and they should get our support. The UN should be the only arbitrator here.

[Alpha Wolf]

92. Your rage falls on many deaf ears...

Among the majority of Democrats. Even those of us who are the balancing factor on the left. I'm convinced that the Dems could run someone with the EXACT same platform as Bush* and many would still vote for him/her because it WASN'T Bush*.

Kerry is Repug-lite. And after his vote for this war and his recent comments concerning I/P -- well, I'm not so sure about the "lite" part.

[Malikshah]

94. Took his bumper sticker off

Shame on him for selective moral outrage. He caved and is now dead to me. Not that it matters to him or anyone else.