Edwards Says Kerry Plans To Confront Iran On Weapons (WP)

[Nambe]

Washington Post

A John F. Kerry administration would propose to Iran that the Islamic state be allowed to keep its nuclear power plants in exchange for giving up the right to retain the nuclear fuel that could be used for bomb-making, Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards said in an interview yesterday.

Edwards said that if Iran failed to take what he called a "great bargain," it would essentially confirm that it is building nuclear weapons under the cover of a supposedly peaceful nuclear power initiative. He said that, if elected, Kerry would ensure that European allies were prepared to join the United States in levying heavy sanctions if Iran rejected the proposal. ..

The United States has not had diplomatic relations with Iran since its 1979 revolution, and Iran was part of Bush's "axis of evil" that included North Korea and the former government of Iraq. Earlier this month, Bush demanded that Iran "must abandon her nuclear ambitions." ..

"At the end of the day can argue all they want about their policies," Edwards said. "But the test is: Have they worked? And Iran is further along in developing a nuclear weapon than they were when George Bush came into office."

[Gloria]

1. Preempting Bush on this....diplomatic means rather than what

Bush would probably do....start WWIII on his own. The crew has been making broad, provocative hints about their plans.....


Good move by the Kerry campaign to start engaging on this! But when do we address Israe's arsenal??

[lottie244]

23. Kerry needs to stop trying to out Bush Bush!!!

This tactic will not work. Focus on the economy and the Iraq catastrophy.
Since Bush called Iraq a catastropic success, Kerry should grab that quote and agree that Bush's leadership has resulted successfully in a ctastrophy. Bush has been very successful in creating the most costly and deadly catastrophy since the Viet Nam war.

What the hell are the Kerry campaign people doing? Bush gives them all the material they need and they never seem to be able to use it.

[Charles19]

25. Amen to that! nt

[nonbelief]

2. Good Ol' Double Standards

Iran gets the poop stick, while Israel's nuclear arsenal grows and grows without a peep from either the democrats or the repukes

[LisaL]

4. Well

I am sure US nuclear arsenals aren't doing so bad either, are they?

[agincourt]

3. What!? No WW3!

Bad, bad we can't be sensitive.

[Trillo]

5. I believe Iran also addressed this on Saturday.

Here's the story:
Title: Iran Ready to Provide Nuke 'Guarantees'
TEHRAN, Iran - Iran said Saturday it would continue its nuclear program but provide "guarantees" not to build atomic weapons, and warned Washington it cannot stabilize neighboring Iraq (news - web sites) and Afghanistan (news - web sites) without Tehran's help.
more...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20040829/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear

[Toucano]

10. Ooh! That's a provocative development.

Washington cannot stabilize Iraq without Tehran's help?

Very interesting strategy.

[Matilda]

6. I have such a problem with this .....

Why is it okay for some to have nuclear weapons but not others?

I'm sure we'd all prefer none at all, but this double standard
is so hypocritical.

[IndianaGreen]

7. How about Kerry/Edwards telling Israel to give up her nukes!

Hypocrites! WMDs are about the only deterrent left for nations that don't want their cities and villages to become targets for American bombs.

Brazil and Argentina should continue with their nuclear programs before another imperialist American President decides to bomb them as well.

When are we going to stop doing the dirty work for Ariel Sharon and his criminal government?

[LisaL]

9. Why not start at home?

How about US gives up it's nukes?
I am pretty sure we got more nukes than Israel.

[Hornito]

28. Kerry & Edwards are beholden to AIPAC and the rest, just like

the Bushies. Truth be told, there's not a lick spittles difference between the neocons involved in the Kerry campaign, and those working with Bush. They have infested both parties.

Until this nation takes steps to review its relationship with Israel, and take honest steps to resolve the I/P crisis, there will be no peace, and no end to terrorism.

For any of these politicians to talk about terrorism, without addressing the horrible tactics of the Likud, and America's backing of these fascist/apartheid elements, will continue to represent first-class hypocrisy. And if anything endangers our nation, it is this.

[bluestateguy]

8. Confronting is not the same thing as preemptive war and occupation

I certainly don't think Iran's development of nuclear weapons should be ignored, but a Kerry Administration would deal with the problem responsibly and without sabre rattling.

[IndianaGreen]

11. This is the same sort of shit talk that got us the IWR and the Iraq war

Is Kerry/Edwards going to outdo Bush by invading Iran? Warmongering leads to nothing more than death and destruction.

If Kerry/Edwards have a secret plan to attack Iran, as Bush did about Iraq, we better find out about it now before the election. Let the American people know how far a Kerry Administration is willing to go down the path to war.

Preemptive war is the Bush Doctrine. I hope that Kerry is not going to adopt it for his own, or else he will find himself the target of peace marchers like Nixon was.

[LisaL]

12. If anybody has a plan to attack Iran

It would be Bush.
Or have you missed the republicans talking of how dangerous Iran is?

[bluestateguy]

17. I think you missed my point

I see no evidence that a Kerry presidency would start a preemptive war with Iran, nor is there evidence of "warmongering" on their part.

Having said that, Iran needs to be engaged by the US and its allies to stop any possible nuclear proliferation. Diplomacy, multilateralism, weapons inspections and incentives to cooperate can resolve the problem. Nuclear proliferation is something to be avoided, whether it be Israel or Iran. I don't think sitting around twiddling our thumbs is a good strategy.

[IndianaGreen]

19. Well, let's start with Israel first!

Israel has ignored international law and the UN for years.

[Jim Sagle]

22. That's because the UN is a near-satanic lynch mob.

[Jacobin]

26. No, no no no

We must lay down the lives of tens of thousands of our troops, open our treasury, and risk conflagration to enable Israel's ambitions for territorial expansion.

I thought everyone knew that.

[Kimber Scott]

13. Everyone should give up nuclear weapons. Even us.

nt

[sampsonblk]

14. Edwards has zero weight on foreign policy

His comments about the intelligence czar solidified that for me. When he talks foreign policy, its a sure waste of time to listen.

Is he out trying to prove that Kerry is tougher than Bush or something? Surely he is not articulating serious policies (which ought to require serious thought).

On foreign policy, I hope Kerry listen to Wes Clark and others. Edwards sounds about as knowledgeable as Bush.

[LisaL]

15. Surely,

nobody can be as "knowledgeable" as Bush?

[IndianaGreen]

16. Edwards is a lightweight when compared to Wes Clark

Edwards should refrain from babbling nonsense about foreign policy. It makes him sound like Dan Quayle!

[sampsonblk]

18. I hadn't thought about Quayle, but I agree

Its very similar, isn't it?

Edwards should stick to domestic policy and "connecting" with voters in person. He is REALLY good on those.

[Dover]

20. Bushco are going to do their damnedest to invade Iran before the end of

the year. It's the crowning achievement in their agenda and whether or not they manage to hold onto the White House, they will likely try to start this mess.

I hope it can be prevented somehow....

[LisaL]

21. I think so too.

Just from the way they talk.

[Norquist Nemesis]

24. Like on October 29th?

I think it's time for a google alert "Iran+war games+ship deploy".

Somehow, I still think this espionage investigation is all tied in. Israel might just be twitching at the trigger. Then, we have to do a little more troop rearrangement more toward the Iraq/Iran border. Sorry, Kurds. You're going to get screwed again.

[Keirsey]

27. Iran and Halliburton

60 Minutes, January 2004

Doing Business With The Enemy

(CBS) Did it ever occur to you that when President Bush says, "Money is the lifeblood of terrorist operations," he's talking about your money -- and every other American's money?

<snip>

In other words, there are U.S. companies that are helping drive the economies of countries like Iran, Syria and Libya, all places that have sponsored terrorists. Correspondent Lesley Stahl reported on this story last January.

What was Thompson’s reaction when he found out about this? “Anger that there were companies that could be contributing to attacks on our nation,” he says. “You’d think to yourself, well, why would they do that? … I didn't think they could. And more than anything it was, you thought, that the law prevented them from doing this.”

In fact, U.S. law does ban virtually all commerce with the rogue nations, but there's a loophole that G.E., Conoco-Phillips and Halliburton have exploited: The law does not apply to any foreign or offshore subsidiary so long as it is run by non-Americans.

“These three companies, as far as we were concerned, appear to have violated the spirit of the law,” says Thompson. “In the case of Halliburton, as an example, they have an offshore subsidiary in the Cayman Islands. That subsidiary is doing business with Iran.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/22/60minutes/main595214.shtml

[aneerkoinos]

29. No invasion coming, no strikes against reactors

There are no troop consentrations in Iraq and Afganistan to present militarily any kind of threat to Iran. It's the other way around, if Israel or US would strike Iran's nuclear installations tomorrow, the occupation troops in Iraq would face peril. Iran has real army and it can cut the supply routs to US troops. Even more importantly, Iran can shut down tanker movement through straits of Hormuz, taking Saudi and Kuwait oil of the market, plunging US and global economy into chaos, of the cliff "crisis". Also the possibility of secret pact between Iran and Syria to join forces in preemptive strike against US should be kept in mind.

So no, even if the fools in Bush admin have wet dreams about striking Iran, they are not going to do that without huge preparations. And such preparations would most likely invite preemptive action from Iran before they are ready.

[Gloria]

30. Meanwhile....Iran Hosts Iraqi Official, Eyes Better Relations/Daily Star

Up in the current World Media Watch.....


1//The Daily Star, Lebanon Monday, August 30, 2004

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=7876



IRAN HOSTS IRAQI OFFICIAL, EYES BETTER RELATIONS

Visit comes amid effort to ease recent war of words

Compiled by Daily Star staff

Iraq's interim deputy prime minister, Barham Saleh, arrived in Tehran Sunday on a mission from his US-backed government to press Iran to stop interfering in its neighbor's affairs.



"We have to start building clear and frank relations based on not interfering in the two countries' internal affairs," Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said in an interview broadcast by Iraqi public television late Saturday.


Saleh will "present the facts to our brothers in the Iranian leadership and clarify some misunderstandings so that relations are based on love and brotherhood," Allawi said.

"There are negative elements and tensions which run contrary to the interests of both countries."

MORE