[SJackson]

No one is saying that. What is being said is that right now, we are better off if we stabilize that region first, then move the embassy...Good judgment is needed in this situation. Not foot stomping fits because the President isn't doing exactly what some think he should be doing and when they think it should be done.

The move was legislated in 1995, to be completed in 1999. The likelihood of the "region", really Israel, being more stable than 1995 is likely decades off. Arafat isn't angry about an embassy in Jerusalem, rather Tel Aviv. From the standpoint of stability, or fighting terror this is a non-event, makes very little difference either way. To supporters of moving the capital, it is an issue though, one with likely little downside.

[texasflower]

Perhaps you should talk to Clinton about why he didn't move it in the 90's..

We are just going to have to disagree with the level of instability that might be caused by this move.

I support the move of the embassy. But I don't want it to be done if there is any reason to think things might be worse.

They just announced on the news that Paul Johnson, the hostage has been killed, maybe beheaded.

We should not serve up more Americans to these monsters if we can help it.

I say we are better off leaving a non-urgent issue alone right now.