In regard to the ‘content’ of the statement though -Does Kerry have a single idea of his own when it comes to tackling difficult issues, or is ‘Bush sucks’ (I don’t mean to imply that I’m denying this) his only foothold on anything? I give Democrats part of the blame for Bush’ second term, for nominating this equally incompetent finger-pointing fool as their candidate. After seeing him argue with John Bolton, that the US should deal with N.Korea the same way the Clinton administration did (apparently, he’d like to give them a few billion dollars more so that they can build some more reactors), Kerry really can’t be held as a role-model when it comes to policy himself either. He should actually try to spend his time coming up with his own workable plans and solutions instead of pointing at his opponents (which is all I’ve ever seen him do). If this bonehead is the Democratic candidate again for 2008, I will never forgive the D. party.

Results
25 Israeil Soldiers killded
3 Tanks, demloished
1 Navy Ship demloished
2 Helicopter demloished
11 Civilans Killed

At Hezbollah side,
1 Hezbollah fighter
300 Civilian
Massive civilan homes, infrastructure destroyed.

Great!… Israelis you are doing great:)

If there were not the daily spectacle of civil war in Iraq, we might have some moral authority to bring to bear. Imagine being an Arab watching the daily bloodshed there — the Iraqi Prime Minister was quoted as saying that May and June saw an average daily death toll of one hundred civilians — do you think it might color your perception of things?

If he followed in the path of the two previous Democratic Presidents, he would have been much more actively involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, instead of more or less ignoring it as the Bush administration has done.

If he had dialogue with Syria and Iran — instead of refusing to talk to them — we might have some leverage. It’s all well and good to say that you won’t deal with loathsome regimes, until the point when you need something from them. Previous administrations have had working relationships with regimes as bad or worse than those two regimes, in the belief that dialogue can be more productive than filibuster.

It is certainly wrong to insist that everything which is wrong with the world is the fault of an American President, and no matter who was in the Oval Office, things in the Middle East will never be hunky dory. However, it is equally wrong to suggest that the administration’s actions have no relevance in what happens there, and it is certainly probable that a more enlightened and capable foreign policy would have changed things on the ground there.

Possibly true. I’m sure Kerry would have pressured Israel just to keep taking it on the chin. “This” won’t have happened, but something a lot worse would.

What concerns me is, “what happens next?” Unless the Iranian supply pipeline is broken, nothing will really change.

Never have I squandered my vote so poorly.

There was a really good article which ddiscusses Iranian thought on the ME. Seems when Bush began changing his strategy of playing hardball with Iran, to offering money(about a year ago), Mo Am took this as a sign of weakness and gave Hezbollah the green light.

Apparently all the press about being bogged down in Iraq, and the ‘reports’ of growing disatisfaction with Bush foreign policy has emboldened our enemies to think that a)we cannot fight elsewhere(murtha?), b)bush is not supported by the American people, and c)not supported by the Europeans.

Thanks,
Mike B.

P.S. Indeed a stupid comment by Kerry, but doesn’t imply the hatred was caused by Bush, only that acting on the hatred was caused by Bush, which may be equally preposterous, depending on one’s viewpoint. I tend to think our government is generally clueless about all things foreign. Every time we prop up a government it bites us in the ass. Perhaps we shouldn’t be propping up governments? Wasn’t Lebanon supposed to be a success story?