What Candidates Should Say About Israel
The Iowa straw poll and a good half dozen Democratic debates are behind us but the campaigns have yet to fully engage in the predictable, and by now ritualistic, arguments about who is “better” on Israel. That is probably because none of the major candidates has said or posted very much about Israel that is not routine fare, designed not to offend anyone.
Campaign staffers tell their bosses to tread very carefully (if at all) on this issue, recalling the trouble Howard Dean got into in 2004 when he suggested that America’s Middle East policy should be “even-handed.” Having never served in Congress, Dean did not know that the inside-the-beltway guardians of the Israel issue had decided that the phrase “even-handed” was code for anti-Israel and was therefore verboten. I doubt any candidate will make that mistake again.
But there will be other “mistakes.”
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has already come up against the sheer craziness that surrounds Jewish issues in a Presidential campaign. Huckabee, who is famous for having shed a hundred pounds, not long ago joked that for awhile he looked like he "just come out of six weeks at a concentration camp held by the Democratic Party of Arkansas in an undisclosed location….”
Huckabee was immediately pounced upon, with one Jewish organizational official demanding Huckabee apologize to the Jewish community. “It's insensitive, and we think making light of the Holocaust isn't something any elected official should be doing."
The Holocaust?
To his credit, Huckabee – who is now as well-known for talking straight as losing weight -- refused to apologize. "I never identified a particular kind of camp, and to make such a far-reaching statement is laughable and is the type of allegation that makes people cynical.”
And cynical is precisely what people should be – or at least skeptical – as they hear candidates and their spokespeople call out other candidates for being anti-Israel when they deviate from the script each campaign is handed on Middle East issues.
This is nothing new. It has been happening virtually every four years since the establishment of Israel. However, it was only after the Six Day War of 1967, that both parties began exploiting the Israel issue with anything like the vigor – not to mention the nastiness – we see today.There is a certain irony here. In the first two decades after the Holocaust and the establishment of Israel -- when there were millions of Holocaust survivors still among us and Israel was truly fighting for its life -- it did not occur to ideologues and partisans within the pro-Israel or Jewish communities to use either as wedge issues to score political gain.
That all changed after ’67. At the very moment when Israel was at its strongest, suddenly it became acceptable, even necessary, to defend Israel as never before. Of course, at this point, it was no longer Israel itself that was being defended but rather Israel’s right to the occupied territories.
After all, in the wake of the Six Day War and the threats to Israel’s existence that preceded it, there was no need to convince any American politician that Israel had the right to defend itself. The only question was whether it had a right to the territories. That hasn’t changed in the 40 years since.
Nevertheless, since 1967 almost every candidate has been accused of being weak on Israel. Of course, each of the six Presidents elected since 1968 has maintained the basic policy first endorsed by President Lyndon B. Johnson following the 1967 war, i.e. to implement United Nations Resolution 242 (and later 338), calling for the exchange of lands occupied in the Six Day War for a secure and lasting peace.
Each President since LBJ has favored the land for peace formula, and so will the next President.
But that won’t deter campaigns from using the Israel issue for maximum advantage in 2008, because that is what politicians do. It is a game called “gotcha.” It is played by scouring an opponent’s record or utterances to find the one phrase or comment that will cause a particular interest group to come down on him like a ton of bricks. “Gotcha” is at the heart of every negative campaign and, no wonder, it often works.
Is it any wonder that candidates seem to go to great lengths to avoid saying anything remotely substantive on the Middle East. They simply utter platitudes about supporting Israel, despising terrorism, and believing in peace – in the abstract. Knowing that any substantive statement could be used against them, candidates just play it safe. And the most vocal segments of the pro-Israel community encourage them by criticizing constructive suggestions as anti-Israel, and by giving ovations and donations to candidates who tell them what they want to hear.
It’s all a game, but a dangerous one. That is because, although each President since 1968 has been committed to the peace process, few have dared to do anything about it (Carter, Bush I, and Clinton being the exceptions). Most have felt locked in by the commitments they made during the campaign. They also knew that they would be pounced on by Senators and House Members who would try to score political points and campaign contributions by defending Israel against any President who dared put Middle East peace on his agenda.
So what should a candidate say? I’ve put forth my prescription before and I’ll say it again. He or she should say: “If I am elected president, I will do everything in my power to bring about negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians with the goal of achieving peace and security for Israel and a secure state for the Palestinians.”
One more thing. Reading the candidates statements on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict issued so far, I see that they tend to focus only on what Palestinians need to do to end the conflict. They must agree to live in peace with Israel, extirpate the terrorists, accept all previous agreements with Israel, build democratic institutions, clean up their textbooks, monitor hate speech in mosques etc, etc. That is usually just for starters. As for Israel, it need not do anything. The candidates do not mention the illegal outposts, the settlements, the checkpoints, or even the occupation itself. It is as if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one in which one side is all victim and the other all perpetrator. This, of course, bears no resemblance to reality and the candidates know it.
Candidates and their advisers need to know that we understand that the lowest-common-denominator pandering he or she engages in as a candidate is a harbinger of policies he will pursue as President. And they need to know that we understand that those policies will make more terrorism and violence more likely, not less, including here at home.
The status quo is bad for Israel and for Palestinians, and disastrous for America’s interests throughout the Middle East. Candidates should not listen to those who tell them that they must endorse it.
The above does not violate my pledge not to write about the Middle East. It's about the Presidential campaign (and the Middle East)!
August 24, 2007 7:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's funny (weird, not haha) how much oxygen is consumed not just by Israel, but by this whole concept of the 'middle east.'
Considering that our economy has virtually nothing to lose or gain from Israel, why do we care so much.
(TJ HOOKER voiceover)
"Kid, you care...TOO MUCH."
My solution to the middle east 'crisis'
Pledge to do nothing for twenty years.
August 24, 2007 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
To King Elvis: We have a moral obligation to help keep Israel, a fellow democracy (more or less) afloat. The world cannot and should not tolerate the idea of the destruction of the country created as a home for the survivors of the Holocaust and now their kids and grandkids. Considering that the whole world shut its doors to Jewish refugees fleeing from Hitler including this country, we have an obligation to help Israel survive.
Beyond morality, Israel is important because our support NOT for Israel but for the illegal, immoral occupation has damaged America throughout the Middle East. We will never have decent relations in the Middle East until we use our power and influence to establish a Palestinian state in Gaza, West Bank and East Jerusalem. That is our obligation too.
August 24, 2007 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
we have an obligation to help Israel survive...by making someone else suffer for our own holocaust guilt (namely, the Palestinians.)
Great.
Incidentally, the founding of Israel and the racist ideology of Zionism predates the Holocaust.
August 24, 2007 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
A superb diary, MJ, and you didn't even mention all the other pertinent UN resolutions, most of them trying to curb the Israeli enthusiasm for oppressing the people that they displaced.
What we see in the US political process, unfortunately, is almost solely a product of the lobbyist/consultant/politician interaction with little or no input from the American people, which would probably be (should be) more along the lines that you advocate. This is democracy?
My memory is hazy on this, but didn't George Bush initially have a more even-handed policy? And if so, what happened?
August 24, 2007 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
similar to; "anti surge" is code for supporting al Qaeda? :-)
August 24, 2007 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I fully support the notion that a new US president will call to negotiation and agreement between Israel and Palestine, demand security and prosperty to both countries.
Carter didn't contribute much to the peace agreement. Sadat coming to Jerusalem and Begin's great capacity to understand the historical moment. Once this happened the agreement was sealed, the only remaining items was an American economic support, mainly, for Egypt and the American monitoring in the Sinai. Carter was and is a repugnant person.
As for Huckabee's statement I strongly support that he apologies to the Democratic party (it has nothing to do with the Jews). Those blipping Republican with their infinitesimal world understanding should learn that concentration camps, by Nazis or others, do not make good humor; it's just disgusting.
August 24, 2007 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fortunately for America, your view of Carter is rare.
August 24, 2007 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Weird. "Middle East" = "Israel."
August 24, 2007 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
But good things happen when we do nothing.
Considering Israel has nuclear weapons, I don't think this state is in great peril.
As far as the notion of a Palestinian state, that's just not going to happen. Even Palestinian intellectuals - like this guy at the Univ. of Chicago are now using the models of S. Africa and N. Ireland where the dissidents are simply taken into the broader state.
August 24, 2007 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, a guy like you should never pledge not to write on a topic. You know darn well that if you get inspired you won't be able to stop yourself.
Anyway, I just wanted to post something in this thread before the hit squad shows up and makes it unbearable.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
August 24, 2007 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dest,
I'm getting up a pool on how many comments this post by MJ generates. I see a 240er here. :-)
August 24, 2007 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ -- you broke the rules in this one. No telling the truth about who is an obstacle to peace is allowed. That's anti-Semitism.
Thanks, again, for trying to broaden a discussion few dare have.
Can It Happen Here?
August 24, 2007 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
re: hit squad/unbearable
It doesn't necessarily have to be that way. By framing it as about presidential candidates views of Israel, M.J. is actually giving people who want a chance to do so to be able to say boldly and exactly what they want to hear from the presidential candidates on that topic, to express their personal opinion on it and why, without criticism and insult from others for wanting it, just like what would happen talking with a pollster or reporter.
But of course, you're probably right, the fans of debating Israel/Palestine for the hell of it won't let that happen, they will pick fights in order to practice rhetorical jihad/holy war skills.
August 24, 2007 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes it is rare for this topic to receive the attention that it deserves. It is largely avoided as a subject in the other progressive blogs as well as campaigns for the simple reason that it is so divisive. If democrats openly debated the Israeli/Palestinian issues our party would be quickly portrayed as antisemitic. There would be no other issue except to deny that we are antisemites.
I always avoid this topic in political campaigns. It is only a lose-lose debate.
August 24, 2007 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are many conflicts in the world. America is not equipped, nor required to referee or solve any of those conflicts save those we are directly involved in, such as in Iraq. For example, are we to guarantee Georgia's survival?
I continue to favor a basic foreign policy called, the "why can't we all live together" policy. If a country, Georgia for example, has a government that isn't what we would want to accept for our own country, that shouldn't preclude us having good relations with that country. And, having those good relations should be the dominant goal of our foreign policy.
Hoppy in Sacramento
August 24, 2007 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
That antisemite cudgel is waved so effectively, always appealing to the guilt of survivors, that it cuts off all REASONABLE debate in re the rights of the Palestinians.
As long as we keep being cowered by it, they'll keep using it.
In the real world, one can criticize Israel's behavior without being antisemitic, so lets quit worrying about name calling and make progress.
August 24, 2007 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
What should candidates say about Israel?
How about saying: "Israel is a sovereign nation. Israel is not a US state. Now, back to my plan for making life better for Iowans...."
August 24, 2007 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check out the Boycott Israel Campaign
August 24, 2007 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to be mischievous or anything, Madison1776, I'm impressed by your words. but I have some questions.
What exactly does this 'moral obligation' translate to in tangible terms? Does it obligate America to contribute a billion dollars a year? Ten billion? What if Israel came over and said 'we need 100 billion' would the moral obligation cover that?
How many American lives does this moral obligation involve? How many Americans should we consider acceptable losses of war for supporting Israel? 10? 100? 1000? 10,000?
How many of other peoples lives is expendable in support of Israel?
Is the moral support entirely unconditional? Suppose that Israel nukes Damascus without provocation. I know that they'd never do that. But they do have 400 nukes, and you never know. Suppose it happened. Would we be required to continue supporting Israel? Is there any number of cities that Israel would have to nuke to reach a point where support would end?
Does moral support for Israel involve uncritical acceptance of every Israeli policy?
I dunno.
August 24, 2007 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure that Koshembo only formed that view of Carter after Carter stepped out of line and wrote a book that Koshembo disagreed with.
August 24, 2007 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you don't mind being called an antisemite you could.
August 24, 2007 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blue,
heh :-)
August 24, 2007 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think its fair for people to question Carter's competence as Governor or President or to disagree with him on any number of issues, but his honor, character and integrity are practically unassailable.
August 24, 2007 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rudy number ten! No good!
Lying faking bully. Benito Giuliani on his balcony, marrying cousins by the busload.
August 24, 2007 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
But you have to understand: Carter wrote a book that Koshembo didn't like. He's fair game.
August 24, 2007 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
“If I am elected president, I will do everything in my power to bring about negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians with the goal of achieving peace and security for Israel and a secure state for the Palestinians.”
I suspect that even this statement would now considered too "even-handed" for a presidential candidate. It suggests there is a moral equivalence between Israeli security and Palestinian security, and runs contrary to the mainstream view of the Washington political establishment that Palestinians are sub-humans who have forfeited their rights to security.
August 24, 2007 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rudy Giuliani is the best candidate for President, hands down. Second best is Newt Gingrich, followed by John McCain. God forbid Barak Obama is elected. What a disaster that would be for Isra- er, I mean America. Jesus H. Christ. What other foreign power could so brazenly even suggest the best choices for President of the United States?
Anti-Americanism, from poor Arabs (and future-jihadists) to historic European allies of all ideologies, is a cancer that is doing more long-term damage to our country than anything else. In great part, it stems from our one-sided support of an oppressive Israel and our M.E. FP that is greatly influenced by Israel supporters. We would never stand for political interference from any other country.
August 24, 2007 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Israel attacked the USS Liberty during the 1967 Six Day War and got away with the murder of 34 sailors without the U.S. retaliating, Israel knew that from then on, it could do no wrong in the ME... at least in the eyes of the U.S.
Since then the US has been held hostage to the Zionist plan of an Eretz Israel. A plan that includes the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Palestinians.... aided and abetted by U.S. tax dollars.
By giving blind and unconditional loyalty to Israel, the U.S. has backed itself into a corner.
In a nation that has enshrined the freedom of speech into law, it's curious that freedom of speech is verboten when it comes to talk of Israel.... That is, if one wants to survive politically.
The course Israel is on will only ensure that Israel will not survive.
Israel needs to come to terms with what it is and what it has done in the ME before any chance at peace in the ME is realized.
August 25, 2007 3:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
For those of you who think Giuliani and possibly other candidates are "too pro-Israel", or "not even handed" or whatever, I can assure you (as I have done in earlier posts) that EVERY President of the US follows the same policy, regardless of what they promise before the election....the unchanging policy of the US is an Israeli withdrawal more or less to the pre-1967 lines and the creation of a Palestinian state. If the Arabs were to agree to these terms, than any President, even the most "pro-Israeli" of all, would use whatever pressure and arm twisting is necessary to get it, and today, I don't believe that would even be necessary....most Israeli political parties, including the supposedly "right-wing" Likud would accept it without too much fuss. THE ONLY PROBLEM IS THAT THE ARABS WILL NEVER AGREE TO PEACE ON SUCH TERMS. Thus, this constrains what a President, even an "even handed one" like Carter or Bush I ("expletive deleted the Jews-we don't need them, they don't vote for us anyway" IIRC it was James Baker saying this in the name of the Administration) can do....Bush I broke off contact with Arafat's PLO after it carried out a terrorist attack after promising to halt them.
The sticking point is the so-called unlimited "Right of Return". Arafat told Clinton he would be assassinated if he compromised on this, and if he couldn't, Abbas or anyother conceivable Arab leader can't. Since all Israelis and most Americans can't accept this Arab condition, there can't be an agreement. The problem is not whether a particular President is pro-active enough in trying to force an agreement, because there are just too many insurmountable obstacles. Clinton tried with the supposedly the "strongest" Palestinian leader possible, and he failed...so there is no reason to think ANY other President would make any difference.
August 25, 2007 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/894478.html
"Talks between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas on a future Palestinian state are stuck on the issue of the Palestinian refugee problem, government sources in Jerusalem told Haaretz this week. Abbas is refusing to make significant concessions, the sources said."
Without resolving Palestinian refugee problem there is no point for next American President to waste time on achieving peace and security for Israel and a secure state for the Palestinians. It’s not going to happen.
Palestinian refugees are not going to back to Israel any time soon.
The only way they can go back to Haifa is to defeat Israel military.
So why wait and delay resolving this issue?
This issue is not really a bargain chips in future negations. It’s just a show stopper.
For example, Palestinian refugees in West Bank and Gaza are not going anywhere. So why they still live in refugee camps ?
There are few immediate steps international community can do right away.
Convert refugee camps in West Bank in Gaza in normal cities and villages and close all
UN refugee agencies there.
August 25, 2007 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a student of History, I have read in many, many completely objective textbooks and non-fiction historical works about the Arab-Israeli Conflicts. If one avoids texts written explicitly by Jews or Arabs the stories go like this: A newly re-born nation, Israel was attacked unprovoked on May 14, 1948, one day before the British Mandate expired and the Partition of Palestine was to take effect making Israel an Independent Sovereign Nation sanctioned by the United Nations and recognized by the U.S., the Soviet Union, and many other nations.
The nations who attacked Israel, for no other reason that it existed as an Independent Nation, were Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, along with the Arab Liberation Army and Arab Palestinian forces, led by British Officers. Despite being outnumbered unbelievably by both men and arms and an arms embargo from the U.S., Israel WON this War of Independence and as a result threw out all Arabs who participated in trying to annihilate them. This is what the Palestinians refer to as the first "expulsion" from the land. Israel also expanded its borders as all nations do in taking spoils of war that they did not start, but they won. Is there anybody who can actually argue with Israel for expelling all Arabs (more than 75,000) who had tried to destroy them in a war, and in expanding their borders with security zones when they faced at least 7 known Arab nations who wanted them destroyed?
In 1956, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, and blockaded the Gulf of Aqaba (an act of War), in contradiction to the terms of the Constantinople Convention of 1888 and in violation of the Rhodes armistice agreement. On July 26, 1956, Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal Company, and closed the canal to Israeli shipping threatening Israel’s fledgling economy.
Israel responded on October 29, 1956, by invading the Sinai Peninsula with British and French support. During the Suez Canal Crisis, Israel captured the Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula from the Nation of Egypt (these territories NEVER belonged to any Palestinian people EVER!). The United States and the United Nations soon pressured it into a ceasefire, which secured open shipping in the region, complete Israeli withdrawal from Egyptian territory, and the total demilitarization of the Sinai. The United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) was deployed to oversee said demilitarization.
Eleven years later, again with no provocation from Israel whatsoever, On May 19, 1967, Egypt expelled UNEF observers, and deployed 1000 tanks and 100,000 soldiers in the Sinai Peninsula. It then closed the straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, catapulting the region back to the pre-1956 status quo. On May 30, 1967, Jordan entered into the mutual defense pact between Egypt and Syria. President Nasser declared: "Our basic objective is the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight." The fighting began on June 5 and ended on June 11th thus giving it the name, "The Six Day War." At the war's end, Israel had gained control of eastern Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. The results of the war affect the geopolitics of the region to this day.*** Israel finally decided after three major wars of genocide against them, they would expand their borders in order to protect themselves as best as possible. Unfortunately they were again the targets of genocide in the 1973, "Yom Kippur War," but they again escaped destruction although being outnumbered by more than 6 to 1!
Given the fact that Israel has had to fight so many harsh wars of defense, why do so many people criticize it for the "illegal" and "immoral" occupation of some very small regions that they won in wars they never started? Almost all nations have expanded their territories in the exact same way throughout all of history. Why criticize Israel for doing the same thing in self defense after so much war? Not to mention the horrific terrorism they have had to respond to for 60 years? Why pick singly on Israel???
***NOTE: Recently, it has been suggested that the USSR deliberately engineered the 6 Day War to destroy Israel's nuclear program. The chief spokesman of the Russian Air Force, Col. Aleksandr V. Drobyshevsky, has confirmed in writing for the first time that it was Soviet pilots, in the USSR's most-advanced MiG-25 "Foxbat" aircraft, who flew highly-provocative sorties over Israel's nuclear facility at Dimona in May 1967, just prior to the Six Day War.
August 26, 2007 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan Tanna: YIs your "objective" history kinda like FoxNews's "fair and balanced" reporting. I suggest you actually read some Israeli historians. Even they don't publish such nonsense.
Alas, I must make some quick points:
1. It was very generous for the UN to give away the majority of historic Palestine to a Jewish minority.
2. Considering how many UN Resolutions Israel has subsequently violated, may we consider the UN's initial decision to recognize the State of Isarel equally illegitimate?
3. I love how you criticize Eqypt for its actions in 1956. Well, why not? In for a penny, in for a pound: ISRAEL actually invaded its Arab neighbor that year. (You know, Suez, the crisis the ended Anthony Eden's government.) And then 11 years later Israel initiated a Pearl Harbor-like sneak attack, in 1967. And like most sneak attacks is successful. Such is the utility of "Pre-emption." Our president used this "logic" to justify the murder of Iraq in 2003.
Please keep on writing. Now that the Harry Potter has series has concluded, we all need more good fiction.
August 27, 2007 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I were a cynical person, I might infer from your over-the-top plea of objectivity and historical fact, that you know how partial your account is. I prefer to think that you are only a student, still learning and forming your beliefs. I see little historical fact in your fictional account of events. But there is a certain symmetry in your story- Israel through its history of back to back wars and occupations has only ever taken defensive actions! As a student of history seeking objective knowledge, you have a problem: you must first set about to unlearn the erroneous history you have soaked up. This is a harder task than the neophyte student has to face. I wish you well.
Even given your fictional scenario, one could still take the position that expelling the Arabs who had rebelled against the founding of Israel on their land was not deserved. I'm not making that argument, mind you, because I believe your question was rhetorical and I don't want to argue this imaginary history anyway.
August 27, 2007 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is that? Maybe because Israel influences our whole ME foreign policy?
I can only hope TPM finally dives into the important topic.
August 29, 2007 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sheesh! Finally? TPM Cafe has been diving into this topic for some time now, with excellent commentary by MJ and others, such as Dan Levy and Gershom Gorenberg. TPM Cafe, imo, has been absolutely the best place on the net to read intelligent opinion about the Israel-Palestine conflict. For some reason though (I was gone for a while, so missed the explanation), MJ apparently has decided to withdraw from further conversation on the topic, this post being an exception.
MJ: I missed the reasons for this decision of yours, but hope you'll reconsider...
"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." ~~ Abraham Maslow
August 29, 2007 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ: The statement you suggest is almost exactly the same as the pledge that Carter has been asking voters to require of a candidate before voting for him/her. The MSM has largely ignored his efforts, but WRMEA published an article on his trip to Iowa that included the text of Carter's pledge:
Carter has been suggesting that if candidates won't make the pledge, voters should simply look elsewhere. He's been calling for candidates to make this pledge for a while now, but so far there have been no takers among the candidates. Sad, really, since it's hardly an extreme position, and would do so much to promote peace in the region. I suppose none of the candidates wants to be the first, but if they all made the pledge, AIPAC would lose it's power over our foreign policy vis a vis Israel.
But why did you leave out the "and contiguous" part, MJ?
"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." ~~ Abraham Maslow
August 30, 2007 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink