Dean's comments on Saudi Arabia tonight

[_Jumper_]

He toed the Likud line completely. Given his close ties with AIPAC, can he be an honest broker in the Middle East?

[Zynx]

1. I agree with him on Saudi Arabia.

They are downright hostile to the US. I'm not sure about the Israeli stuff, but we shall see.

[_Jumper_]

2. I agree with him on SA too

However, given his close ties to AIPAC, and the fact that he went out of his way to make a verbatim Likud attack on it tonight, I have serious doubts about his ability to be an honest broker in the Middle East.

[drfemoe]

11. uh ok

I heard him say as long as sa was using their wealth, which comes mostly from US, to fund radical islam terrorists, they could not be considered a "friend".

Is that what you heard? If not, what? If we heard the same thing, are you saying the party in power in Isr**l says the same thing?

Please help me catch up.

btw -
Clark has improved his message delivery skills quantum-fold.

[Cocoa]

3. do Clark and Edwards significantly differ on this?

that would surprise me.

[HFishbine]

4. How

did you view his answer as toeing the Likud line?

[_Jumper_]

6. He sounded like a Likud member

His comments were almost verbatim what Likud makes to attack SA.

[trogdor]

17. So?

Hitler built the Autobahn. Ike was inspired by it and built the Interstate Highway System. Does that mean I have to stay off the Interstate?

[sendero]

18. I'm pretty much...

... against the policies of the Israeli government, and agree with his statement 100%.

What absurd pigeonhole will you put me in?

[HFishbine]

21. I still don't get it.

He said as long as SA continues to fund terrorism, we cannot consider them a friend. Is that what you are saying puts him in step with Likud?

[CWebster]

5. So, what is Clark's position again?

At least Dean appealed for "even handedness" and was attacked for it. Kucinich and Sharpton are probably the only two who can't be tarred completely with this brush.

[Bertrand]

7. all of the main contenders are "pro-israel"

including clark.

[_Jumper_]

8. Are they in bed with AIPAC?

?

[Cocoa]

9. flesh it out

give an excerpt from Dean, and an excerpt from an AIPAC publication.

Then give an alternate view of SA, say, from Clark or Edwards.

[tinnypriv]

10. "Close ties with AIPAC" is almost meaningless

Because it would have virtually no bearing on the policies enacted by a Dean adminstration.

Same goes for Clark or any of the others.

The US policy on the Middle East is barely affected by domestic "pro-Israel" lobby groups - that includes AIPAC.

If you want an "honest broker", you'll have to pressure the US government yourself (along with other like-minded people of course).

Also, there is a question as to whether an "honest broker" is even possible, given that it is unlikely that any US president would be able to substantially sever military ties with Israel (for a multitude of reasons, AIPAC being very low down the list).

[Fleshdancer]

12. I guess it depends on what an "honest broker" means

Everyone has their own bias, especially when it comes to subjects as passionate as the Middle East. If an honest broker is someone who has nothing to gain or lose regardless of the outcome, then no, I don't think Dean or any other American leader can be an honest broker.

I guess the question to ask is who could be an honest broker? The US? The UN? Who? I wish I had the answer to this one, but I'm stumped.

As far as Saudi Arabia goes, it's hard to get past the fact that the majority of 9/11 terrorists were from SA. It's hard to get past the fact that their children are being taught to hate non-Muslims. It's hard to get past the fact that we are so addicted to SA's oil that we are willing to look the other way when they bankroll terrorist activity.

I don't know what makes me angrier...our continued relationship with SA even after 9/11, or the realization that SA has been such a toxic ally for so many years and I'm just finding out about it. Probably the latter because I truly believe nothing will get us killed faster than our own ignorance...something we Americans have way too much of.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

14. Please don't think that

the Wahhabism, the sect of Islam prevelant in Saudi Arabia, is Islam. That would be like saying all Christians were like that fellow who started Jonestown. Saudi Arabia's monetary backing of Wahhabi mosques and their 'gifts' of Wahhabi-translated Qur'ans in this country has, in my opinion, made many in this country misunderstand the truth of Islam.

What we need to do is break our ties with the Saudis and work towards energy independence.

If Dean talked realistically about any of these points, he was telling the US what we need to know.

[Donna Zen]

13. Saudi $$$$ US debt

Two summers ago when the US media was grousing about the Saudis and their terrorists' connections, the Saudis pulled 200-300 billion out of US dollars. And that was just a warning shot. Gold rose and the markets began the worst slide of 2002. When you are a debtor nation it puts you at a disadvantage. Dean has suggested sanctions; what does that mean? Sanction what? Clark said the other night that the Saudis are nearly at a point of civil war, I've heard that from other people too. We do have some leverage with them, because we are in the protection game. I would suggest we push for social and governmental reforms, including encouraging the Saudis to take on some of their more radical sects. Maybe we can promise to lock up Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson in return.

That said, Clark gave one of the best explanations--answers whatever, to the ME etc during a long NPR interview out of Boston. The answer was long, even for Clark, but the subject is complex. He speaks of ways of changing the dynamics in the region which he sees as more messed up than ever before thanks the dimson. (Axis of Evil really screwed the pooch) Also, creating a regional deliberative body made up of Israel, Palestine, the US and their neighbors and perhaps some others. This association would be responsible for developing policy options to solve regional problems, not for adopting those policies. Why? Because "when ever there has been great emnity after the peace some emnity will remain." (Lao Tzu) IOW, the idea of a complete cease fire is unrealistic because of the dynamics of the fight. The group would not be subject to the off again, on again, interruptions that are dictated by the warring factions, but would have made progress when the parties return to the table.

About the Palestinians, he said that they are a people who desire a political goal; however, the forces in control have chosen violence as a means to meet that goal. Of course, this is not a successful strategy, because Israel is militarily more powerful and has a right to defend herself. What must happen is that Palestinians must be offered another way to reach their goal. In a Rolling Stone article he described the Palestinian people as among the most highly educated and least tribal of all the people in the region. He also thinks they are being used by countries like Saudi Arabia. I think he has expressed recently that he has given up on Arafat as a good faith partner, and I suspect he would prefer someone other than Sharon, but that is not the US choice.

He never used the label terrorists when speaking of the Palestinians. Labels are thought traps.

Someone tonight in the debate said that there is one sticking point left in the negotiations. Clark did well to bite his tongue, he has said there are two. I'm not sure where he was during the Clinton peace talks, he may have been in and out, but I would bet he has read every word that has been written. He also describes working on the first N Korean agreement.

I also suspect, although Clark might just blow this speculation off, that he would like to solve ME problem. Very much. Nobel thinking on his part.

[NashVegas]

15. topping

..

[Loonman]

16. $4 Billion for Extreme Wahhabism

Supposedly the budget for Wahhabists to crank out extremists in Saudi.


We bombed the wrong country.

[mrgorth]

19. He didn't sound Likud-ish

He sounded honest. We can't keep doing business with a country that promotes anti-american and anti-semetic (not anti-Likud) thinking.

[Le Taz Hot]

20. Link please?

"Given his close ties with AIPAC. . ." We'll wait.

[Hep]

22. Yes he can

But you don't have to think so.

[Woodstock]

23. I don't get it - he tells the truth therefore his honesty is questioned?

Saudi Arabia is funding Al Qaeda. Fact. The real danger to us is Al Qaeda, not Iraq (or not before Bush bungled Iraq & issued an engraved invitation for terrorists to stop on by.)