Dems Stand With Bush on Syria Attack

Good to see the "loyal opposition" taking on Bush, or for even questioning him once again. {sarcasm}

Dems Stand With Bush on Syria Attack

By E.J. KESSLER
FORWARD STAFF
The top Democratic presidential candidates, who have differed sharply with President Bush over his conduct of the Iraq war, are registering their agreement with him over his support for Israel's bombing of a terrorist target in Syria.

The president called the airborne attack, which hit what Israel described as a training camp of Islamic Jihad in retaliation for Sunday's bloody bombing of a Haifa restaurant, an "essential" part of a campaign to defend the country. "We would be doing the same thing," he added, according to The Associated Press.

The Israeli attack, the first such strike inside Syria in 26 years, was criticized in editorials in several leading American newspapers.

But the leading Democrats, at least, all stood with their commander in chief. Republican operatives have been arguing for months in the Jewish community that Bush has been the strongest presidents ever on Israel's defense, but the agreement among the candidates is only the latest instance in which they and congressional Democrats have been just as accommodating as Bush — if not more hard-line — on Israel's security needs.

snip>

http://forward.com/issues/2003/03.10.10/news2b.dems.html

Gephardt, Kerry, Lieberman, Dean & the "newly Democratic" military man, Clark.

Anybody catch where Kucinich made any statements about this?

I say he would have opposed it not sure though very likely. Ok guys

Syria Divides Democratic Candidates
April 15, 2003 By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
...peace candidate Dennis Kucinich, a congressman from Ohio, who said threatening action against Syria could fuel speculation that the Bush Administration is seeking to build an empire in the Middle East.
There was a more indepth link but theres an error rats, :argh:

I think I might have seen something about it a while ago.

Kucinich is an annoying flea. Howard Dean has righted himself.

More than that, they need to be questioned on their committment to democracy in Latin America and asked if they can identify what is wrong with our current stance toward Venezuela. Concern for the Latin American vote is one way we can bring the issue of national sovereignty to the foreground.

Nice perspective on the only presidential candidate who had the courage to both vote against the PATRIOT Act and also against the vestating Iraq war.

So what DK says is more an anecdote than anything.

An annoying flea clearly implies dislike.

That clearly implies dislike. I just think he is naive.

Idealists often seem that way - but often the aren't.

FDR was an idealist. So was John Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. All three accomplished tremendous amounts of work.

Something that DK and his few supporters can only dream about.

MLK could tell you all about it, read up ;->

peace

Some are a waste of time.

Sort of like DK's peace department.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

ic

peace

It's nice to not be criticized for have progressive ideas, isn't it? And just earlier I was saying how much I liked this place.

believes that s/he is able to call the mayor of a major American city, a congressman, and a presidential candidate naive. Think about it.

:wtf:

Nader said that there is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans, so why are some Democrats hell-bent in proving Nader right!

Actually, Nader was wrong! A better, and more accurate, analogy is the one used by Pat Buchanan when he referred to Democrats and Republicans as two wings of the same bird of prey.

:evilgrin:

How much are we willing to bet that the same losers that voted for the Iraq War Resolution will vote for a similar resolution about Syria.

just like there is no difference between Nader and Buchanan...they are both braying jackasses...

"Nader said that there is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans"

he didn't say that. why would one with a moniker post such an inaccurate statement? that statement is what the establishment Dems say that Nader said in their propaganda campaign to bash Greens and Nader. please point out a reputable source quoting Nader when he said that. heck, even the dem "hate" Nader sites that catalogue his quotes don't list that one. it's a lie.

when he campaigned against the duopoly of the 2-major parties. I voted for the guy, I should know what his message was.

if you voted for the guy, you should know better than to perpetuate that lie. that is the crap that the establishment Dems attribute to to Nader.

You can't come up with a quote where he said that.

What he said was (and I'm paraphrasing) that there was "not enough differences" or that there was "no differences" on certain specified issues.

So, if you are so well versed in Nader, please provide to me a quote where he said exactly what you said he said. You can't because he didn't. It's ashame that someone like you have fallen for the propaganda crap that the establishment Dems use to attack Nader. They go on and on about how he said what you said he said, and then point out some differences to discredit and show how the statement attributed to Nader was just outright wrong. Trouble is, ... it's all based on a lie, as Nader never said what you and the establishment Dems said he said. So, why do you perpetuate this lie?

Educate yourself. Spend some time and look for that quote of Nader or satisfy yourself that he didn't say what you said he said. Others (like establishment Dems) saying thousands of times that Nader said that, doens't make it true. Why not get the facts straight, instead of falling for the propaganda lies of the establishment Dems and then repeating those lies yourself?

I feel sorry for people like Kucinich and Feingold. It's really too bad that they have to deal with the human cesspool in DC on a daily basis.

which are fine and dandy if you hold the whip hand..which the US and Israel now do..pray tell. what happens if another super power emerges..maybe China..India or a revitalised Russia..and they decide to adopt as policy the bombing or invasion of a country or region they declare is a threat? ..these are the most dangerous times I can recall in my memory..a pox on the Dems whom do not condemn this unlawful behavior..

Don't they realize that every time they vote to support something like this, or more money for Israel's fascist war-mongering regime, they are supporting Bush, and PNAC, and Sharon/Likud?

Don't they realize, that they are also helping Bush's "re-election" effort, by enabling his wars and military imperialism?

Thinking they are voting for issues like sanctions on Syria, or more money for Israel, to appease and please their conservative Jewish supporters, and their friends in the media, is a mistake, ...a terrible mistake. They are selling their own country down the tubes, while they supposedly support Israel.

It is things like this, that bring my level of disgust with the Democratic Party to screaming pitch levels. I've been a Dem for over 35 years, but unless they get a clue, and damned fast, I won't be one much longer. I cannot support anyone who supports, or does anything to support G.W. Bush, his party, or his friends.

We need to let these Dems know, in no uncertain terms, they are betraying their Party, and their country, by supporting Israel, and by enabling futher Bush/PNAC wars in the ME. All Dems who support these actions, will be placed on my "Traitors List", right along with the usual Republcian/PNAC/AIPAC suspects, and I will work for their removal from office.