Kerry better for USA and Israel ( The World also)

[Boblight]

I don't quite understand how anyone Pro-Israel can even consider GWB for a second term! 1) Bush sounds Pro-Israeli , but he is tied to close to the Anti-Semetic dictators of the Saudi Royal Family! 2) Two he is Pro-ME oil, if oil blackmail came into being and he had to choose between supporting Israel or going against OPEC, which do you think he would choose?... Can you spell OIL!! 3) Bush's Energy Policies would cause America to be more dependent on ME oil making this not a mere commodity problem, but a matter of National Security.. Kerry has an Energy Plan that will FREE America from foreign oil, not makes US more dependent on the unstable ME east as Cheny-Bush does!! The quicker we can transistion from an oil based economy to a more diversified energy economy the better off all Americans would be. And we have the benefit of a cleaner environment, less cancer/healthcare costs, less chance of being dragged into another oil war, and less US wealth leaving the country into the hands of terrorists... Go Johnny Go! Bob

[minusthejihad]

Oh God.

Look I'm not pro-Bush, but it sounds like you have your head so far up John Kerry's ass that I'm sure you could tell me what he likes for breakfast.

And speaking of conflicts of interest, please explain how Edwards, a man responsible for elevating healthcare costs, plans to reduce them?

Lastly, this seems like you either go from board to board pasting the same paragraph or snippets, but here, you won't find too many susceptive to catch phrases like:

"It's all about the oil", "No more blood for oil", "He's in with the Saudi's", "There's no terrorism", etc.

Anyone who believes those things wholeheartedly, has a very narrow understanding of history and foreign policy.

[Mediocrates]

And speaking of conflicts of interest, please explain how Edwards, a man responsible for elevating healthcare costs, plans to reduce them?



Everyone hates lawyers until they need one, then it's all "Tear his head off and give it to me, Kill Him !!"

;)

[David_in_NYC]

Oh boy... where does one even start on this...

Never mind, I can spot a lost cause when I see one. Bobby has been watching too many Michael Moore movies, and reading too few facts.

[Boblight]

Minus, Dave, Get used to it, Kerry will be the next President of the USA.. Even some connies are for Kerry. Bush is bad for business overseas. Nobody likes the guy! It will be quit a refreshing change to have a President that understands foriegn policy, has diplomatic skills and is not bought off by Haliburton, Exon and the Saudi-Royals.. All you who support Bush keep filling up your gas guzzlers and send your cash overseas to the Whabbi's. The Royals take your dollars and send millions around the world supporting Anti-ZionistSemetic/Israel Propaganda.. Bush will never stand up to the Royals!!.. Just read the news.. And if either of you genuises think for one minute we would send 140,000 US troops and spend billions of dollars if the Gulf region did not have 40% of the worlds oil reserves.. ,I got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.. Keep feeding the beast with your petro dollars and sooner or latter your kids will be bowing towards Mecca!!! Bob

[minusthejihad]

Yeah, umm, Ok dude. Whatever you say.

(Notice how propaganda differs from fact when there are no sources given at all to substantiate any of those claims?)

[Donna]

Eh, whatever. If Kerry is elected, don't be surprised if we see him doing a lot of diplomatic bowing while spelling "run" out loud for the UN.

[abu afak]

I don't quite understand how anyone Pro-Israel can even consider GWB for a second term! 1) Bush sounds Pro-Israeli , but he is tied to close to the Anti-Semetic dictators of the Saudi Royal Family! 2) Two he is Pro-ME oil, if oil blackmail came into being and he had to choose between supporting Israel or going against OPEC, which do you think he would choose?... Can you spell OIL!! 3) Bush's Energy Policies would cause America to be more dependent on ME oil making this not a mere commodity problem, but a matter of National Security.. Kerry has an Energy Plan that will FREE America from foreign oil, not makes US more dependent on the unstable ME east as Cheny-Bush does!! The quicker we can transistion from an oil based economy to a more diversified energy economy the better off all Americans would be. And we have the benefit of a cleaner environment, less cancer/healthcare costs, less chance of being dragged into another oil war, and less US wealth leaving the country into the hands of terrorists... Go Johnny Go! Bob

Welcome Boblight form the Less Israel-friendly Beliefnet board:
(Home of the Amira Hass like Anti-semite 'DavidHoward', and hostile moderation)

http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/discussion_list.asp?boardID=21321

I believe there is something to what you say on the Bush/Saudi/Oil connection (Carlyle Group/Bush Sr/Bandar etc)...

But Bush has made clear some things on Israel that other Presidents haven't ("Conditions on the ground"/NOT returning to th '67 borders etc) which goes beyond what other Presidents have.. I hope he means.

Just a short reaction for now.. to a much more complicated election questions/issues etc. There are some things about Bush that trouble me...
much of his non-Foreign policy, in fact.

anyway.. Welcome

[David_in_NYC]

Minus, Dave, Get used to it, Kerry will be the next President of the USA.

Thanks for the laugh. When this election ends up like Reagan-Mondale, I'll have an extra smile just thinking about you =)

[rhodescholar]

Welcome Boblight form the Less Israel-friendly Beliefnet board:

http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/discussion_list.asp?boardID=21321

anyway.. Welcome
(and some of our guys should also go over there and straighten DavidHoward.. Uri Avnery/Amira hass/Gideon levy's American counterpart)

I am considering DNS'ing that site out of existence. That scu-bag DH is the controlling moderator, and has banned all of my IDs. What is so funny is how incredibly stupid the posters are over there; they keep wondering WHY ppl who support israel keep disappearing, and the thread i put up re: how the board is rigged was of course deleted. That site is a f---ing piece of sh-t.

[David_in_NYC]

I gotta say that it's remarkable that there's more censorship of the pro-Israeli side on that supposedly neutral board, than censorship of the anti-Israeli side on this unabashedly pro-Israel board.

[Gilgamesh]

I don't quite understand how anyone Pro-Israel can even consider GWB for a second term! 1) Bush sounds Pro-Israeli , but he is tied to close to the Anti-Semetic dictators of the Saudi Royal Family! 2) Two he is Pro-ME oil, if oil blackmail came into being and he had to choose between supporting Israel or going against OPEC, which do you think he would choose?... Can you spell OIL!! 3) Bush's Energy Policies would cause America to be more dependent on ME oil making this not a mere commodity problem, but a matter of National Security.. Kerry has an Energy Plan that will FREE America from foreign oil, not makes US more dependent on the unstable ME east as Cheny-Bush does!! The quicker we can transistion from an oil based economy to a more diversified energy economy the better off all Americans would be. And we have the benefit of a cleaner environment, less cancer/healthcare costs, less chance of being dragged into another oil war, and less US wealth leaving the country into the hands of terrorists... Go Johnny Go! Bob

I am not an American. So I'll sufice with general comments.
Personaly, I am interested in ideology. Being Likud registered member, I am much closer to Bush's ideology.

The left, in general, is better equipped to do wars, in publicity aspect. because when a lefitie goes to war, more people believe it's a last the resort. Also, a leftie don't have a "pro-peace" opossition as stong as the one the right always have. Bush and Sharon got hard time pushing the people into war. Rosvelt (the two of them), Trueman, Kneddie, Johnson, Willson were all leftie war presidents. Only Nixon (right) pulled the army out of vietnam...

I must remind you, that in both world wars, the USA had stark isolationist policy and was pulled into war by world events.

So Kerry, as a leftie, is better positioned to launch majore phases of the war on terror, to finish what bush started, with relative less public opposition to the war. Kerry is also, (relatively speaking) relived from pro Arab oil lobby pressures, who traditionaly side with the Right. All of this is nice and dandy, but I don't know for sure would Kerry go to war on terrorism on the first place! And this is the problem. Will he fall back, burry his head in the sand while al quida terrorists blowing things around? (like the bomb demolitions of two American ammbassies in Africa 1996, during the Clinton era. Clinton done nothing significant other then cancelling military technology projects and shrinking the army.). It is very much could be. Which is a scare, to all of the free world.

[Mediocrates]

I am considering DNS'ing that site out of existence. That scu-bag DH is the controlling moderator, and has banned all of my IDs. What is so funny is how incredibly stupid the posters are over there; they keep wondering WHY ppl who support israel keep disappearing, and the thread i put up re: how the board is rigged was of course deleted. That site is a f---ing piece of sh-t.

I find that hurling big frames [look @ your ping options list, it could be -l] in the 50,000 byte range and scripting multiple tracert to an entire subnet are a good place to start.

Just kidding, we wouldn't want to do bad things would we?

[rhodescholar]

I find that hurling big frames [look @ your ping options list, it could be -l] in the 50,000 byte range and scripting multiple tracert to an entire subnet are a good place to start.

Just kidding, we wouldn't want to do bad things would we?

Oh, never ;)

[Boblight]

Abu, I just had enough of DH's anti-semetic propaganda. Is he really Jewish, as he says?? Bob

[abu afak]

Abu, I just had enough of DH's anti-semetic propaganda. Is he really Jewish, as he says?? Bob
(for others who don't know the board.. some here do.. the below post is in reference to Beliefnet's Israel-Arab board http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/discussion_list.asp?boardID=21321 )

I believe he is Jewish.... He seems to have a knowledge of Hebrew and the Religion.
There are Jewish leftists.. and then there are the FAR Leftists who hate, increasingly, Israel and Jews... and then there's a few even further Left than that.. DH etc.

He is also a Jew Baiter of the First Magnitude... He goads on the Jews (and the non-Jewish anti-semites) in the most Inflammatory way, calling Israel, it's leaders, and the Jews in it.. 'Nazis'.. in a few more words than just saying 'Nazi' but 'Nazi' all the same.... "a 37 Year Holocuast against the Palestinians".. "apartheid/segregated Israel" Headlines like "Gassing Palestinians", "Extermination", "Murdered Children", "Butcher Sharon"...an article broken into 5 Separate headlines; Quoting Hass, Levy, and more recently al-Jazeera (& 'Arab News' but withheld the link from the board). .. and too many other grotesque lies and and defamations to count.
And Those morsels were just in the few days I was there!
The Jew Haters on Stormfront Chat are much more restrained than he.


When the more classic anti-semites come along and parrot the identical thing he says.. he scolds them.,. but only because THEY are so clumsy to use the word 'Jew' (instead of "zionist' or 'Israeli')..meaning that would even include Jews who hate other 'good' [anti-]Jews like him!..
(as if they would spare him in the Next Pogrom)

He says he is in favor of a '2 state solution'.. This is also a Lie though he repeats it tokenly and periodically.
(He would prefer Israel in "Nevada" ...Unquote... is closer to the truth)

Israel's Existence and everything it does is an affront to him and he says so.
He is in Favor of Israel/the state, like Bullfighters are in favor of bulls... to be out in a ring and abused, and finally rendered helpless .. to be slaughtered 'honorably'/the defenseless Holocaust Jew. (as opposed to the ignoble existense he says it has always had/has)

He is regulary quoted by the Anti-Israelers/semites there.
Used and quoted just as Amira Hass/Gideon Levy are by Him and the crowd at 'Jewwatch' and wherever else anti-semites need cover...
ie from yersterday.. but many more examples available:

originally posted by dcravit
Clardan's series of posts provides a text-book example of the tendency of the anti-Israeli group to pre-rig the debate by pre-defining certain things as being true, which then eliminates the need to actually prove them. Thus Israel is defined by Clardan as an apartheid state..."originally posted by 'Clardan (another anti-semite) in response to dcravit
"Actually it was DH who convinced me that the description of israel as an apartheid state was correct, and that the other pro-israeli posters here are tape-recorders replaying the party line. See his posts all over this board for convincing evidence in support of his belief that:
"Israel, the most segregated nation in the world that claims to be a democracy, has many progressive citizens who are sick of the semi-Apartheid system... Duh! Yeah Clardan.. Because DH is 'Jewish', he can't be/Isn't wildly anti-Israel, Anti-semitic?? That's just what 'Jews' like DH ARE for.

He is similarly quoted by another anti-semite there 'Carnivore'.


He has made posts over there that indicate he is now Reading this board. Good.
(and why don't some of the posters who also post/posted over there put a link to this page to be sure.. AND to show other anti-semites there who willingly eat up his lies)

'DavidHoward', you are cordially invited here to debate ANYTHING and EVERYTHING about the Israel-Arab Conflict, and the posts I and others did not get to answer there because of the Horrendous unfair moderation. (and bring your friends, Clardan, vestfold, Carnivore, and Father Oblivion, they might finally learn something)

'DavidHoward' Several Times rejected my direct requests on that board to do so.. and no doubt he will again.
as he is unable to defend even the language he uses regularly about Israel, it's citizens, and "Uneducated American supporters"...and of course, it's AIPAC bought Congress... (except for his 'heroes' Barbara Lee and Cynthia al-McKinney)

[KettleWhistle]

If Kerry becomes a president he will be another Bill/Hitlery Clinton, doing everything he can to destroy Israel.

As for US not depending on foreign oil, you must be delusional, pal. :D

I don't quite understand how anyone Pro-Israel can even consider GWB for a second term! 1) Bush sounds Pro-Israeli , but he is tied to close to the Anti-Semetic dictators of the Saudi Royal Family! 2) Two he is Pro-ME oil, if oil blackmail came into being and he had to choose between supporting Israel or going against OPEC, which do you think he would choose?... Can you spell OIL!! 3) Bush's Energy Policies would cause America to be more dependent on ME oil making this not a mere commodity problem, but a matter of National Security.. Kerry has an Energy Plan that will FREE America from foreign oil, not makes US more dependent on the unstable ME east as Cheny-Bush does!! The quicker we can transistion from an oil based economy to a more diversified energy economy the better off all Americans would be. And we have the benefit of a cleaner environment, less cancer/healthcare costs, less chance of being dragged into another oil war, and less US wealth leaving the country into the hands of terrorists... Go Johnny Go! Bob

[Boblight]

AJl, Pal, Read the writings of H.E. Hubbert, oil is at peak production, with China/.India, Eastern Europe demanding more energy, the years of cheap oil are over. You better pray and hope American Ingenuity can develope workable Renewable fuels in the near future, or Pal your children( if you got any) will be paying a HEAVy price in wars, pollution and oil blackmail!! If Radical Islam gets a hold in the Gulf, through takeovers or terrorism ( besides Iraq), our gas prices at the pump Will be over 5$ a barrel( experts say oil could one day hit 80$$ a barrell. Listen Pal, if America Technology can send a man to the moon in the 60's, send a land-rover to Mars, invent computers , the internet: they can as sure as Hell , have an alternate energy car on the road within a few years.. Yeah. I know the transistion from dirty oil to clean renewables will take time, so we better start now.. Cause the only countries that will have lots of oil in the next decades are your friends in Saudi-Arabia, UAE etc... And if you don't like your Petro dollars supporting those " friendly "guys in Al-Quiada, buy Sunoco gas, they claim not to buy from the corrupt Anti-Semetic ( remember Barbie dolls are a Jewish plot) regime in Arabia!!! Just my opinion, Bob, A Vote for Bush is a vote for dependence on the Oil/ Saudi-Regime) who are happy to bring Whabbism to your front door and the world!!!!)

[scattergood]

In the long term it is the Arabs that are on the wrong side of the oil issue. Sure they have it now, but the Saudi's only have 60 years of oil left. Let me repeat that, current forecasts state that within 2-3 generations, he Saudi oilfields won't be productive.

So, what does the world look like then? Yes oil prices will be high, very high, but who has the ability to react to that changing world? Arabs, who teach their children only the Koran, to hate, or how to kill Americans and Jews? Or the Americans and Jews who study math, science, invent things and make products that improve people's lives?

And one other fact that people forget, the USA is sitting on 60% of the worlds 'other' carbon based energy, coal. Yes it is a dirty feul, and yes it is a pain to get out of the ground, but when gas is at $10 (with inflation), those concerns are going to be rationalized out of existence.

So, again, who is in the better position long term, the country with resources and ingenuity or the one with limited resources and hasn't joined the 21st century?

[Mediocrates]

Think Canadian Tar Sands. Think Russian Natural Gas. Those two sources are at least as large as all the known oil in the world.

[Mediocrates]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1089861305894

[KettleWhistle]

Boblight,

As correctly pointed by scattergood, the issue of oil will be resolved by time. The question is who will give us that time. Will it be Kerry, who like Bill/Hitlery Clinton will be pushing Israel to give up its land to the subjects of Jordanian crown who call themselves "Palestinians?" I don't think so.

Additionally, the oil issue is not going to resolve itself overnight, or even in four to eight years of possible Kerry presidency. We will be dependant on Arab oil for many years to come, and that's just that.

I am not arguing that there is nothing that can be done about our energy issues. There is research that estimates the cost of alternative vehicle fuel infrastructure to be around $37 billion. That's for hydrogen fuel cells powered vehicles. So realistically, it will probably cost around $100 billion. We can afford it, and we ought to lobby the government for it. But in regards to this election, there is simply more to vote on than the oil issue.

[philingraham]

I don't quite understand how anyone Pro-Israel can even consider GWB for a second term! 1) Bush sounds Pro-Israeli , but he is tied to close to the Anti-Semetic dictators of the Saudi Royal Family! 2) Two he is Pro-ME oil, if oil blackmail came into being and he had to choose between supporting Israel or going against OPEC, which do you think he would choose?... Can you spell OIL!! 3) Bush's Energy Policies would cause America to be more dependent on ME oil making this not a mere commodity problem, but a matter of National Security.. Kerry has an Energy Plan that will FREE America from foreign oil, not makes US more dependent on the unstable ME east as Cheny-Bush does!! The quicker we can transistion from an oil based economy to a more diversified energy economy the better off all Americans would be. And we have the benefit of a cleaner environment, less cancer/healthcare costs, less chance of being dragged into another oil war, and less US wealth leaving the country into the hands of terrorists... Go Johnny Go! Bob
Regarding Peak Oil, it makes not one whit of difference who is elected President. Kerry's so called "Energy Plan", ignores the fact that oil is far more important than just gasoline. It is literally responsible for our existence as a civilization. No more cheap oil, no more civilization as we know it. You'll note that Kerry has no more intention of leaving Iraq than Bush does. Bush's Policy reduces to the "Last Man Standing" scenario where we will use our Military to ensure that we, at least, will remain standing when push comes to shove over dwindling oil supplies. Kerry knows this and will act accordingly should he get elected...

[Olivier]

You better pray and hope American Ingenuity can develope workable Renewable fuels in the near futureThe solution ins not american, it needs a world effort.

This world effort is called ITER, and it's been blocked by Bush (The US were in, then withdrew from the project, then Bush put them back in, but it was only to stall the process). Smells like Kyoto to me : not good for the oil business, so Bush blocks it.

http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?p=98667&highlight=iter#post98667


ITER is very very important, it's the single best hope for an oil-free world. Blocking it (for nearly a year now) is criminal.

[Boblight]

AJ, Wasn't it Bush the first USA president to support a Palestinian State? Oliver thanks for the info on Iter.. I wish some of the Bush supportesrs out there will look into the Billions of dollars Saudi-Arabia has spent ( with our Petro dollarts) spreading Anti-Semetic Propaganda all over the world through their Whabbism radical form of Islam!!! Some supporters of peace in the ME..?? And Bush does nothing or say's little for those thugs to "cut it out"! I guess that makes sense , since 15 of the 9/11 hyjackers were Saudis, Saudis have financed anti-western Mudras in Afganastan and around the world, spend billions on College Campuses to villify Israel, and the Whabbi religion is the "Mother" of Radical Islam, but he attacks Iraq? Maybe Bush should ask his buddy Prince Bandar to replace Cheny for VP this fall ( cheap oil gaurenteed).. Bob Go Johnny Go!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[KettleWhistle]

I am a big fan of nuclear energy, and this ITER seems like a really good idea. However, it is hardly our single best hope.

As a side note, from what I remember, it was Clinton administration who stalled the Kyoto with their "heat sink" ideas. As a result the only country that signed it was Romania (LOL), while everybody else conviniently blamed the U.S. in order to refuse to sign it. Personally, I am all for better environment and the Kyoto agreements, but I wouldn't blame the U.S. for a matter that's a result of complex political games.

The solution ins not american, it needs a world effort.

This world effort is called ITER, and it's been blocked by Bush (The US were in, then withdrew from the project, then Bush put them back in, but it was only to stall the process). Smells like Kyoto to me : not good for the oil business, so Bush blocks it.

http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?p=98667&highlight=iter#post98667


ITER is very very important, it's the single best hope for an oil-free world. Blocking it (for nearly a year now) is criminal.

[Olivier]

I am a big fan of nuclear energy, and this ITER seems like a really good idea. However, it is hardly our single best hope.mm tell me what is better than fusion for mass energy production, then

[KettleWhistle]

AJ, Wasn't it Bush the first USA president to support a Palestinian State?
Have you forgotten Clinton?

In case you have, here are a couple of reminders:
http://www.womeningreen.org/gif/olegoct00c.jpg

http://www.womeningreen.org/gif/olegja00e.gif

Oliver thanks for the info on Iter.. I wish some of the Bush supportesrs out there will look into the Billions of dollars Saudi-Arabia has spent ( with our Petro dollarts) spreading Anti-Semetic Propaganda all over the world through their Whabbism radical form of Islam!!! Some supporters of peace in the ME..?? And Bush does nothing or say's little for those thugs to "cut it out"! I guess that makes sense , since 15 of the 9/11 hyjackers were Saudis, Saudis have financed anti-western Mudras in Afganastan and around the world, spend billions on College Campuses to villify Israel, and the Whabbi religion is the "Mother" of Radical Islam, but he attacks Iraq? Maybe Bush should ask his buddy Prince Bandar to replace Cheny for VP this fall ( cheap oil gaurenteed).. Bob Go Johnny Go!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You act as if the Saudis were the sole supporters of terrorism and anti-Israeli propaganda. They are not. Other Muslims are just as anti-Israel. Additionally, the Saudi government is reforming their education system. They already took out the anti-American and anti-Israeli language out of the textbooks. I don't want to sound like a Saudi appologist because I am not. I just don't see the Saudis as the sole source of the problem.

I believe we should be pragmatic, not rhetorical, and that would mean realizing what there is more to it than just oil.

[Justcurious]

Fortunately, many debaters here are not dependent on who's going to be the next president of the United States.

[KettleWhistle]

mm tell me what is better than fusion for mass energy production, then

I am in complete agreement with people who propose it, I just wouldn't limit our energy issues to this, or any other, single source. I believe our strategic thinking should be more flexible than that. Not to mention that this will only provide us with electricity.

Plus there are many non-poluting sources of electricity. Here, in California, they are replacing the old, problematic windmill energy "farms" with more efficient modern wind-driven electricity generators that don't have all the problems of the old ones. They rotate slow, so they don't harm the birds, and they generate much more electricity while taking far less space. A single such air turbine provides enough power for three-four houses.

[Mediocrates]

mm tell me what is better than fusion for mass energy production, then


anything remotely connected to reality, in comparison

[Boblight]

Aj, Yes there is more to it than oil; there is a clash between cultures and religion, there are milatary bases, etc.. But everything runs on energy, and most of our energy comes in a barell, in another words OPEC has US over a barrel! Bob

[Olivier]

I am in complete agreement with people who propose it, I just wouldn't limit our energy issues to this, or any other, single source. I believe our strategic thinking should be more flexible than that. Not to mention that this will only provide us with electricity.

Plus there are many non-poluting sources of electricity. Here, in California, they are replacing the old, problematic windmill energy "farms" with more efficient modern wind-driven electricity generators that don't have all the problems of the old ones. They rotate slow, so they don't harm the birds, and they generate much more electricity while taking far less space. A single such air turbine provides enough power for three-four houses.I agree with you.

ITER was scheduled for a start of small-scale production in 2014 (now it's stalled...) so we need a next generation of nuclear plant first. I do not know for the US, but France is actively working on this next generation of nuclear plants.


Still, after the next generation of nuclear plants, Fusion has to be next :
- uses hydrogen instead of uranium (or rather hydrogen isotopes : deuterium - extracted from water - and tritium - easy to produce -)
- no danger of uncontrolled chain reaction,
- of course no greenhouse effect
- much fewer radioactive waste (the main output product is helium).
- ... and a lot of energy, more than fusion.

[Mediocrates]

It's silly to think that it has any viability in the next 40-50 years. Fusion has been a lab experiment since the late 1960's and it really hasn't progressed past that because start up costs are huge.

Industry should start looking at other sources where the physics are better understood: fission, boron power, renewable, recycleable fuel sources.

[Olivier]

It's silly to think that it has any viability in the next 40-50 years. Fusion has been a lab experiment since the late 1960's and it really hasn't progressed past that because start up costs are huge.

Industry should start looking at other sources where the physics are better understood: fission, boron power, renewable, recycleable fuel sources.boron power? Never heard about this.
please tell us more about this method for mass energy production, I hope it' not another of your ridiculous claims.

as for "recyclable fuels", storage is nice, but you have to produce energy somehow first.

[Mediocrates]

Regarding Peak Oil, it makes not one whit of difference who is elected President. Kerry's so called "Energy Plan", ignores the fact that oil is far more important than just gasoline. It is literally responsible for our existence as a civilization. No more cheap oil, no more civilization as we know it. You'll note that Kerry has no more intention of leaving Iraq than Bush does. Bush's Policy reduces to the "Last Man Standing" scenario where we will use our Military to ensure that we, at least, will remain standing when push comes to shove over dwindling oil supplies. Kerry knows this and will act accordingly should he get elected...


The question of mid east oil is a problem not really of supply but one of convenient supply. There are massive untapped and unexplored reserves all over the world but because of a quirk of geology the reserves in the mid east are very shallow and high quality. It simply costs the least to get them. But if the Iranians and the Saudis are committed, as they say they are, to $60-80/bbl crude the all sorts of other locales suddenly become viable: Angola, Viet Nam, Russia, Takjigistan as well as deep water platforms. It is entirely possible that OPEC can price themselves out of the market. Of course we need an administration that isn't in bed with them first.

Moreover at those prices other types of sources suddenly become viable. Canada sits on tar sands that contain over 1 trillion bbls of oil. The method to recover it is strip mining for the most part. Russia contains more natural gas than the entire mid east holds in oil in terms of total BTUs. But not only are the recovery methods very expensive [now] the political will do commit to such large scale projects that may have deleterious environmental effects is lacking.

The third piece consists of so called alternative sources. Consider this example; a big piece of the cost of growing food is pesticides and other petrochemicals. But what if we grew crops to produce oil and ethanol exclusively? It would not have to be very high quality, would cost less and it could use highly genetically modified strains. In fact growing crops for energy could be exported over the world as a cash crop for developing nations.

[David_in_NYC]

mm tell me what is better than fusion for mass energy production, then

Um... any technology that actually exists?

[Mediocrates]

Boron, one example.

http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html

The mathematics behind the physical chemistry appear to work out.

[KettleWhistle]

So there are no technologies available, or that will be available in the next four years to replace our oil-dependant infrastructure. I think we can all agree on that. So why propose that Kerry is better because of his energy plan, when he is hostile towards Israel and friendly towards "Palestinians," bad on education, bad on healthcare, bad on military, and will raise taxes for people, while lowering them for corporations? I am not saying Bush is any good, but at least he is supportive of Israel.

[Gilgamesh]

Boron, one example.

http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html

The mathematics behind the physical chemistry appear to work out.

There are one million and one solutions to oil dependecy in vehicles. Yet, not is economicly practicle. There is no enough money in the world for that.

When talking oil prices, it's enough to find solutions which are practicle, to lower demand.

America is lacking nuclear reactors, that would sharply reduce Americas need in oil products for electricity.

Goverment client price subsedies, will make solar panels more economical solution, aspecialy in southern sunny states.

Turning agricultural waste and surpluses to fuel, is also an atractive solution provided a visionary goverment policy.

New goverment regulations regarding insulation in new houses can also save alot of money, and help lowering oil demand and oil prices.

Better waste treatment and recycling also save energy. Garbage produce natural gas as it decays. Paper waste is execlent burning matrial...

All the above, are PRACTICLE solutions, the American goverment can do YESTERDAY. Similar solutions exist in Israel and Europe. Proven technology, needed only goverment planning.

[Olivier]

Boron, one example.
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html.Interesting, but unless I am mistaken, it seems to be an energy reservoir, like an Hydrogen Fuel Cell. Again, the problem is to mass produce energy, not to store it.

Wind and solar cells are fine, for homes and small villages, but there is no way you run an aluminium plant or light a metropolis with such sources.

The mathematics behind the physical chemistry appear to work outglad to know you're good enough to check that, I'm not!

[Mediocrates]

All energy is a storage pool - the gasoline in your tank is no more than a quantity of BTUs. You could use H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide) if you could control the combustion better than what a rocket booster does.

[philingraham]

The question of mid east oil is a problem not really of supply but one of convenient supply. There are massive untapped and unexplored reserves all over the world but because of a quirk of geology the reserves in the mid east are very shallow and high quality. It simply costs the least to get them. But if the Iranians and the Saudis are committed, as they say they are, to $60-80/bbl crude the all sorts of other locales suddenly become viable: Angola, Viet Nam, Russia, Takjigistan as well as deep water platforms. It is entirely possible that OPEC can price themselves out of the market. Of course we need an administration that isn't in bed with them first.

Moreover at those prices other types of sources suddenly become viable. Canada sits on tar sands that contain over 1 trillion bbls of oil. The method to recover it is strip mining for the most part. Russia contains more natural gas than the entire mid east holds in oil in terms of total BTUs. But not only are the recovery methods very expensive [now] the political will do commit to such large scale projects that may have deleterious environmental effects is lacking.

The third piece consists of so called alternative sources. Consider this example; a big piece of the cost of growing food is pesticides and other petrochemicals. But what if we grew crops to produce oil and ethanol exclusively? It would not have to be very high quality, would cost less and it could use highly genetically modified strains. In fact growing crops for energy could be exported over the world as a cash crop for developing nations.

I like your analysis, particularly as it relates to the available resources, provided of course that oil goes to $60-80/barrel. However, your thoughts regarding alternative sources are questionable.

Rather than getting into a long and dubious harangue, I'd rather point you to a link that sums up the problem better than I can. I look forward to your response.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/cgi-bin/MasterPFP.cgi?doc=htp//www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html

[Mediocrates]

busted link

[Boblight]

Phil, The bottom line is that the era of cheap gas is over.. Just saw CBS news today, Energy experts are predicting 3$ a gallon for gas by the end of the year. I wouldn't be surprised that the Auto companies knew way ahead that gas would rise soon, so they pushed on the American consumer a massive add campaign for SUV's. Anyone want to buy a hummer(for sale-Cheap!) Bush needs to prepare the American consumer for higher energy costs, but since he is indebt to big oil- he stays silent! Our Lamo Congress needs to pas an enertgy bill that is strong on R&D for Alternative energy, conservation, and tax breaks for Hybrids( not Hummers!). If there is a major crisis in the UNSTABLE Middle-East, gas could go up much higher! We need a Marshall Energy Plan that is strong in R&D for Alternate Energy, Conservation and Tax breaks for Hybrids( not Hummers). Also Congress has to take charge and develope a Corporate -Fed government partnership in Energy Development, similar to the Defense Industry and NASA.. Time is ticking!! Bob

[Kev]

I look forward to watching Cheny eat Edwards and spit him out without blinking :p

[philingraham]

busted link
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/cgi-bin/MasterPFP.cgi?doc=http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html

[Mediocrates]

I only read that quickly but that was my point. About 20-25% of oil goes into the production of food. Which in and of itself has to be considered in relation to people fed per crop yield per acreage. We are the world's food basket, after all. So while we consume all those chemicals we might also be feeding a hundred people per acre - or even more. Compared to inefficient oil and firewood cosumption in subsistence agricultures its not entirely a bad bargain in terms of yield per acre.

Now the problem in that article was precisely the food consumption grains require all those special chemicals and processes. But we simply turned them into ethanol, for example we would not be beholden to the same energy equations. We wouldn't have to worry even if the grains were marginally toxic or threw off other chemical compounds that made them unsuitable for food. We could even explore modifying specific grains so that they yielded inordinate amounts of fuel energy in lieu of any nutritional value at all. - just a suggestion though.

[Boblight]

Kev, You better hope DC is still Bush's running mate. Or Maybe Cheny should dump Bush? Bob

[Mediocrates]

http://www.israelforum.com/board/showpost.php?p=108297&postcount=357

[takeo]

Additionally, the Saudi <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=government&v=56">government</a> is reforming their <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=education&v=56">education</a> system. They already took out the anti-American and anti-Israeli language out of the textbooks. I don't want to sound like a Saudi appologist because I am not. I just don't see the Saudis as the sole source of the problem.

you do sound as a saoudi apologist, while this regime is far worse than saddam's regime or Iran in every aspect, much more fundamentalist, more connection to terrorism (in fact wahhabism originates in Saoudi arabia, and the Al-Qauida <Bin laden family is one of the most powerfull in SA, go figure) and at least as oppressive. They happen to have close <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=business&v=56">business</a> ties with the elite of the republican party, while those same <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=people&v=56">people</a> constantly refer to "war on terror" to legitimise the attacks against Iraq and the threats against Iran. Can it get any more hypocrite? Are Americans sleeping or what? of course moore used this in his own anti-Bush propaganda, it's there and it's obvious, you don't have to be a genius to figure it out. the democrats are a bit reluctant to mention it, they shouldn't, they should completely destroy Bush' image and Bush himself gave them enough <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=tools&v=56">tools</a> to do so. a pity Dean wasn't elected as candidate, Kerry is not a great rethorical talent, but anyway the resistence against the Bush-regime is so whidespread even in the US <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=people&v=56">people</a> are going to vote for him. As so many participants said on the democratic convention "anyone but Bush"...

Kerry will also be better for Israel, bush made himself impossible as mediator of the middle-Eastern conflict and on the contrary to Clinton he didn't do a lot to solve it, while Clinton put a lot of <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=energy&v=56">energy</a> in it. During the years Bush was president not a <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=single&v=56">single</a> serious attempt was made to solve the issue.

[Boblight]

Tak, I agree Saudi-Arabia's Whabbism religion is the Mother Of Radical Islam and is the greatest threat to Israel, USA, Christains, Hindus etc.. Anyone who looks away from Bush's " Love Affair" with Saudi Royals does so at the risk of Israel's survivial.. No there is no doubt about it ,Kerry is better for Israel, the USA and the World.. Bush would be a great 1'st President of Iraq!, he's got my vote!!! Bob

[takeo]

Tak, I agree Saudi-Arabia's Whabbism religion is the Mother Of Radical Islam and is the greatest threat to Israel, USA, Christains, Hindus etc.. Anyone who looks away from Bush's " Love Affair" with Saudi Royals does so at the risk of Israel's survivial.. No there is no doubt about it ,Kerry is better for Israel, the USA and the World.. Bush would be a great 1'st President of Iraq!, he's got my vote!!! Bob

yeah, he possesses the necessary totalitarian characteristics and he will end as all Iraqi presidents, in a coffin. I also think Iraqi's will appreciate his anti-gay and anti-abortion positions more so than Americans...
no seriously if there's anyone the most hated guy in the Arab world it will be George Bush junior.

Saoudi Arabia is the cradle of all sunni fundamentalist global organisations connected to al-Quaida, besides this, since the fall of the Taliban, it's the most fundamentalist, women-unfriendly restricted society in the world, and their piles of money urned by oil are not used to give the inhabitants a better life (while I don't even mention the slavery of foreign workers, muslims, even poor Arab brothers from Yemen, Palestine or Egypt, treated as animals by the Saoudi's) but instead to finance wahhabist medreses all over the world, well known to be the schools of radical violent Islam and which constitute the origin of radical islamic militant terrorist organisations in Central Asia, indonesia, Pakistan, afghanistan, Northern africa, Bangladesh, western China, Tchechnia, Bosnia and finally also Western europe and the US etc.

These guys are left alone and even benefit US-support, while the Bush-administration abused 11th september to attack and threaten several middle-Eastern countries who are nnemies of the Saoudi's, in fact Bush is carrying out the Saoudi agenda and serving Saoudi interests in the middle East...
not a word about the total "democratisation" of the middle East which used to be one of the excuses for invading Iraq...

this policy is so rotten and so revolting.

[Boblight]

Just imagine how fearful the Sauidi Royals are of a democratic Iraq. They may have to increase their $$$ to illegal Islamic charities that support Al-Quida. A democratic Iraq would de-stabilize the brutal -Racist/Sexists Royal Regime. Instead of building billion dollar palaces for themselves they would have to share the oil $$ with Arabian citizens. They may even have to let women vote!!! If the Royals don't begin the transistion ASAP to democracy, they will be vulnerable to takeover buy their own creation-Al-Quida( Magog).. Bob

[Oh Jerusalem]

Just imagine how fearful the Sauidi Royals are of a democratic Iraq. They may have to increase their $$$ to illegal Islamic charities that support Al-Quida. A democratic Iraq would de-stabilize the brutal -Racist/Sexists Royal Regime. Instead of building billion dollar palaces for themselves they would have to share the oil $$ with Arabian citizens. They may even have to let women vote!!! If the Royals don't begin the transistion ASAP to democracy, they will be vulnerable to takeover buy their own creation-Al-Quida( Magog)..
So I see you're a big supporter of Bush's Iraq invasion! :p

Al-Quida( Magog)
Care to explain? :confused:

[Mediocrates]

That assumes that they are in fact, governable. At best that's a guess. Maybe authoritarian governance is the best they can hope for. Seemingly the alternative is anarchy. It's an old story known the world over; better to be someone's slave than have to worry about your next meal or whether you get randomly blown up. Similarly I'm sure the KSA is terrified of the prospect of a successul secular Iraq but they are commonsense enough to understand that will probably not occur. Either the country will break into its contituent parts and become a loose confederacy, or it will become an authoritarian theocracy like the KSA and Iran or it will just plummet straight to the bottom in flaming disorder. It could be that absent any tyrannical hand this is all they are capable of. I suppose it's a remote possibility but clearly once you give mini-shiekhs a taste of a little power derived from carbombs and random violence they quickly get addicted and can't stop. Or they get so caught up in their own insane ideologies that they stop having any reasonable connection to governance. See what's happening over in Afghanistan. Before all the Eurotrash starts clattering who's fault it is, please remember that MSF (Medicine w/o Borders) has been there for almost 20 years. They decided to pull out when the people they were helping started murdering them for no obvious reason at all other than a perception that somehow aid was tied to the US which of course MSF would be the first to deny. So absent any fascist hand, these people who we actually call "Tribal Warlords" start killing just because they can. They want all 'infidels' out of the country and they don't have any compunction to killing as many of their own people indirectly in order to do that. This is why those silly stupid French communists are so sympathetic; they grew up on a steady diet of the Cultural Revolution and Pol Pot and Kulak purges with their scores of millions murdered and starved and imagine themselves all chefs making omlettes whilst breaking ouefs.

Anyway the point is this. "Democracy" or Liberalism or pluralism or even benign dictatorship may in fact be entirely beyond them. We may find capable individuals but extending that over an entire country may be impossible. In this I agree with the Euros - maybe Saddam caged in his own country and worried about murdering his own people was a better thing for them in the end. Since no one really cares that he murdered 400,000 of them, used chemical weapons on them , waged wars responsible for over 2 million deaths on all sides it could be that that is simply the price those miserables had to pay. So far the alternative is a few hundred terrorist victims per week which in and of itself is not a large number, it simply makes it difficult to organize a government around that.

[Boblight]

OH, J, I was neutral regarding Bush's invasion of Iraq last year.. I was glad Saddam the Madman was toppled, I didn't like Bush's Unilateral approach and his decieving the American Public! I did believe that the Invasion of Iraq if done wrong would open up a big gap that Radical Islam would fill.. My goal is to elect an Administration that will stop the Royal family from spreading their Anti-Semetic Propaganda of HATE, and posioning any hope for peace between Arabs and Israelis.. Saudi-Arabia spends billions of their oil$$$ to demonize Jews and Israel throughout the world and is Responsible for the rise in GLOBAL ANTI-Semitism.. If Bush doesn't have the guts to get them to stop, we need Kerry who will!!! Saudi Whabbism is the Mother of Al-Quida and Radical Islam( Magog=Biblical expression of Arab confederacy that will attack Israel). Bob.. PS , I do believe that Kerry's Apollo Energy Project is a first step in FREEing America of Foreign oil dependence.. For some reason GWB doesn't mind America's dependence on his backstabbing Saudi friends and their dirty oil!!

[KettleWhistle]

Al-Quida( Magog)
Care to explain? :confused:

Magog is some enemy of Israel from Christian prophesies in their book of Revelations. If I remember correctly, this Magog is supposed to attack Israel in the end days. There are many speculations among Christians regarding who this Magog really is. Some say it is the Muslims, others believe that it is Russia.

[Boblight]

AJ, Magog is in the Tanakh, Ezekiel, in which Israel will be reborn from among the Nations and attacked by a coalition of Arab States. These are Jewish Prophets/ Prophecies. The book of revelations touches upon Magog, as does the Koran. Bob

[Oh Jerusalem]

OH, J, I was neutral regarding Bush's invasion of Iraq last year.. I was glad Saddam the Madman was toppled, I didn't like Bush's Unilateral approach and his decieving the American Public!
In what way did Bush deceive the public?
I did believe that the Invasion of Iraq if done wrong would open up a big gap that Radical Islam would fill.. My goal is to elect an Administration that will stop the Royal family from spreading their Anti-Semetic Propaganda of HATE, and posioning any hope for peace between Arabs and Israelis.. Saudi-Arabia spends billions of their oil$$$ to demonize Jews and Israel throughout the world and is Responsible for the rise in GLOBAL ANTI-Semitism.. If Bush doesn't have the guts to get them to stop, we need Kerry who will!!!
You seem so young and naive. Or maybe you're simply blessed (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=11893_An_Islamic_Blessing_for_the_DNC). :rolleyes:
Saudi Whabbism is the Mother of Al-Quida and Radical Islam( Magog=Biblical expression of Arab confederacy that will attack Israel).
You could be guessing correctly. Only time will tell. What gurantees you that Magog is an Arab confederacy? And who is Gog, according to your underground sources?
PS , I do believe that Kerry's Apollo Energy Project is a first step in FREEing America of Foreign oil dependence.. For some reason GWB doesn't mind America's dependence on his backstabbing Saudi friends and their dirty oil!!
I've always wanted a conservative president to have the guts to install a really radical environmentalist as the head of the EPA.

[Oh Jerusalem]

I'm beginning to think Caroline Glick lurks on this forum. :eek:

Will Kerry flip or will he flop? Je ne sais pas.


Column One: France - Kerry's Israel problem (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1091072363164&apage=1)
By CAROLINE GLICK

The arrival Wednesday morning of a special El Al flight at Ben Gurion airport with 200 French Jews immigrating to Israel was a beautiful thing. As they disembarked, to the buzz of news crews from around the world, the new arrivals broke out in song and dance as Prime Minister Ariel Sharon welcomed our brothers and sisters home. It was enough to turn the greatest cynic into a sobbing idealist.

The scene was significant not simply because every time a Jew moves to Israel we see the Zionist dream come true. It was significant also because it came just a week and a half after Sharon, in a moment of moral leadership and clarity, told the Jews of France, "If I have to advocate to our brothers in France, I will tell them one thing: Move to Israel, as early as possible."

In the first six months of 2004, the French Interior Ministry recorded 510 anti-Jewish attacks or threats. During the whole of 2003, only 563 such incidents were reported. Yet, in the wake of Sharon's call for French Jews to come to Israel, where they will be able to live proudly, if not safely, as Jews, French President Jacques Chirac went ballistic. If there is anything the French hate, it is moral clarity.

Sharon's remarks coincided nicely with France's success in bringing the entire European Union on board in voting for the UN General Assembly resolution condemning the security fence. That resolution was itself founded on the International Court of Justice's ruling that Israel has no right to build the fence to protect ourselves from Palestinian suicide bombers.

It is no coincidence that France was acting in an overtly hostile manner toward the Jewish state when Sharon made his declaration. In recent years, rarely a day has gone by without some French leader doing something to make common cause with those devoted to the annihilation of the Jewish state.

From the French ambassador to Britain's statement calling Israel a "sh-tty little country," to former French Prime Minister Michel Rocard's declaration that the creation of Israel was "a mistake", to its persistent support of Arafat despite mountains of evidence implicating him as a current and active mastermind of terror, France has made it plain that it is an opponent, not an ally, in the Arab-Muslim war to destroy us. So yes, it was sweet to see 200 Jews telling us that they see their future here and not in France.

The problem with France is not simply that one in five French citizens voted for an avowed Holocaust-denier in the last election. Nor is it just that almost every week we hear another story about a synagogue torched, a rabbi beaten, a Jewish cemetery or Holocaust memorial defaced with swastikas or Jewish children terrorized on the subway or on their way to Hebrew school. Nor is it that France hates Israel. The French hating Israel is nothing that keeps anyone here awake at night.

The problem with France, rather, is that it has appointed itself arbiter of global justice, and in so doing inserted itself as a key factor in the US presidential race.

Senator John F. Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, has made his objections to Bush administration's foreign policy a defining issue of his candidacy. During this week's Democratic national convention in Boston, speaker after speaker took to the podium and declared that under a Kerry presidency, the US would not act "unilaterally." A Washington Post analysis of Kerry's basic message to American voters noted that Kerry's major theme is a "restoration" of US positions during the 1990's under the Clinton administration.

As former Clinton administration official and current Kerry foreign policy adviser Richard Holbrooke put it to the Post, the Bush administration advocated "extremist ideas" that had "never had a voice in the policymaking bodies of the executive branch." One such idea, the Post paraphrased, was "acting unilaterally." But what does "acting unilaterally" mean? It does not mean "going it alone." After all, there are several dozen other countries actively involved in US operations in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan.

Neither does "acting unilaterally" mean that in Iraq the US is acting outside of a clear UN Security Council mandate. Ahead of the US-led operations in Kosovo in 1999, in which Holbrooke played a key role, Russia used the threat of its Security Council veto to prevent the US from taking action under a UN umbrella. Yet no one has ever accused the US of acting unilaterally in Kosovo.

What "acting unilaterally" actually means to Holbrooke and Kerry is that the multilateral coalition Bush assembled in Iraq does not include France. It was France that prevented a UN Security Council resolution backing the US-led invasion, and it was France that led the EU and NATO to reject US requests to forge coalitions under whose aegis the US would lead the war against Saddam's regime.

With its UN Security Council veto, its membership in NATO and its leading position in the EU, France has fashioned itself the indispensable ally for Eurocentric Americans. This it has done in spite of the fact that France has opposed almost every single US foreign policy initiative since September 11. Yet, in spite of France's overt hostility, administration critics still believe that the US cannot garner a politically palatable coalition for action on the international stage without French involvement.

One of the truly disturbing aspects of France's success in so positioning itself is that the veneer of respectability of a French-approved coalition is so thick that even when such coalitions fail abysmally, no one seems to notice. Thus, according to a recently released report by Human Rights Watch, it was the French forces who were most responsible for NATO-led Kosovo force's decision to remain garrisoned as thousands of Kosovar Christians were evicted from their homes and villages by Albanian Muslims even as they were begged to come forward and protect these minorities. But who's noticing?

It is hard to know precisely what a Kerry presidency would hold in store for Israel specifically.

Yes, it is true that he seems to pay inordinate respect to outspoken Israel-bashers such as former President Jimmy Carter and Carter's National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. Then again, Bush appointed the harshly anti-Israel Marine General Anthony Zinni to be his Middle East mediator shortly after assuming office.

Yes, it is true that Kerry seems determined on forcing Israel back to the negotiating table with Arafat and using Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk as his emissaries in spite of the colossal failure of every policy the two men advocated during the Clinton presidency. But Bush has adopted the Road Map, which formally, if not practically, gives the EU, Russia and the UN the status of arbiters in the Palestinian conflict with Israel.

One thing though, is clear enough. In the unrelenting emphasis Kerry places on a certain brand of "multilateralism," he is providing undue, unreasonable and unacceptable legitimacy to a country that does not wish Israel well. Kerry can choose to be a friend of France, or he can choose to be a friend of Israel. But this is one area where he can't have it both ways.

[Boblight]

Oh J, Thank you for your compliment that I am soo young! Bush obviously decieved America by saying Iraq( broken country) was an "iminent" threat to US security, that Saddam Has WMD's,. I believe Iraq could have waited while we focused on Al-Quida and Afganastan. Now the Bush Admin. finally admits that the US armed forces are stretched too thin around the world. Maybe if Bush would have been in the Army, this War president might have known this!!! The greatest threat to the Jewish people and Israel is the Anti-Semetic Hatred of Jews and Israel paid by Saudi oil money. John Kerry in his speech realizes this, that we can no longer be dependent on our Enemies, like the Racist House of Saud!!!! We as Americans, Jews and Christains , have to find alternative sources of energy, or else our Children will be bowing towards MECCA in the near future!!!!! It is My personal belief as a Jew, who believes in the Prophets, that Saudi Whabbism is the seed form of Magog, a Muslim/Arab Coalition that will attack Israel in "the Latter Days" The House of Saud has created the Monster of Radical Islam, now we need a Strong President who will stand up to them, not a puppet!! I personally believe Magog will be from Moslem countries of the USSR, Lybia, Iran( possibly Iraq if it folds), Sudan, Arabia/Yemen etc.. My friend OJ, read Ezekiel, if you have not, look up Hashem/Ezekiel, Israel/End of Days on the internet for further info . (Again, these are my Beliefs), than we can discuss this further, G-D Bless Israel and America, Bob

[Semsem]

Eh, whatever. If Kerry is elected, don't be surprised if we see him doing a lot of diplomatic bowing while spelling "run" out loud for the UN.

Kerry is bad news for Israel. He will try to please France and the EU. He will name Holbrooke as his Foreign Minister who thinks he's a know it all. Carter and Brejinski, an antisemite may also get involved and he will send Ross and Indyk back who were a disaster.

[Boblight]

PS. Please Check out End Time Prophecies of Islamic Radicals. They turn it around and make all Jews the enemy, Magog. It is very interesting and smart to view the ideoligies of your enemies to see what is going threw their minds. Bob

[Boblight]

The Anti-Semitism in France and throughout Europe is funded by Saudi oil money!!! Yes, France is a Sh-tty little country, but the Arab Radicals and Anti-Semetic Propaganda is fiananced by Saudi $$$ and desire for a ONE WORLD RELIGION of Whabbism Islam! Bush will not stand up to the Royals, Kerry WILL.. If something isn't done to stop this Saudi Propaganda machine SOON, the level of Anti-Semitism will equal or pass the 1930's in Nazi Germany.. 4 more years of Bush is suicide for the Jewish people, and Bush doesn't care!!! He caters to 2 constituients big oil/House of Saud and Christain Zionists.. Christain Zionists , while we appreciate their support for Israel, they have their own Agenda.. Maybe in the near future they will demand that Bush stand up to the House of Saud and END our depedence on ME oil!!!!!!. Than Bush will have a choice ,oil or G-D? That will be a tough one to predict! But, G-D willing, we'll only have a few months left of the Bush-Bandor admin. in Washington... Go Johnny Go!!!! Bob

[Sana]

Kerry is bad news for Israel. He will try to please France and the EU. He will name Holbrooke as his Foreign Minister who thinks he's a know it all. Carter and Brejinski, an antisemite may also get involved and he will send Ross and Indyk back who were a disaster.


************************************************** *******
~Semsem... :p have a look at a funny movie with John Kerry and President Bush... it takes a minute or two to load, but it is funny as heck. Here is the web site. ~

http://atomfilms.shockwave.com/contentPlay/shockwave.jsp?id=this_land&track=0&ratingBar=off

[Boblight]

France needs ME oil, and has a large Islamic population. They maybe whimmpy, but they take their orders from their OPEC masters! And so does Bush! Free America of Foreign oil dependence, GO Johnny Go!!!!!!!!!

[Olivier]

France needs ME oil, and has a large Islamic population. They maybe whimmpy, but they take their orders from their OPEC masters! And so does Bush! Free America of Foreign oil dependence, GO Johnny

in the world, France might be the most oil-independant country. e.g. Nuclear plants make 83% of our electricity production

"OPEC masters" : don't try to compare how bush and the house of saud are interconnected and chirac. There is no such a saudi embeddedness.

"Free America of Foreign oil dependence": while you're at it, free the whole world...

[KettleWhistle]

AJ, Magog is in the Tanakh, Ezekiel, in which Israel will be reborn from among the Nations and attacked by a coalition of Arab States. These are Jewish Prophets/ Prophecies. The book of revelations touches upon Magog, as does the Koran. Bob
Thanks, Bob. I just never heard about it from a Jewish perspective, only a few fundamental Christians that I know ever mentioned it to me.

[Boblight]

You are also very welcome, maybe you can understand that Israel was reborn by G-D's Will , not some secularists ... Without G-d , Secular Judaism is a barren oxymoron.. Keep up the faith!! Bob

[Boblight]

Still France does a lot of business in the Arab world! Bob

[takeo]

That assumes that they are in fact, governable. At best that's a guess. Maybe authoritarian governance is the best they can hope for. Seemingly the alternative is anarchy. It's an old story known the world over; better to be someone's slave than have to worry about your next meal or whether you get randomly blown up. Similarly I'm sure the KSA is terrified of the prospect of a successul secular Iraq but they are commonsense enough to understand that will probably not occur. Either the country will break into its contituent parts and become a loose confederacy, or it will become an authoritarian theocracy like the KSA and Iran or it will just plummet straight to the bottom in flaming disorder. It could be that absent any tyrannical hand this is all they are capable of. I suppose it's a remote possibility but clearly once you give mini-shiekhs a taste of a little power derived from carbombs and random violence they quickly get addicted and can't stop. Or they get so caught up in their own insane ideologies that they stop having any reasonable connection to governance. See what's happening over in Afghanistan. Before all the Eurotrash starts clattering who's fault it is, please remember that MSF (Medicine w/o Borders) has been there for almost 20 years. They decided to pull out when the people they were helping started murdering them for no obvious reason at all other than a perception that somehow aid was tied to the US which of course MSF would be the first to deny. So absent any fascist hand, these people who we actually call "Tribal Warlords" start killing just because they can. They want all 'infidels' out of the country and they don't have any compunction to killing as many of their own people indirectly in order to do that. This is why those silly stupid French communists are so sympathetic; they grew up on a steady diet of the Cultural Revolution and Pol Pot and Kulak purges with their scores of millions murdered and starved and imagine themselves all chefs making omlettes whilst breaking ouefs.

So in one word Iraq won't be a demoracy and the US has exterminated a regime that was an ennemy of the Saoudi royal family. The Saoudi regime officially condamned the war but in reality cooperated, as did the Jordan regime. They were part of the "coalition of the willing"...



I've always wanted a conservative president to have the guts to install a really radical environmentalist as the head of the EPA.

this is as likely as Bush publicly admitting his gay relation with Cheney...

[Oh Jerusalem]

Oh J, Thank you for your compliment that I am soo young! Bush obviously decieved America by saying Iraq( broken country) was an "iminent" threat to US security, that Saddam Has WMD's,.
You can enjoy the compliment about being young but you really are being naive. Bush didn't deceive anyone. America's intelligence services are a major failure.

Just look at this list of Democratic party decievers, including Mr. Kerry himself.

Wake up and smell the coffee!

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
This was a quote from President Clinton during a presentation at the Pentagon defending a decision to conduct military strikes against Iraq.


"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon on this occasion to be briefed by top military officials about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.
His remarks followed that briefing.


"Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
This is a quote from Albright during an appearance at Ohio State University by Albright, who was Secretary of State for Bill Clinton.


"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
This was at the same Ohio State University appearance as Madeline Albright.


"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
According to the U.S. Senate website, the text of this letter was signed by several Senators, both Democrat and Republican, including Senator John McCain and Joseph Lieberman.


"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
The text of this statement by Nancy Pelosi is posted on her congressional website.


"Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
This was from an appearance Albright made in Chicago.
She was addressing the embargo of Iraq that was in effect at the time and criticism that it may have prevented needed medical supplies from getting into the country. Albright said, "There has never been an embargo against food and medicine. It's just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction, and palaces for his cronies."


"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
The only letter with this quote from December 5, 2001 that we could find did not include the participation of Senator Bob Graham, but it was signed nine other senators including Democrat Joe Lieberman.
It urged President Bush to take quicker action against Iraq.


"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
These were remarks from Senator Levin to a Senate committee on that date.


"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
This and the quote below was part of prepared remarks for a speech in San Francisco to The Commonwealth Club.


"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
Part of a speech he gave at Johns Hopkins.


"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998.
We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
On the floor of the Senate during debate over the resolution that would authorize using force against Iraq.
He was urging caution about going to war and commented that even though there was confidence about the weapons in Iraq, there had not been the need to take military action for a number of years and he asked why there would be the need at that point.


"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
Senator Kerry's comments were made to the Senate as part of the same debate over the resolution to use force against Saddam Hussein.


"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
Senator Rockefeller's statements were a part of the debate over using force against Saddam Hussein.


"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
Senator Waxman's contribution to the Senate debate over going to war.


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
Senator Clinton acknowledged the threat of Saddam Hussein but said she did not feel that using force at that time was a good option.


"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003
In a speech to Georgetown University.

I believe Iraq could have waited while we focused on Al-Quida and Afganastan. Now the Bush Admin. finally admits that the US armed forces are stretched too thin around the world. Maybe if Bush would have been in the Army, this War president might have known this!!!
I am confident that had the attack on the US occurred during Clinton's term in office, he too would have eventually attacked Iraq on the very same security premises that I quoted above from Clinton himself, his wife, his Sec. of State and major Democratic party members.

[Oh Jerusalem]

The greatest threat to the Jewish people and Israel is the Anti-Semetic Hatred of Jews and Israel paid by Saudi oil money.
The greatest threat to the Jewish people is their not behaving as the Jewish people.
John Kerry in his speech realizes this, that we can no longer be dependent on our Enemies, like the Racist House of Saud!!!!
Unlike you, I do not believe politicians with their pie-in-the-sky-before-you-die promises - Bush or Kerry.

Bush's policy vis-a-vis the Saudis is pragmatic. Kerry has no intentions of being any less pragmatic.

It would be nice for the President of the US to publicly announce that from tomorrow morning, the US will no longer import not a single barrel of Saudi petroleum. But it's not going to happen.
We as Americans, Jews and Christains , have to find alternative sources of energy, or else our Children will be bowing towards MECCA in the near future!!!!!
I agree but I don't think the pragmatic difference between Bush and Kerry is in any way signifcant.
It is My personal belief as a Jew, who believes in the Prophets, that Saudi Whabbism is the seed form of Magog, a Muslim/Arab Coalition that will attack Israel in "the Latter Days" The House of Saud has created the Monster of Radical Islam, now we need a Strong President who will stand up to them, not a puppet!! I personally believe Magog will be from Moslem countries of the USSR, Lybia, Iran( possibly Iraq if it folds), Sudan, Arabia/Yemen etc.. My friend OJ, read Ezekiel, if you have not, look up Hashem/Ezekiel, Israel/End of Days on the internet for further info . (Again, these are my Beliefs), than we can discuss this further, G-D Bless Israel and America, Bob
I've read Yehezkel. Thank you. Could be. Could be not. Makes no difference who the one with the gun once the barrel is in your face.

[redcake]

I've skimmed this thread, so I apologize if this has already come up here... but...

I'm told that Kerry's wife has supported the Tides Foundation, with ties to ANSWER, and various Wahhabist charity organizations connected to Hamas. There's a lot of information on the web about this.

Aww well, American Jews never used to be fond of using Heinz Ketchup anyway.

[eyl]

While ITER looks nice, no form of practical fusion (i.e., you get an energy profit) exists now. Currently, the only alternative to oil (for large applications like cities) are fission power plants, which have long been impossible to build in the US due to the environmental lobby (well, that's the short form).

As for Kerry; I generally don't discuss this, not being an American citizen. However, it would be easier to come out in favor of him if he would actually take a clear stand on any policy issue; so far, he keeps trying to please all sides.

And Olivier - Bush did not block Kyoto - the US Senate (including Kerry) unanimously voted to reject it.

The solution ins not american, it needs a world effort.

This world effort is called ITER, and it's been blocked by Bush (The US were in, then withdrew from the project, then Bush put them back in, but it was only to stall the process). Smells like Kyoto to me : not good for the oil business, so Bush blocks it.

http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?p=98667&highlight=iter#post98667


ITER is very very important, it's the single best hope for an oil-free world. Blocking it (for nearly a year now) is criminal.

[Mediocrates]

I heard the first lady is married to man who's in bed with Wahabbi supporters and bronze aged butchers.

[Olivier]

While ITER looks nice, no form of practical fusion (i.e., you get an energy profit) exists now. Currently, the only alternative to oil (for large applications like cities) are fission power plants, which have long been impossible to build in the US due to the environmental lobby (well, that's the short form).the problem with the environmental lobby is even worst in germany now... they have stopped building plants are are even dismantling them... without any alternative solution. Fools

+ we do need a second generation of fission plants before fusion, that's sure.


As for Kerry; I generally don't discuss this, not being an American citizen. However, it would be easier to come out in favor of him if he would actually take a clear stand on any policy issue; so far, he keeps trying to please all sides.... and there is absolutely nothing defined in his iraq policy. I fail to see the difference with bush on that matter.


And Olivier - Bush did not block Kyoto - the US Senate (including Kerry) unanimously voted to reject it.you mean Bush *alone* didn't block Kyoto. But the oil and big business lobbies helped a lot too...

[Boblight]

If this is (Whabbism) Magog( maybe) than Divine help for Israel is on the way( Ezekiel 38-39).. If not, at some future date! Bob

[eyl]

+ we do need a second generation of fission plants before fusion, that's sure.

Even the ones we have now are could pick up some of the slack, if it wasn't for all the panic some have for anything containing the word "nuclear"


... and there is absolutely nothing defined in his iraq policy. I fail to see the difference with bush on that matter.

Assuming for the sake of argument that's so, Kerry has made no definite statements on anything else either.

you mean Bush *alone* didn't block Kyoto. But the oil and big business lobbies helped a lot too...

The Senate voted down Kyoto during the Clinton administration.

[Olivier]

Assuming for the sake of argument that's so, Kerry has made no definite statements on anything else either.ROLF you exagerate a bit...

he said things like
We need a president who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, and reduce the risk to American soldiers and I'm not too enthousiastic about that ...


.. unless of course we have a say in the decision (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040730/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_kerry_text_1)
And we need to rebuild our alliances, so we can get the terrorists before they get us.
The word alliances is sweet indeed, especially we you compare it to "coalitions of the willings" à la Bush and contempt à la Cheney.




note he said that too
We value an America that controls its own destiny because it's finally and forever independent of Mideast oil. What does it mean for our economy and our national security when we only have three percent of the world's oil reserves, yet we rely on foreign countries for fifty-three percent of what we consume?

I want an America that relies on its own ingenuity and innovation, not the Saudi royal family. a sea change from Bush policy, good for the US and good for europe too.





The Senate voted down Kyoto during the Clinton administrationindeed.
But do you really think we are blaming Bush wrongly?

[Boblight]

Kerry is light years ahead of Bush on this most important concern. If we don't begin a Marshall type plan to FREE ourselves from OPEC domination, our economy will be held blackmail in the future. Since Anti-Israel/Western forces hold the oil card , America will be FORCED to abandon Israel or Face crippling Economoic blackmail( like Europe does). Maybe Israel will use it's techno-genious to invent the first workable electric/hydrogen fuel cell, to lesson the importance of oil( benifits include less pollution, cancer, wars, climatic catostrophes, less money going to terrorists and radical Islamists, more Economic/Political Freedom=less vulnerability to oil blackmail ,etc.). Anyway we are past PEAK OIl Production( see Hubbard Curve), and sooner or latter the oil will run out for transportation use( still good for plastics, fertillizers etc.). Competition from India, China, and developing countries have ended the ERA of cheap oil, it is the 21st century and it is time to move on! Bush will keep US in the Era of fossil Fuels and milatary control of the Middle-East which is impossible to sustain for long peroids of time and fuel the Whabbis/Radical Islamists hatred of US... Oil Dependence is similar to drug addiction.. The oil Pushers( Royals) have control of the Addicts(US) for their benifit , not our welfare.. Kerry is trying to FREE US from the Pushers, Bush has a dependent Personality( Alcohol)... Bob... A good book to read is" Bush on the Couch" by Dr. James Frank

[Oh Jerusalem]

Sory, Bob, but I don't believe your pom-pom cheerleading will lead to anything particularly better on the part of Kerry once he's faced with reality.

Once again, the free market and its research arms are already working full steam to develop a better mousetrap to the petrolium combustion engine. Makes no difference who sits in the Oval Office.

Also, you've made no comment on my rebuttal to your accusations of deceptions attributed to Bush.

But getting back on the subject of this thread, look who Kerry appointed as his Mi-East advisor. Losers chosing losers? How tragic.

Kerry's Arafat Yes-Man (http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14474)
By David Bedein
FrontPageMagazine.com (http://www.frontpagemag.com/) | August 2, 2004

Democratic Presidential nominee John Kerry’s newly appointed Middle East advisor, Martin Indyk, has been working for years to garner American support for Yasser Arafat and his terrorist regime. As the Middle East Advisor to the Clinton administration, Indyk managed to help Arafat wrest complete control over the Palestinian people through deceit and subterfuge. And now, if he gets his way, American troops may find themselves in the middle of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip-providing cover for Hamas and Palestinian Jihad.

The Israeli newspaper correspondent, Natan Guttman, from Ha’Aretz, reported that Indyk has said he expected the Israeli government to pay more serious attention to John Kerry. Sources close to Indyk indicated the Kerry campaign felt miffed that the Israeli government had yet to dispatch its head of state to meet with Kerry, and that the Israeli government was simply too closely coordinated with President George W. Bush.

The very mention of Indyk, who served two stints as ambassador to Israel, sends shudders down the spine of senior members of the Israel defense and foreign policy establishment. For the past year, Indyk, in his new capacity as the head of the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution, has conducted a campaign to dispatch U.S. troops to intervene in the Middle East conflict. Indyk has gone so far as to say that the U.S. should sent troops or create a protectorate over the West Bank and Gaza. Such a step would place the U.S. in a virtual state of war with the Israeli army, which has always viewed some of the West Bank and Gaza as vital to the security concerns of the state of Israel.

Indyk -- who, by the way, is funded by millionaire toy inventor Haim Saban, who also catapulted Ehud Barak into his disastrous short term as Prime Minister of Israel -- is generally looked upon as the man who planned the Oslo process that gave Yassir Arafat and the PLO armed control over most of the Palestinian Arab population.

In 1994, journalist Haim Shibi of the Yediot Aharonot newspaper reported that in 1987, Indyk had convinced more than 150 members of the U.S. foreign policy establishment that Israel should unilaterally withdraw from territories gained in 1967 Six Day War. Indyk oversaw every step of the disastrous Oslo process with this precise policy in mind of Israel giving up land vital to her defense.

And Indyk did not hesitate to misrepresent the intentions and policies of the PLO while doing so. Particularly, the PLO has never adhered to the basic commitment it made to cancel its covenant that calls for the eradication of the Jewish state. In September 1995, with the signing of the second Olso interim agreement at the White House, the U.S. Congress mandated that the U.S. would only be able to provide funds to the Palestinian Authority and provide diplomatic status to Arafat if the PLO covenant was finally canceled. The Palestinians have never done it, yet the foreign aid money kept rolling in to the Palestinian Authority.

On April 24, 1996, the PLO convened a special session of its Palestine National Council (PNC) to consider the subject of the PLO covenant cancellation. Our news agency dispatched a Palestinian TV crew to cover that session, which filmed the event. The film crew brought back a videotape that showed a lively discussion, the conclusion of which was to ratify Arafat’s suggestion that the PNC simply create a committee to “discuss” the subject. I rushed the video to Ambassador Indyk for comment, but he did not respond to that request. In addition, he chose to ignore the decision of the PNC and instead to issue a falsified report to President Clinton and to the U.S. Congress that the PLO covenant had been canceled.

As a result, Arafat was provided with a red carpet greeting at the White House on May 1, 1996. The next day, Hebrew University Professor Yehoshua Porat, a former activist in Peace Now and an expert in Palestinian studies who is fluent in Arabic, convened a press conference in which he shared documents of the PNC session and the videotape that proved Arafat never canceled the PLO covenant. But the damage was already done. Thanks to the obfuscations of Martin Indyk, Arafat received the crucial diplomatic recognition and foreign aid that he needed from the U.S. to buttress the PLO.

In December 1998, Clinton himself came to Gaza, accompanied by Indyk, and asked for a show of hands from members of the PNC as to whether they want to cancel the PLO covenant and make peace with Israel. He got his true answer when the next day, Arafat’s trusted spokesman, Yassir Abed Abbo, told the Palestinian Arabic media that the PNC had, of course, not canceled any covenant.

In September, 2000, Dr. Uzi Landau, then serving as the head of the Knesset State Control Committee (the equivalent of the U.S. Senate's Committee on Governmental Affairs), took the unusual step of filing a formal complaint against United States Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk.

Landau quoted the September 16, 2000 report in the Guardian of London that "the U.S. Ambassador to Israel yesterday urged Israel to share Jerusalem with the Palestinians.” Mr. Indyk said: “There is no other solution but to share the holy city..." and Landau also noted that Ambassador Indyk was similarly quoted by the Associated Press, The Jerusalem Post and Ha'aretz.

Landau went on to say that “the timing of the speech and the political context in which it was delivered leave no room for doubt that Ambassador Indyk was calling on the Government of Israel to divide Jerusalem. Indeed, the Guardian correspondent described the remarks as ‘a sharp departure from Washington orthodoxy in recent years.’”

In addition to his remarks concerning Jerusalem, Ambassador Indyk offered his views regarding secular-religious tensions in Israel and the role of the Reform and Conservative movements in Judaism. He also intimated his tacit support for Prime Minister Barak's so-called secular revolution. As a commentator in the liberal daily Ha'aretz, noted: "readers are urged to imagine what the Americans would say if the Israeli ambassador to Washington were to come to a local religious institution and say such things."

Landau, who today serves in a ministerial post in the Israeli government that negotiates the sensitive relations between the U.S. and Israel, mentioned in his letter to Clinton that he wished to “strongly protest Ambassador Indyk's blatant interference in Israel's internal affairs and democratic process… I am sure you would agree that it is simply unacceptable for a foreign diplomat to involve himself so provocatively in the most sensitive affairs of the country to which he is posted. If a foreign ambassador stationed in the United States were to involve himself in a domestic American policy debate regarding race relations or abortion, the subsequent outcry would not be long in coming. Ambassador Indyk's remarks about Jerusalem are an affront to Israel, particularly since he made them in the heart of the city that he aspires to divide. By needlessly raising Arab expectations on the Jerusalem issue, rather than moderating them, Ambassador Indyk has caused inestimable damage to the peace process. It is likewise inexplicable that Ambassador Indyk would choose to interject his private religious preferences into the debate over secular-religious tensions in Israel.”

Landau made it a point even more by stating that “this is not the first time that the American Embassy in Israel has interfered in our internal affairs. In February, I wrote to you in the wake of media reports that Embassy officials were lobbying Israeli-Arab leaders regarding a possible referendum on the Golan Heights. My fear is that such interference in Israel's affairs is rapidly becoming routine.”

Landau concluded his missive to Clinton with a “Request that you recall Ambassador Indyk to the United States.”

[Oh Jerusalem]

(continued)

Unfortunately, Landau’s protestations did not help.

Only two months later, in early November 2000, Arafat’s Second Intifada terror campaign was getting underway, and Indyk was strongly condemning Israel’s military actions against Arafat’s forces. Indyk remarked that what the Israelis had to do was to get Arafat to act against the perpetrators of the violence, such as Hamas, Tanzim gangs and the Islamic Jihad diplomatically. He did not mention that Arafat's own Force 17 bodyguard, Preventive Security and other Palestinian Authority forces were also responsible for a considerable portion of the violence. Indyk never wants to hold Arafat responsible when Arafat’s personal forces carry out terrorist activities and kill people.

And in late November 2000, when Israel issued a “white paper” on intercepted intelligence from Arafat’s headquarters that showed documentary evidence that Arafat and his mainstream PLO gangs were indeed facilitating the campaign of terror, Indyk made a special trip to Jerusalem to demand that the Israeli government withdraw its report. Indyk had just reported to the U.S. Congress that the Palestinian groups organizing the terror campaign were NOT under Arafat’s control.

Eight months later, on May 21, 2001, in an address to Ben Gurion University, Indyk stuck to his guns and continued to position Arafat and company as U.S. colleagues in the War on Terror by telling Israel: “What you do is you get Arafat to act against the perpetrators of the violence, Hamas, Tanzim gangs, the Islamic Jihad and you get the Israeli government to hold back the Israeli army while he does so. But that requires a great deal of energy and commitment on Arafat's part -- in very risky circumstances to take on the very angry Palestinian street -- and that requires a great deal of restraint and forbearance on the part of the government of Israel.”

Indyk’s admonition to Israel to turn the other cheek when it comes to Arafat has become his mantra. Meanwhile, Israelis and even some American citizens have died at the hands of the PLO.

In geopolitical circles, Indyk’s ideas of dispatching U.S. troops to an area where they could become targets of the PLO or be killed in crossfire between Israeli troops and Arafat’s forces had rendered him obsolete. That is until Senator Kerry appointed Inyk as his man for Middle East policy two days ago. Now they will have to take Indyk’s personal policy to hide the crimes of Fatah and the PLO and coerce American soldiers to protect Arafat’s terrorists seriously.

Imagine if the PLO fires upon Jewish population centers and American soldiers get killed in the crossfire. Because this is what the PLO wants. Furthermore, the PLO openly and verbally supports the insurgency in Iraq. How long will it be before American soldiers are taken hostage by Palestinian terror groups, or worse, killed like the 241 U.S. marines in Beirut in 1983?

Are American lives threatened by Kerry’s choice for his Middle East advisor? Time will tell. So will the November elections.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Bedein is the bureau chief of the Israel Resource News Agency, located at the Beit Agron International Press Center in Jerusalem.

[Boblight]

Discussed in the Near East Report, John Kerry's Position Paper on Israel before you speak your Bue Trash Talk! The bottom line is Bush is a puppet of Saudi-arabia and big oil, niether I would call Pro-Israel!!! Bob ,Rumors are that if GWB wins (G-D Forbid), they will be expanding the West Wing of the White House so Prince Bandor can move in!!! Just Kiddin! ????

[KSO]

\Rumors are that if GWB wins (G-D Forbid), they will be expanding the West Wing of the White House so Prince Bandor can move in!!! Just Kiddin! ????

Those rumours are false they'll just move Laura into the Texas Ranch and Prince Bandor will take her place (he'll make a lovely first lady)

[Boblight]

With the Dow losing 163 pts, down below 10,000, Consumer spending down, Federal budget deficit at a all time high, oil prices at a all-time high, job production at a snails pace.. Here's a quote from former Bush supporter, David Bonderman of Texas Pacific Group in Yesterdsay's Wall Street Journal" Bush is turning out to be the WORST President since Millard Fillmore, and that's probablyan insult to Millard Fillmore". Milton Friedman, said, a cut in Taxes without an accompanied cut in spending is a burden to our children= George Bush's economic Plan!!! Go Johnny Go!!! Bob PS, Bush's lack of diplomatic abilities are hurting American business, no one wants to buy from US!

[Boblight]

At least Bush's buddies in the oil business are doing well! The Royals thank him greatly!! Bob

[scattergood]

BOBLIGHT:
With the Dow losing 163 pts, down below 10,000, Consumer spending down, Federal budget deficit at a all time high, oil prices at a all-time high, job production at a snails pace.. Here's a quote from former Bush supporter, David Bonderman of Texas Pacific Group in Yesterdsay's Wall Street Journal" Bush is turning out to be the WORST President since Millard Fillmore, and that's probablyan insult to Millard Fillmore". Milton Friedman, said, a cut in Taxes without an accompanied cut in spending is a burden to our children= George Bush's economic Plan!!! Go Johnny Go!!! Bob PS, Bush's lack of diplomatic abilities are hurting American business, no one wants to buy from US!

Much as I disagreed with Olivier and his analysis on the Oil Futures, I need to disagree with you Bob and your economic analysis. I am no huge fan of Bush, I think running up deficits is a dumb idea but, the economic problems we have and are going to have are not just Bush's fault.

The major issue we have in the USA is that TOTAL CREDIT is at an all time high, not just Gov't debt. And most of that debt was run up during CLINTON not Bush. The exuberance in stock speuclation led to margin debt, which with the crash has led to more debt to sustain the high lifestile people got addicted to in the 1990's.

Bush has kept an easy monetary policy in order to induce spending and help inflate the value of the market. But, he is just the steward of a decades long orgy of debt that is going to haunt the economy and the market for 3-5 years. This is just the beginning of a very bad down leg in the market and even if Kerry comes in, there isn't much he can do to stop it. So the same argument in 3 years will be made by the Republicans that Kerry led to a bad market, but that won't be true either.

Scattergood

[Boblight]

Still I agree that Bush's Tax cuts without a cut in spending is worthless!! Some indications that the US recovery is heading south is that American Investors are buying Foriegn stocks at a record pace. More money is to be made overseas.. I do believe when Kerry is elected, the Alternative energy Industry will boom and I am looking into stocks of Mid/small Alternative Energy Companies. If Bush is re-elected ( G-D Forbid), I''d keep my $$ in Fossil fuel /big oil and watch American wealth continue to go up in smoke( oil). Bob

[Oh Jerusalem]

Here's my favorite Caroline Glickm, with numerous points of how Bush is bad for Israel. Note that does not mean that Kerry is better. I personally don't believe so, as I've pointed out previously on this thread. It's in the article's bottom line.

Better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

But for the record, and sorry if I'm repeating myself, my preference for Bush, be it ever so slight over Kerry, has to do with many things other than Israel.

Column one: Where Bush and Carter converge (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1091675655227&apage=1)
By CAROLINE GLICK

Ma'aleh Adumim defines the Israeli consensus in much the same way that falafel balls and Tel Aviv beaches do. Aside from some serious crazies on the extreme Left of the political spectrum, you aren't going to find Israelis who don't view Ma'aleh Adumim as an organic part of Israel, just like Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Even when Ehud Barak moved from negotiating with Yasser Arafat at Camp David to begging Arafat to sign a deal, any deal at Taba, he still maintained that Ma'aleh Adumim, located ten minutes outside of Jerusalem, would remain part of Israel. Even when Bill Clinton announced his "final offer" to Arafat in December 2000 that included transferring the Temple Mount to PLO sovereignty, Ma'aleh Adumim remained part of Israel.

But suddenly this week we have the Bush administration, less than three months before the presidential elections, demanding that Israel not build in Ma'aleh Adumim. We have State Department officials and spokesmen skewering Israel for announcing plans to build 600 more housing units in the city with more than 30,000 residents. According to Ha'aretz, we even have a senior administration source threatening that "When President Bush is elected for a second term he will no longer treat [Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon as he did the first term." And it isn't only the State Department. According to press accounts, Elliott Abrams, the National Security Council's point man for Israel and the Palestinians arrived here Wednesday armed with strong words for Prime Minister Sharon the gist of which is, "Stop building in the settlements, or else." The Bush administration's anger at the plan to build in Ma'aleh Adumim is wrong for three reasons. First of all, it makes no sense in the context of the administration's stated policy toward Israel. The Bush administration's policy toward the Palestinian war with Israel is that the Palestinians must reform to the point where they become an anti-terrorist democratic society. Once that happens, the US will support the establishment of a democratic Palestinian state that will exist west of the Jordan River and live at peace with Israel.

In the unlikely event that such a transformation of Palestinian society were to occur within the next generation, it is impossible to understand why an additional six hundred Israeli families living in the city of Ma'aleh Adumim will be a problem to anyone. If the Palestinians are democratic and anti-terrorist and therefore willing to live at peace with Israel, then they would surely be able to accept that Ma'aleh Adumim is one of the places beyond the 1949 cease-fire lines that will remain part of Israel forever. And if they cannot accept that position but rather insist that Ma'aleh Adumim belongs under Palestinian sovereignty, then surely a democratic, anti-terrorist Palestinian state won't have a problem with the ten percent of Palestine which is Jewish just as Israel doesn't have a problem with the Israeli Arabs who make up twenty percent of the Israeli population.

Indeed, it would be downright racist for the US to acquiesce to a demand that the peaceful, democratic, anti-terrorist State of Palestine west of the Jordan River become yet another Judenrein Arab state like Saudi Arabia. And if the Bush administration does foresee that the nascent Palestinian state will in fact be Judenrein then they are behaving immorally. Basing a foreign policy on inherently racialist assumptions is antithetical to everything the US stands for. And a policy which assumes that Jews must be barred from living freely in a Palestinian state is racist to the core.

Secondly, the Bush administration's policy towards the Palestinians is antithetical and counterproductive to its entire war against global terrorism. Last month, Ghaleb Awali, a senior Hizbullah terrorist responsible for coordinating Hizbullah assistance to and direction of Palestinian terror operations was killed in Lebanon. In a departure from his previous policy, Hizbullah chief Hassan Nasrallah admitted for the first time at Awali's funeral that Hizbullah is directly involved in the Palestinian war against Israel. On July 22nd, the Popular Resistance Committees, a terror umbrella group made up mainly of Fatah members and members of the PA's security forces held a memorial rally for Awali in the Sheikh Radwan neighborhood of Gaza. Members of the Islamic Jihad also participated. In front of a crowd of thousands, the organizers thanked Hizbullah for its assistance to the Palestinian cause. At the rally's conclusion, the crowd broke out in the traditional Hizbullah-Iranian slogan of "Death to America! Death to Israel!" as they burned US and Israeli flags.

The Palestinian jihad against Israel is part and parcel of the global jihad against the West. The war on Israel is no different in means or ends than the war taking place in the Philippines or Afghanistan or Iraq. And the need for stalwart, continuous pressure to be applied harshly on both the terrorists and the regimes that support them, which informs US policy everywhere else in the world, is needed in the case of the Palestinians. When America calls for Israel to compromise, or insists on engaging every single member of the Palestinian Authority except for Arafat, it is shooting itself in the foot. The notion that the 13 separate terrorist militias that Arafat formed since 1994 under the guise of "security services" can be magically transformed into normal, anti-terrorist police forces once they are collapsed into three militias run by an Arafat lackey as opposed to Arafat himself, is absurd.

And Muhammed Dahlan, the Bush administration's "great white hope" for Palestinian reform is just as much of a terrorist as Arafat. Their dispute is not over the jihad. It is a rivalry between thieves who can no longer figure out a way to share their loot. So it is that in an interview last week, Dahlan did not hesitate to express his sympathy for the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Fatah's terrorist arm. "I am proud of defending them every time it was necessary. They are familiar [and the Palestinian people] are proud of their heroic operations, which brought dignity to the Palestinian people," Dahlan said.

[Oh Jerusalem]

(continued)

When President Bush outlined his policy toward the Palestinian war against Israel in June 2002, he made it clear that for a Palestinian state to be established, the Palestinians would first need to choose new leaders who were not "tainted by terror." Yet two years later there is still not one prominent Palestinian leader who is not a member of an active terrorist organization. The Bush administration's refusal to allow Israel to dismantle the PA's militias, which are all tainted by terror, makes it impossible for any alternative Palestinian leadership to emerge. Whether it is the so-called "old guard" of Fatah, or "new guard" of Fatah, it is still Fatah, and all of the factions of Fatah, like their colleagues in Hamas and Islamic Jihad, agree on one thing: as much as they may hate each other, they hate Israel more.

The most bizarre aspect of the Bush administration's policy toward Israel, particularly as it is exposed by statements about Ma'aleh Adumim, is that aside from rhetoric, there is no significant difference between how it perceives Israel and how the Carter administration perceived Israel. As president, Jimmy Carter failed to recognize the fact that the root of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the Arab world's official refusal since 1922 to agree to the presence of a Jewish sovereign state in the Levant. The Palestinian war with Israel is simply a consequence of the overall refusal of the Arab League to accept the existence of Israel as a Jewish state within any boundaries. Rather than accept this state of affairs, Carter preferred the path of denial and appeasement, which involved putting pressure on Israel and condemning Israel for somehow being responsible for Arab racism and rejection.

In every other area of the Middle East, and indeed in every other aspect of its foreign policy, the Bush administration has bravely sought to place blame where it belongs – on rogue states and terror supporting regimes rather than on the victims of their absolutism and aggression, be those victims the Iraqi people under Saddam Hussein, the Afghan people under the Taliban, the Iranian people under the ayatollahs, the North Korean people under the Stalinist regime in Pyongyang or the American people who are targeted by al Qaida and its state sponsors.

While Carter's presidency is remembered as a colossal failure by almost all Americans, in truth, his view of the world still stands at the center of the polarization of American politics. Carter's view of America as tasked with advancing the cause of human rights only when those rights are perceived as being suppressed by America or its fellow democracies – and never when human rights are suppressed by totalitarian dictatorships – is by and large the view of the Kerry campaign.

While the Bush administration has sensibly discarded this view as so much nonsense, particularly in the post-September 11 world, for some reason, the Bush administration still clings to Carter's view of Israel.

In the months before the US presidential election, it behooves those who desire an American victory against the global jihad to demand that the Bush administration finally discard the Carter doctrine once and for all. Regardless of how inconvenient it may be for appeasement minded State Department officials to accept, the fact of the matter is that Israel and the US are fighting the same war against the same enemies.

In refusing to integrate this reality into its overall foreign policy, the Bush administration is acting as a Kerry administration most certainly would. It is strengthening America's enemies and weakening the cause of freedom throughout the world.