Kerry on the Midde East

[(*]

MR. RUSSERT: Israel assassinated Hamas leader Rantisi. Do you support that assassination?

SEN. KERRY: I believe Israel has every right in the world to respond to any act of terror against it. Hamas is a terrorist, brutal organization. It has had years to make up its mind to take part in a peaceful process. They refuse to. Arafat refuses to. And I support Israel's efforts to try to separate itself and to try to be secure. The moment Hamas says, "We've given up violence, we're prepared to negotiate," I am absolutely confident they will find an Israel that is thirsty to have that negotiation.

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.

MR. RUSSERT: You also said in December that you would consider as presidential ambassadors to the Middle East President Clinton, but also former President Carter and Secretary of State Baker. You then met with Jewish leaders and said, "I will not send Carter or Baker." Why?

SEN. KERRY: I think that what I was trying to talk about, Tim, was a kind of potential for
bipartisanship as to how you might be able to approach putting a special envoy in place. The names obviously need to be acceptable to everybody within the community. You've got to do that as a matter of diplomacy. Subsequent to those names being floated, obviously, some people have different views about it.

MR. RUSSERT: Why do you think Carter and Baker are not acceptable?

SEN. KERRY: Well, that's not important. What's important is how to resolve the crisis, how do you move forward. I believe there's a way to move forward, I'm convinced of that. Now, I think what the president did in the last few days is to recognize a reality that even President Clinton came to. If you're going to have a Jewish state, and that is what we are committed to do and that is what Israel is, you cannot have a right of return that's open-ended or something. You just can't do it. It's always been a non-starter. I personally said that at a speech I gave to the Arab community in New York at the World Economic Forum. I've said that. I've also said that it is realistic because we know that at Taba they negotiated the annexation of certain territory. So it's really stating a reality.

What this administration has not done that it needs to do, what we need is a diplomacy that is ongoing and engaged with the Arab community in order to help to create and help emerge the kind of entity that will provide a peaceful resolution to this. Israel has no partner, no one to be able to negotiate with today. I think the United States and this administration could have done a much more effective job of helping
that to emerge, but they were completely disengaged. I will not be disengaged. And I will have
somebody involved in that at the highest level that has the respect of the community, the trust of Israel, and we will be able to move forward.


I've been feeling this way for a while about Kerry.He is bad news. Worse than Bush. His positions will cause more "terrorism"

[Sabocat]

Kerry is disgusting, and his statements should come as a surprise to no one. Not only does he fully support Sharon's criminal actions in Israel, but recently gave a speech in Florida (with sidekick Lieberman) stating that Bush had let the Cuban-American community down by not being tougher on Cuba. He also stated that he will continue the embargo.

So we have a Democratic candidate that in reality offers no substantive difference between himself and Bush. What else is new?

* Wants to increase the military by 40,000
* Wants to continue the occupation of Iraq
* Wants to continue the embargo of Cuba
* Wants to continue tax breaks to corporations
* Supports the slaughter of the Palestinian people by Sharon
* Supports the "Patriot Act"


The only thing that will get anyone even remotely left in office here is to hand the business party Democrats a big loss in November by supporting a Socialist candidate. Kerry must be defeated, even if it means another 4 years of Bush to get the point across that we're not going to "settle" for another business as usual candidate.

[DaCuBaN]

Are you honestly telling me there is noone else? it's Bush or Kerry? :o :huh:
I know it's not your fault, but my idealistic attitudes had me thinking that Kerry HAD to be better than Bush. Now I'm downright upset :(

Not that I get any say in your election anyway, despite the fact that our entire economy is reliant on yours. We are, after all, merely Airstrip One

[(*]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 07:02 AM

The only thing that will get anyone even remotely left in office here is to hand the business party Democrats a big loss in November by supporting a Socialist candidate. Kerry must be defeated, even if it means another 4 years of Bush to get the point across that we're not going to "settle" for another business as usual candidate.
Exactly. Now I'm going to have to explain this to all the people I know who hate Bush and think Kerry is better.


Do you think that Kerry is considering having Lieberman as his running mate. I'm not sure if he'd risk it, but who knows. If people are so adamant about getting Bush out, would it really hurt him to choose Lieberman?

[mysticofthewest]

who cares who wins the elections both parties are two halves of the same idoit and things will never change with te two partys at least

[Kurai Tsuki]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 02:42 AM
who cares who wins the elections both parties are two halves of the same idoit and things will never change with te two partys at least
I'm sure the people on this this forum, with the exeption of the Opposing Views frequenters, know that there are few good American presidential candidates. It's just a matter of choosing one who's the least horrid.

As for Kerry it comes as no surprise to me that he has some ignorant views on the Middle East. He voted in favour of the Iraq war, and he blames Palestinian violence for conflict with Israel and Palestinians, while making no mention of Israeli brutality.

[truthaddict11]

I'm sure the people on this this forum I dont care who wins...

[El Che]

When Is[n't]real says it wants a "partner for peace" what it really means is it wants unconditional surrender.

The differences between Kerry and Bush are hard to find, even if you're looking.

[Severian]

Yeah, Kerry and the Democrats are to the right of Bush on a number of issues.

- Demanding a harder line on Cuba and Venezuela

- More troops to Iraq, to reinforce the occupation and crush the resistance

- The whole circus in the 9/11 commission, which amounted to demands for more $ for the CIA and FBI, and removing limits on what they can do - limits that were put in place because of the police-state abuses of those agencies.

- Even with their criticisms of Bush for not finding the so-called "WMD", the conclusion is that there was an "intelligence failure"....so, again, more $ for the CIA.