Howard Dean supports building the "fence" (Wall) in the West BanK

In this interview with Howard Dean by David Corn, at 34:50 on the Real Player counter, after answering the question of whether or not he thinks "the US should be applying pressure on Sharon as well as Arafat to get things moving", Howard Dean volunteered the following statement.

"One of the essential ingredients, interestingly in the Middle East is the fence. I was against the fence before I went to Israel, now I think it's critical, because it creates a fact on the ground, which means it's essentially along the border that Arafat and Barak almost agreed to and it also labels the settlements that will eventually have to be withdrawn when the army's decided are indefensable in order to get to a real peace settlement."
http://www.nationinstitute.org/radionation/

Each of the following four articles linked here help describe this "fence'. The first one has maps.


"The "Separation Wall" - separating Palestinians from their land... "

"The Wall is the concrete manifestation of the Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and yet another method of carrying out a policy of confiscating more Palestinian land. If Israel would genuinely be interested in the security of its citizens, and in separation from the Palestinian people, it would have erected the wall on the "Green Line"(the border that existed before the 1967 war). But this is not the case. The majority of the planned wall cuts deep into Palestinian territory, incorporating into Israel about 10%-15% of the occupied territories, a huge portion of very fertile land full of olive groves, greenhouses, vegetable fields and water resources. It will cut off villages and towns from their farmland, centres of trade, education and culture. It will intensify the ongoing environmental destruction and degradation taking place in the occupied territories. It is also an attempt to legitimise the Israeli settlement policy. In short, it is intended to be a death blow to any possibility of a viable Palestinian state.
For hundreds of thousands of Palestinian farmers, the wall will represent a prison with no warden
with no means of sustaining their families - to the point that will force many of them to simply leave their homes, and try living elsewhere as refugees.
This is an intention of quiet ethnic cleansing, the sort that cannot be photographed, but is nevertheless as effective and devastating.
for this reason, we have decided to refer to the wall as a transfer wall."
http://www.gush-shalom.org/thewall/index.html


"The Fence Crosses Agricultural Roads and Pathways and Cuts Off Residents from their Water Resources, Schools,Businesses and Public Services"
http://www.gush-shalom.org/thewall/worldbank.html


"A Wall in their Heart"

"A look at the map leads to a simple conclusion - the separation fence being built at this time basically overlaps the Sharon map for a Palestinian state. A bit more than 40% of the West Bank, split and sliced into pieces. The northern West Bank is cut off from the
southern West Bank and to go from Bethlehem to Ramallah a Palestinian will have to cross two border crossings"
""You leave us no room to grow, you leave us no room to live," says Jamal Juma. The only thing left the Palestinians is to live in huge pens and to work in industrial zones that will no doubt be built in the settlements, near the openings to these pens. "You want us to live like slaves"
http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/wall_yediot_eng.html


"'The misleading term 'fence'"
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=318686&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

The thing is a huge wall! Like a mix between the Berlin wall and the one used in the Warsaw ghetto during WWII.

the Berlin Wall and the wall around the Warsaw ghetto were to keep people IN a certain area...
the fence/wall in Isreal will keep people OUT of a certain area...nothing will stop them from leaving via Jordan or Egypt...unless Jordan or Egypt stop them...

.

http://www.palestinemonitor.org/Special%20Section/Closure/08.%20Separation%20Wall,%20Qalqiliya.jpg

with more pictures on the site: http://www.palestinemonitor.org/Special%20Section/Closure/Separation_wall_photos.htm

(I didn't copy the whole thing)

<>

I'm concerned about Dean's Middle Eastern "vision".

As a Dean supporter, this drains some of my enthusiasm for him. Although it will help him in the election, I can't support his position on the ME.

However, there's not too much difference among the candidates other than Kucinich. Like looking for a 19th century candidate who did not support agression against the Indians. I'm afraid the future for Palestinians looks bleak indeed.

The save the settlements Eastern fence is a con and insult.

No part of it has been started, but Bush should get Sharon to give it up in total.

Taba was the settlement that was fair - and Arafat threw it away in an all or nothing attempt via the "right to return and vote the Jews into the sea" ploy.

I do not like the Sharon extention to the Taba Western fence line (Sharon's extention is occassionally nuts, but in general moves 3 to 5 miles further west than Taba - but why bother?) (The 3% change the PA was offerring was adequate - the 5% that Barak wanted was interesting - but why just grab it if it causes so much trouble.?)

And Arafat has been willing to negotiate the right of return for years. But I applaud you for recognizing how barbaric this fence is.

The maps discussed at Taba, by the way (Barak never made an actual offer, and Sharon immediately pulled everything off the table as soon as he was elected, as he said he would do) are virtually identical to borders agreed on by Abbas (the current Palestinian prime minister), and Yossi Beilin in around 1995. Peres rejected them (they were agreed to by the Palestinians) because he wanted to retain the Jordan Basin -- in other words, he wanted a map similar to the one this wall is creating. That would be the 'dovish' Peres, who is one of the Israeli good guys, as opposed to the evil Sharon, by the way. But the Palestinians are the ones who reject peace at every opportunity, at least to listen to some people...

Howard Dean himself admitted that his views on the I/P conflict were in line with AIPAC's. As a matter of fact, his first trip to the region was an an AIPAC-sponsored junket.

This is one major reason I am cold to Dean and warm to Kucinich. Kucinich is also the choice of Tikkun, the alternative to AIPAC.

-------------------------------------------------

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.

<snip>

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

except...one of the main terror groups (PLO) was founded and started up prior to the 1967 war...before there were territories they could claim to be fighting for

:beer:

I'm a Dean supporter 90% of the way--the only reason it's not 100 is this issue.

I am hoping that he will listen to folks and educate himself regarding the issue. More importantly, I hope that all of us on the boards do the same. Does this mean to take one side or the other completely? NO.

As someone who has studied the region and its peoples as a career (education) I've had the difficult task of having to teach the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. In the end, supporters of both sides view me with suspicion as I don't take sides in the classroom.

My mantra is: No one people has a monopoly on victimhood, or on morality.

It should not end with "there are no white hats" or "it's a centuries old conflict"-- we need to educate ourselves on exactly what took place from the end of the 19th century until today--using the words of those involved. We need to educate our politicians who have done a lousy job of handling the situation.

My major fault with Clinton was his handling of the crisis. He was too one-sided and thus doomed the process to failure.

The Taba issues were mere talks, later repudiated by Barak as he was about to lose in the election. The myths of Camp David II still abound, and in the end, are detrimental to both parties.

Dean's statement concerning the treatment of Arabs and Muslims in the US will not result in anything if he does not deal more equitably with the issues involved. His statement about the wall is quite scary as are his links to AIPAC. Why? The US leadership must be perceived as an honest broker, this is untenable with such close links.

I know this should be in the FA thread--but as it's concerning Dean's campaign--it needs to be said--if he truly wants to be the President to bring change, he must include a change in our Foreign Policy to a more even-handed one. Call both sides on it when they break their promises equally!

The Myth of the Generous Offer

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

The anti-Palestinian propaganda campaign has repeated the lie of the "generous offer", and "offered 98% of what they wanted". Lies, lies, lies.

Btw, welcome to DU! :toast:

I'm noticing QUITE a bit of discontent about this issue on the Dean blogs. So we're not the only ones.

This really may bite Dean in the a** if he doesn't clean his act on this one.

Dean means if it is running along the "green line." The wall being constructed now does not run along the green line, but encompasses land that should be part of a future Palestinian state. I'm sure he would clarify that position if given this information.

And I'm not a current Dean supporter, so don't accuse me of being an apologist.

He seems to issue position papers on everything else. Is there some reason why he doesn't want to answer this?

When Palestinians can't get access to water & their fields.....

Kucinich believes that WATER is one of the main issues between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Other countries in the area need their share of water too.

What planet is DK on? This is about the fact that the Arabs hate the Jews.

They won't rest until Israel is gone.

The Israelis could build luxury condos for every Palistinian family, and the war against them still would not end.

Water. Right. LOL.

Such sweeping generalizations? "the arabs" "the jews"
If these sorts of bigoted, hate-mongering statements are made by fellow Dean supporters and are not repudiated by the masses, we're in for decades more violence and bloodshed.

A few facts regarding water in the Middle East...

75% of the population of the region depends on water that flows across and international border
The distribution of water, the permits for digging wells etc. are not equal in the Occupied Territories. This will be an impediment to peace, and has been accepted as an issue of great importance by both sides.

Go and look up Maslow's hierarchy of needs--Physiological needs are the most important....and with the privatization of water running rampant in the world, those who do not think water is important are fooling themselves.

but the problem in the ME isn't water. It's many, many years, generations actually, of hatred. The Arab community hates the Jews. Period. And the reverse is true in some quarters of Israel. I've spent time there I've seen and heard it.

You can drill all the wells you like in the territories, and the hatred won't go away. Peace is a very difficult thing there.

I don't purport to have the solution. But I am not simple minded enough to think that the issue is water rights.

If you can display this kind of ignorance and bigotry remind to not take a damn thing you say seriously from here on in.

Statements like this belong of FreeRepublic :puke:

But ALL Arabs, Muslim or otherwise, hate the Palestinians. Nice nuance.

Of course, water is not the central issue in the Middle East. There are several fundamental geolpolitical issues at stake. Bulldozers, for one.

Your assertions that hatred is deep and peace come easy are obvious. Why you feel that justifies your position is a little more opaque.

But water is a valuable resource. Much more so in arid lands like the mideast. The possibility of wars fought over access to water is very much a reality.

"After signing the 1979 peace treaty with Israel, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat said his nation will never go to war again, except to protect its water resources.

King Hussein of Jordan identified water as the only reason that might lead him to war with the Jewish state.

Former United Nations Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali warned bluntly that the next war in the area will be over water."

(snip)

"With the Israeli army in control prohibiting Palestinians from pumping water, and settlers using much more advanced pumping equipment, Palestinians complain of "daily theft" of as much as 80% of their underground water."

(snip)

"Ariel Sharon went on record saying that the Six Day War started because Syrian engineers were working on diverting part of the water flow away from Israel."

Full text at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2949768.stm

Do not be so quick to insult a candidate who sees one of the real reasons for the mideast conflicts with clarity.

after one of their own has carried out a suicide bombing.

that this is HUGELY about water

He said last April that Dean doesn't have a grasp on foreign policy.

He said that both Dean and Lieberman are not qualified to deal with ithe issue.

The construction of this wall is a serious impediment to negotiations. It cuts deep into Palestinian lands.

But another major concern of mine was Dean's insistence on a Palestinian cease fire before an Israeli withdrawal. Kerry was decidedly supportive of Israel in his foreign policy speech, but he spoke distinctly in favor of parallel negotiations:

"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."

http://www.johnkerry.com/site/PageServer?pagename=spc_2003_0123

That may not win him votes with the Jewish community, but it is the right thing to do.

according to Gary Hart, Dean has no real plan because he doesn't have a full understanding of the situation or foreign policy. He said so last April, and in recent forums, decried that anyone would seek the presidency without already having a firm grasp on the problems.

Hart pointed to two candidates that he didn't like on foreign policy and that was Dean and Lieberman.

I don't think he knows jack squat about this. In the radio interview sfecap mentioned in another post on this thread, he clearly stated, that both Israel and Palestine should be demilitarized. Or was this just a mistake? A stutter? I mean, let's back up the truck, not only will Israel not allow itself to be demilitarized but that idea wouldn't even make sense. Did he mis-speak or does he plain not understand squat about this?

Asking for clear answers and a clear position is not picking on Dean, it's a desire to know what I'm buying.

Stonewalling the Peace Process

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16448

<>

'Later in the day, while speaking to a house gathering of doctors and health care professionals in Hollis, Dean was asked about the peace process in Israel. He said a Palestinian state is a better fit for democracy than any other Arab society.

"I think a democracy has a chance in a state of Palestine," he said. "The key, however, is to stop the terror."

He said a fence separating the Palestinians and the Israelis is a good thing to prevent suicide bombers, but Israelis must also leave the West Bank.

He said Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Libya are funding Palestinian terrorists and fueling terrorism throughout the world. He said he would focus on stopping those countries from funding terrorists, partly by decreasing U.S. dependance on oil from the Middle East.'

http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/state2003/nh__deanvisit_22_2003.shtml

Mitznah was in favor of a fence when he ran against Sharon in January, and the refusenik who came to my synagogue to speak was also in favor of a wall of separation, with the Israelis on their side and the Palestinians on theirs. The fence can be a right wing or left wing concept, depending on where it is built.

Now that the Wall in Berlin is finally gone, that frees up the term 'Schandmauer' -- 'Wall of Shame'. I think the world should hold a naming ceremony for this new Schandmauer.

The Berlin Wall was built to keep East Germans in so that they would not defect to the West. This wall would be for defensive purposes, to keep terrorist suicide bombers out. Israel doens't care if these people go to another country, in fact, I'm sure that they would rather have these people blowing themselves up in Jordan or Sryia.

It is a shame that the Israelis have to build a wall to keep suicide bombers away from their civilians.

A wall that prevents Iraqis from getting at the resources they owned before the recent invasion and massacre? A wall that prevents them getting near enough to US troops to kill them?

If you would, then are you sure DU is the right place for you to be?

If you wouldn't, then tell us what the difference is between the two walls.

Kerry's Foreign Policy Speech:

As we learned so brutally and so personally, we do face a new threat. But we also face a renewed choice - between isolation in a perilous world, which I believe is impossible in any event, and engagement to shape a safer world which is the urgent imperative of our time.

A choice between those who think you can build walls to keep the world out, and those who want to tear down the barriers that separate "us" from "them."

I am here today to reject the narrow vision of those who would build walls to keep the world out, or who would prefer to strike out on our own instead of forging coalitions and step by step creating a new world of law and mutual security.

http://www.johnkerry.com/site/PageServer?pagename=spc_2003_0123

Do you lock your door at night? Unless you live in a very low-crime area, the answer is probaly yes. Why? To keep out people who would do harm to you. That is the reason Isreal wants to build a wall.

Are you in favor of the US building such a wall in Iraq?

We are not going to be there forever. We don't have a place where troops are where attackers are coming after them. They are getting our guys when they are travelling.

When he gets more of the facts after being installed as President, he'll review his plans on this issue. I see him following Clinton's policy in regards to the I/P issue, but he'll probably try some innovative ideas. Whether they work or not, we'll have to wait and see.

If there were people who were trying to kill me, I might be inclined to build a wall to keep them out.

This is what he said in his speech to CFR:

"I am truly optimistic about the chances for peace in the Middle East. Our strongest asset is that majorities of both peoples in this conflict actually accept a two-state solution guaranteeing both sides security, sovereignty and dignity.

Most Israelis recognize that they will have to give back occupied land and give up settlements. Most Palestinians understand that there will never be a Palestinian state as long as terrorist attacks continue. Yet the Palestinians have assets that are often misunderstood. They have a high level of education. Palestinian women play a more significant role in government than in almost any other Arab society. And a large number of Palestinians have a significant experience with democracy, having lived in Europe, the United States and, of course, in Israel. Yassir Arafat is not the answer, but Abu Mazen and Salim Fayed, who I met with in Jerusalem, may well be the answer."

IMHO it would be a mistake to characterize his "fence" statement as
reflecting a hard-line stand aimed at slicing up palestinian land.
In light of the above policy statement, I would hope that any fence
he supports would be build in a way that land is returned to the
palestinians. I would not expect Dean to learn/know the nuances of
the I/P conflict in all their gory detail at this point in the campaign.


One edit: link to CFR speech:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_speech_foreign_cfr

"Arafat is not the answer."

While I'm not a fan of Arafat, he was elected by the Palestinian people with over 80% of the vote, and even if Dean and Sharon don't like Arafat, the Palestinian electorate said that he is there leader. Even Jimmy Carter, Dean's mentor, says that you have to deal with Arafat if that is who the Palestinian people choose as their leader. Jimmy critisized Bush for intentionally trying to dictate to the Palestinian people to remove Arafat from power. Bush's hubris only solidified Arafat's support of the Palestinians, including those who don't like Arafat. There is no practical way the US or Israel should ignore the wishes of the Palestinian people. The best way to deal with Arafat is to get the other Arab leaders who support the Palestinians to put pressure on him or to assist him in disarming Palestinian terrorist groups. But one must remember that Hamas and Hezbollah are independent of Arafat. They are his competitors, so when they commit terrorist attacks, it's not really fair to put the sole blame on Arafat.

The other Palestinian leaders that Dean may prefer to deal with do not have the support of the Palestinian people, at least as of last election. That could change if the Palestinian people are allowed the peace to make more indepth decisions and those other potential leaders have the chance to win their people's support. But as long as Sharon bullies Arafat and the Palestinian people, those other leaders won't have the support of their own people and by bypassing Arafat to those Dean would prefer to work with would only weaken those anti-Arafat leaders' position and make them appear as stooges to Israel and the US in the eyes of the Palestinians. That's not a good roadmap to peace.

By Ahmed Nassef

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.

True, Dean is one of the Democratic presidential hopefuls who opposed the invasion of Iraq (along with Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, conservative Senator Bob Graham, former Illinois Senator Carol Moseley Braun, and Rev. Al Sharpton), but he is closer to a hawk when it comes to Israel/ Palestine and US policy toward Iran.

In a major foreign policy speech earlier this year, Dean, while calling for an end to Palestinian violence, did not call for an end to Israeli violence, let alone an end to the illegal Israeli occupation.

And when asked whether his views are closer to the dovish Americans for Peace Now (APN) or the right wing, Sharon-supporting American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), he stated unequivocally in an interview with the Jewish weekly The Forward, "My view is closer to AIPAC's view."

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

You can easily google it and find them...


Peace

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

also wanna see one in which Muslim Democrats actively got togetther to try to keep Dean from winniing the MoveOn endorsement?

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

If they are success, even partially in keeping that S.O.B. out of office I will convert to Islam and make the hajj.

And Dean kicked ass in the MoveOn primary.

No he didn't get 50% +1 of the vote, but that would've been shocking in a field of 9. His drop from the earlier quick vote where he was over 50% is probably more likely attributed to the increase in other supporters who were drawn in, rather than any one group's crusade against him. Sorry Nic.

Dean's an "S.O.B."... LOL. I am really starting to think he stole your prom date or something.

three weeks before the primary (54 percent), and dropped ten points by the time of the primary. No matter what, everyone was SURE the primary was Deans and the Endorsement was Dean the week before the primary. It only took a few emails from other candidates to their supporters to keep Dean from that endorsement of and money. They dropped Dean by twenty percent with only ONE WEEK of effort.

Sorry,Amerikav60, If your boy can be taken down that far, that fast, it shows how weak he is outside of his own little network, and for it to happen to him on MOveON, which was ddicated to Dean from the start. It prooves trhat Deans support is an electronic illusion.

I dunno, you seem to see him more as Big Bad Dean, the monster tyrant who threatens to take down the whole country...

I am thrilled with how it came out. (And, um, the difference between 54% and 44% is 10 points, not 20. Wishful thinking, I suppose.) Dean and Kucinich owned that MoveOn poll, it was great.

Dean's also gaining in nearly every poll that comes out...Though before you post some long-winded poll analysis, yes I realize that Kerry is also doing great in the polls, which is awesome, I like Kerry too.

Dean is weak, Dean can't raise money, Dean is going away...yadda yadda yadda.

Deans MoveOnm polling was 54 percent. It took only ONE week of minor effort by other candidates, for the most part sending ONE email to those weho have joined their campaign web sites, to knock Dean down to 44 percent, which is a strong indication of how fragile Deans campaign is. In one week, with minimal effort, on the Internet, Deans strongest suit, he dropped 20 percent in his support.

His supporters are actually rafving over his high support in an online primary in which only a scant few days earlier, he was predicted as EASILY winning, with no effort.

On the other hand, Kerry;s MeetUp support is small, but it has grown 700 percent in under 2 months. Dean has not seen that kind of percentage support in his online support. SAme thng with other candidates.

Sorry,Amerikav60, if Dean can be knocked down by that large a percentage in a week of minimal effort by the other candidates, his support base is very seriously, very weak.

ANd Kerry has not formally started campaigning yet. Dean has been campaigning in Iowa for exactly 2 years. FOr every visit to Iowa that Kerry has made, Dean has made fifty. Yet Gephardt, who has been barely campaigning, polls higher than Dean in many multiples of the margin of error. Dean cannot hope to win in Iowa. And it in all likelihood, will not be able to win in New Hampshire. Polling data puts N.H. firmly in Kerry's pocket. Dena has more support ONLY in the 18-27 age group, they equally split the 28-49. Kerry is well ahead in the 50-64, and has three times the support in the over 65 voting groups. Which means Dean is not running to win, but to try to stay in the race. If he doen not come in second in one of these races, he is done. If he come in second in one, it simply merans it will be a matter of time before he loses.

Even a victory for Dean can be spun as something negative by you...you crack me up. Dean's support is "fragile"? Tell it to the bat!

(And again, how do you get a 20 point drop with 54 minus 44?)

Now back to my theory about the prom date... :)

Ten point point drop, from 54 percent to 44 percent is rougly a twentt precent drop in DEANS support on Move on. That is 54 - 44 = 10
10/ 54 = .1851581 * 100 to get a percentage = 18.5 percent drop in Dean support on MoveOn...

So you view this as a positive move in Deans support?

Reagans cuts in education must have had wose an effect than I thought. Or Deans campaign speeches are causing more brain damage than I could have posssibly imagined.

Now I'm uneducated and brain damaged...

I thought you meant an overall 10% drop in total MoveOn support, sorry I didn't read carefully enough. No need to insult me.

Way to win people over, Nic. Charming.

You are way way too obsessed with Howard Dean.

FOr the same reason I want Bush out.

THey are too politically similar for comfort.

Perhaps thats also why you support Dean...

You just are not reading closely enough.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush, with Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas at his side, on Friday called Israel's security fence in the West Bank a problem that would hamper efforts to build trust.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=3&u=/nm/mideast_usa_dc

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.

Before our expose of the alleged "anti-war" candidate's glaring inconsistencies regarding the Israeli/Palestinian issue and US foreign policy toward Iran, Dean looked like he had a strong chance for a MoveOn endorsement. However, our article, along with others, helped sway potential Dean voters, who began to wonder whether Dean was all that he really claimed to be. Not only does Dean sound hawkish on some foreign policy issues, his positions on the death penalty, welfare "reform," and gun control leave much to be desired.

Yes, Dean was against the invasion of Iraq, but he also leaves the option open for a preemptive strike against Iran. So what gives?

Yes, a lot of progressive see through Deans inconsistancies.

So much that they actively suggested getting online to attempt to keep money out of Deans hands, and endosements away from him.

They show Dean as he is, blowing with the political wind, having no gurts or srance, only stating what he knows a disaffected group wants to hear. Once he has their vote, he can then return to his real self, and follow his reak aagenda, which is seen in his record as governor.

Just went and googled it because this is something that really interests me. Thanks for posting that. Last I heard there are 3 million Muslims in the US and they were a decisive vote for Bush in 2000 because of that machiavellically manipulated, divisive abortion issue. Thank God they're not falling for that nonesense again!

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

6 million last census, approaching 7 million. Muslims now are a larger religious group than those of Jewish faith in the U.S. though not as well organized, but they are feeling out their power. This also does not include those from the Middle East who are Christian, Either Maronite, Syriac, Chaldaic Rite, and they are pretty much as opposed to candidates who are Pro-Israel. THe more Pro-Israel, the less support you can expect the Muslims will give a candidate, That they have targeted Dean specifically is indicative of who they see as the MOST pro-Israeli candidate. Least: Kucinich,Kerry, Sharpton. Kucinich is firmly against giving Israel money without strings. Kerry, wants a level playing field in the negociations, not giving intop Israeli Demonds, not requiring that Terrorist attacks stop in order for negociations to continue(Kerry has stated that the Palestinaian people dwsire for self determinations should not be held hostage to the actions of small radical groups, and that Israel is going to have to stop building new settlemtns and start agreeing to removing those in Palestinian areas.)
Shaprton just opposes ANYTHING that is going to make one group of people second class citizens.

left who don't want Dean to run. A friend emailed me some of this same stuff, and when I checked the source's SOURCES, I found great exaggerations and quotes used completely out of context.

Anyone who wants to know about Dean's foreign policy regarding Isrealis and Palestinians should read his Statement of Principles on the Middle East Peace Process http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_policy_foreign_mideast

You can also read his speech before the Council on Foreign Relations
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_speech_foreign_cfr

And I hope this will put an end to these ridiculous rumors spread by some of the same people who crusaded for Nader and helped to bring on this Chimpy nightmare.

First of all, I don't see much of anything in Dean's position that could not be claimed by the Bush administration. Both support a two-state system, the return of SOME occupied lands, the removal of SOME settlements (neither talk specifics), normalized relations, etc.

More disturbingly, Dean's language is very biased towards Israel.

"To get there, the Palestinian Authority will have to fight terrorism and violence on a consistent basis to create the conditions necessary for a viable peace process. The Israeli government will have to work to improve the living conditions of the Palestinian people and ultimately will have to remove a number of existing settlements."

Dean asks the Palestinians to curb their violence, but asks Israel only to improve Palestinians conditions. Not only does this ignore the the violence perpetrated routinely by the Israeli army, but couches the systematic destruction of Palestinian infrastructure in language that makes Israel seem the paternal care-giver.

"Through it all, the United States will maintain its historic special relationship with the state of Israel, providing a guarantee of its long-term defense and security. And the United States will have to take responsibility with its international partners for helping the Palestinians establish a middle-class democratic society in which women fully participate in economic and political decision-making."

Again, Dean endorses the security of Israel, but seems to parallel that - not with the security of Palestinian state - with female enfranchisement. Which is odd, because in his other speech he says:

"Palestinian women play a more significant role in government than in almost any other Arab society."

I would rather see more specifics, mention of Palestinian security, and - most importantly - a demand for parallel concessions by both sides. In short, Kerry's foreign policy speech.

But by all means, vote for Kerry. He's a good candidate.

He sounds very progressive - until you realize just how much of the story he is leaving out.

I am not suggesting that he is going to join the Likud party anytime soon. I am only saying that the limits to his statements are discouraging, particularly the absence of parallel concessions - which almost every major Palestinian figure says is crucial to the success of the peace process.

Dean, the former Vermont governor, is so inexperienced on defense and foreign relations that before his first trip to Israel in January, he called Hart and said, "Gary, what do I do?" Hart said.

http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:zCrqlBYN-m4J:www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~64~1373786,00.html+%22Gary+Hart%22+%22Howard+Dean%22+%22Israel%22+%22What+do+i+do%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Dean is really a clever politician, adept at conning those who know little about politics or foreign affairs glib, has his campign people out there among the people Dean is trying to con, finding out EXACTLY what they want to hear, and giving it to them.

But this is pretty much what put Bush into the White House. A glob politician, with a very clever campiagn machine who found out the kind of catch phrases that the public wanted to hear, like "Compassionate Consevatism'and ran on it. No one who voted for Bush looked very closely at his record as governor, as no one who supports Dean has looked very closely at Dena record. Or by the time they do, they are so hooked in by Deans fast one liners, that they scramble all over the place trying to justify his continually fighting with democrats, because he wanted to cut services to the blind, or the disables, or the poor, or the elderly, in order to balance the budget in his Rockerfeller Republican way, and the Democrats, had to continually fight him on these issues, while Howard was being applauded by Republicans as finally being the kind of Democrat who had good sense.

Dean supporters live in dread of the time when Deans actual record starts hitting the front pages and the nightly news every day. and many democrats who support him and had NO idea that he supports the brutal Sharon regime, decide that Dean is really not the man for them, and hs support base drains until all there are left are six people on DU.

An American Palestinian College Kid who does not look much into politics and supports Dean now will only need to see that Dean supports the AIPAC position, and it will cost Dean one vote, then one more, then one more.

All Dena has been doing is attacking other candidates. WHen he actually has to give an interview, like the Russert interview, the only people who thing Dean did a good job are those who are not even listening to what he says, but beleive that whatever he says is correct and intelligent, even if he is babbling giberish. Those who have made a career of political analysis stated that Dean made an idiot of himself and showed his complete ignonrance.

"...and hs support base drains until all there are left are six people on DU." But you can be Nic_J will still be there telling them how fearful and misguided they are...

Man, you hate this guy...you are going to implode with your own hatred, dude.

For the same reasons I hate Bush.

They are the same kind of politicians.

and if Dean doesn't win the nom I will work my ass off for Kerry, or Gephardt, or whoever.

But that's just me. :)

(And if Dean wins, Nic_J will spontaneously combust.)

But Dean...

Therw would be little differnce between a Dean presidency and the one we have now. That is obvious from Deans record in Vermont.

He opposed most progressive legislation, and pretty much walked the republican party line as governor of Vermont.

There are few elected democrats in Vermont who will say different.

His actions as governor of Vermont were forvthe most part a mirror of Bush's actions as president.

I have posted dozens of artciels from Veront newpapers that documented the history of his oppposition to almost everythig DEmocrats wanted to pass in Vermont and his going along with most of what Republicans desired.

Supporteing Dean would be pretty much givinig into the Republican ideal.

A winning politician?

Says Nic: "If anyone must bear the most blame for the war, it is Dean".
He said this. Really.

Dean's "a monster" "a petty mediocrity" "a tyrant"...But he's also just an "electronic illusion," popular only with 18-29 year old males, and while he's gaining in all the polls, meetup, etc., he's not gaining at the same rate that he was, so he's about finished now.

That about sums it up, doesn't it?

But stay tuned for 1000s more words about how Dean hates the poor and the disabled and minorities...and maybe more fun reading about how Dean is to blame for the Iraq war!

Split those who were trying to keep the president engaged at the U.N.

and who was it attacking those democrats while they were trying to do so...his name. please?

It doesn't seem to be found anywhere. Are Deanies "scrubbing" the net?

Are the Bushies "scrubbing" for Dean to insure he is their opponent?

Several articles I had bookmarked are disappearing.

Also the google link to the missing Middle East Page on Dean's home page now is mysteriously/suddenly replaced with the link to a page on women's issues so that people can't see the page was yanked.

I've also noticed quite a bit of discontent about the I/P issue on various Dean blogs so we are not alone in feeling this way.

A few months down the road, after he's had time to whip something up, I'd like to dissect it with you (representing Kerry's side) and IG (representing Dean's point). I, of course, get Kucinich! :) Maybe we could make it a web-chat or something.

Hey! Forget to tell you... Guess who's having breakfast with Dennis Thursday morning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yippee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please someone stop him before he opens his trap again!

in some thread today said you didn't like the malicious bashing of candidates, but preferred debates based on facts? Nice comment about Dean you just made, even though it goes against your supposed opinion on another thread about how to argue for your candidate.

Besides, if you read the entire thread, someone already debunked the claim that Dean is for the wall. His I/P policy can be found on his website under the link called "issues".

www.deanforamerica.com

sources other than Dean for America.

The problem is the only place you cna find to DEBUNK Dean stance is his own web site where he tries to correct and edit hisscrew uos after the fact.

Problem is, you wont convince the Muslim Americans who are trying to hamstring his campaign. I wish them the very best of luck.

I recently read an article on Dean for America in which Dean has discovered that the combusion engine is the now the primary mode of transportation in America, and thant might mean we could become dependent on mid-east oil.

YOu may be tired of my posts, but at least the come from different sources. All you guys can do is refer to "DEANFORAMERICA".What an unbiased, non-partisan source.

Now, I'm still in the "undecided camp" myself, but it sure seems like the attacks on Dean picked up when his poll numbers started looking good. And it seems even stranger that some who are new to this board seem to have no other purpose, but to talk shit about Dean.

Freepers or Kerry campaign staff?

Boggles the mind.

For the record, someone who voted for the war, for the Patriot Act, and also happens to be a member of the same satanic freak society (Skull & Bones) which spawned three generations of Bush fascism isn't exactly someone I feel comfortable with. Can any Kerry supporters tell me why I shouldn't be concerned about such things without mentioning how much you hate Howard Dean?

on the US foreign policy agenda.