US Presidential Debates

[batyah]

George Bush and Israel -- The Record:
"Far From Perfect"
October 14, 2004

Supporters of the current administration often assert that George Bush is the best president Israel has ever had. While this administration has taken a number of positions that have garnered support among friends of Israel, the Bush record on Israel is far from perfect -- and friends of Israel must be prepared to criticize Bush policies where appropriate. The following facts are also a part of the Bush record on Israel.

"Challenging" Prime Minister Sharon in Front of World Leaders:

** Fact: George Bush said in London, "Israel should freeze settlement construction, dismantle unauthorized outposts, end the daily humiliation of the Palestinian people, and not prejudice final negotiations with the placements of walls and fences" (www.whitehouse.gov, November 19, 2003). Such rhetoric is not unusual for President Bush; speaking at the United Nations in September, 2004, President Bush "issued a direct challenge to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon," according to the Reuters news service. Speaking before the assembled world leaders, President Bush again said: "Israel should impose a settlement freeze, dismantle unauthorized outposts, end the daily humiliation of the Palestinian people, and avoid any actions that prejudice final negotiations"(Reuters, September 21, 2004).

A History of Opposing Israel's Security Fence:

** Fact: George Bush and his administration were opposed to the construction of Israel's security fence, and had threatened to penalize Israel for constructing the fence. Echoing many other Jewish and secular press articles, one press report noted in 2003 that "the Bush administration ... has been pressuring Israel about its fence because the barrier veers over the 'green line,' the old 1949 armistice line, to encompass at least two large West Bank settlements. The administration has said it may deduct what Israel spends on the fence from loan guarantees. ... 'We have made it clear that the fence... is a problem,' Secretary of State Colin Powell told The Washington Post [in October], in language that has been echoed by Bush" (The Forward, October 10, 2003).

Continuing to Oppose the Fence Through January, 2004:

** Fact: George Bush and his administration were clearly opposed to the fence as recently as five months ago, after which President Bush reversed his position. In January, the Forward reported that "Israel is pressuring the Bush administration to omit references to the West Bank security fence from the State Department's annual human rights report. ... The administration is still considering whether it will support Israel's position [on the fence] in front of the [International Court of Justice at the Hague]" (The Forward, January 16, 2004). A week earlier, the Forward explained, "The Bush administration, which takes a dim view of international tribunals but does not approve of the fence, has not yet decided if it would support such a campaign [against the International Court of Justice], several sources said" (The Forward, January 9, 2004).

Both Supporting and Opposing Israel's Targeting of Terrorists:

** Fact: Following Israel’s actions targeting Hamas leader Ahmed Yassin in March, White House spokesman Scott McClellan first said on-camera that “Israel has the right to defend herself.” But then, according to Reuters, “...in off-camera comments minutes later, McClellan revised the White House position by adding, ‘We are deeply troubled by this morning's actions in Gaza’” (Reuters, March 22, 2004). The same rhetoric was echoed days later by the Bush Administration's Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, John D. Negroponte, who told the UN Security Council that "the United States was 'deeply troubled' by the killing of Sheik Yassin and believed Israel's action had escalated tensions in the region" (New York Times, March 26, 2004).

Recent Sharp Criticism of Israel:

** Fact: In May, the Bush administration had sharp words for Israel, and the administration permitted the UN to pass an Arab-sponsored resolution condemning Israel. One month ago, under the headline "Bush's Support of Israel Falters," the Associated Press reported that the White House "sharply criticized Israel's military operations in Gaza and the United States allowed the U.N. Security Council to condemn the Jewish state. ... [I]n a sudden turnabout, Secretary of State Colin Powell lashed out at Israel, the White House issued a statement criticizing Israel on humanitarian grounds and the United States dropped plans to veto -- or at least weaken -- an Arab resolution at the U.N. condemning Israel for the housing demolitions and the attack on Palestinian demonstrators. By abstaining, as it almost never does when Israel is under assault in the Security Council, the Bush administration permitted the resolution to pass, 14-0" (Associated Press, May 20, 2004).

Retracting Pledges to Prime Minister Sharon:

** Fact: Under the headline "President Bush retracts pledges to Sharon," Israel's Maariv newspaper reported in May that George Bush was stepping back from promises he made to Prime Minister Sharon regarding Israel's borders and the Palestinian right of return: "Despite his warm embrace of Sharon recently, US President George Bush is showing signs of capitulating in the face of pressure from Arab states. In a press conference held following his meeting with Jordan's King Abdullah today (Thursday), Bush called on Israel to withdraw from territories it captured in 1967. Bush also failed to repeat an earlier statement that Palestinian refugees will not be allowed to enter Israeli territory. 'The US will not determine the results of the negotiations,' he noted. ...The Palestinians, however, were very pleased with Bush's speech. Palestinian Minister Saeb Erekat said that 'Bush understood that international agreements and direct talks are the guarantee for continuation of negotiations. The Palestinians are very encouraged by Bush's declaration, since only the Palestinians and the Israelis can discuss their conflict and come up with solutions. The pledges Bush made to Sharon are not legally valid'" (Maariv Online, May 6, 2004).

Increasing Pressure on Israel's Leaders:

** Fact: George Bush and his administration are increasing pressure on Israel and its leaders, and many analysts have predicted that such pressure would increase if George Bush is given a second term in office. One Jewish newspaper related last week that on June 10th, the Israeli newspaper Yediot Achronot "predicted that if Bush were re-elected, he would step up the pressure on Sharon, a pressure that Israeli papers chided Sharon for being so unable to resist or defuse.... Yediot ventured that a combination of Bush pressure and further terror would lead more Israelis to support Sharon’s withdrawal plan..." (New York Jewish Week, June 18, 2004). Under the headline "Bush Pushing Israel on Terms Of Disengagement From Gaza," The Forward added the same day, "As Israel prepares to withdraw from Gaza, the Bush administration is laying down a stiff series of expectations that could set the stage for a rocky few months between Washington and Jerusalem, pro-Israel activists say.... The expectations provide much potential for friction.... 'Progress has been too slow,' an administration official said" (The Forward, June 18, 2004).

Initially Opposing Prime Minister Sharon's Disengagement Plan:

** Fact: The New York Times reported in December that "The Bush administration, responding coolly to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's announcement of a possible 'disengagement plan' in the West Bank, warned Israel on Thursday against taking unilateral steps that effectively abandoned the American-sponsored peace plan, called the road map, which would establish a Palestinian state. 'We would oppose any unilateral steps that block the road toward negotiations under the road map that lead to the two-state vision,' said Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman" (The New York Times, December 19, 2003).

Refusal to Call Arafat a Terrorist in 2002:

** Fact: The UPI wire service reported in 2002: “President George W. Bush on Monday said he would not label Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat a terrorist since the Arab leader remained engaged in peace negotiations despite a week of devastating suicide bombings within Israeli cities. ‘We've got a plan that will lead to peace. It's a security plan called Tenet, it's a political plan called Mitchell. Both sides have agreed to this plan,’ said Bush speaking to reporters in the Oval Office. The president said that Arafat's involvement in negotiating a peace settlement was prevented him from designating him a terrorist” (UPI/United Press International, April 1, 2002).
___________________________

[batyah]

John Kerry and Israel -- The Record
Leadership in the Senate:

** Fact: The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has made note of "Kerry's 100 percent pro-Israel voting record in the Senate" (Jewish Telegraphic Agency, May 18, 2004). John Kerry has a perfect, unblemished 20-year voting record on Israel in the United States Senate -- including some 60 pro-Israel votes and signatures on key congressional letters. He took a leadership role in cosponsoring many of these efforts, dating back to his co-sponsorship of a 1987 resolution disapproving missile sales to Saudi Arabia.

Israel's Security Fence:

** Fact: John Kerry has strongly supported Israel's right to build a security fence. During a debate in February, he described the fence as "a fence necessary to the security of Israel until they have a partner to be able to negotiate" (New York Times transcript, February 29, 2004). He has stated his support for the security fence repeatedly in public forums, including during an April speech before newspaper editors when he again said, "I support the building of the security fence" (Speech before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 23, 2004).

"We Should Never Pressure Israel:"

** Fact: John Kerry has repeatedly and clearly stated that a Kerry Administration will never force Israel to take steps that compromise her security: "And I want you to know that, as president, my promise to the people of Israel is this: I will never force Israel to make concessions that cost or compromise any of Israel's security. The security of Israel is paramount. And we [are] an ally and we are a friend and we have a special relationship, and we must remember that. We will also never expect Israel to negotiate peace without a credible partner" (Speech before the Anti-Defamation League, adl.org, May 3, 2004). He had previously noted in a statement, "Our commitment must be clear: We should never pressure Israel to compromise its security; never coerce it to negotiate for peace without a credible partner; and always work to provide the political and military support for Israel's fight against terror" (Statement by John Kerry, April 27, 2004).

No Palestinian Right of Return:

** Fact: John Kerry has clearly noted his opposition to any Palestinian "right of return" to Israel: "Now I think what the President did in the last few days is to recognize a reality that even President Clinton came to: if you're going to have a Jewish state, and that is what we are committed to do and that is what Israel is, you cannot have a right of return that's open ended -- you just can't do it. It's always been a non-starter. I personally said that at a speech I gave to the Arab community in New York at the World Economic Forum. I've said that. I've also said that it is realistic because we know that at Taba they negotiated the annexation of certain territory. So it's really stating a reality" (NBC's "Meet the Press," April 18, 2004).

Taking On Saudi Leaders:

** Fact: John Kerry has strongly criticized our unwillingness to condemn the Saudis for their failure to fight terrorism. According to CBS News, he has vowed to "end a 'sweetheart relationship' that allows money to flow through Arab countries to terrorist groups and criticized President Bush over a report that he had struck a deal with Saudi officials to lower gasoline prices before the election. ...'I have a 100 percent record ... of supporting the special relationship and friendship that we have with Israel,' Kerry said. 'I can guarantee you that as president, I understand not just how we do that but also how we end this sweetheart relationship with a bunch of Arab countries that still allows money to move to Hamas, Hezballah and the Al Aqsa Brigade'" (CBSNews.com, April 18, 2004).

Targeting Hamas Leadership:

** Fact: John Kerry has clearly supported Israel's right to target Hamas leadership for assassination. When asked whether he supported Israel's assassination of Hamas leader Rantisi on NBC's "Meet the Press," he replied: "I believe Israel has every right in the world to respond to any act of terror against it. Hamas is a terrorist, brutal organization. It has had years to make up its mind to take part in a peaceful process; and they refuse to, Arafat refuses to" (NBC's "Meet the Press," April 18, 2004).

Ruling Out Arafat:

** Fact: John Kerry has ruled out Arafat as a legitimate negotiating partner for Israel. As he said in March, 2004, "As far as I'm concerned he's an outlaw to the peace process. ...and he's proved himself to be irrelevant" (Associated Press, March 10, 2004).

Condemning Saudi Anti-Semitism:

** Fact: John Kerry has blasted anti-Semitic comments emanating from the leaders of Saudi Arabia, saying: "Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Abdullah's outrageous anti-Semitic comments this week blaming 'Zionists' for the terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia raises serious questions about the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's commitment to combating terrorism. President Bush has said nothing. As President, I will never permit this kind of attack to go unanswered" (Statement by John Kerry, May 5, 2004).

[minusthejihad]

More Jew Hating Moonbats Endorse Kerry (Lurch):

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...ters_for_Kerry


A great article on Kerry and the UN:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...y_the_Clueless

[SteveMetch]

John Kerry and Israel -- The Record
Leadership in the Senate:

Israel's Security Fence:

** Fact: John Kerry has strongly supported Israel's right to build a security fence. During a debate in February, he described the fence as "a fence necessary to the security of Israel until they have a partner to be able to negotiate" (New York Times transcript, February 29, 2004). He has stated his support for the security fence repeatedly in public forums, including during an April speech before newspaper editors when he again said, "I support the building of the security fence" (Speech before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 23, 2004).

Even CBS news lists this as a top-ten Kerry Flip/Flop. John Kerry’s only predictable quality is that he has no core belief system from which he can ultimately support any long term worldview, a trait shared by far to many voters as well. He has flipped and flopped on just about every one of these issues that you have listed.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in646435.shtml

[The Israeli Security Fence

In October 2003, Kerry said Israel’s unilateral construction of a security fence was “a barrier to peace.”

“I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the decision to build the barrier off the Green Line," he told the Arab American Institute National Leadership Conference. “We don't need another barrier to peace. Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israelis.”

But less than a year later, in February 2004, he reversed himself, calling the fence "a legitimate act of self-defense," and saying "President Bush is rightly discussing with Israel the exact route of the fence to minimize the hardship it causes innocent Palestinians.”]

So which John Kerry are you voting for? Even John Kerry doesn't know. Just a little pressure one way or the other will switch his position. A weather vane is not one of the images I associate with leaders.

[TheyAre]

Good post, Emunah ! Tough times require tough choices. Good luck to you in Israel and keep sayin what you think !

I suppose it was a good post, if you consider a "good post" to be nothing more than a stream of unsubstantiated opinion.

I am most curious - how have you come to the conclusion that Iraq is a mess? Repeating MSM and Kerry soundbytes isn't exactly a very convincing argument. I would most enjoy you reconciling the pacification of a half-dozen major insurgent towns / areas in the past few months, with Fallujah and Ramadi left as the sole holdouts with Iraq being a "mess." I would most enjoy you reconciling a strong-willed if not yet strong-armed Iraqi gov't under Allawi boldly standing against the insurgents with Iraq being a "mess." I would most enjoy you reconciling Iraq being a "mess" with Iraqis lining up in impressive numbers to become policemen and soldiers - and yes, the insurgents target those recruiting stations, and why do you think that is? Strong Iraqi police and Iraqi Army = insurgency doomed.

Oh my, Bush looks like a chimp! He's not up to the job! There is no substantiation for either charge. I personally think Bush looks like Perot (gander at the ears). I personally think that John Kerry looks like the walking dead.

The mutability of the past is alive and well in the opponents of Bush. Any mistakes made are distorted and puffed up until you'd think the man was trying to fail.

Where's the mention of the Afghan elections? That's an incovenient fact, it's not mentioned. Where's the talk of the high and rising consumer confidence? That's an inconvenient fact, it's not mentioned. Home ownership, the highest ever? That's not convenient to mention when you're slamming Bush, so not a peep. The tax cuts? Only mentioned in an attempt to fan the flames of class warfare. Forget it. That fire's been out for 30 years. Education spending up 58%? NCLB is underfunding schools! Don't believe your lying eyes, that massive Education spending increase is irrelevant!

Alan Greenspan, God during the Clinton years, saying he thinks that the economy is good and only going to get better? Don't believe those lying ears either!

Some of you disagree, but believe me I've thought long and hard on this, and we only have two choices...we need a new administration in order to revive our chances in the world and in the country.

The last thing this country needs is a new Administration, much less one by John "Hey my middle name is Forbes think of me as the new JFK" Kerry.

Keep on bemoaning Bush's "failures..." amazing how every failure of his has become a success. Maybe he flips a magic switch and things suddenly become better. Or maybe you're all akin to a bunch of whiny children wanting your cake ten minutes ago instead of waiting for it to be baked.

[KettleWhistle]

Exactly what are the dangers a Kerry Presidency would mean to Israel ?

Return to this:
http://www.womeningreen.org/gif/olegja00e.gif
and this:
http://www.womeningreen.org/gif/olegoct00c.jpg

I think that alone is good enough reason to vote for Bush.

[Mediocrates]

One
Iraqi Mess: as in not much of a plan. purely reactive and nothing in the way of a clear direction forward. save me the fog of war stuff. Unless you are the last person on earth who does not believe that Bush manipulated the facts and the truth to go to war I can't say how anything since then has been more than crisis management. We need a political statement and a will to stay there.

Two
Afghanistan: Karzai is the mayor of Kabul over a loose confederacy of disparate tribes who owe little and need less from the central government. just so we're clear, a victory for Karzai is a way to keep the foreign aid spigot open. I don't even think this is a bad thing but it's certainly less than what you or I would call a victory for democracy.

Three
If you think the economy is in good shape then you clearly are one of the blessed few. Maybe you are, I have no idea.

[KettleWhistle]

One
Iraqi Mess: as in not much of a plan. purely reactive and nothing in the way of a clear direction forward. save me the fog of war stuff. Unless you are the last person on earth who does not believe that Bush manipulated the facts and the truth to go to war I can't say how anything since then has been more than crisis management. We need a political statement and a will to stay there.

Yes, it's a mess, but that's mostly due to bad intelligence. There most certainly was pressure from the administration, but 74% of Congressmen reviewed these reports and voted for it. I'd say it was a right thing to do, but was badly executed.

Two
Afghanistan: Karzai is the mayor of Kabul over a loose confederacy of disparate tribes who owe little and need less from the central government. just so we're clear, a victory for Karzai is a way to keep the foreign aid spigot open. I don't even think this is a bad thing but it's certainly less than what you or I would call a victory for democracy.

I'd say that turned out rather good. That country is as stable as it could possibly get. And I believe progress is being made there. You can't expect a tribal culture to become a democracy overnight. But instituting a democratic infrastructure with elected public officials in charge will bring improvement in the long term.

Three
If you think the economy is in good shape then you clearly are one of the blessed few. Maybe you are, I have no idea.

I am one of the blessed few, but I can certainly admit that I'm one the very few. However, what does it have to do with Bush or his policies? He's not in charge of businesses' HR departments. Lower labor costs overseas is just a reality, and it won't be resolved by a presidential policy.

[Mediocrates]

See it's not necessary that jobs go to Viet Nam but then we shouldn't give them a tax advantage on top of the outright savings to do so. In fact it's not just jobs it's a flat stock market and cruddy bond market and a hyperactive debt level. It's the reality that with defecits this large we will start to see debt service crowd out everything else. And capital investment will drop off.

[KettleWhistle]

Agreed. But is Kerry better? I don't think so. At least not based on the analysis of his plans that I've read.

[minusthejihad]

Three
If you think the economy is in good shape then you clearly are one of the blessed few. Maybe you are, I have no idea.

Funny, I'm one of the many of the dot-bombers that got an over-inflated short term unstable computer job and lost it during clinton, only to get stable work and keep it during Bush. Honestly, I think they have less to do with our economy than other variables.

[philingraham]

I'm a General Contractor that got hammered this year by a weak economy...

[philingraham]

Agreed. But is Kerry better? I don't think so. At least not based on the analysis of his plans that I've read.

Well, that's the question. Is Kerry better ? What I do know is that W's stewardship of Foreign Policy and the Economy is a disaster...Let's throw the bum out and give the new bum a chance !

Ya know, in the end it's always "the economy, stupid"...

[philingraham]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese74.html

[KettleWhistle]

Well, that's the question. Is Kerry better ? What I do know is that W's stewardship of Foreign Policy and the Economy is a disaster...Let's throw the bum out and give the new bum a chance !

Ya know, in the end it's always "the economy, stupid"...

I am pretty content with his foreign policy. Regarding the economy, I don't think there is much he could to make it better. After all, we've been through the tech stock buble burst, 9/11, and we are at war. Given the circumstances we are not faring that bad at all. Regading Iraq, let's not forget that Kerry supported it too.

If you want to blame Bush for something, there is certainly education and healthcare. He's done nothing for the latter, and pushed a useless and wasteful educatinal bill through Congress. But then, I would rather have the "No Child Left Behind" fail, and eventually get cancelled, than have Kerry finance it, and spend the tax money on this useless program for decades.

So I'd say Bush is the lesser evil of the two.