Kerry may have some dynamite to throw soon...

[WilliamPitt]

Kerry won't elaborate on missed deal

Says he will say more later on US prewar diplomacy

By Patrick Healy, Globe Staff, 10/22/2003

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/10/22/kerry_wont_elaborate_on_missed_deal_boston_globe/

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Senator John F. Kerry declined to provide specifics yesterday about his televised comment Monday night that French and Russian officials at the United Nations were poised to compromise with the Bush administration on the eve of the Iraq war.

In a brief interview in Manchester yesterday, Kerry said that he believed his information was solid and that he intends to focus on the issue in the coming weeks as he continues to critique President Bush's foreign policy and attempts to distinguish himself from the eight other Democrats running for the White House.

"I have it on the highest authority" that the French and Russians were prepared to make an offer at the UN, but were rebuffed by American officials intent on going to war, Kerry said. "I'm going to talk about it more publicly at a later time."

...more...

[wyldwolf]

1. I started out backing Kerry and switched to Clark...

..but a little voice inside me still whispers ... Kerry... Kerry

[alfredo]

20. Same here bro

Clark would be good in Kerry's administration, so would Gep and Graham.

[Guaranteed]

48. Kerry oughta be careful

not to build it up too much and then anti-climax. He'd better really have something if he's gonna keep it secret.

[Guaranteed]

49. Dupe

Whoops

[blm]

2. Yep....I sensed he was building a bigger case.

Kerry is pretty tight with Kofi Annan, and Teresa Heinz worked at the UN as an interpreter. Their sources should be impeccable. Plus he has Rand Beers, Joe Wilson, Gen. Perry and some disaffected intel community lining up behind him. Should be one helluva case.

[GainesT1958]

3. This may mean...

That among the current-and-former candidates for president, Gen. Clark, John Kerry, and Bob Graham have more "goods" on Dub & Co. about both Iraq and 9/11 than anyone else. Now if all three (Graham still should) will only use them to maximum effect...

B-)

[Octafish]

4. Yeh. Kerry's got the goods on the badministration.

Remember, Bush was so desparate for UN Security Council support, he ordered them bugged.

http://www.ddh.nl/pipermail/wereldcrisis/2003-March/003682.html

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,905936,00.html

[demnan]

5. If Kerry has something to say, he should say it

like a good American and not save it for the most impact it can affect for him during the New Hamshire primary.

[blm]

8. He should use it when he has the ear of many Americans.

BFEE always escapes when people aren't paying attention.

[TLM]

17. So once again Kerry sits on the info he has on Bush...

so he can use it to advance his career.

Kerry's career is far more important to him than telling the nation what he knows so we can use it to stop this idiot in the white house... no Kerry would rather sit by and let Bush really thoroughly fuck us all over, then sweep in after the fact to save us all. He's like one of those mothers who poisons her kids just so she can be the savior and caretaker for their sick child.

Why fight to stop the monster when it will be so much easier for him to advance his career after the monster does his damage.

[WilliamPitt]

19. "Once again"?

Kerry's career right now is beating Bush. That's all of our careers right now. Your bile and accusations of careerisms are misplaced.

[TLM]

43. Will while it may be true that Kerry's careerism at this point

may have benefits that reach beyond him, in terms of getting bush out, that doesn't change the fact that it is what it is... Kerry looking out for Kerry.

Just like his vote for the war, his vote for the patriot act, his vote for the no child left behind act... all the way to his lying about throwing his medals over the Whitehouse fence... everything Kerry does has been a contrived phony show to help advance his political career.

[eileen_d]

47. n/t

*too inflammatory*

[blm]

57. Donald Segretti thanks you for repeating his wellplaced meme

that established Kerry as a phony back in the 70s and increased the impression while Kerry was exposing BCCI, IranContra and CIA drugrunning.

See, that meme sure does benefit those with other agendas.

[LeahMira]

31. Is this fair?

Kerry's career is far more important to him than telling the nation what he knows so we can use it to stop this idiot in the white house...

Maybe he is building the strongest possible case right now.

I think we're pretty much stuck until November, 2004... or more precisely, until January, 2005. Do you think that whatever Kerry has could lead to an impeachment? Would a Republican-controlled Congress even vote to impeach?

I'd rather Kerry wait until he has absolutely all his ducks in a row and there's no way the administration can wiggle out of it or gloss over it. It would be totally cool if whatever he has would be something that even the Republicans would have to be appalled about also.

I'm for giving Kerry time to do whatever "homework" he needs to do. Whatever he has, let's hope it blows the lid off the PNAC and disables them totally.

[TLM]

52. I don't buy it...

Kerry is waiting for the strongest possible boost to his sagging campaign... not what is best for the country.

Kerry is the same guy who investigated his frat brother's family in the 80's... and again he got some great career boosts out of it and then NOTHING happened to the criminals in the BFEE.

We've seen Kerry play this game before... he digs up dirt and puts on a big show, then gets some boost to his career and suddenly it goes away.

I mean there is no excuse for Kerry voting for the war, knowing what he knows about the Bush Family's war mongering and abuse of power. He'd have to either be stupid or complicit.

I'm not going to sit back and hope that Kerry might do what's right this time if I vote for him. Vote for me and THEN I'll dish the dirt I have on W. Sorry nope… been there, done that.

Career Kerry can take his skull & bones ass right back where he came from.

[sangh0]

61. Of course you don't buy that.

You only believe things when you have absolutely no evidence to support it, like your claim that "Kerry is waiting for the strongest possible boost to his sagging campaign... not what is best for the country".

[DrBB]

33. Yes! If only we could find a politician with no ambition

...we'd be all set! Then we'd always win!

Seriously, does anyone else think accusing politicians of seeking to advance their own careers is kinda, y'know, inane?

[eileen_d]

36. Yep

Dean advanced his own career by speaking out against the IWR, but I don't hold it against him.

pre-emptive :spank:

[NewYorkerfromMass]

46. eileen I'm likin' you

:) and my sister has the same lovely Irish name! :thumbsup:

[TLM]

53. There is a big difference between doing what is right...

and having that help your career... and doing whatever you think will advance your career, be it right or wrong.


All signs were that not supporting the war would mean the death of any 04 presidential run... yet Dean still stood up and did what was right and opposed it... while Kerry folded and voted for the war because he thought it would help his career.

Now that Kerry sees that supporting the war HURT his career, he suddenly switched sides and now is against it. The man has no integrity at all, he simply does what he feels will advance his career.

[eileen_d]

62. I don't buy your characterization of Kerry's motives.

And I don't believe Dean is motivated solely by "doing what is right." Dean's got as much career ambition as any other candidate running for president, including Kerry.

I've asked this elsewhere, but got no reply, so you tell me: Who would be the best candidate to get us OUT of Iraq -- Kerry or Dean? Explain to me how Dean's foreign policy credentials are stronger than Kerry's. Better yet, explain to me how criticizing folks who voted for the IWR is going to make a difference AFTER Bush* is out of office.

[TLM]

73. Nice attempt to muddy the waters...

"And I don't believe Dean is motivated solely by "doing what is right." Dean's got as much career ambition as any other candidate running for president, including Kerry. "


As I said the issue is not simply having ambition or acting to advance your career... it is acting to advance your career above and beyond any other purpose. Everything Kerry has done from his first lies about tossing his medals over the whitehouse fence, has been about his career and nothing else.



"I've asked this elsewhere, but got no reply, so you tell me: Who would be the best candidate to get us OUT of Iraq -- Kerry or Dean?"

Dean, no question. Kerry has no cerdibility on the issue, since he voted to let Bush send those troops to Iraq. Dean was against it from the start and has the foundation to act from that position that it was wrong from the start to do this.


" Explain to me how Dean's foreign policy credentials are stronger than Kerry's."

Dean has been to more countries, met more world leaders, than Clinton, Carter, Bush, Bush, or Reagan had when they took office. Dean is also the only one with executive experience. Dean has already laided out a clear plan for ending the occupation of Iraq... also Dean has made the connection between national defense and foreign economic policy, which Kerry attacked. Kerry also attacked Dean for wanting the UN in IRaq before this whole mess.


"Better yet, explain to me how criticizing folks who voted for the IWR is going to make a difference AFTER Bush* is out of office."

WHat's that got to do with the issue at hand? Kerry voted for the war, not he is against it. That flip flop hurts his credibility on the issue and his ability to reverse the policy he once supported.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

78. Lt. Governor of Mass. is executive experience

And chairing the Democratic Steering Committee certainly should count for something.... also I'd say commanding a navy boat with a crew of 6 counts for something too.

[TLM]

82. You are correct.... I forgot he was Lt. Gov.

Although I disagree about the boat and the committee chair... that's not executive experience.

[WilliamPitt]

84. Commanding troops in combat is not executive experience?

[eileen_d]

83. I still don't buy your characterization of Kerry.

You are creating dichotomies that aren't credible to me. So I'll agree to disagree with you on Kerry.

However, I would be interested in some backup citations for ANY of the information in this paragraph (excluding "Dean has executive experience" - yes, I know, Governor of Vermont, ooh, ahh)

Dean has been to more countries, met more world leaders, than Clinton, Carter, Bush, Bush, or Reagan had when they took office... Dean has already laided out a clear plan for ending the occupation of Iraq... also Dean has made the connection between national defense and foreign economic policy, which Kerry attacked. Kerry also attacked Dean for wanting the UN in IRaq before this whole mess.

[sangh0]

63. False dichotomy

Sometimes doing right and helping your career are the very same thing.

All signs were that not supporting the war would mean the death of any 04 presidential run... yet Dean still stood up and did what was right and opposed it

Dean did NOT "oppose the war". Dean only opposed a war that was not supported by the UN. Dean also suggested that we give Saddam a 60 day deadline to comply, and if he didn't, then Dean would have supported an invasion.

[TLM]

79. Same old lies... Dean did oppose the war.

"Dean did NOT "oppose the war". Dean only opposed a war that was not supported by the UN."


Dean opposed the war because there was no proven threat to the US. Dean did support continuing the policy of disarming and containing saddam through the UN... which would not have resulted in war since there are no weapons of mass destruction.


" Dean also suggested that we give Saddam a 60 day deadline to comply, and if he didn't, then Dean would have supported an invasion."

Shanga, please cite the whole quote, including the question to which Dean was responding and you'll see clearly that 60 day deadline comment was in response to a question about under what circumstances Dean would support unilateral action... he laid out all the details, which you ignore over and over to tell this lie, wherein he said that IF we have proof of a threat to the US, and IF we had proof of weapons, and IF the UN refused to act, Dean would support giving Saddam 60 days to destroy the weapons we had proof of, and then IF he did not, Dean would support action to destroy the weapons, but not to invade and take over the country.

[sangh0]

86. Dean support an invasion of Iraq

even if there was no proven threat, if we gave Saddam a 60 day dealine to comply.

that 60 day deadline comment was in response to a question about under what circumstances Dean would support unilateral action

Exactly!! There were circumstances under which Dean would support an invasion, just like Kerry.

he said that IF we have proof of a threat to the US...

Dean has said that Saddam did pose a threat, and that he gave Bush* the "benefit of the doubt" about that.

and IF we had proof of weapons,

And Dean has also said that he believed Saddam had WMD's.

All of Dean's conditions WERE met, and yet you still believe Dean was "anti-war"

[PurityOfEssence]

35. Ya know what? That's just outrageous.

He walks a very fine line, and whether he does so correctly or not, he never deserves half of the derision he gets. Remember, this man is a certified class-traitor (a GOOD thing from an upper-crustacean) of as great a degree as FDR. He's very progressive socially and has been fighting on the hard issues for years, not going for the easy way out.

This is bigger than he is, and I think he knows that. Regardless what he does, there will be many around to slag him for not having done it earlier, doing it in the way he does, not having held off 'til later, and every other version of "ug, Kerry bad."

You obviously don't trust the man. I do. I think he's earned our trust as a decent person, and he's in one of the most uncomfortable positions of any of the candidates.

The bottom line is that you don't know what he knows, how hard he's trying to verify it and what else is involved. At least he's not like Dean, constantly slinging false accusations and screaming like a stuck pig when caught being incorrect or deliberately deceptive; it sounds like he's trying to get the story straight. Of couse, many Deanies will fulminate that he has privileged inside information from being in government, even though the essence of their guy's campaign is that of being blessed by being an outsider.

What do you suggest for him to do? Should he have a little confab this weekend at some hotel with all of the other candidates and divulge everything he knows and seek a united approach? Would that make you happy? What if elements of this come through secret information that he's required by law to be quiet about? Would it be enough for him to say what he CAN say? In a simplistic world, he's at least courageous enough to have a qualified approach; for this, he's dismissed as a waffler and liar.

The people who accuse others of playing politics the most are generally the ones who do it the most. I'm not going to be passive-aggressive about this; I'm talking about you.

[Guaranteed]

41. You're right about all that

but if he's got something, out with it. This keeping secrets stuff isn't right.

[blm]

42. *bowing*

with full reverence.

[TLM]

59. Listen if he has info on Bush and is sitting on it...

that makes him an accessory. Every soldier who dies while Kerry sits on his info and uses it to leverage his career, is a soldier who dies because Kerry, out of self interest, did not divulge the info he has that would stop or at least contribute to stopping Bush.


No I do not trust Kerry. His whole career was born of a lie, where he pretended to throw his medals over the Whitehouse fence and let all those vets believe he did, so he could catapult himself into politics. It was a lie, and as soon as being a war hero became more advantageous to his career than being an anti-war protester… suddenly his fucking medals show up on the wall of his congressional office.


Kerry is a fraud of the highest order, always has been.

If he has dirt of Bush, proof of crimes or actions that put our troops at undue risk, why hasn’t Kerry filed articles of impeachment? Oh or is he saving that until 04 too?

[ModerateMiddle]

92. This is simply ridiculous

If there was ANYTHING that John Kerry could do that would help protect our young men and women in Iraq, I have absolutely NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that he would immediately do it.

You are assuming that whatever information he has could STOP this insanity in Iraq?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

93. ahhhhhhh (throws up hands)... you are talking about

the real world. Some refuse to recognize it.

[trogdor]

74. Not at all.

It's just no use coming out with it when no one's listening.

[ModerateMiddle]

91. Not only that, but he might have to

get clarification about what he can and can't actually put right out there.

[WilliamPitt]

10. Saving it for maximum impact against Bush

makes him a good American. Saying it now means it gets buried in the campaign news that no one but us is paying attention to. Saying it in NH means saying it into a massive microphone for maximum effect.

[TLM]

64. Sorry will but saying it now is the only thing to do...

Saying it now gives it a legit standing and a chance for the other candidates to take up the fight as well.

Kerry is sitting on something to fire off at the last minute like the drunk driving dirt... it will be dismissed as a dirty campaign trick.

Kerry needs to come out with all infor he has and let other add what they know so we can build a full robust case against Bush openly and honesty to stop bush, not simply to advance one man's career.

[sangh0]

69. LOL! It's the only thing to do?

The fact that Kerry is NOT saying it now PROVES there are other things that can be done, like saying it LATER. It's obvious that your emotional over-reaction to Kerry has blinded you to the simple reality that there is never an "only thing to do"

[sangh0]

12. I prefer

that he says it when it would have the most impact on Bush* and the Repukes.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

14. I prefer he use it to become President

and hence impact upon the repukes 24/7

[phillybri]

6. I always suspected he would have an Ace in the hole....

We'll see....

[diplomats]

15. Yes, I can't wait to hear what it is

BTW, hello from one Eagles fan to another!

[Sagan]

7. Go for it, Kerry!

As far as I'm concerned, the Democratic Primaries should be a contest to determine who can slam Chimpy the best.

Anyone But Bush!

[sistersofmercy]

9. Can't wait to know what it is! Go Kerry!

Perhaps the day bush* arrives back to US soil would opportune timing to reveal the info or the day before.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[AWD]

I would disagree there

I think Kucinich can deal with right-wing thugs better.

But that's beside the point. Let's see what Kerry's got. I love this kind of tension. Here's hoping it's HUGE!

Go get 'em Kerry. Bring 'em down!

[eileen_d]

13. Looking forward to hearing this

Kerry: Say it loud and often.

[THUNDER HANDS]

16. Yay!

I always knew I had good instincts. I should have never wavered in my support for Kerry.

Go John!

:bounce:

[annxburns]

18. Go Kerry ....

I'm still deciding between Kerry, Edwards and Clark. Frankly any combination Kerry/Clark Clark/Edwards Edwards/Kerry etc would make me happy. I will be watching this closely. Kerry and Clark have the background and personal valor to make things really rough for Chimpy ... I will be cheering every time they nail his AWOL a**

[mikehiggins]

22. Senator Kerry

should stay off airplanes for the time being.

[candy331]

67. If 70% of the

people still believe that Iraq had something to do with 911 and Arnold was put in office by people who refused to believe or either didn't care what he did then Kerry's information may very well back fire on him. What makes him think that that the public will believe or care about the information? I say if he does have information it had better be something that the media and Repugs cannot spin nor downplay, something that will cross party lines. I would hope that this is information that he recently got hold of because if he has had it and sat on it he more likely will become the target rather than Bush. If he waits to the last minute to release this information it may not just kill his chances but bring further harm to the Dem party as a whole.

[JNelson6563]

21. I hope there is no pre-announcement

or anything. Don't want to give the BFEE even a moment notice so they can create diversions.

Julie

[revcarol]

23. This is sooooo sick. I am disgusted at Kerry's behavior.

To release this info when it would have maximum impact on his candidacy instead of caring for the good of the country...shows his true stripes. So flame me.And tell me I am just not politically savvy enough.

Kerry would get my DLC-enabling vote in November, but not my money and not my campaigning energy or support.

[WilliamPitt]

24. You're not politically savvy enough

:)

Seriously, if he says it now - so early in the season when no one but us is paying attention - it will disappear before you can say boo. Saying it into a bigger microphone later on (in NH, for example) will have a greater impact, which is nothing but a good thing.

Having information is one thing. Best deciding how to use it is another.

(p.s. I was kidding about the politically savvy enough thing, btw)

[THUNDER HANDS]

26. Will, question

How much other stuff is out there waiting in the briefcase of some Dem staffer?

Do you think we're gonna see a deluge of bad info coming out about Bush as we get closer to the election?

I mean, there has to be stuff on Bush that we don't know, but Dem moles do.

Right?

[WilliamPitt]

32. I have heard rumblings

from people I cannot quote about movements I am not at liberty to disclose.

In other words, yeah, there's a lot more out there.

[blm]

54. That's what I thought when I read the BBC report

last month that said more intels were following Joe Wilson and lining up behind Kerry.

[MUAD_DIB]

28. Regardless of which Democratic candidate

drops the bomb on the Chimpster they're still going to have to deal with the fair and balanced media.

Since the majority of them appear to be up the Chimp's butt do you think that they would directly give * any bad press?

Mabey they would give it up a little, but then there is always Kobe or and orange alert to fall back on.


Whatever it is I hope that it is big.

[HFishbine]

51. Or

It's bad enough now that charges against Bush are labled as "pure politics." Wait until things are hot and heavy in NH and the "pure politics" accusation will not only be stickier. A later announcement will also compete with the increased volume of all the other campaign rhetoric. Oh yeah, it will probably also draw the charge that Kerry new about this for a while, but chose to sit on it for maximium political beneifit, further bolstering the "pure politics" charge.

Sit and wait or speak sooner rather than later, I'll listen either way. But it's a weak argument to suggest that it will have greater impact later. Thoughtful examination of the possibilities susggests otherwise.

[revcarol]

55. So much more eloquent than I.

He lays his information so much more open to the charge of "just politics."

Any time Kerry wants it, he gets the national stage. So why delay? And, if this was solid information, why not use it BEFORE we went to war.Sniffs the air...

[CWebster]

25. At Bush or his fellow candidates?

But really, this is typical of Kerry, always the political expedient position over the right thing. Sort of nullifies that ends justifies the means argument by sheer demonstration that the means are in themselves lacking in ethical merit. Why would rewarding unethical or calculated means indicate a necessarily ethical result?

[blm]

27. When Kerry turned over his work in the past, the ball was dropped.

The American people never really understood the full impact of the material gathered, weren't paying attention, and the issues that arose were essentially disappeared along with the media focus.The BFEE was able to move on.


Kerry will make the case HIMSELF when the American people are listening.

[CWebster]

29. Ha!

Kerry has been in the Senate for years. Had he cared enought to put forth the effort he could've built a case. It isn't like he lacks resources or connections.

[sangh0]

34. Moronic

Seeing as how the invasion of Iraq is still not even a year old, I strongly doubt that Kerry has been building this case "for years"

[CWebster]

38. sangha, don't you have anything but negative attention tactics?

I don't use ignore and I don't alert but I am tempted to do both. After this post I will generally ignore you---so don't bother.

It was my understanding that the poster I was responding to was referring to the Iran-Contra hearings, not Iraq in that instance. That is the second time today that you went out of your way to attack based on a misinterpretation on your part.

[sangh0]

40. CWebster. the post you were responding to

referred to Kerry's Iran-Contra investigation to show that just releasing info and calling for trials is not always successful. Pointing out that years have passed since then in which Kerry did not pursue these investigations only shows that the person saying that has forgotten that the people who perpetrated the crimes have since been pardoned. I didn't think you were so ignorant, so I assumed (wrongly it appears) that you were talking about the Iraqi invasion.

[blm]

45. He used what he knew to build a case and write a book in 97

about the threat of terrorism and its fundings through covert ventures established by governments around the world.

But...who cares? You don't.

[CWebster]

60. Oh like Muslim charities?

Muslims are required by their religion to contribute to charities--it is one of the "five pillars" so I think all this targeting of Muslim charities is on the same level of the sanctions and "bombing them back to the stone age". I don't respect Kerry's hawkish support of Israel, his blabbering about terrorist threats and his claims about Saddam not allowing the inspectors in. All his bull to curry favor with what he, or his DLC advisors, perceive as the mainstream view. And we know how often their record is wrong.

The DlC moderated their views on guns after attacking Dean for his positions. Dean came by his position because it was intelligent and practical not because it was poll tested. The DlC, on the other hand, bases all of its policy on what they follow, they never set the trend to turn the tide, they follow. That is why they are not fit to be advisors in powerful leadership positions, when our party needs strenth and leadership. And these are the people Kerry heeds?


Speaking of breaking news, the major story on the BBC this morning was the UN had voted against Israel's security fence, with 4 dissenting votes--the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Israel and the US.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1022-02.htm


Kerry complains that Dean would take a more "even-handed" approach, while spouting platitudes about how we have to invite greater UN participation and unilateral diplomacy?

[blm]

65. That has NOTHING to do with the thread or my post.

BUT...since you want to go there.... Dean has backed off his "evenhanded" statement. Get current with your candidate. He met with a Jewish group recently and bemoaned his mistake. He reassured them he was on the same page.

Deal with the truth about your candidate and not the fantasy you choose to believe.

>>>>>
Before his first major meeting with American Jewish communal leaders, presidential hopeful Howard Dean ducked into a Manhattan sukkah to shake hands with local children and admire the homemade rings of construction paper they had draped across the outdoor hut.

Later Friday afternoon, however, at a meeting at the Lincoln Square Synagogue, it took more than a photo-op and some handshaking to placate 26 representatives of Jewish groups.

A former Vermont governor, Dean had vexed many members of the Jewish community last month when he recommended that the United States take a more “evenhanded” approach to brokering Israeli-Palestinian peace — a phrase generally taken to mean that the United States should not take Israel’s side.

Dean backers say the comment was distorted by his opponents.
Asked about his remarks during the closed-door meeting, Dean “covered his face with his two hands and shook his face as if to say ‘Oy, what a mistake that was,’ ” said David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee.

According to Harris, Dean said, “Israel is not just an ally, but a beacon of hope for people who were abandoned 2,000 years ago and who are afraid of being abandoned again. I will not abandon Israel, ever.”
cut
>>>>>
http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=13346&intcategoryid=3
==================

[CWebster]

75. yeah, I saw that

from the jewish press, but I also saw that he got the most cheers from the Arab-Americans. At least it is across the board.

[blm]

77. Because he says what he THINKS they want to hear.

Savvy politician, eh?

Principled?

[CWebster]

81. Evenhanded?

[DrFunkenstein]

96. Dean Is As "Evenhanded" As A Slot Machine

First of all, Dean supported the Separation Wall. And...

Dean traveled to Israel on a trip sponsored by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). After meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Dean stated: “I do not think that as long as Yasser Arafat is president there will be peace." Before leaving, Sharon asked if Dean would support requests for new loan guarantees to Israel. Dean “promised him he would.”

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

Last December, Dean told the Jerusalem Post that he unequivocally supported $8 Billion in US loan guarantees for Israel. "I believe that by providing Israel with the loan guarantees...the US will be advancing its own interest," he said. His unconditional support for the loan package, in addition to $4 Billion in outright grants, went further than even some of the most pro-Israel elements in the Bush administration, like Paul Wolfowitz, who wanted to at least include some vague restrictions like pushing Israel to curtail new settlements and accept a timetable to establish a Palestinian state.

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

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

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

And, finally, Dean's foreign policy speech at Drake. Note how one-sided it is.

When they have bothered to state them, the Administration's guiding principles in the Middle East are the right ones. Terrorism against Israel must end. A two-state solution is the only path to eventual peace, but Palestinian territory cannot have the capability of being used as a platform for attacking Israel. Some degree of separation between Israelis and Palestinians is probably necessary in light of the horrible bloodshed of the past two years. To be viable, the Palestinian Authority must become democratic and purged of corruption.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_speech_foreign_drake

Now let's compare to Kerry's foreign policy speech at Georgetown:

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/news/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

[blm]

99. I consider Sharon an extremist

and know that the Mideast peace process would have progressed further if he had not gotten into office.

[mike_c]

30. watch how quickly this sinks into the black hole of media death...

...if Kerry actually lights the fuse. Can you say "short attention span?" I know you can. Now let's get back to Kobe Bryant, and the news that matters....

[RevolutionStartsNow]

37. This is big news and can't wait to hear it, but

remember that the FOX News viewers (the most uninformed) care less about France and Russia and will cheer our Pres. for rebuffing them. D

[Paulie]

39. The only case I want to hear from him...

...is something that is so damaging that we can get it taken to he House in a bill of impeachment. Nothing less will make me happy...

Building up suspense just to have the story die is going to turn people off. Lets have it out, lets get this guy removed NOW.

[Cocoa]

71. there's already enough of a case for a Bush impeachment

if his lie about Niger wasn't enough for the Republicans, nothing will be.

I agree with Sen. Graham, that talk of impeachment is an academic exercise. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be discussing it, but realistically, we should be looking to 2004 to replace Bush through the election.

[MuseRider]

44. I say

go for it JK! Take the time you need to buid the case and shout it out when the most people will hear it. Drip, drip is building so if he waits until he can use the info when it will matter the most to the most people then I say good for him.

[CWebster]

50. Unfortunately

because I've been given advance notice that Kerry is sitting on something of astronomical importance, but seeks to use it only to futher his own personal interests--it only serves to color Kerry as an opportunist.

[MuseRider]

56. I am not so sure about that.

It may be but that is the name of the game. Not that I like that. I will be content to hold judgement until we hear it. It may be that he is getting his ducks in order so that there is no way to spin their way out of it. I will wait and see. These days it is dangerous to release info before it is completely gathered and supported and to release it when no one cares would be stupid.

[Sideways]

66. Good Gawd & No Shit Didn't You Know That Politicians Are Opportunists?

I'm sure that fall off the turnip truck must have hurt.

[CWebster]

76. Well yeah

but do I have to join the love fest to transform it into a holy thing?

Geees Mary, ;-)

[Sideways]

85. No My Friend You Don't

Love fests over the holy grail is not obligatory but shithowdy all politicians beat their drum when they have an opportunity.

Do I like it or think that it is cool? Not really but that is politics.

Let us just see what riff Kerry is going to "drum" up.

Bada Bing Bada Boom.

[blm]

80. Success is based on opportunity, not perfection.

You want everything to square perfectly to your standards, but, life isn't like that.

There are known obstacles that Kerry must deal with to make the BEST case he can, not the perfect one for you.

[Duder]

58. What prewar diplomacy?

I don't see where it's "dynamite" to discover that Bush is/was no diplomat.

[charlie]

68. Yeah, me too

Nor can I see this nation of schlubs caring if the French and Russians made a proposal that might've averted war.

[TheDonkey]

70. This would be priceless for Kerry to lay it on Bush during a pres debate!

Think of the press and attention that his claims would get if he announced it when so many voters were obviously gawking at a TV screen other than now where all the Democrats are being ignored.

If Kerry does not make it to the nomination then I expect he will give out his case against Bush to help boost the nominee at that time.

[Unknown Known]

72. Regardless of the politics, I do believe there is something afoot

Too many things happening lately -

- Poppy & Babs out on the cheerleading circuit
- Poppy resigning from Carlyle
- Poppy giving an award to Kennedy
- The release of the Nazi/Bush story
- Tony Blair's turn to the EU
- The release of the Diana story
- Rummy's memo

And I'm not even including all the negative stories about Iraq. All these stories have been dripping out in just the last week.

Not a good news week for the establishment.

[grasswire]

87. timing is tricky

On the one hand, you don't want to give the sucker enough time to recover.

On the other hand, remember what Californians said about the accusations against Arnold -- they were rejected because they came late in the campaign.

[Larkspur]

88. Whoopdidoo. Of course the Russians and French made offers to the US

before the war and were rejected by Bush.

It ain't news no longer, Kerry. We all know that Bush and Cheney wanted Iraq's oil reserves for Haliburton, not Russian and French companies. Oil for blood was what this war was all about, not freedom for Iraqis from our former stooge, Saddam Hussein.

[kentuck]

98. By then, we had already renamed our french fries, "freedom fries"...

:)

[blm]

89. Those Dems with a political agenda to neutralize Kerry better be warned

not to go around feeding the false perceptions and pretending he can't be trusted. Work against Kerry to try to discredit him, and you are working against his whole team who have been building that case with him: Beers, Wilson, Hart, Perry, and those in the military and intel community following their lead.

[ModerateMiddle]

90. TNR has something to say about this statement of Kerry's

and it's not very flattering. In fact, they gave him an "F" for "Intellectual Honesty". The author of the piece insists that Kerry is "lying" and calls him a liar.

I am willing to wait for Kerry to clarify.

http://www.tnr.com/primary/index.mhtml?pid=887

[Fabio]

94. That's horrible journalism

Lawrence Kaplan will feel stupid. Does it not make any sense to anyone in journalism that Kerry might not have been at liberty to cite his source without getting approval from the individual first?

The most disappointing thing about this election cycle has been the press ...process, silly stories and puff pieces. F@#k policy.

[blm]

95. TNRs publisher is a big prowar guy isn't he?

I believe he shares Lieberman's passion for the war.

[DrFunkenstein]

97. I Think He Has Said This Before

But no one paid attention.

[KittyWampus]

100. If Dynamite Explodes In A Forest

and noone hears it, does it make a sound? :think: