Dean Backpedaling on Israel Already

Boy, there's an even handed article.

Besides, it is the same thing Bush the Younger said when he was campaigning.

 

Where exactly in that editorial did Dean "backpedal?"

 

Dean, in effect, equated terrorism with combating it. That's like equating crime with policing, arson with fighting fires. What was he thinking?


I'm sure that Israel is doing (has done) a little bit more than "policing" the Arab terrorist groups.

 

Finding a thoughtful, insightful, even-handed editorial or article about Israel in the NY papers is impossible.

I'm sure it would be the sign of the coming of the messiah if one were spotted

 

Prove it. Your headline and the information you provide are inconsistent.

I find this one more disturbing:

"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I
struck them, and then he instructed me to
strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am
determined to solve the problem in the Middle
East."

I thought Divine Right of Kings was something we left with Old Europe.

Unless they have oil of course (how else to explain our coddling of the Saudi regime?)

The Bush Doctrine has worked fine for the Taliban thank you very much.

 

This was the guy who was supposed to smoke 'em out, who told them to bring it on, and you're going to give him a pass on the most obvious terrorist state not named Iran in the Middle East?

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/073ylkiz.asp

The Weekly Stranded says that Dean is Zelig.

He talked to Cato and he said "Sell Yosemite to the highest bidder and let them paint a Swoosh on Half Dome". Well, sort of.

 

Looking at the Palestinian issue coldly and pragmatically, we have no national interest in supporting Israel. That's a fact, but politicians can never say it.

The are moral grounds for supporting Israel. That's it.

We have a definite national interest in a peaceful Middle East. I doubt, however, that our Israel policy advances that goal.

If we had a "balanced" approach all along, things may have been different, but unfortunately, we and Israel have had a hand in putting ourselves in the current box with Hamas, which has never accepted any peace proposal. No deal can be struck with them.

 

OK, if we're not allowed to use alternative fuels (which seems like a pretty stupid handicap), we tell Congress and this president to get their noses out the asses of the Big 3 and raise CAFE standards. The only reason we give a damn about the Saudis is because of their black gold, and they obviously don't give a damn about us, so we hit them where it hurts.

That's for starters.

 

backpedalled or clarified?

If he changed his mind, say like in terms of nation-building, that would be backpedalling

If he wanted to make sure his views were properly understood, it would be clarifying

Any proof he turned that bike around, or are you speculating?

 

I'm sick of this fantasy that Israel's leadership has always taken the moral high ground and the Palestinian refugees are nothing but terrorist scum who strike for no reason other than bloodlust.

It's a ridiculous over-simplification, and you will find the majority of Israeli citizens don't buy it.

It is entirely possible to condemn terrorism, to refuse to bargain with terrorists, and yet to seek a peaceful solution to this problem which benefits both sides. And, as I emphasized on the Lieberman/Dean thread - we should be clear about who the "sides" are. Should the U.S. take sides between Arafat and Sharon? Maybe, although Sharon is scarcely better the Arafat. Should the U.S. take sides between Israel and the Palestinians? Certainly not; both sides have legitimate complaints and needs which must be addressed if peace is to be acheived.

Obviously this is not a call for the U.S. to support Palestinian (or any other) terrorist organizations. But it is perfectly possible to address the underlying causes of terrorism while still disapproving of terrorism. Anyone who can't reconcile those two agendas is too intellectually stunted to participate in this discussion.

 

Well said Demosthenes.

On the Dean front - I am seeing a new attack by the right which are now rightly scared of the man. They are attempting to take a little shine off the man by labeling him "wishy-washy" and "backpedaling". Interesting strategy - I am seriously curious if it will work. From a political strategy perspective now is the perfect time to do it because Dean can't hit back with the hundred of examples that Bush flip-flopped because he is not yet running against Bush.

If he smacks his own D opponents then he risks internecine warfare!

 

For one thing, Israel would be roughly four times bigger than it is today.

 

The way out is to question the press. Say, "I'm clarifying my stance on this issue, why haven't you questioned the President on his flip-flops/lies on point 1, 2, and 3."

He changes the subject without attacking fellow Democrats, puts the press on the defensive that they won't be able to lable him like they did Gore, and attacks Bush all at the same time.

 

I haven't been following Dean from the beginning, but it seems like this may be his vulnerability. He's hot-headed and doesn't carefully measure his words. Later, when he goes back to clarify, he leaves himself open to those accusations of backpedaling and wishy-washiness.

I can understand that people don't want a leader who expresses himself badly. Okay, clearly that doesn't bother them. But they don't want a leader who often says something other than what he means. Personally, though, I think it's a great quality. It's refreshing to see someone who doesn't (appear to) have a team of speechwriters carefully composing every line based on focus groups and poll results.