I understand that the impending presidential election is a big deal for Americans, including American Jews, and thus may become a prominent topic in weirdjews

I also realize that the welfare of Israel is a major issue for Jewish voters. However, the concept of lashon hara is also a fundamental part of Judaism. We shouldn't forget the latter in our pursuit of the former.

I'm wondering whether we in weirdjews can set a higher standard of discourse and avoid slander and libel, distortion and innuendo, and other forms of harmful speech.

As for yesterday's post on Howard Dean, that's a chain letter that's been making the rounds (notice the last line explicitly asks people to "PLEASE PASS THIS MESSAGE ON TO AS MANY OF YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS AS YOU CAN") and it presents a really warped view of his comments and position.

I am providing the full unedited text of the email (as I received it) in grey. I have broken it apart into sections to make the rebuttal clearer, but I have not removed or modified a single word within.
My responses follow each phrase; I'm using blue to indicate words and phrases taken from other sources. Direct quotes from Howard Dean are in highlighted in yellow.

howard dean promised that if he is elected president, the united states will no longer support israel the way it has in the past under both democratic and republican presidents.

Dean has repeatedly rejected that notion and repeatedly reaffirms his support for Israel and the continuity between his goals and the policies of previous presidents:

An exchange in the September 9 Democratic debate:

Q: Governor Dean, you recently said the United States should not, quote, "take sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."
Do you really mean that after all of these years of alliance and friendship between the United States and Israel that the U.S. should maintain some sort of neutral stance? And does that include cutting foreign aid and military supplies to Israel?

DEAN: Of course I don't mean any such thing, that we're going to take a stance that belies our historic relationship with Israel. We've had a special relationship with Israel since 1948 when we were the first country to recognize Israel.
What I do mean is we need to be a credible negotiator, a facilitator for peace in the Middle East. And that means we have to be trusted by both sides.

Later during the same debate, Dean said:

"My position on Israel is exactly the same as Bill Clinton's"

From a campaign press release that night:

Governor Dean reiterated his consistent support for the unique and special relationship that the United States enjoys with Israel. Israel is and will remain one of the closest allies of the United States and is a model for democracy in a troubled region.
The Democratic Party has been united in its support for Israel for 54 years since the time of Harry Truman

From Wolf Blitzer's show the following day:

The fact is that American policy has been the same for 54 years. We do have a special relationship with Israel. We would defend Israel, if necessary. I think that's well-known.

 and:

The American policy is and will continue to be based on Israel's right to exist. No one is challenging this.

 and:

My position very -- is very clear. It 's the same position that Bill Clinton had, who nearly succeeded in bringing the Israelis and the Palestinians together. I think it's the responsible position and I've just stated what it is.

in his own words he will insist that the united states be "even handed" . this is a term regularly employed by arafat and his coterie of adherents that means to be anti-israel!! governor dean made these comments on cnn on september 10,2003 on the wolf blitzer show.

First of all, Palestinians may have abused, misused, or redefined "even-handed." But that does not mean that's how Howard Dean was using the term.

So here's the exact quote from CNN's transcript:

I would prefer and strongly speak out against violence of any kind in the Middle East. That's what I mean by being even-handed. Somebody asked me -- even-handed was a poor choice of words, as I now find out.

Here are further comments he made on the same program elaborating his position:

[W]e are also the only country capable of bringing peace to the Middle East, and when we sit at the negotiating table, we do have to have the trust of both sides, or we will never succeed.

A few weeks later, on the 25th anniversary of the Camp David accords, NPR asked Jimmy Carter's opinion:

"Howard Dean was absolutely right. You know, the word even-handed may not have been a good choice but the United States has to take a balanced position between Israel and the Palestinian or other adversaries of Israel, that you can't just have the United States and Israel forming a coalition as though they were in opposition to the other side."

he has repeated those words since.

I can't address that; I'm not a Dean follower and don't know what else he's said elsewhere. He has acknowledged that the word even-handed has negative connotations, and reading the transcripts provides a much more accurate description of his intentions.
Dean seems to feel that without promises to treat both sides fairly, the U.S. cannot broker further peace deals. This is what Dean said on the anniversary of the Oslo accords:

   I intend to replant the seeds of peace that were sown on the White House lawn ten years ago tomorrow. I will dedicate myself from day one of my administration to the search for peace. I have made clear that it is the special relationship the United States enjoys with Israel that makes us the only party in the world with the potential to help end this centuries-old conflict. I view it as not only a duty but an honor to make sure that this time these seeds take hold.
   Instead of engaging in petty political gamesmanship, I call on Senators Lieberman and Kerry to lay out exactly how - if they do not wish to play the role of honest broker at the negotiating table - they could ever carry on the legacy of Bill Clinton and Yitzhak Rabin as peacemakers and to explain what they would do to recreate the hope and the promise of the peace process of ten years ago.

in this were not enough, governor dean on that same show characterized the hamas terrorists as "soldiers". for the first time since 9/11 we have someone running for the office of president of the united states calling terrorists soldiers.

Here is the direct quote of the exchange from the transcript:

BLITZER: What about targeted killings, as the Israeli called them -- assassinations of Hamas militants?
DEAN: I think no one likes to see violence of any kind. That's why the United States is involved in this.
I will say, however, that there is a war going on in the Middle East, and members of Hamas are soldiers in that war, and, therefore, it seems to me, that they are going to be casualties if they are going to make war.

In other words, he was agreeing with Israel's policy of targeting Hamas militants, and saying it's false to claim such people are innocent civilians.

On September 12th, Dean further clarified his remarks:

"Of course, Hamas is a terrorist organization, and it must be defeated and its members defeated for seeking to thwart peace and to kill innocent men, women and children. To suggest that I might feel otherwise is shameful and should be beneath the dignity of any campaign."

i urge you that if you have any love for america and israel you should not and cannot vote for howard dean for the office of president.

That's pure opinion.
How you vote is entirely up to you. However, the email was full of distortions and innuendo, so if that was the sole basis for ruling out Dean, you may wish to reconsider given the context.
Personally, I do love America and what this nation stands for, and think Bush is far worse than Dean. But that's a discussion for another time and place.

this coming election may very well be one of the most important in decades.

On that, I agree. And this nation cannot afford another four years of George W. Bush as President.

please pass this message on to as many of your family and friends as you can.

If the original message is passed to you, feel free to share this clarification; I've made it public domain and posted it to http://www.osmond-riba.org/lis/DeanIsrael.htm. Trust people to read Dean's actual statements and make up their own mind based on what he's actually said, rather than take the word of an anonymous chain letter.

For more information on this issue, these are the sources I used, and I recommend reading them for yourself:

• September 9 Democratic candidate debate
• September 10 Dean statement
• September 10 interview with Wolf Blitzer
• September 10 Dean statement
• September 12 Dean statement
• September 25 NPR interview with Jimmy Carter

In general, I've gotten an impression from Howard Dean that he sometimes speaks before he has time to think out the most effective way to phrase matters. It's a problem that I have too, which is why I prefer written communications that give me more time to consider and organize my thoughts. That just means we have to listen to what he says more carefully and be wary of brief soundbites taken out of context.