Kerry bows to neocons and completely abandons Clinton's peace plan!

[Classical_Liberal]

“For the entire 20 years that I have been in the United States Senate, I’m proud that my commitment to a secure Jewish state has been unwavering; not even by one vote or one letter or one resolution has it wavered,” Kerry said to the applause of the ADL audience. “As president, I can guarantee you that that support and that effort for our ally, a vibrant democracy, will continue.

“I’m very sensitive to the pushback that came from overly aggressive presidents who tried to just advance the title” of a peace process, “without the substance,There’s always been a feeling of concessions driven without a return on it. I will never voice a concession that somehow puts Israel’s judgment of its security at risk.” He praised Clinton for his efforts as an “honest broker” between Israelis and Palestinians, but acknowledged, “Some people, obviously there are a few people, who felt he pushed too hard.”

Clinton pressed Israel into offering unexpectedly large concessions at the Camp David summit in 2000.

Kerry also said his belief in a multilateral approach to foreign affairs did not apply to Israel.

http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=14047&intcategoryi...

[Jim Sagle]

1. Yessssssssssss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Classical_Liberal]

3. why not just vote for Bush if you like his policies

neocons are repukes.

[Jim Sagle]

32. I'm a Democrat. I support Kerry. Any other questions?

[Classical_Liberal]

35. Did you support Clinton, the one Kerry betrayed?

?

[Jim Sagle]

41. Yes. But Kerry didn't betray him. He only disagreed with him. So do I.

If you don't like it, tough.

[Classical_Liberal]

44. If you don't like that I am complaining tough

. I think it is a repuke strategy..

[Jim Sagle]

60. I couldn't care less, actually.

[madeuplikebowie]

2. Dupe

nt

[Sinistrous]

4. I have noticed that when most folks call a "dupe"

they provide a link to the earlier thread on the same subject.

Would you like to try?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[togiak]

6. Conservatives has defined the national agenda for years to come

Unfortunately the ne-cons have defined our national agenda for years to come.

Any program that Kerry wants to implement for this country will be limited by the fiscal mess that we are in. The Bush tax cuts will be an issue for years to come. We will be stuck in Iraq for years and Kerry will have to spend a great deal of time rebuilding our image overseas.

And most unfortunately, Kerry is not going to push hard to reverse the new police state powers that the government has accumulated Though, ironically, I bet the Republican congress will push hard to reverse the powers that the presidency has accumulated under Bush. Well, as long as there's a democratic president.

[Classical_Liberal]

7. He's not going to rebuild america's image by licking Sharon's butt

.

[still_one]

12. The only way that agenda will be defined is if Kerry loses

[Classical_Liberal]

15. and if Kerry defines it the same way as Bush then that

is Bush defining the agenda from Kerry's mouth.

[still_one]

8. I heard Kerry's speech before the anti-defamation league

and that is NOT the impression I received. Kerry strongly stated that bush ignored the Israelli/Palestiain situation, and he will actively pursue it, unlike the current administration.

Before 9/11 bush ignored everything. He did not continue where Clinton left off with the peace negotiations. Thanks to the dedicated work of Nader, the situation in Israel is now further apart than ever. We diverted resources from Afganistan to Iraq, which destroyed our war on terrorism.

What do you expect Kerry to say to the ADL? The Christian right and neo-cons have been trying to obtain Jewish support through fear and intimidation.

As far as your critisism of his statement, look what happened, Barrak offered 90% to Arafat, and he created the Infatadia, violated the agreement that the Palestinian schools would not teach hate, and did nothing about continued attacks on civillians in Israel. Arafat said one thing to the western press, and preached hate and insurection to the Palestinians. It was the reason Sharon won, and the radicalism took over in Israel.

There is still hope, but not if bush gets in. Kerry will restart negotiations, and it probably will be between Arafat and whoever is in the Israelli leadship, but if bush wins, I almost guarentee that it will get worse

[Classical_Liberal]

9. Clinton won most Jews

He deosn't have to tell Jews that Clinton fucked up to win. I don't want Jewish neoconservatives. They are going for Bush no matter what. Also what we lose in terms of Jews we pick up from Arabs. I am not voting Nader. I will get drunk and vote for the lessor evil. But I will protest this policy and encourage the Europeans to give Kerry no honeymoon. The christian right aren't using fear and intimidation. They are supporting Sharon which get's prosharon voters. I don't care about them.


Barak didn't offer 90% of the land. That is just Barak spin.

http://www.gush-shalom.org/generous/generous.html

Kerry said specifically in the speech he wants "Arafat sidelined." So he will not negotiate with Arafat. He specifically intends to keep up Bush's policies.

[still_one]

10. He NEVER said "Clinton Fucked Up"

that is how you are interpreting it. You seem to have such hate and disdain for Israel, without recognizing the fact that there is plenty of blame to go around.

The neocons love the segment of the Democratic party that constantly bashes any support for Israel. It divides the party, and is not a winning issue

[Classical_Liberal]

13. I hate Sharon with good reason. I don't hate Israel I do hate settlements

because they are land theft. He said he will persue Bush's policy and not Clintons. Who fucking cares what the neocons think.

[still_one]

11. Incidently, Kerry will win most Jews also, but in addition

he is going to win the Arab vote also.

[Classical_Liberal]

14. I think most of them will go for nader or Bush now that he has said

he will persue Bush's policy in Israel. They would be republican on most issues but Israel. If you don't make Sharon negotiate I doubt they will vote for Kerry.

[still_one]

18. You are incorrect.

you did not read what Kerry said between the lines. Yes, he was not as blatant as you would like, but look at his record, his policies will be more like Clinton's than Bush.

In the support of Bush's policy that you reference, Kerry said with no ambiguity, that he would insure that negotiations resume, and not ignore Israel and the Palestinians like bush did...

If you want "in your face" talk from Kerry, then he will end up like Dean. The most important thing is that he gets in. I know a fair negotiated settlement will be possible then.

This is not to take anything away from Dean, he was necessary to bring the passion and unity back to the party, but the press destroyed him. Kerry has to tread carefully, because the mainstream media is doing everything they can to slur him. bush gets a free pass

[Classical_Liberal]

20. He will end up like Dean if he simply says he will persue

Clinton's peace plan. Bulloney!

Kerry to ADL: “I’m very sensitive to the pushback that came from overly aggressive presidents who tried to just advance the title” of a peace process, “without the substance,” Kerry told JTA. “There’s always been a feeling of concessions driven without a return on it. I will never voice a concession that somehow puts Israel’s judgment of its security at risk.”

The only president Kerry cited specifically was President Clinton. He praised Clinton for his efforts as an “honest broker” between Israelis and Palestinians, but acknowledged, “Some people, obviously there are a few people, who felt he pushed too hard.”

Clinton pressed Israel into offering unexpectedly large concessions at the Camp David summit in 2000.

Kerry also said his belief in a multilateral approach to foreign affairs did not apply to Israel.

“The multilateral community has always been very difficult with respect to Israel, and we have always stood up against their efforts to isolate Israel,” he said.

Kerry said his criticism of what he calls the Bush administration’s unilateralism has to do with the administration of Iraq, environmental issues and containment of North Korea.

“None of that changes my record being wary” of “the way the U.N. has been used as a sort of battering ram with respect to Israel,” Kerry said.

He also backed off an earlier commitment to send a presidential envoy to the region. The people he proposed — Clinton, President Carter or former Secretary of State James Baker — angered some supporters of Israel.

Kerry also agreed with the policy of isolating Arafat, whom Israel and the Bush administration accuse of ties to terrorism.

“He’s where he appropriately belongs now, which is on the sidelines,” Kerry said.

Sorry it looks like he saying he will stay the coarse on Israel.

[Terry_M]

25. Telling People to Read Between the Lines

Sounds like Kerry's gonna excite lots of people to go to the polls... See, this allows the media to keep attacking him for not having a message, since it's "between the lines".

[MAlibdem]

71. Bush is polling better with Jews now then in 2000

like 15% higher according to The New Republic.

Other than the I/P Conflict, Jews cannot be swayed from the Democratic vote (in the 80% range). If Kerry can co-opt Bush's position in this area, Jewish support will stay 80%.

The Jewish vote is important in the swing states Florida, PA, and Ohio.

[RafterMan]

16. First of all

the "90%" offered by Barak wasn't all in one place, and second, intefadah II also followed *years* of broken Oslo agreements by Netanyahu -- you seem eager to explain away Israeli radicalism, while chalking the same in Palestinians up to malignant leadership.

Thus, what I'd hope he would say to the ADL is the same thing I'd hope he'd say to Americans -- aggressive policies designed to make us more safe often make us less so. Bush and Sharon have made the same fundamental error. If Kerry can't see it in Sharon, does he grasp the magnitude of Bush's folly?

I hope so.

[still_one]

19. It was a starting point

[IndianaGreen]

64. Who will Kerry negotiate with?

He already parroted the Likud line of Israel needing a reliable partner for peace, and Kerry had already said that Arafat was not that partner.

The only suitable partner for Israel would be a Palestinian version of Chalabi, a puppet that they can control and that will accept the Likud land grab in the West Bank.

We are doomed!

[gate of the sun]

17. I'm glad Kerry is proud.

but classical liberal I'm with you on this one. Guess I'm the only one or the only one willing to get in on it.I don't think much of kerry's stance in regards to Israel. Look at today's new's...latest breaking with sharon surrounding Arafat's compound. I don't want to be associated with sharon's bullying of the Palestinians for his own gain. I'm sick of it. The Israeli's are wrong and cause there own problems in regards to suicide bombers. Quit stealing their land and killing their people!

We say we are in a "war against terrorism" yet we act like terrorist with big guns and support the terrorist in Israel. They get to do what ever they want. Only the Palestinians are considered terrorists.

I'm sick of the doubletalk and the bullshit war in Iraq. I'm sick of Kerry sounding like bush. I know , I know, just wait until he wins and then he'll act like a leader. I'm sick of that too.

Too many people are dying to further the cause of the bad guys and they are continually defended. As somehow our righteous ideology clears them and us of the crimes of murder.

Read the latest ADBUSTER's we are the enemy.

[still_one]

21. Doesn't matter to me

If bush wins this time it will be at least 10 years before the Democrats even have a chance for a comeback, and they will deserve it.

[Classical_Liberal]

22. They don't want to win.

.

[still_one]

23. You have no idea, and Kerry will win.

[Classical_Liberal]

24. Not because of himself.

. Either way if Kerry is being truthful we get Paul Wolfowitz's foriegn policy.

[still_one]

26. How do you account for

Carter and Clinton's endorsement.

Here is what Kerry has said:

Forging a stable and lasting peace in the Middle East is vital to American national security, to the security of Israel and other countries in the region, and to the aspirations of the Palestinian people for a viable Palestinian state. It is also an essential part of winning the war on terror. Ignoring or downplaying the conflict, as the Bush Administration did for far too long, is a dangerous game.

From his many trips to the region, John Kerry knows that a majority of Israelis and Palestinians want peace and that Israelis expect there will be a Palestinian state. Energetic American leadership is essential to helping them achieve that peace because the United States is the one country with the ability to work with all the parties to facilitate a necessary and meaningful dialogue. John Kerry sees the Bush Administration's road map - albeit long overdue - as an acceptable approach for reinvigorating the peace process. But it will only be viable if U.S. engagement in this process is active, constant, and at the highest levels. The United States cannot walk away or lessen its commitment to this process when violence erupts and the going gets rough. Failure to remain actively engaged will lead to further difficulties down the road and set the prospects for peace farther back. John Kerry believes we must work actively to encourage an end to the violence and to help the parties take the steps outlined by the road map - which both Israelis and Palestinians find difficult. And we must be realistic about what they can and cannot accomplish.

[Classical_Liberal]

27. I think that was before the last week

besides they don't have a choice, they are dems. Kerry hoodwinked all of us if he is telling the truth. If we believe him he is not going to change Bush's foreign policy. We have to put pressure on him through the UN and European leaders he claims he will have better relations with. I am planning for him to keep his word on foreign policy. I am not putting away my protest signs.

[still_one]

29. I respectively disagree with you

Kerry speaks of international involvement, and active engagement. He is for the "road map" which Clinton started, and both Israelis and Palestinians are finding difficult.

In the history of politics, the pugs appeal to their conservative base, and the democrats appeal to their liberl base in the primaries.

After the primaries, both candidates move to the center. You may not like it but that is the way the game is played.

If you truely believe Kerry is a flake, don't vote for him. As far as I am concerned, and looking back on his voting record, I will vote for him.

Good discussion...

Regards

[Classical_Liberal]

31. His voting record on this issue isn't very good either

He voted for the Syria accountability act. I have no choice but to vote for him, because I am prochoice. I feel snowed by the neocons though and will not give him any honeymoon. It is pretty clear the hysteria about Dean was from the neocons though. I hate that we have two prowar candidates.

[still_one]

34. Kerry is not a neocon

If Kerry wins, and it turns out that you are right, I will not be voting again

[Classical_Liberal]

36. His foreign policy is no different

He wanted invasion. Believed in weapons of mass destruction, and is supporting Sharon's plan to destroy the two state solution. IF you give Sharon settlements with no compensation to Palestinians of equal value their can't be two states. I hope you are right and he is just lying his ass off to get neocon votes. If he thinks he can get those votes his judgement is seriously flawed.

[still_one]

40. My response

The invasion was based on a lie. I did not believe it, and a few in Congress did not believe it, but now it is quite evident there are no weapons of mass destruction.

As far as your second point, I do not support Sharon's plan, I believe in a two state solution, and I believe Kerry does. Hopefully, we will get a chance to find out.

One thing I am fairly certain of, if bush wins, we will be involved in more pre-emptive wars

[Classical_Liberal]

42. Kerry could easily assure me that he supports two states

by supporting Clinton. By not offering to sideline Arafat. By saying Israeli negotiations are also multilateral. He did the opposite. So I'm pissed and will be till he breaks his promises.

[still_one]

45. understood...

[Terry_M]

48. I didn't believe it because zero evidence was presented to me

Makes me wonder what evidence convinced others... Unless of course they didn't need the presence of WMD to be convinced.

[IndianaGreen]

67. Kerry is a PPI imperialist

which is the flip side to a PNAC neocon.

PNAC is raw imperialism. PPI is sugar-coated imperialism. They are both imperialism!

[IndianaGreen]

66. The Road Map is dead!

It was killed by Bush's endorsement of the Sharon plan (which Kerry also endorsed).

The US is finished in the Middle East!

[RafterMan]

28. The problem is

you can negotiate to the end of time, but if you've already caved in on the simple issue of naming a presidential envoy, you're not going to get anywhere.

[still_one]

30. What presidential envoy are you refering to?

[Classical_Liberal]

33. Clinton Carter and Baker

how can you tell us to read between the lines when you don't read the article at all.

[still_one]

37. Nothing is wrong with Clinton and Carter

I sure hope he doesn't use Baker. The baker law firm is defending Saudi Arabia against lawsuits from the 9/11 victims. That is a mistake, but one that can be rectifed

[Classical_Liberal]

38. Baker isn't bad as a peace envoy.

. Clinton and Carter surely aren't and he has backed away from using them as well.

[RafterMan]

39. So

The honest broker strategy is that one side doesn't get to choose its own delegate, while the other gets veto power over the negotiator.

Sounds fair to me.

[still_one]

43. An honest broker does not do what bush did

take a position that supports Sharon, in this case.

An honest broker arbitrates between the conflicting parties, and presents ideas to break any deadlocks.

Bush is pushing his agenda for "end of days". He believes he has been chosen by God to perform this task. He is NUTS!

[Classical_Liberal]

46. Why did Kerry agree with Bush's plan if it is "nuts"?

?

[still_one]

47. politics, just like Richard Clarke said

maybe I am wrong, but that is how I choose to believe for the time being.

Have you written to the Kerry site expressing your concerns?

[Classical_Liberal]

52. Several times

no responce though.

[RafterMan]

50. Of course Bush is nuts

But how do you construe Kerry's plan to ban the Palestinian's chosen delegate and allow the Israelis to veto the negotiator as filling the role of "honest broker"? Don't you at least admit such favoritism is an inauspicious start to "honest" brokering?

[G_j]

49. this came as a surprise to me, (re: Clinton)

Bill Clinton endorses Israel's Gaza `disengagement' proposal


By JENNIFER FRIEDLIN
Associated Press Writer

April 19, 2004, 9:31 PM EDT


NEW YORK -- Former President Clinton endorsed Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's proposed "disengagement" plan to unilaterally withdraw from the Gaza Strip, but he urged the Israelis to restart negotiations with the Palestinians.

"Do I think it's good ... this Gaza proposal? I certainly do, but I think it's got to be part of a larger strategy to figure out how to reengage Israel and her neighbors," Clinton said Monday.

Speaking at a panel discussion entitled "Racing the Clock: The Quest to End the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict," Clinton said an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza would demonstrate good faith to the Palestinians and a desire to end the occupation.

He said the withdrawal should be accompanied by the renewal of talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, despite the Palestinian leadership's previous failures to seize opportunities to achieve a peace deal.
..more..

unfortunately this link doesn't seem to work anymore
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ny--clinton-israel0419apr19,0,857942.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire

[RafterMan]

51. I supported it, too

First, it would have been hard to reverse, since the settlers would have left the field.

Second, it would not have made holding the West Bank any easier, regardless of what Sharon said. I think that's why the likudniks rejected it, and what they reject, I like.

[Classical_Liberal]

54. Gaza is icing since it isn't part of traditional israel

.

[Classical_Liberal]

53. It was conditional endorsement

He didn't endorse the settlements like Kerry did. Nor did he endorce unilateralism.

[still_one]

55. No matter what anyone says

Israel will have to give up the settlements. They did so in other negotiations, and they will this time also

[Classical_Liberal]

56. It won't under either administration if we beleive Kerry

and I have no reason not to. I think the way to pressure Israel is with the Eu as a trading partner. America is not capable of being an honest broker there. The EU and the UN should link and Iraqi bailout to Israel's pullout of the settlements.

[G_j]

58. I completely agree that

"America is not capable of being an honest broker there"

and that is obvious to most of the world

[Classical_Liberal]

59. I wish they would start picking up the slack

. We are so fucked up in Iraq right now either Bush or Kerry are in the position of being beggers.

[RafterMan]

57. But the didn't give them up

in the Barak negotiations. This is what the "patchwork state" complaint of the Palestinians is all about (if you listen to the complaints of the Palestinians).

When did they agree to give them up?

[incapsulated]

61. I'm doing the unthinkable

And posting in agreement with a Classical_Liberal thread.

Just to say this: Why does Kerry, even for the most cold, calculated real politik reasons, feel that he needs to portray himself as to the right of Clinton on Israel? To the point of actually siding with Bush? The Israelis loved Clinton! Kerry has the Jewish vote simply by stating the usual pro-Israel stuff. American Jews aren't in love with Sharon and the settlements in the West Bank, that I know of.

Who does this appeal to, exactly?

And why does he feel the urgent need to piss off Arabic people, all of a sudden? They wouldn't be surprised by the usual pro-Israeli stance. But this is a controversial, radical departure from our former position, infuriating to Arabic countries. Why?? Why you do 'dis demmi? :cry:

[IndianaGreen]

63. Why not? There is no difference between PNAC and PPI imperialism

Perhaps you should have paid more attention to Kerry's Meet the Press appearance:

Meet the Press (NBC News) - Sunday, April 18, 2004

MR. RUSSERT: On Thursday, President Bush broke with the tradition and policy of six predecessors when he said that Israel can keep part of the land seized in the 1967 Middle East War and asserted the Palestinian refugees cannot go back to their particular homes. Do you support President Bush?

SEN. KERRY: Yes.

MR. RUSSERT: Completely?

SEN. KERRY: Yes.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4772030

[The Backlash Cometh]

62. Not good.

I'm not happy about this. If we're going to send troops to Israel when Kerry becomes president, why don't we make it an army of soldiers that support this cause?

[DaveSZ]

65. Bush/Bush-lite

I can hardly tell the difference anymore.

I agree with the issue about Arab voters. They used to back Bush because of his father, but now they hate the man.

We could have picked up some of their votes.

[Classical_Liberal]

68. kick

:kick:

[Larkspur]

69. Well, I hope this means that Kerry will not get Arab and Muslim support

for Iraq, if he becomes president.

Let Iraq and the Middle East be Kerry's albatross, as much as it is an anchor around Bush's neck.

[Classical_Liberal]

70. kick

:kick:

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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