Have y'all seen this? This was found on Alternet. I won't print all of it since you can see it on Alternet which can be reached through search engines.


The article is:
Dean Not Progressive on Mideast
By Ahmed Nassef, AlterNet
June 30, 2003

It states that he is closer to a hawk when it comes to the Israeli/Palestinian question.

The article states:
And when asked whether his views are closer to the dovish Americans for Peace Now (APN) or the right-wing, Sharon-supporting American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), he stated unequivocally in an interview with the Jewish weekly The Forward, "My view is closer to AIPAC's view."
"At one time the Peace Now view was important, but now Israel is under enormous pressure. We have to stop terrorism before peace negotiations," he said.

What's the difference between Dean and Bush? What does this mean, we have to stop terrorism before there can be peace? I think he has he cart before the horse.

The article continues:

Similarly, Dean's official campaign position on solving the Palestinian-Israeli problem is that "terrorism against Israel must end," but there is no mention of the Israeli violence that has resulted in over 2,391 deaths since September 2000.

Not a balanced view I think. More:

Last December, Dean told the Jerusalem Post that he unequivocally supported $8 billion in U.S. loan guarantees for Israel. "I believe that by providing Israel with the loan guarantees ... the US will be advancing its own interest," he said.

I'm certainly not sure of this. It's not a peaceful solution to the Mideast crisis.

The article continues:

On the illegal Israeli settlements, Dean seems to be waffling of late. A pro-Dean blog quotes his campaign as calling for the ultimate removal of only "a number of existing settlements."
Dean called last month for "ultimately dismantling the settlements." So which one is it?


In fact, Dean's alignment with AIPAC and their right-wing politics goes much deeper than aligning with the group's platform. Last year, he named Steven Grossman, a former AIPAC head, as his campaign's chief fundraiser. Soon after, he flew to Israel on an AIPAC-sponsored junket.

Whose pocket is he in?


And in a telling statement about whether a President Dean would act any differently toward Iran than the Bush neocons, Dean also told The Forward, "The United States has to ... take a much harder line on Iran and Saudi Arabia because they're funding terrorism."
In fact, Dean thinks President Bush is way too soft on Iran. In a March appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation," Dean explained that "[President Bush] is beholden to the Saudis and the Iranians," something that would certainly come as a surprise to the current regime leaders in Iran who've been labeled as part of an alleged "Axis of Evil" by the current U.S. president.


Dean even left open the possibility of preemptive strikes against that country in that interview, adding that "we have to be very, very careful of Iran."

What are we getting into here? Tougher hardline on Iran than Bush?

He also has a doubious record on gun control and welfare reform.

I won't be supporting him. He is not much different than Bush.

Frank Hamilton