Kerry is a joke. Would Kerry have forced the U.N. to enforce resolution 1559 calling for Hezbollah to disarm? No.

The entire Musilim world wants Israel destroyed. His Presidency would have hardly changed this point of view.

The oly think that will prevent this kind of attach on Israel in the future is a military VICTORY by Israel.

Kerry thinks? Who knew?

the lieutenant is "swiftboating" himself again.

the hezbollah war coverage gives one opportunity 4 several observations to wit:

A) syria is reported as having to absorb hundreds-of-thousands of shia dispora from lebanon. this is good as it reduces shia influence in lebanon & forces assad to divert monies into refugees. also, iranian petro funds from china will in effect be used for refugee operations in syria instead of weapons. interesting that the syrian ambassador to the US is suddenly open to "negoiations".

B) in an odd twist, now we have more common interests w the arab sunnis than shias due to the hizbollah/syrian/iranian axis. one wonders how this impacts the iraqi body politic considering the elected shia majority.

C) under the title "what if they gave an election & the terrorists won?", one further wonders if the repressed peoples in the middle east are sufficiently advanced yet as societies to transform into effective representative govts? perhaps they do need monarchy first as modeled by the european experience. please recall that general washington refused to become king after the revolution.

It's interesting how when some new round of violence breaks out, it's allegedly because the US or Isreal hasn't been diplomatic enough. The reality is that Islamic extremists do not regard diplomacy or a willingness to negotiate as something good, but as an admission of weakness. The violence in the Middle East will never stop until we get this basic fact through our thick skulls.

The Democratic Party has not been a friend of Israel.

This fact is not being lost on liberal Jews in this country either. A very liberal Jew, who used to be a customer of mine, wrote a scathing "letter to the editor" of the local paper last week in which he praised Bush's position on the Israeli/Hezbollah conflict and emphasized Israel's right to defend itself.

Two of the main constituancies of the Democrat Party in my lifetime have been blacks and Jews. I'm going to be surprised is both of those alliances don't disintegrate in the foreseeable future.

The current war would not have happened on his watch. We have to destroy Hezbollah.

Say what? Tin foil hat?

Two of the main constituancies of the Democrat Party in my lifetime have been blacks and Jews.

Over at the site of the Kossacks, they're advocating dumping the Congressional Black Caucus from their support:

The CBC defending McKinney is par for the course. Remember that, with the notable exceptions of Charles Rangel and John Lewis, other members circled the wagons around the corrupt William Jefferson.

Some people call for a viable third party. Well, I honestly think that the easiest method to create a third party is for the CBC to split off from (or be kicked out of) the Democratic Party. Do I think that should happen? Absolutely not. But it's a reasonable scenario.

Their rationale?

he African-American constituency is much more socially conservative than the rest of the Democratic Party. I haven't run the numbers, but they probably account for a significant chunk of the 25% or so of Democrats who want to overturn Roe v Wade. Black Democrats are a loyal constituency of the party that really isn't progressive. It's sort of that "big tent" thing people talk about. That sense of loyalty is echoed in the way that the CBC supports "one of our own" even though it seems that privately they know that Jefferson is a crook and McKinney is a nutjob.

So abortions on demand are MORE important than the Black vote? There's a catchphrase for this: "self-immolation"

Rev,

Let me just say that I don't agree with this writer's views about dumping the CBC.

What do you do with a group who insists on backing an accused money launderer, and a certifiable nut-bag? You either get them to face reality, or you let them go their way. I would bet that they like the options with the Dems, more than the planks in the Repubs platform.

Secondly, the CBC doesn't bring votes with them, the NAACP does, and I don't think you're going to have a very easy time convincing them to support the Repubs on very many issues, especially fiscal ones, and issues of war.

Rev,

Let me just say that I don't agree with this writer's views about dumping the CBC.

What do you do with a group who insists on backing an accused money launderer, and a certifiable nut-bag? You either get them to face reality, or you let them go their way. I would bet that they like the options with the Dems, more than the planks in the Repubs platform.

Secondly, the CBC doesn't bring votes with them, the NAACP does, and I don't think you're going to have a very easy time convincing them to support the Repubs on very many issues, especially fiscal ones, and issues of war.

Secondly, the CBC doesn't bring votes with them

I wonder how they got elected, then. Don't kid yourself. The CBC IS the power of the Black constituency and they are supported by NAACP. If the CBC backs away from donkeys because of their backdoor racist remarks, NAACP will follow.

Secondly, the CBC doesn't bring votes with them

I wonder how they got elected, then. Don't kid yourself. The CBC IS the power of the Black constituency and they are supported by NAACP. If the CBC backs away from donkeys because of their backdoor racist remarks, NAACP will follow.

mmmm! dem blue screens are soooo tasty!!! Mark, get a grown-up to fix this.

Can't we just send Kerry to France?

As bad as my senators are in CA, i prefer them over the two yo-hos in Mass. Talk about lesser of two evils.

Rev,

The CBC doesn't wag the NAACP, it is quite the other way around. Without NAACP support in churches and grass-root community affairs, the CBC doesn't exist, they weild only as much power as the NAACP is willing to lend them from their almost universal support among black voters.

The NAACP isn't going to dry-up its established financial channels among Dems, especially without a Republicrat Plan-B, and I don't think there are a lot of takers in the Big Tent who are willing to 'live and let-live' from the recent public snubbings they have heaped upon Bush et al.

The CBC doesn't wag the NAACP, it is quite the other way around. Without NAACP support in churches and grass-root community affairs, the CBC doesn't exist, they weild only as much power as the NAACP is willing to lend them from their almost universal support among black voters.

The CBC is a reflection of the mentality of the black population - both those who listen to the NAACP and those who don't. But that church thingy is exactly what the Kossacks are railing against and in that instance, there is no difference at all. The Kossacks are right about the blacks on one point - they are loyal beyond reason to their elected officials. Examples abound - Marion Berry, Coleman Young, and many others come to mind. They had Berry on video tape buying and shooting up cocaine. Next time he ran for office, he won easily. Was it religion? Nah. Was it common political philosophy? Nah. It was because he was black. And that talk at Kos is going to go down sideways with blacks. That may not push them over to Republican ranks - but it could - but it sure does dampen their enthusiasm to stand in long lines in November in Northern cities in the rain and cold to cast a vote for a party that claims to not want the to be part of it.

Gobbled by the blue meanie...

The CBC doesn't wag the NAACP, it is quite the other way around. Without NAACP support in churches and grass-root community affairs, the CBC doesn't exist, they weild only as much power as the NAACP is willing to lend them from their almost universal support among black voters.

The CBC is a reflection of the mentality of the black population - both those who listen to the NAACP and those who don't. But that church thingy is exactly what the Kossacks are railing against and in that instance, there is no difference at all. The Kossacks are right about the blacks on one point - they are loyal beyond reason to their elected officials. Examples abound - Marion Berry, Coleman Young, and many others come to mind. They had Berry on video tape buying and shooting up cocaine. Next time he ran for office, he won easily. Was it religion? Nah. Was it common political philosophy? Nah. It was because he was black. And that talk at Kos is going to go down sideways with blacks. That may not push them over to Republican ranks - but it could - but it sure does dampen their enthusiasm to stand in long lines in November in Northern cities in the rain and cold to cast a vote for a party that claims to not want the to be part of it.

Matt,

You say President Bush has done more for Israel than any Democrat could ever do. Please cite these accomplishments, if you can think of any.

On the larger issue of our role in this conflict, it is clear that our foray into Iraq has destabilized the region, which has led to this resurgence in violence.

Lets be clear, Hezbollah hates Israel, and will always hate Israel. Bush has nothing to do with that. Israel absolutely has the right to defend itself and try to destroy Hezbollah. But why do you think Hezbollah feels free to attack Israel at this time? Or more accurately, why do you think Iran feels free to let Hezbollah attack Israel at this time? Again and again, we see that the only clear benefactor of our war in Iraq is Iran.

An annonymous source sent this message to me. I think it is worth sharing with my B4B friends:

Whereas the Government of the United States has committed repeated acts of war against the Government and the people of Iran, to wit

1) Planning, coordinating, financing and encouraging the overthrow
of our democratically elected prime minister, Dr Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953.

2) Replacing our democracy with a cruel dictator, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who had no legitimate claim to rule over Iran. A puppet of the US, this
dictator lived in the kind of ostentatiously wealthy palaces that would put Saddam Hussein to shame - all while a majority of his countrymen lived in poverty.

3) Training and financing by the CIA of the Savak,
a secret police apparatus that routinely tortured Iranians who were political opponents of the US-installed dictatorship of Shah Pahlavi.

4) The shooting down of Iran
Air flight 655, killing all 290 passengers on board. This was a commercial airliner, a lumbering Airbus A300B2 that was shot down over Iranian territorial waters while flying its normal daily scheduled route to Dubai. Among the dead were 66 children. The US never apologized for the incident, which, if perpetrated against the US, would have constituted grounds for an invasion.

5) While Iranian reformist president Khatami was laying the groundwork with Britain and the US for a diplomatic rapprochement, GW Bush carelessly labeled Iran part of an "axis of evil", a phrase cooked up by political speechwriter David Frum without consultation from the US State Deptartment. British foreign secretary Jack Straw lamented that such shooting from the hip single-handedly torpedoed a decade of careful diplomacy that was bearing fruit. This colossally stupid throw-away remark, aimed at stoking up the wingnut base, served to strengthen hardliners who up until that time had been rejected by Iranians at the polls.

6) Encouraging, allowing and supporting open hostility towards Iran, and the demonizing of Iran. This
includes regular incursions by US special forces into Iran, as well as Pentagon planning for the invasion of Iran. It also includes routine appearances on cable news networks by the very neo-cons architects of the Iraqi occupation, openly advocating the invasion of Iran, Syria, and any other countries in the region who oppose the US.

Therefore be it Resolved:

That the state of war between Iran and the United States which has thus been thrust upon Iran is hereby formally declared...

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why John Kerry will never be elected President of the United States of America. EVER.

Remember, if he was in charge Christopher Reeve would be alive too.

The man is beyond contempt, much like most of the left. This is between Israel and Hezbollah and John Kerry could do nothing to stop it.

Wait until his 2008 platform..."I was for destroying Hezbollah before I was against it"

I voted for Kerry in '04. But this statement is absurd & I am embarrassed for him that he said it.

No more Kerry in '08. Gore, Feingold, Obama ...

Secondly, the CBC doesn't bring votes with them, the NAACP does, and I don't think you're going to have a very easy time convincing them to support the Repubs on very many issues

I wasn't necessarily suggesting in my earlier comment that blacks are all of a sudden, en masse going to become Republicans, if, for no other reason than, the Republican Party isn't likely to cater to the entitlement mentality that's been so ingrained into the black psyche. I'd be less surprised (and a whole lot happier) to see blacks form a third party. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, John Lewis and Maxine Waters deserve each other, and, quite frankly, the Republican "Big Tent" isn't THAT big.

There was a time, back in the 40's and 50's, that the majority of blacks WERE Republicans until Lyndon Johnson and Congressional Democrats (many of whom voted AGAINST the 1964 Civil Rights Act)began to exploit blacks in the 60's. That their efforts literally destroyed the black family seems to have been almost totally lost on the majority of blacks. If I sound like a racist bigot, it's not intentional (and I'm not).

Gore, Feingold, Obama

Hahahahaha! No, I mean HAHAHAHAHA! Hohohoho.. reminds me of this line from the Wizard of Oz:

"Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My!"

Hehehehehe. By golly, I think he's serious. Na, he'd never go for a carnival side show barker pushing his awful "Global Warming" movie and scam, a senator who had 90 other senators (43 of which were in his own party) vote against him, and the guy Fat Teddy called Osama Obama...Heheheh!

Gentleman's bet?

If he decides to run in 2008, Gore takes the White House (again).

Wait and see Rev, wait and see.

Gore's rants and screams will undo him. Besides, the Hitlery will not allow Gore to get that far.

Newsflash...stop being such a poor loser. You lost in 2000...get over it.

maf53, thanks for joining TEO and others driving the good Rev cuckoo banannas. Figures as long as he rants here he doesn't have time to climb a water tower and start the shooting the legions of his enemies.

Obviously Kerry wasn't the best choice in '04, that election was ours to lose after 4 years of George W. I like Obama. I'll be interested in seeing who the Rebuglicans here attack the most. That would be who they fear the most.

No worries Ash. Ol' Rev is quite a character. Now if only Keebler would come back.

Oh they will attack Gore the most. It won't even be close. They know he is their biggest threat (I think Obama will have to wait to 2012) but I am not quite so sure he will actually run.

By the way, did you see this from the NYT?

Gore, Feingold and Obama...
OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
First, they'd have to up Gore's meds...and if that happens, he'll ballon past 350...
Feingold....even other Dem 's run from him..
and Obama....an empty suit and isn't he considered an apostate?????????????

John "I fought in vietnam" Kerry was against Israel before he was for Israel.

Obviously Kerry wasn't the best choice in '04

Duh, ya think stupid ash?

That would be who they fear the most.

What we fear most is the one thing we really shouldn't fear at all since it will never happen. That is the party of the jackass coming to its senses. That just ain't gonna happen. You are a perfect example of why.

Oh they will attack Gore the most.

Gore? Gore who?

Oh, and Trash-can and Mafia man, ... get a room.

No one has to attack Gore. He is his own worst enemy. There is no "there" there. He changes his persona from one minute to the next, and quite frankly, none of them is very impressive. From Deep Tongue to Enviro-Geek to Woodsman Al to Tobacco Farmer to Anti-Tobacco to petulant sigher to pinchy-nose squinter, Al's a mess. The simple fact is, no one likes him. He thinks he finally has a message, but he's so deadly boring about it, and so scientifically inaccurate, that it won't take him far. And his past will haunt him, from his illegal campaign contributions and use of federal assets for fundraising to his shameful Viet Nam history. (He's got to hate Kerry for making military service such a touchstone after he and Clinton worked so hard to get it off the public radar---for obvious reasons.)

Let's just say that if Gore or Kerry get the nomination for the Donks, the champagne corks will be popping at conservative parties all over the country.

'Osama' Obama is an OK guy, better than many, but way too inexperienced to be a viable candidate. The election in '08 is going to be one of international politics and strategy, and Obama just doesn't have the chops. Condi does. If we go merely on qualifications, she is the logical candidate--no one else has her breadth of experience and expertise. If we nominate Condi, he will also be seen as an effort to match her, black for black, and that will not play.

I predict that if the economy is still strong, and it should be even if it undergoes a natural and expected slowdown after a few years, and if everything else remains pretty static, the big issue will still be national security. If, for example, Hizbollah's "big surprise" were to turn out to be WMD gotten from Syria, and the obvious link is made between Syria having WMD in 2006 and Sadaam shipping all his WMD to Syria in 2002, the question of whether or not we should try to halt production and spread of WMD will be back on the table---but without the whiny mantra of "Bush Lied". It would be obvious he didn't.

The direction the world is going right now is probably going to support a strong defense/strong offense candidate, and I don't see the neorad Left allowing their choice to be that kind of candidate. They're going to go for the limp-wristed breathy-voiced steve/peace types, and the wild-eyed "I'd Like To Kill Bush" types.

Let's just say that if Gore or Kerry get the nomination for the Donks

Normally, I would discount that "what if" by the simple fact that once a candidate has run for the donkeys - and lost - he is relegated to the scrap heap of history with a "Loser" sign hung around his neck. He can rehabilitate himself into a "statesman" or "party elder" but never gain traction again as a retread. I say normally, because that would be there was some other, more viable candidate out there. But the only real candidate(s) with snowball's chance of doing well in a national election are the ones who have taken strong national defense (and that means supporting the war) positions - Hillary and Lieberman. And the donkeys are on a mission to discredit them and demonize their personas for the sacrilege.

So one of these two bozos could actually get the nod - or even worse (for the donkeys), Feingold. In any case, I will be stocking up on the bubbly.

The article grossly took Kerry's comments out of context and Valerie Olander, the writer,is going to release a follow up article clarifying what was actually said. It seems alot more was said then actually reported. Damn media bias...

Kerry's comments out of context...

Sure. Whatever. Kerry is out of context. He's a world-class phony. He's a gold-digger. He's a certified, documented loser. He has no context.

"Sure. Whatever. Kerry is out of context. He's a world-class phony. He's a gold-digger. He's a certified, documented loser. He has no context."

How about saying something worth listening to. Sometimes you actually make good points, but most of the time you reply with these weak opinions or hate-filled remarks.

It's possible Kerry could have made a difference.

Bush claims the "root" of this conflict was the capture of 2 Israeli soldiers on July 12. That seems to me to be an extremely nearsighted claim. To understand the "root" of this conflict you need to know why Israel is hated by it's Arab neighbors. Some will say it is the way Israel conducts itself as a military force, acting disproportionately, or that Israel has captured Lebanese officials, that however is only a small part of the issue. Everyone is familiar with the term "Zionist". The early history of Israel is closer to the "root" than any recent events. Starting in 1881 Jews started migrating to Palestine from all over the world, with the intent of establishing the "Jewish State" Israel. In the 30's backed by The British, the Jews fought against the Arabs for their "right of return", a Zionist belief. In 1948 just before the end of a British mandate, the US "recognized" the state of Israel. When the Arab countries and Israel talk about Israel being "recognized" this is what they are talking about. Palestine had not only been invaded, but was taken over and renamed. This is the "root" to the conflict.
Israel receives several billion in aid from the US, and spends roughly half that on weapons bought from the US. Israel is the only nuclear capable state in the region, and uses that fact and its US funded military to ensure it's survival.
Bush has completely failed to address any real causes to the middle east conflict, and supporting Israel, as he does, will never help to stabilize the region. Bush shapes his view to meat his agenda, and to support Israel. Bush labels Hezbollah as terrorists because Bush does not recognize the rights of the Arabs to reclaim Palestine, or even live in the the same conditions Israel demands for itself. Iran is seen as a threat because Iran does not recognize Israel, and Iran is advancing as a military force as well as a political force. If Iran secretly develop a bomb, the way Israel did, there would be "mutual destruction assurance", preventing either side from using a nuclear option. Iran gaining nuclear capability would create the same conditions that ended the Cold War.

If we had a president that both understood these issue, and actually wanted peace rather than just power, we might have been able to prevent this. Kerry could have been that president, maybe not, but it would be hard to do worse than Bush.

It's possible Kerry could have made a difference.

Bush claims the "root" of this conflict was the capture of 2 Israeli soldiers on July 12. That seems to me to be an extremely nearsighted claim. To understand the "root" of this conflict you need to know why Israel is hated by it's Arab neighbors. Some will say it is the way Israel conducts itself as a military force, acting disproportionately, or that Israel has captured Lebanese officials, that however is only a small part of the issue. Everyone is familiar with the term "Zionist". The early history of Israel is closer to the "root" than any recent events. Starting in 1881 Jews started migrating to Palestine from all over the world, with the intent of establishing the "Jewish State" Israel. In the 30's backed by The British, the Jews fought against the Arabs for their "right of return", a Zionist belief. In 1948 just before the end of a British mandate, the US "recognized" the state of Israel. When the Arab countries and Israel talk about Israel being "recognized" this is what they are talking about. Palestine had not only been invaded, but was taken over and renamed. This is the "root" to the conflict.
Israel receives several billion in aid from the US, and spends roughly half that on weapons bought from the US. Israel is the only nuclear capable state in the region, and uses that fact and its US funded military to ensure it's survival.
Bush has completely failed to address any real causes to the middle east conflict, and supporting Israel, as he does, will never help to stabilize the region. Bush shapes his view to meat his agenda, and to support Israel. Bush labels Hezbollah as terrorists because Bush does not recognize the rights of the Arabs to reclaim Palestine, or even live in the the same conditions Israel demands for itself. Iran is seen as a threat because Iran does not recognize Israel, and Iran is advancing as a military force as well as a political force. If Iran secretly develop a bomb, the way Israel did, there would be "mutual destruction assurance", preventing either side from using a nuclear option. Iran gaining nuclear capability would create the same conditions that ended the Cold War.

If we had a president that both understood these issue, and actually wanted peace rather than just power, we might have been able to prevent this. Kerry could have been that president, maybe not, but it would be hard to do worse than Bush.