Edwards gets hawkish on Iran, says Israel should join NATO.

[Clarkie1]

In a speech at a conference in Herzliya, Israel, former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) took aim at Iran, warning that the "world won't back down." The 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee, who recently launched a new presidential campaign, also said that Israel should be allowed to join NATO.

Although Edwards has criticized the war in Iraq, and has urged bringing the troops home, the former senator firmly declared that "all options must remain on the table," in regards to dealing with Iran, whose nuclear ambition "threatens the security of Israel and the entire world."

"Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons," Edwards said. "For years, the US hasn't done enough to deal with what I have seen as a threat from Iran. As my country stayed on the sidelines, these problems got worse."

Edwards continued, "To a large extent, the US abdicated its responsibility to the Europeans. This was a mistake. The Iranian president's statements such as his description of the Holocaust as a myth and his goals to wipe Israel off the map indicate that Iran is serious about its threats."

"Once Iran goes nuclear, other countries in the Middle East will go nuclear, making Israel's neighborhood much more volatile," Edwards said.

Edwards added, "Iran must know that the world won't back down. The recent UN resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough. We need meaningful political and economic sanctions. We have muddled along for far too long. To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate - ALL options must remain on the table."

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/1/24/133737/037
http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/world/?content_id=5400

This rhetoric is distrurbing. Why should Israel be part of NATO? Why is Edwards reiterating the military option in his rhetoric, while Clark, Kerry, and many others are stressing the need for talking to Iran and Syria? What is going on here? It makes me question Edwards judgement; he seems to be making the same mistake in his rhetoric with Iran that he did with his rhetoric before the IWR vote. Hasn't he learned anything? The mistake in Iraq was the focus on Saddam as the only voice in Iraq, and now Edwards and others are making the same mistake in Iran by becoming obsessed with the rhetoric of Ahmedinejad. Here is a contrasting view, from Wes Clark after the State of the Union yesterday. True, Clark says the military option must be on the table too, but he knows it's a horrible option...listen to the difference in tone and emphsis:


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I do believe that the United States, as the most powerful country in the world, should always talk to adversaries. I’m not saying take the military option off the table – it’s an option, but it’s a lot better for everybody in the region if we don’t have to use the military option.

Sean Hannity: But do you…I agree with that, but do you really believe there’s even a smidgen of hope that the Holocaust denier, that the guy that threatens the US and Israel, do you really believe this madman is somebody that ultimately can be persuaded?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: Well I don’t think he’s the only…Sean, he’s not the only guy in Iran. I mean there are a lot of people in Iran who are…who really want to see a change in the situation in the region. We’ve got to reach around Ahmedinejad one way or another. We’ve got to show a different vision for the region. We’ve got to help those in Iran who want a different vision in the region come forward. That’s our obligation as the most powerful country in the world.

Sean Hannity: I think the single best security we will have against Iran is to have the biggest, strongest, toughest military and the means to back it up. Let me ask you this, sir. You said, you said…

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well you know the military is the last resort.

Sean Hannity: I agree. You said

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: If we could change people’s mind without using the military, we’ll all be a lot more secure.

Sean Hannity: I don’t believe you can change the mind of a madman like Ahmedinejad. I think that’s false hope.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I don’t think he’s the only guy in charge, Sean.

Sean Hannity: Well I think it’s false hope and naïve.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think you’re making the same mistake we made with Saddam. I think you’re trying to personalize a country around a single person.

Sean Hannity: I’m not. I’m not, but he’s their leader.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: and that was the mistake in Iraq.

Sean Hannity: He’s their voice.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: He is one voice in Iran. That’s all.

Sean Hannity: If we could do anything, we ought to be working very hard with alternative voices in Iran and hope that the emerging, shifting, changing demographics and the desire…the…the inclination of the human soul takes over

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Sure.

Sean Hannity: and foster the freedom movement there. I think it would be a far better plan than

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: but to do that, you have to talk to Iran.

http://securingamerica.com/node/2163

[madmunchie]

1. This is why JE sucks because he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground

AND Clark is as usual brilliant

[venable]

44. classy post

nice language, really impressive thinking.

[madmunchie]

108. Hi Venable!

Knee jerk reaction when I see how this guy operates. He is just so unqualified AND phoney. You and I have had lengthy debates before, you know that the response was not the ONLY way that I express myself.

What angers me most is how people fall for his lines and bs and ask so little from a person who wants to be POTUS,

[venable]

131. people don't 'fall for his lines', they see him differently than do you

and many of those people are very judicious, critical, analytical progressives who have seen a lot of public figures come and go.

My point is that these people are not being fooled by him, because he is not fooling. He is serious, and he is right (although, of course, I don't agree with everything he says...that would be idolatry, which is not judicious, critical, and analytical)

You don't believe him. Nothing to be done about that. I just don't think you should get worked up because others, many very smart, honest people, do.

[madmunchie]

135. That is the problem, people believe him

He doesn't deserve to be POTUS. He needs to do some serious work serving the people before he starts campaigning for POTUS. We need to know by his votes on difficult questions. It is very easy to "talk" about how this is bad or that is bad, it is all basically sound bites with no real depth AND that is what is missing from his back round "depth". We know how he voted on the Patriot Act, WRONG, We know that he co-sponsored IWR, WRONG, We know that he voted for IWR, WRONG, He stood by his vote as late as 2004. He didn't generate or champion any poverty legislation during his 6 years in the Senate. John Edwards talks about poverty, but he co-sponsored a massive increase in H-1b Visas. WRONG!

How about the book written by his wife putting down the "Kerrys"? and his book about famous people's houses? really heavy duty enlightening stuff now isn't it?

Now his latest statement that he will have to take back eventually because it is way too hawkish and frankly over the top. The guy who wasn't in the military is pushing the military option,

("Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons," Edwards said. "For years, the US hasn't done enough to deal with what I have seen as a threat from Iran. As my country stayed on the sidelines, these problems got worse.

Edwards continued, "To a large extent, the US abdicated its responsibility to the Europeans. This was a mistake. The Iranian president's statements such as his description of the Holocaust as a myth and his goals to wipe Israel off the map indicate that Iran is serious about its threats."

"Once Iran goes nuclear, other countries in the Middle East will go nuclear, making Israel's neighborhood much more volatile," Edwards said.

Edwards added, "Iran must know that the world won't back down. The recent UN resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough. We need meaningful political and economic sanctions. We have muddled along for far too long. To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate - ALL options must remain on the table."
"

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/1/24/133737/037

while the guys who were in the military and in wars, are stressing diplomacy...the same bad judgment (6 years later)that he had for Iraq. His actions speak much louder to me than do his double-talk rhetoric.

Go ahead keep listening to him, Me, I'll watch what he does.

[catgirl]

102. This Shows His Lack Of Understanding Diplomacy

He goofs and then says he didn't mean it. He'll retract
these statements too. Hillary will do the same.

We need someone who understands how to deal with
countries like Iran....hint, Gore, Kerry and others
who didn't vote for for the Iraq war.

[madmunchie]

109. You and I are on the same page here. You like who I like

and your criteria starts where my criteria starts. It truely amazes me that there are so many that support that SOB. I cannot believe that he is so stupid that he actually is saying this shit, yet again!

How many "goofs" is this clown allowed as POTUS? Hasn't anybody learned their lesson from the "goof" in cheif now????? We ALL have to live with their errors in judgement.

I hope that Gore and/or Clark runs.

[TheModernTerrorist]

116. Hillary's already done it

just in the past few days as well.

[high density]

163. Edwards is a broken record of bad ideas lately

He's saying a lot of crazy stuff... I think he's way too desperate for the presidency, especially after the way he basically campaigned for VP in 2004.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[burythehatchet]

10. Would you mind scooping your poop before leaving?Thanks

[k_jerome]

11. in this crap on Edwards thread...

i couldn't find my own. lots of yours though.

[More Than A Feeling]

3. I won't consider Clark until he actually announces.

I already made that mistake once with Feingold. Right now, my choices are between Edwards, Obama, HRC, Richardson, Vilsack, Dodd, Gravel, and Kucinich.

[Clarkie1]

4. This is more important than Clark and Democratic Primary politics.

Edwards is a potential next POTUS, and I find is rhetoric and understanding of the world deeply troubling irregardless of whether Clark choses to run or not.

[burythehatchet]

6. There is no chance in hell he will get the nom.

There is a very strong grass roots sentiment against the opinions he expressed. He will not be able to overcome the damage.

[ShortnFiery]

46. It's a shame that he's been inappropriately influenced to

play hawkish because his desire to help "the least of us" (the poor and homeless) was very appealing to me. But I will now vote for Kucinich in the primaries albeit I know that, on a national level, an Edwards campaign is more solvent. :shrug:

[burythehatchet]

47. Wait for Gore. I am certain he will be in it.

DK is my man as well.

[More Than A Feeling]

74. How are you certain?

I won't say I am certain, but my opinion is the opposite from yours.

[burythehatchet]

82. no inside info

jusy my gut feeling. If he wasn't going to run he would have said so unequivocally. Some people say that other candidates will suck up the money but his incredible popularity now because of Inconvenient Truth means a cash base that will finance him well.

[Hippo_Tron]

142. I have talked to someone close to Gore, he probably will not run

I'm not going to reveal my source so you can believe me if you want to or not but I'm just telling you this because I thought you might be interested.

He says that while Gore hasn't said he's out of the race, he's not taking any of the preliminary steps at all that are needed to run for President which leaves him to believe that Gore will not.

Personally this leads me to believe that unless someone changes Gore's mind at sometime soon, he isn't running. But believe me, I hope Gore will run just as much as you do and I'm holding out for that to happening but everything I know says otherwise.

I don't think he wants to go through all of it again and I think that he feels his chances are stifled with the Clinton money tied up in Hillary's campaign.

[catgirl]

103. You hit the nail on the head

"inappropriately influenced". We don't need
a president who can be so easily influenced.
He seems to lack the ability to think things
through. Scary.

[Clark2008]

122. Who, Edwards?

[madmunchie]

8. I am personally trying to change JE supporters minds - even if it is

one at a time. JE belongs NOWHERE near the WH. He cannot be trusted to know what he is doing on Foreign Policy.

[JNelson6563]

101. Well you may try a different approach

than the Jr. High drivel you responded in reply #1 with.

[madmunchie]

106. Your way is your way, mine is mine and trying to inflict your method

on me by putting me down....guess what? Doesn't work. The guy is an asshole. If you don't like the way I express myself in this particular case too bad.

[JNelson6563]

107. Rots of ruck

Yet another keyboard commando. Easy to spot. Sophomoric behavior reveals much, especially a lack of Real World involvment.

Have at it, be as offensive as you like. No skin off my nose if even more are turned off to Clark due to more obnxoious Clarkie bahavior.

To obnoxious, counter-productive DUers and the Admins who tolerate them! :toast:

Julie

[madmunchie]

110. You know what, you are all judgment now aren't you? Some of us

like to let loose sometimes and not be "measured, guarded, on the high road, diplomatic...) I see that enough from politicians. I see politic ans talk all around a subject and never say what most of us think or feel because they are too careful.

I am a well rounded person and can debate with most. I like to let loose sometimes as do most sane real people. Go ahead and act all above letting loose sometimes, try to act superior, name call, try to put down those that express themselves differently than you, those are all Republican traits that I am well used to.

As far as my "Real World Involvement".....what does that mean? Does being a Precinct committee person count? Does traveling internationally count? Does going to Meet ups for the Democratic Candidates Count? Does having a child that just came home from Iraq count? What exactly is your definition?

[JNelson6563]

113. Enjoy your name calling

and do try to stay out of the way of the grown-ups, k? Buh-bye now.

Julie--who likes when those who act like teen-agers cite their "grown-up" credentials ;-)

[madmunchie]

114. I said that you have Republican Traits for attacking me on the

grounds that you are attacking me.......that is not name calling.

"Keyboard commando" "obnoxious, counter-productive DUers" Now that is name calling!

How do YOU name call and then have the audacity to accuse others of the same when they haven't?

A little hypocritical now isn't it?

[fujiyama]

86. I'll admit

I've been critical of you for being so hard on Edwards.

But these comments by him make me cringe. Now, this is not because I like the idea of Iran having nukes (of course, another nation with a religious fanatic with nukes doesn't make the world safer)...

I've had enough saber rattling from Bush over Iran. I don't want to hear more from Democrats. Also, what exactly does he plan to do? Bomb them? If it's unacceptable for them to have nukes, Israel will take on Iran...After all, they are more threatened by them. Iran has no real way of striking at us. Either way, if anything that goes off either here on in Israel, and it is traced back to Iran, the country is toast.

I'd like to think Edwards' understanding of the world is more nuanced than this.

[FrenchieCat]

96. Here are Clark's nuanced views on Iran......

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3075947&mesg_id=3076604

[blm]

134. As a matter of fact, Kerry isn't running BECAUSE he wants to try and stop the war

from widening, and especially into Iran. He feels THAT obliged and wants other lawmakers to do the same and focus on stopping this craziness as a priority.

He and Clark have consistently said we CAN'T go in to Iran, there HAS to be immediate danger that can be PROVEN before congress - and Kerry said the intel everyone has seen on Iran shows that Iran is 5 yrs from nuclear weapon capability - which gives us over four years to get the diplomacy right.

[burythehatchet]

5. I saw this.

That sucking sound you hear is John Edwards candidacy being flushed down the toilet. Screw him.

[durtee librul]

7. And again I ask...

What the sam hill is so special about Isreal that we have to 'protect' them all the time? Are they sitting on a big oil well or something over there..hidden nazi gold?......Elvis is alive and hiding there?.....just what is the fascination with that state?

I am serious...I do not understand why we rush to their defense all the time.

[burythehatchet]

9. Projection of force

Client state.

[venable]

12. How do you Edwards haters explain this then:

He was in LA last week. Here is an account, from Variety, of a meeting he had with friends of Israel. He would lose their important support if he doesn't please them, and yet.....

Variety on Hollywood and politics:



"There are other emerging fissures, as well. The aggressively photogenic John Edwards was cruising along, detailing his litany of liberal causes last week until, during question time, he invoked the "I" word -- Israel. Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close."


So, friends, it's not so cut-and-dry as you'd like to make it out to be. He sacrifices support for himself to warn against agression against Iran.

[Clarkie1]

14. So...what exactly is Edwards foreign policy?

Shoot from the hip and play whatever crowd he's playing at the moment?

You tell me...

[venable]

17. I don't think you understand the crowd

he was not playing to the crowd, he was saying exactly what they didn't want to hear, because it was the right thing to do..


as for military option on the table with Iran, there is nobody who would openly remove it. Nobody.

Did Edwards say dont' talk to Iran? Syria? Didn't think so.

You are reading it through your Edwards hating glasses, so you are not being judicious.

[FrenchieCat]

22. But you understand "the crowd" for which no documentation has been

provided?

Please provide the source prior to analyzing the demographics of a gathering where you were not present.

Thank you.

[venable]

23. yes, I can

I can't find the link, but it's Bart in Variety, maybe three days ago, in the section on Hollywood and politics.

Did you think I just made it up?

If you can't find it, I will try to locate it. It was sent to me by someone.

[FrenchieCat]

The point is not that "you made it up"...the point is you are using a

source that we cannot see as defense.

That doesn't work.

You and I have had our go round in reference to this...and you have accused me in the recent past of posting too much.

Can I say that you post too little to actually be of effect when it is required?

Please locate your source, let us see it...then we can discuss how Edwards is "Sacrificing" himself for the cause of Peace.

Thank you.

[Clarkie1]

26. What glasses are you wearing? nt

[Chulanowa]

99. I, for one, don't hate Edwards

However, I do find his "tough stance on Iran" rhetoric a little disturbing. You know why?

1) Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons. They complied with IAEA regulations. They allowed inspectors. There is no evidence - NONE - of Iran seeking a nuclear weapon.
2) Ahmedinejad has never - never - stated that Israel needs to be wiped off the map, much less threatened to do so.

These two facts are immediately clear to anyone who's been paying attention. These two claims are fabricated and well-spin. From the right-wing's mouths to your ears. I'm sorry if I for one can't fall in behind a candidate that's buying what the Right is selling without even asking what it is he's buying. If John Edwards, in the near future, does some research on the subject he's pandering with, and says "Hey guys, I was wrong, and get this, the president of Iran has no military power, what a lark!" then I can feel good about supporting him over another Democratic candidate.

Sadly I don't think I'll be hearing any such phrase pass his lips.

[Cameron27]

15. We have enough warnings from bush

about aggression from Iran, we need to get away from that attitude and turn the talk towards diplomacy.

[FrenchieCat]

18. You've got a link on

that one sentence?

Cause, he was with APAIC not long ago, and again at that conference a day ago.

Each time, he appears to be saying that we can't let Iran go Nuke, and we'll do whatever we can.

Now he's talking Israel being part of Nato.

Sacrifice? I don't quite see where the sacrifice he is making is.

But if you give me a link to that source, at least I'll be able to better understand the context. Thanks!

[venable]

25. there is one

I'll try to track it down.

[FrenchieCat]

28. You come in calling out Edwards "haters"......

then talk about a nondocumentated meeting to counter a long sourced post bearing Edwards' words....then you size up the crowd for us in this non documented meeting that you describe (with one sentence from Edwards that is ambigious at best) and you want us to take your word for it, and you then tell us that John Edwards is "sacrificing" himself for the cause of peace with Iran?...all the while Edwards is seen and heard agreeing with those who are currently pushing a confrontation with Iran.

Are we supposed to be fools here?

I mean, come on!

[venable]

32. whooaaa

yes, that's what happened but it has none of the chicanery and duplicity you attribute to me. take a deep breath.

Edwards spoke via teleconference with a conference taking place in Israel

In it he said, basically - Israel has a right to defend herself. Iranian nuke intentions, should they be there, can not be let stand, and the military option can not be taken off the table.

Show me someone who disagrees with that. Even your adored reverend general clark. Can't? Thought not?


Now, what happens in this post is well-documented Edwards haters, and please let's not pretend that's not the case, show up saying he wants to bomb Iran. That is, of course, absurd..

To counter that, I simply propose that this corp of haters take a gander at something he said, last week, that is not hawk-ish on Iran, in fact the opposite

You know what, I am so tired of this garbage....hate away... who cares?

I was looking for the link, but you know what, if you want to see it, check Variety. The account is there

Please deliver me from the waste of time...there is absolutely no future in this hounding. you've never paid a moment of attention, at least not openly.

[Jai4WKC08]

72. "Iranian nuke intentions, should they be there, can not be let stand"

Our "adored reverend general" does not agree with this. He thinks we need to consider how to co-exist with a nuclear-armed Iran. Just as we do with a nuclear-armed North Korea, and did for many years with a nuclear-armed Soviet Union.

By the way, I read the Variety article. There's nothing there that indicates Edwards was speaking to an Israeli-friendly audience.

However, when he spoke to AIPAC last March, he said the following:

"For years I have argued that the United States has not been doing enough to deal with the growing threat in Iran," Edwards said. "While we've talked about the dangers of nuclear terrorism, we've largely stood on the sidelines as the problems got worse. I believe that for far too long, we've abdicated our responsibility to deal with the Iranian threat to the Europeans. That is not the way to deal with an unacceptable threat to America and an unacceptable threat to Israel."
http://www.cjp.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=178593

Again, he tells the pro-Israel crowd that a nuclear-armed Iran is "unacceptable." Sure, he'd rather talk first. But at the end of the day, he'd go to war before he'd let Iran get a nuclear weapon. Are you ok with that? Willing to sign up to fight?

[venable]

104. Good point. And, to be honest, I am not sure

whether I agree or disagree with Clark on this. I do think it's an interesting approach that he brings. Seriously.

I have often wondered why the nuke club can have x number of members, but not more.

Why does the US, with it's massive stockpiles have the right to dictate? Why does the US, the only country to actually use nukes militarily, have the right to say that others can or cannot go nuke. What must the rest of the world think of this contradiction?

However, this is not to say that it is hunky-dory that any nation go nuke. It's to say that the notion of coexisting with nuke club is worth considering, and I don't know the answer.

In answer to your question, though, I agree with you: It is not worth going to war to prevent them from going nuclear. Does that mean you take the possibility off the table? I don't think so.

I am not an expert on Iran, but I do know that it is a massively complex culture, and that figures like Ahmadinejad wield less power than the mullahs, and the mullahs must have Shia alliances that are extra-national - all of which makes predictions about them educated guesses, no more, no less.

Iran is far from a monolithic society. It is that no more than are we. I will be in Europe in a couple of weeks working with a group of bright young Iranians, 'mentoring' them on a non-political project. I'll be interested in their take on this.

I still don't disagree with Edwards, and don't believe he is as hawkish as some are making out. But I think what you say about Clark is interesting, though I would guess there must be smart, dovish people who would take issue with it. I think a dialogue is worth pursuing.

No nukes is best. Co-existence is better than going to war.

[Jai4WKC08]

117. Of course, no nukes is best

But not realistic. Not in the foreseeable future anyway.

There are probably a half-dozen, maybe more, countries who would like to have nuclear weapons for one reason or another. And when one gets 'em, a bunch of others decide they'd better have 'em too.

No one wants a Middle East brimming with nuclear warheads, but how do we stop it? Are we supposed to go to war every time one gets close? And if so, how close? And what about countries who already have nukes (like Pakistan) if their government should change to something we don't like? And what do we do when Africa or SE Asia catches up?

But as I said, that's not the issue. Saying that Iranian nukes are "unacceptable" or can be tolerated "under no circumstances" is pretty darned hawkish in my opinion. But you know, I really don't think Edwards is that much more likely to go to war over nukes than a lot of other Democrats... like most of those who voted for IWR. The threat wasn't imminent then either.

You won't like this, but I think Edwards feels he has to talk tough because he knows he doesn't look tough. He's pretty and appears younger than he is. I think it affects how he feels he must present himself. That wouldn't change once he got into office. It might get worse. It may even be that he thinks acting tough is a necessary part of leadership. He's never actually led anybody before (not more than a couple dozen or so), so who knows?

I also think he is pandering to the pro-Israel hardliner crowd. That's why I questioned your Variety article. I couldn't see that he was talking to pro-Israel types there. So to a regular crowd he emphasized diplomacy, but in front of AIPAC and in Israel itself, he emphasizes his willingness to exercise a military option. Which one is the real Edwards? Probably both. But among traditional liberal voters and activists (like here at DU), he would have us believe the hawk in him doesn't exist, or has been expunged by his apology. I'm not buying.

[venable]

118. the crowd was Pro-Israel

hence the note that a chill fell across the room and the meeting was over.

I understand what you say about Edwards looking young, so he needs to act tough. I disagree, though, because I know how tough he is...I'm thinking less his legislative career than his law career. the guy is made of steel.

[ProudDad]

144. How about Israeli nulear intentions?

Hell, they've already got a couple hundred devices and the means to deliver them...

So now he's sucking up for AIPAC money. They all do it...

JE was exactly right the first time that one of the biggest short term threats for the region would be for Israel to bomb Iran. They already bombed Iraq (in '81) just before Iraq became a U.S. client state too so you know they don't care who they kill.


http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1359348.htm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1522978,00.html
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/090204A.shtml

[venable]

35. Here's your link, Frenchie Cat, let's see how you can dismiss it yet again

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117957727?categoryid=18&cs=1


and, by the way, some people have things to do in their lives, so aren't accumulating links to show to people who aren't listening anyway.

and the suggestion that I post too little that I can't be effective, or whatever you said in another post on this thread: please tell me you're kidding, please tell me you don't believe it matters how much people post.

Isn't it, rather, what they post?

you have your link. trash away, I'm not coming back to this nonsense on this thread.

[FrenchieCat]

65. Glad you were able to back your shit up....

it means a lot to those trying to research who we will elect as the leader of the free world, even if that may seem funny to you.

In reference to that article, it shows that Edwards is talking out of all sides of his mouth.

[venable]

78. or maybe you are not catching something

which is that everything he said at Verzliya conference is perfectly in tune with his admonition to not use military force in Iran.

think about that a bit..

keep military option on table.

don't attack.

sounds sage to me.

[Jai4WKC08]

36. I don't see from what you posted

How you conclude that this audience was made up of "friends of Israel."

Been my experience most Hollywood types are not particularly pro-Israel.

[Cameron27]

13. Sounds as though Edwards hasn't

learned his lesson, despite the apology for the IWR. We don't need a hawk-like mentality before even attempting diplomacy with Iran.

[pdxmike]

16. before we go off halfcocked...

Let's think about what Israel in NATO might mean.

Let me preface this by saying that I doubt that Israel would be interested in this, for alot of reasons

But, if Israel was interested in this, there would be preconditions from NATO. Without a doubt, this would include ironclad guarantees about steps for Palestinian autonomy/independence. NATO would be much more aggressive in this than ANY American administration. Israel would insist on security guarantees. Maybe this could be the way to get things started.

Am I sure this is a good idea? Of course not. But it may be worthwhile to at least think about it w/o assuming that Edwards has joined an evil Likud/neo-con cabal.

[venable]

19. Excellent points

thank you

[FrenchieCat]

21. The point is NOT what Israel would be "interested" in.....the point

is that John Edwards is proposing this.

This "not such a good idea" is your own statement.....and yet it is John Edwards' suggestion....

I don't make assumptions, but I can still read.

[Adelante]

73. I don't see what's in it for Europe

With major Muslim populations in so many countries, why would the European governments want the grief? That's what I don't understand. It's a lot easier to see why Israel would want it. An article I read last year some time said it would also involve EU membership for Israel. I doubt very much if Europe would commit itself to this extent. The Germans did propose some guarantees such as you suggest but I'm not aware of support in the rest of Europe, actually the opposite.

[Adelante]

149. I meant to say the other night

Israel is planning to submit an application next month. FYI.

[illinoisprogressive]

20. I don't hate or like Edwards. But, I see him as a bright but, intellectually

shallow. Not bashing. He is smart. it is that he is not a deep and thoughful thinker. It's somewhat shallow.
Like Sen. Webb, for example, He is a deep thinker which is why people are so impressed and go crazy about him when he writes an op ed or speaks.
Just an observation.

[venable]

27. Agree about Webb

I see your point on that, completely

I don't think Edwards is that kind of thinker, but I don't think he's shallow

It's just a very different life experience, but not a shallow one

I think that Edwards thoughtfulness is of an unusual order, not so much abstractions but a real morality and whatever kind of wisdom comes from that>

just my opinion.

[Pithy Cherub]

24. Foreign policy idiocy by a national security neophyte

with a record of disaster firmly attached to the name Edwards. Where are people who advise him on these things because before announcing something that radical one would usually gather a consortium of the leading FP experts and get buy in to make sure one has air cover. But that's what somebody with a degree in international relations would do or somebody with some credentials would do, but not a person who seems to have not learned lessons from his last disaster.

Last night, there was a telling moment on MSNBC where edwards was caught short (again) and it displays sloppy work by his staff. They played Hillary's clip from the Today show and asked Edwards about what she said (paraphrased: that she was still on the field, was interested in people who could do things now not say things, she had the experience, met world leaders and knew them) and they asked for his comments. Edwards mentioned he had not seen or heard this before and he was quite subdued. Craig Crawford said he was going to have to get sharper and they all commented on his lack of fight. Crawford said he should have brought up Whitewater or something (he went stupid there) and the rest of them said that was definitely not going to fly but Hillary was coming to play and the rest of the candidates better get in shape. It was quite instructive.

[venable]

29. Edwards was subdued

but it's not because he was caught short

There is a way of responding that is, essentially, I'm not engaged in that quote, I'm onto other things.

maybe it wasn't effective, but there's a difference between that and caught short.

he did seem subdued though. tired? thoughtful? don't know

[DaveinMD]

30. this is nothing but bs

Edwards was advocating strong diplomacy to keep Iran from going nuclear. He also advocated negotiation with Iran. This story is nothing but those supporting other candidates trying to manufacture an issue.

[venable]

33. thank you thank you thank you

it's too much.

real discourse can't take place with all this hectoring and obfuscation.

[FrenchieCat]

37. Somebody is advocating Israel joining NATO, and it wasn't me-

You see Clark being called Jim Jones, and no one dying upthread.

But here we have Edwards' words and that is supposed to be BS from his detractors? Plueaze. :eyes:

It's one thing to make it understood that the force should be on the table as a last resort....and in fact it should really go without saying it much....but to "emphasize" it is really asking for trouble. I don't see a lot of talk about "talking" to Iran here.....but I do see a lot of talk about sanctions, not doing enough, not backing down, ensuring no nukes in Iran, and repeating "all options on the table" in what seems quite a forceful way.

Quote from John Edwards--
"Once Iran goes nuclear, other countries in the Middle East will go nuclear, making Israel's neighborhood much more volatile," Edwards said.

Edwards added, "Iran must know that the world won't back down. The recent UN resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough. We need meaningful political and economic sanctions. We have muddled along for far too long. To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate - ALL options must remain on the table."
http://mydd.com/story/2007/1/24/133737/037

This is basically how he got into trouble in reference to Iraq.....talking a lot of shit to appear tough. This is not what we need considering where we are.

So, no...this is not a skerilous attach on Edwards....this is pointing out what's in the bag that Edwards brings. I think that it is wise to know who we support and why.

Diplomacy should be the emphasis, and that is not how Edwards is putting it.

[DaveinMD]

42. its pure hogwash

I'm on that mydd thread as Marylander. I encourage everyone to read the question and answer session. He mainly talked about getting the world community to endorse real sanctions and to engage the Iranians to get them to back away from trying to obtain nuclear weapons. The bruhaha is a complete distortion of what Edwards was advocating.

[Clark2008]

124. In other words, he changes his mind alot and/or doesn't know

what the hell he's talking about.

Otherwise, how can he say one thing one day and another the next?

[Jai4WKC08]

55. Here's what's the main issue to me

Edwards said, "Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons."

You can say Edwards is for diplomacy first, and I believe you. But at the end of the day, he SAYS he will not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. Under no circumstances, he says That means war if Iran will not capitulate. It might even mean war if we are unable to tell for certain whether they have gotten nuclear weapons or not (which is much more likely to be the case).

I'm not willing to go to war to keep Iran from getting nukes. I don't even think it would be legal to do so; possessing a weapon is not the same as intending to use it, much less being about to. If you think differently, fine. But let's make sure everyone understands VERY clearly what Edwards is saying before they decide for themselves.

[CarolNYC]

79. Don't worry, jai...

if you're not willing now to go to war to keep Iran from getting nukes, you can be "educated" into thinking differently....

This from the rawstory transcript at Dave's link:

As to the American people, this is a difficult question. The vast majority of people are concerned about what is going on in Iraq. This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran. But I think the American people are smart if they are told the truth, and if they trust their president. So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran.

[Adelante]

41. Maybe you know, DaveinMD

What makes Edwards think the Europeans want Israel in NATO? It was my impression they were a bit lukewarm to the idea.

[DaveinMD]

45. what about this one

every candidate Dem and Republican has always advocated moving the embassy to Jerusalem. None of them have moved it. Why?

[Adelante]

48. So it's just something the Israelis want to hear?

Israel should join NATO - we'll move the embassy to Jerusalem.

[DaveinMD]

51. I wouldn't say the Israeli's

I would say Jewish voters in key early primary areas and swing states.

[Adelante]

62. I see, not realistic, but political

Thank you.

[Clarkie1]

49. You said Edwards own words are bullshit, not me! nt

[DaveinMD]

53. nope

I said Edwards is advocation greater diplomacy. Some of it is just campaign rhetoric. The horror.

[Clarkie1]

56. what is campaign rhetoric, his rhetoric on Iran? nt

[DaveinMD]

59. the Israel in NATO stuff

as was the rhetoric by every presidential nominee to move the embassy to Jerusalem.

[FrenchieCat]

75. I don't need my foreign policy to be politicized......that's the problem

with this administration more than any other!

We are fighting a war that in where the intelligence was politicized.

When to we stop this?

Who' got the integrity not to always be on the campaign trail no matter the degree of seriousness of an issue?

Actually this makes things worse for Edwards, not better.

[DaveinMD]

77. everything

is politicized. Its our system. Every Democratic candidate for the past 40 years advocated having the embassy in Jerusalem. That's the way it is. I'm sure Wesley Clark would have advocated the same thing.

[Jai4WKC08]

83. Why would you be "sure" about that?

Clark ran. I don't remember him saying anything about moving the embassy to Jerusalem.

I think if he thought it were a good idea, he'd have said so. It certainly would have been to his advantage within the Jewish community.

[DaveinMD]

84. He never really make it past New Hampshire

if he made it to NY, I'm certain it would have happened. You know I was a supporter of his last time.

[Jai4WKC08]

89. Excuse me? He won a primary after NH

Came in second in quite a few others. But what's that got to do with it?

Clark spent a LOT of time in front of Jewish audiences during his '04 campaign.

Do you remember when he was endorsed by Rabbi Harold Kushner? I do. I was in on the conference call. There was an active grassroots "Jews for Clark" group, with a coordinator on staff in Little Rock.

And he raised more money in NY than any other state.

Clark had every opportunity to call for the embassy to move to Jerusalem. To my knowledge, he never did. I'm not saying he wouldn't have. I don't know his opinion on the issue. But for you to be SURE that he would have is just blowing smoke from your butt.

[DaveinMD]

90. maybe it is

but I don't think it is based on the campaigns of every other Democratic nominee the last 40 years.

[FrenchieCat]

91. Clark beat Edwards in NH.....and although it was close, it was Edwards

blowing with the media winds.....Clark could hardly get any coverage.....that is when he wasn't so busy defending Michael Moore's statement that Bush was a deserter.

If you were to really look at the primaries, you'll find that it was all pretty much decided after Iowa.

Here's some information on that:
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9242.html
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/12/wes_clark_did_hella_goodthe_20.html

[DaveinMD]

93. that's true

that it was over after Iowa. Too bad. I supported Clark last time. Gave him the biggest contribution I ever gave to any candidate.

[Jai4WKC08]

92. And you have every right to that opinion

I just asked why you were "sure." That's something different.

Hey, personally, I think the embassy should be moved. But I don't think Clark would say that it should unless that was his honest opinion. I've never heard him lie about his position on any issue, or pander to any given audience.

[FrenchieCat]

95. Actually, he hasn't......Clark goes much deeper than Edwards would ever dare!

Last September at a conference I helped organize, General Wesley Clark began the drumbeat calling for direct contact with Iran.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/29624

February 5, 2006
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well that's the problem with the military option. It's that once we take action, Ahmedinejad probably becomes stronger domestically. There's no assurance that you can get regime change and the historical record of countries that have been bombed suggests that when you bomb a country, normally people rally around the leader. In this case, it would be most unfortunate, but it could happen.

And after we had set back their nuclear program by taking out a number of sites, there's no reason to think that AQ Khan in Pakistan and his cohort couldn't provide them the additional information, that some other nation might not have an incentive to smuggle in highly enriched uranium.

They could be back where we started much sooner than if they rebuilt the program entirely on their own. So that's the risk of the military option - leaving an embittered, angered Iran which is determined to seek revenge and get it.

March 5, 2006
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well I think the first thing that needs to be done, really, is the United States needs to talk directly to the leadership in Iran. That's the essential first step. The United States leadership hasn't done this. We've got a lot of different things we can do. There's still a military option - I don't know how effective it's going to be in the long-term, but it's there. There are sanctions. There's the embarrassment of going forward. But, when we push Iran, they're going to push back on us and Iran has positioned itself to be the sort of leader of the Islamic world. It's an historic opportunity for Shia Islam to lead the whole Islamic world in standing up for their right to have nuclear energy and maybe a nuclear weapon. So this is a huge, difficult, political issue for us to face. It's a political issue first; it needs to start with dialogue.

Page Hopkins: How do we talk, though, with a president who is alm…crazy? This is a guy who says 'Israel should be wiped off the planet.' How do you reason or talk to somebody like that?


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Maybe you don't have to talk to him directly, maybe you talk to other people in the government first. Maybe you build this thing up over a period of time but this has been an opportunity that we've passed by for years. We spoke strongly about the need to put the right government in place in Iran. We basically, our government, tried to interfere in their election. We probably are responsible to giving Ahmedinejad some measure of support because voters don't like it, in whatever country they are, when foreigners try to interfere in their election. We may not think they had a real election. We may not approve of their democracy but people in Iran believe that they voted for Ahmedinejad so what we have to do is we have to decide what we as Americans want to do to pursue what we believe is in our interests. If we only use the stick on Iran, then it's going to be difficult to move the issue, in a constructive way, in the near term. So we need a combination of dialogue and pressure.

General Wesley Clark on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos"
March 5, 2006

George Stephanopoulos: Let me turn to Iran. You told the Council on Foreign Relations earlier this month, that before we take Iran to the UN Security Council over their proposed nuclear weapons program, we should try talking to them directly and doing business with Iranian businesses. That's a very different approach from what other Democrats, like Senator Evan Bayh and Senator Clinton, are calling for. They say we need tough sanctions now. Why are you convinced that your approach is better?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, maybe we will need tough sanctions later on. But before any of that happens…years ago we should have talked to Iran, and it's not too late right now.

George Stephanopoulos: Directly.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Directly to Iran. The Iranian state is not unified. There are differences of opinion in Iran, but rather that passing a $75 million Iranian Liberation Act funding proposal, why don't we just talk to the Iranian leadership and see if there's not a way <crosstalk>

George Stephanopoulos: But don't you believe that if they're this intent on developing a nuclear weapon…

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think they are intent and the more we press against them, the more difficult it would be for them to change their direction. Iran represents an historic opportunity for the Shias to have leadership in the Islamic world and this nuclear issue is being crystallized in such a way that it's going to make it extremely difficult for them to back off.George Stephanopoulos: But don't they know that the message is 'if you don't give up your nuclear program then you're not going to be able to join this modern world'? Isn't that what the United States is saying; isn't that what the European community is saying?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, it's a very mixed message going to the Iranians, frankly. We're not saying we're not going to buy their oil. China's not telling the Iranians 'we won't help you build subways'. The Russians aren't telling the Iranians 'you're not going to get our billion dollars worth of weapons that you've ordered'. It's a very mixed message and really it's the United States which hasn't taken its leadership responsibilities seriously enough to go and talk to the Iranians first before this crisis comes to a head.

------------
"I would encourage the United States leadership right now, this week, before March, before it goes to the United Nations Security Council, immediately to talk to the Iranian government. Iran has been a -- it's a great nation. It's 60, 70 million people with a tremendous heritage, and we've got a wonderful Iranian-American community. And the policy that we've pursued toward Iran for the last five to 10 years, no matter what the historical antecedents were or our anger at 1979 and the hostages, still, it's a policy that hasn't served American interests.

We should be doing business -- we should have been a long time ago doing business with the Iranian business community. We should have worked with them. We worked with East Europe when it was under communist domination, and it was one of the key factors that helped East Europe throw off an outmoded set of ideas. We need to be working in the Middle East to help their business communities move past old ideas.

So right now what we need to be doing is talking to Iran -- right now, this week."
http://securingamerica.com/node/607

-----------------

Neil Cavuto: When you say it's over-stretched, too over-stretched to do something about Iran right now?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think that's less of a problem. I think the, the greater problem is figuring out what's the end state. Let's say you, you run eight to fourteen days of bombing against Iran. You take out thirty sites, maybe fifteen of them were the nuclear sites. You've taken out some command and control, his missiles, his air bases, some of the stuff that would threaten us along the literal of the Persian Gulf. Okay, and then what? What happens? Does he then say, 'Oh, I give up. I surrender. I'll be your friend."? No, he's not going to say that.

Neil Cavuto: But who cares, if he's less of a threat?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Because what he's going to do is he's going to be a magnet-

Neil Cavuto: I see.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: - pulling in all kinds of anti-American resistance. How do we know A.-

Neil Cavuto: So, it'll actually galvanize Arab-


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: How do we know A.Q. Kahn's not going to replenish that nuclear stock right away.


Neil Cavuto: Yeah.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: So, it's a danger. We've got to think through the thing, not just from the initial strikes, not 'Can we hit the target? Can we penetrate Iranian airspace?' Of course we can do that. It's 'What's the end state- strategically, geopolitically? How do we handle the conflict in this part of the world?'

all Interviews text sourced here....
http://securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term ...

[Adelante]

87. What if it wasn't rhetoric?

What if he just doesn't know what he's talking about? This is serious business with the state of the world as it is. Do we need yet another uninformed president? Or worse, one that doesn't even care if his advice makes any sense.

[DaveinMD]

88. I am 100 percent sure it was rhetoric

I've heard this stuff in campaigns for 20 years.

[Texas_Kat]

111. Not campaign rhetoric

Edwards remarks were in a video conference to a conference being held in Israel. Not on a campaign stump appearance. Strange company for a Democrat.

Steve Clemons lists the participants:

January 22, 2007
Israel Organizes Quite A "Watering Hole" Event

Is it just a plain old conference -- or is there other stuff going on at this hyper-well attended assembly organized this week in Herziliya?

Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times reports in his blog that the following mix of Luke Skywalkers and Darth Vaders (many more Darth Vaders) attended a meeting at a coastal resort near Tel Aviv:

Israel Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (well, he's local)
Likud Leader Benjamin Netanyahu (he's local too)
Defense Minister Amir Peretz (another local)
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni (another local)
Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England (replaced Wolfowitz)
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns (has been acting simultaneously as Condi's Deputy, Counselor, and UN Ambassador lately)
Presidential Candidate and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney
Presidential Candidate and U.S. Senator John McCain (via satellite)
Presidential Candidate and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani
Presidential Candidate and former U.S. Senator John Edwards (via satellite)
Richard Perle (needs no qualifiers)
Former CIA Director and Committee on the Present Danger Chairman R. James Woolsey
Former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar (probably the only European neocon)

Read Gideon's good piece. The conference sounds a lot like a war party -- and if not that at least a cheerleading party for the idea of militarily confronting Iran.

-- Steve Clemons

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001890.php

[Clarkie1]

52. Give me a link where he is advocating talking with Iran. nt

[DaveinMD]

54. from the mydd diary

Iran and others (3.00 / 1)

Here is some Q & A after the prepared remarks so advertently left out on Stoller's post:

My analysis of Iran is if you start with the President of Iran coming to the UN in New York denouncing America and his extraordinary and nasty statements about the Holocaust and goal of wiping Israel off map, married with his attempts to obtain nuclear weapons over a long period of time, they are buying time. They are the foremost state sponsors of terrorism. If they have nuclear weapons, other states in the area will want them, and this is unacceptable.

As to what to do, we should not take anything off the table. More serious sanctions need to be undertaken, which cannot happen unless Russia and China are seriously on board, which has not happened up until now. I would not want to say in advance what we would do, and what I would do as president, but there are other steps that need to be taken. Fore example, we need to support direct engagement with Iranians, we need to be tough. But I think it is a mistake strategically to avoid engagement with Iran.


http://www.mydd.com/comments/2007/1/24/133737/037/48#48

[DaveinMD]

57. and from raw story

Question and Answer:

Cheryl Fishbein from NY: When you do learning of Jewish texts, you give credit to ideas of scholars who have helped you ask questions, I would like to give credit to my friends and colleagues who have had this same overriding question of shared a existential threat: Would you be prepared, if diplomacy failed, to take further action against Iran? I think there is cynicism about the ability of diplomacy to work in this situation. Secondly, you as grassroots person, who has an understanding of the American people, is there understanding of this threat across US?

A: My analysis of Iran is if you start with the President of Iran coming to the UN in New York denouncing America and his extraordinary and nasty statements about the Holocaust and goal of wiping Israel off map, married with his attempts to obtain nuclear weapons over a long period of time, they are buying time. They are the foremost state sponsors of terrorism. If they have nuclear weapons, other states in the area will want them, and this is unacceptable.

As to what to do, we should not take anything off the table. More serious sanctions need to be undertaken, which cannot happen unless Russia and China are seriously on board, which has not happened up until now. I would not want to say in advance what we would do, and what I would do as president, but there are other steps that need to be taken. Fore example, we need to support direct engagement with Iranians, we need to be tough. But I think it is a mistake strategically to avoid engagement with Iran.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html

[Clarkie1]

94. I don't like his tone or his emphasis. nt

[Adelante]

31. Do the Europeans want Israel in NATO?

Is there any indication of this?

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BayCityProgressive]

39. Clinton

is getting the party cash, Obama is getting the Hollywood cash....Edwards must need the AIPAC cash..

[venable]

43. Edwards on Iran

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117957727?categoryid=18&cs=1


read this and tell me he is going after AIPAC money. sounds like he's sacrificing AIPAC money in order to tell it straight.

[FrenchieCat]

60. I read the article (thank you for it), and so then let me ask you this......

so do I believe one sentence in a Hollywood Variety mag or an entire article in a Jewish Publication...or is John Edwards playing both sides knowing that Hollywood react differently to the Issue of Israel and Iran than does Israel?

See that's a problem in itself! Which John Edwards is doing the talking when and where....

This was printed on January 23, 2007...

"Iran is serious about its threats," former US Senator John Edwards has told an audience in Israel.

"The challenges in your own backyard – represent an unprecedented threat to the world and Israel," the candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination told the Herzliya Conference, referring mainly to the Iranian threat.

Hinting to possible military action, Edwards stressed that "in order to ensure Iran never gets nuclear weapons, all options must remain on table."

On the recent UN Security Council's resolution against Iran, Edwards said more serious political and economic steps should be taken. "Iran must know that the world won’t back down," he said.

Addressing the second Lebanon war , Edwards accused the Islamic Republic of having a significant role, saying Hizbullah was an instrument of Iran, and Iranian rockets were what made the organization's attack on Israel possible.

Edwards also discussed Syria's recent calls for peace with Israel, saying that "talk is cheap," and that Syria was not doing enough to prove it was serious.

The former senator also said that Syria has been a great source of destabilization in the area, from its support of Hizbullah and Hamas, to its relationship with Iran, and for this it should be held accountable.

After opening his speech with great praise for Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Edward's continued to express great appreciation for the Israeli people and the special bond between the two countries, saying it was "a bond that will never be broken."
http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/world/?content_id=5400

[venable]

76. 'Hollywood', or the audience in that room

does not view it differently than does the Verzliya conference. maybe a slight bit more nuanced.

but the fact that he said what he said in LA should be read as indicating that the Verzliya wrap up is not a full account of his understanding of the complexities of the Iran problem.

[karynnj]

121. Edwards needs to get a foreign policy advisor

or a better one if he has one. The problem I see here is that he is playing with words for effect. He wants to look strong - but on Iraq he wants to look to look anti-war. What I don't see is a consistent approach to foreign policy or a world view.

It is important that someone have one and that they are willing to articulate it - even though it is long, detailed and not a soundbite. The reason is that this is needed to give an idea of what someone would do in a future situation. I am disturbed that he is saying these things in Israel and that he seems 180 degrees different speaking in the US. (most US Jews are NOT neocons).

Now that Kerry's not running and he is the Chair of the Near East Subcommittee of the SFRC (as of yesterday), he will likely try to influence people and events on Iran. In his speech yesterday on Iraq/Iran etc (where the media covered the 2008 news only), Kerry says of Iran:

"I am hardly the only one in the Senate who is concerned about a terrible byproduct of the administration's escalation plan for Iraq. That byproduct could be movement towards a calculated military conflict with Iran, which would further destabilize the Middle East, fan the flames of intra-Muslim and Muslim-Western violence. In fact, many Americans are increasingly concerned that the administration's rhetoric regarding Iran sounds eerily familiar.

Congress must make it absolutely certain that we do not make the same mistake we made in rushing to war with Iraq, starting by making it clear President Bush does not have the authority to engage Iran militarily, excepting, of course, an immediate attack on our troops or a definable and palpable emergency. He does not have the authority to engage them without express congressional authorization"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope the Democrats in the race consider the cautions of Clark and Kerry on this. It is not a political game.

Also consider that as chair of the sub-committee, he can call hearing, get supoenas, and force people to answer questions. (just what the WH always wanted, Kerry with supoena power with this kind of juristiction.)

[Tom Rinaldo]

123. Thank God Senator Kerry is on to this

"I am hardly the only one in the Senate who is concerned about a terrible byproduct of the administration's escalation plan for Iraq. That byproduct could be movement towards a calculated military conflict with Iran, which would further destabilize the Middle East, fan the flames of intra-Muslim and Muslim-Western violence. In fact, many Americans are increasingly concerned that the administration's rhetoric regarding Iran sounds eerily familiar."

Kerry is a Democratic leader whose vision I trust regarding the larger Middle East. I wasn't tracking that he had received this new position (Chair of the Near East Subcommittee of the SFRC) but I am very grateful that it is he who has it.

[CarolNYC]

133. That is very good to hear....

We really need some strong voices speaking up against this now...before it's too late. Of course, the emdia ignores it. Argh!

I will sleep just a little bit better knowing that Kerry's got that chair of the sub-committee position...It's in able hands, no doubt.

[k_jerome]

40. We won't be fooled again...

http://www.counterpunch.org/cohen09172003.html

[FrenchieCat]

50. You must mean, you aint fooling us!

doncha! Cause you ain't.....not even one little bit.

[k_jerome]

58. Amnesty International report...

outlining violations of the laws of war.

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/Chuckman_Perfumed-Prince.htm

[FrenchieCat]

61. in between Dissident voice and Counterpunch......

You are hardpressed!

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FrenchieCat]

66. So you don't really support Hillary Clinton, do you?

and the thread you started about the DLC being OK really had a different purpose, didn't it?

[k_jerome]

67. yeah, and your claims to ignore people aren't really true are they? wink wink. nt.

[FrenchieCat]

69. I took you off, so that I could respond.....

As I realized that sometimes folks need a good responding to. So no, I told the truth...something you wouldn't recognized if it hit you upside the head.

[k_jerome]

71. ahhh...i see....

may as well get used to hearing it, especially when Clark supporters hypocritically attack candidates I support.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jai4WKC08]

85. No one has "accused" Edwards

Of saving over a million and a half lives either.

How many roads does he have named after him in foreign countries?

[k_jerome]

64. screw it, lets add The Nation...

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?bid=7&pid=945

[FrenchieCat]

68. But I can find negative articles about every single person running

in those mags.

Clark ain't no fucking war criminal, and you can stuff that into your mailbox! :)

Clark says it better here:
"If we have learned but one thing in the tragic breakup of the old Yugoslavia, it is the need to act early and robustly in a crisis. The United States, as the leading power in NATO, should know this best of all. In 1991 America stood by as the United Nations and many European nations tried unsuccessfully to cope with devastating war in the Balkans. Some 200,000 casualties and 2 million people made homeless, capped with the gruesome massacre of more than 5,000 Muslims at Srebrenica, finally pushed the United States and NATO into action. In 1995, when the United States pledged to commit American troops to enforce peace alongside European allies, we brought the hostilities to an end.

In 1999, as ethnic cleansing grew in Kosovo, NATO backed up unsuccessful diplomacy with Operation Allied Force, which reversed the Serb violence and ultimately led to Slobodan Milosevic's being removed from power and delivered to The Hague in June for prosecution. --

Wesley Clark OPEd
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=2164&l=1

In the end, approximately 500 Civilian casualty were resulted by the bombing according to prominent Human Rights groups,..and it is estimated by most that although Casualties is never something one would want, it was a relatively small number when compared with the numbers of deaths that would have resulted if there had been no intervention.
http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/nato061300.htm#IVA5



Genocide By Mass Starvation
Los Angeles Times
April 25, 1999, Sunday, Home Edition

http://www.refugees.org/news/op_eds/042599.htm

President Slobodan Milosevic's ability to stop and start massive refugee flows out of Kosovo is a chilling sign of his power and intent. From the Nazis to the Khmer Rouge, closed borders have been a serious sign that genocide is occurring. Genocide does not require gas chambers or even mass graves. A favored tactic is calculated mass starvation. That is what is happening in Kosovo.

Serb forces used food as a weapon during the war in Bosnia. They rarely engaged in battle, preferring to surround and besiege an area, subject it to shelling and cut it off from food.

Long before the bombing began, Milosevic began a systematic campaign to deplete Kosovo of its food resources. Beginning last summer, Serb forces:

restricted importation of basic items into Kosovo, including wheat, rice, cooking oil, sugar, salt, meat, milk, livestock, heating fuel and gasoline;

looted warehouses and burned fields, haystacks, winter food stocks and firewood.

killed livestock and often dropped their carcasses into wells to contaminate the water;

shot at ethnic Albanian farmers trying to harvest or plant;

Harassed, persecuted and sometimes killed local humanitarian aid workers;

created nearly 300,000 internally displaced people, most of whom stayed with private families, eating what private stores of food they had managed to save.

In the best of times, Kosovo is not a self-sufficient food producer. By early this year, with planting and harvesting brought to a halt and with food stocks consumed or destroyed, there were no food reserves outside Serbian government shops. Most of the population was dependent on humanitarian aid delivered through a network of U.N. agencies and local and international nongovernmental organizations. That network is gone. The International Committee of the Red Cross, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees and the World Food Program are out of Kosovo. International nongovernmental groups have been expelled and are now working with refugees outside Kosovo. Local nongovernment groups have been decimated, their staff members lucky to become refugees themselves.

Before NATO's military objectives can be achieved, Milosevic will already have accomplished his objective: Grinding down Kosovo's 1.8 million ethnic Albanians. One rule of war is this: Men with guns do not starve; civilians do. NATO is not going to beat the Yugoslav military by starving them out, and if it did, the civilians would perish long before them.

As hunger and disease loom, various interim steps have been suggested: internal safe havens, food air drops, humanitarian corridors. Each is flawed, largely because each requires cooperation from Milosevic that in all likelihood will never come to be. Milosevic could achieve his aims simply by dragging his feet.

Everyone is concerned about the lives of NATO servicemen, but the people on the executioner's block cannot wait for a risk-free, soldier-friendly environment for their rescue. They can't wait for the amassing of 200,000 troops, if that will take months of buildup and field support. They can't wait for a "permissive environment."

[k_jerome]

70. obviously we disagree. nt.

[OKNancy]

97. Who said this?:

Mr. President, as a known sponsor of international terrorism, and in light of the president of Iran’s recent apocalyptic statements calling for the destruction of Israel, Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. The international community must respond quickly and decisively to Iran’s gross disregard of international treaties and obligations and to its concerted and malicious efforts to develop the capability to create nuclear weapons.
-----
It is essential that the Security Council approve specific actions to prevent the furthering of Iran’s nuclear capabilities. The Security Council specifically, and the international community generally, must recognize the potentially devastating link between the violent and defiant rhetoric of Iran’s president and his regime’s determined effort to undermine approved and transparent methods of developing civilian nuclear technology for energy use.

--

Me: Lots of progressives know Iran is a problem. It's what we do about it that is important.

[Clarkie1]

129. My concern is more with Edwards comments regarding Iran

than his call for Israel to join NATO (not sure if that's a good idea or not, but it stikes me as problematic given the mess in the Middle East).

I just don't like the emphasis Edwards seems to be putting on the military option, and his obsession with Ahmadinejad's rhetoric. As Clark has said, Ahmadinejad isn't the only person in Iran, and we should not equate Iran with Ahmadinejad.

[Eurobabe]

98. I don't like this move at all. JRE has lost me at this point

This is ridiculous. For chrissakes, listen to Wes Clark!

[JNelson6563]

100. Clark would be easier to support

if his followers weren't so obnoxious sometimes.

Julie

[Vidar]

105. On the quest for AIPAC money.

[mnhtnbb]

112. Methinks a few people should do some research on NATO before sounding off

Here's a list of member countries.

http://www.nato.int/structur/countries.htm


Here's a link to the expansion and criteria for membership. A couple of paragraphs jump out:

http://www.nato.int/docu/handbook/2001/hb030101.htm


The Study further concluded that the enlargement of the Alliance will contribute to enhanced stability and security for all countries in the Euro-Atlantic area in numerous ways. It will encourage and support democratic reforms, including the establishment of civilian and democratic control over military forces. It will foster the patterns and habits of cooperation, consultation and consensus-building which characterise relations among the current Allies and will promote good-neighbourly relations in the whole Euro-Atlantic area. It will increase transparency in defence planning and military budgets, thereby reinforcing confidence among states, and will reinforce the tendency toward integration and cooperation in Europe. Furthermore, it will strengthen the Alliance’s ability to contribute to European and international security and support peacekeeping under the United Nations or OSCE; and it will strengthen and broaden the transatlantic partnership.

With regard to the “how” of enlargement, the Study confirmed that, as in the past, any future extension of the Alliance’s membership would be through accession of new member states to the North Atlantic Treaty in accordance with its Article 10. Once admitted, new members would enjoy all the rights and assume all obligations of membership under the Treaty. They would need to accept and conform with the principles, policies and procedures adopted by all members of the Alliance at the time that they join. The Study made clear that willingness and ability to meet such commitments, not only on paper but in practice, would be a critical factor in any decision taken by the Alliance to invite a country to join.

States which are involved in ethnic disputes or external territorial disputes, including irredentist claims, or internal jurisdictional disputes, must settle those disputes by peaceful means in accordance with OSCE principles, before they can become members.



Frankly, I don't know what all the distress is about to suggest that perhaps Israel might become a member of NATO. They would be required to settle issues with the Palestinians before they could become members. Now, wouldn't that be a step forward?

[Adelante]

115. The first step might have to be interest by Europe

So far there is little to none.

[FrenchieCat]

119. You obviously don't understand what the politics for Europe

would result to have Israel enter into the North America Treaty Organization. You obviously don't understand the composition of their population and the whys it wouldn't help Europe, nor would it help make ME more stable if Israel was allowed to become a NATO State. This issue is more complicated than you realize. Honest broker as a phrase would become moot forevermore....as it currently is. The biggest issue in the ME is the issue of Israel and the Palestinians. Without even the semblance of the presence of honest brokers anywhere, we can hang up peace for fucking ever! As it is, peace may be possible with the next President....whomever that will be.

Obviously, Edwards doesn't understand this either....and that is just one of his problems. When one says something, one must look behind all parts of its meaning. That is why Edwards is no leader....he's a politician and a campaigner....and considering his earlier misjudgment, I'm not sure why, considering the times as they are, he's to get promoted to the highest office in the land. I believe that his lack of experience is not good for this country or the world at this time.

[karynnj]

125. It has other aspects that might make it a real disaster

Israel's culture is, by its very nature, very different from the cultures surrounding it. It is a nation where a large part of its culture is western.

Joining NATO, makes this even more glaring and Israel can be seen as joining the former "Colonial Powers", or worse, joining the Crusaders. Another more significant problem is that NATO is a pact that promises to go to war if any member is attacked. Given the volitility of the middle east, would Europe even agree to it? (How did WW I start anyway.)

[mnhtnbb]

128. Uh, take a look at NATO membership and then evaluate your comments

for Turkey.

[Adelante]

147. Please explain

I am sincerely interested in how you (or anybody) would equate Turkey's position for NATO acceptance, which wasn't all that easy, though at least imaginable, with Israel's situation.

[mnhtnbb]

151. A little more history on Turkey re their treatment of Kurds

and problems with ethnic diversity.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1132/is_2_51/ai_55084079

Please tell me if you don't see some similarities in Turkey's history with Kurds and Israel's problems with Palestinians.

[Adelante]

157. Please tell me you know that Turkey has been a NATO

member since the early 1950s. The Turks mistreated the Kurds before, during and after. Being in NATO or not being in NATO changed nothing. However, Turkey's entry into NATO had positive reasons in the balance, as far as Europe goes, which is what I thought we were talking about. Turkey had and still has historical, cultural and geographic connections to Europe; in fact, Turks are more European than Arab, although it's a mixed population. Add to that its strategic importance during the Cold War and you see why Turkey was taken into NATO as its only Muslim nation. To my mind it was a missed opportunity that Israel and Palestine weren't both invited into NATO back then, because over time things might have developed differently than they have done. But we are where we are, and I tell you, Europe is not going to straddle these two powder kegs and risk a regional conflagration.

[mnhtnbb]

130. Yeah, a little history on how WW I started and a list of the countries

participating

http://www.firstworldwar.com/origins/causes.htm

http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/declarationsofwar.htm

Then take a look at all the NATO member nations. Change IS possible.

[FrenchieCat]

141. Yep....that aspect is very much there as well.....

which is why the whole notion is really not a good idea.....because of some many reasons.

John Edwards really should know this. :eyes:

[mnhtnbb]

127. You obviously don't understand that insulting people

is less likely to win them over to your point of view.

[FrenchieCat]

145. No I don't understand ......when you yourself stated.....

Methinks a few people should do some research on NATO before sounding off

If you knew what you were talking about, "methinks" you wouldn't have been attempting to justify Edwards dumbass suggestion in reference to Israel joining NATO as he was pandering to a specialized audience as the only Democrat invited along with Romney and McCain.

That's what methinks.

[Adelante]

148. Heh. Pandering to neocons would be good, comparatively

If he wasn't, that's the worst thing.

[Leilani]

120. A Little Knowlege is a Dangerous Thing

Edwards knows just enough about foreign policy to take part in the discussions, & run for President,

but the fact that his knowledge is so shallow makes him quite dangerous.

[venable]

132. I don't think Edwards knowlege is shallow

I think the analysis of his knowlege, as read on this thread, is...well, I don't want to say shallow because that's insulting, but it's not honestly and critically recognizing the complexity of his remarks.

To jump in and say Edwards wants to go to war with Iran is just wrong. It is a very superficial reading of his position.

He also has said that the greatest threat to world peace is Israel bombing Iran. It is very possible to reconcile all his statements, if one looks closely and judiciously at them, rather than seize upon something that corroborates predetermined notions of who he is.

[Clarkie1]

136. I have no doubt Edwards would bomb Iran long before Israel did.

Just look at his own statements...

The Iranian president’s statements such as his description of the Holocaust as a myth and his goals to wipe Israel off the map indicate that Iran is serious about its threats."

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: He is one voice in Iran. That’s all.

http://securingamerica.com/node/2163

[venable]

152. you have no doubt, but you'd be wrong, anyway

why in the world would he say the Israel should not, then. to save the target for himself. doesn't figure.

you have no doubt that it's convenient for you to think that JE would bomb Iran. It's harder to come to terms with the fact that his position is, in fact, similar to every single other person's outside of the hawks, which is that Iran should be monitored and discouraged in whatever ways would be effective, and that military options on the table do not mean military actions are imminent.

[Leilani]

146. Venable, I understand that you like Edwards very much.

And I don't mean to be hostile or undemocratic.

And my feelings about Edwards have absolutely nothing to do with Wes Clark.

But Edwards scares me. This isn't the first time that he has made unwise statements on foreign policy.

Expertise in FP takes years to develop. Kerry, Gore, Clark, Richardson, Biden, etc. have been working in this field for their entire lives. You can't pick it up over night: look at Bush.

Right now, & I'm no FP expert, in Iran there is a lot of unrest. The mullahs are withdrawing their support of the nut-in-chief. There is a huge group in Iran that is opposed to the development of nuclear power. With the proper out reach & diplomacy there is still a chance to work things out with Iran in a peaceful manner. Same goes for Syria, which Edwards has also criticized for the Lebannon War. This is not the time for bellicose talk. This is a time for wise statementship.

And for those enthused by more conflict, where are the troops?

So few are giving so much.

[venable]

150. I appreciate the civility

of your post.

And I agree that FP is complex enough that bellicose statements are not helpful. I, frankly, don't think he should speak in this manner.

But I also know that he mostly does not. And that he is fully aware of the complexity of Iranian leadership. It's a mistake to think of Iran as a monolith. It is at least as complex as our country. He knows this.

I wish he had been an ambassador, or in some way had much more FP experience. He doesn't. But he has spent the last few years gaining more.

But, you're right, I do support him, because I believe he has sound judgement, and that his hope for peace and for domestic and international justice is sincere. I also think he's blazingly smart.

His friendship with Israel, his belief in their need for security, has, at times, led him to say things with which I disagree.

I believe, for instance, that with every statement about Israel's right to defend herself, a statement should also be made that the Palestinian people have legitimate human rights that must be observed, and are not.

He holds both those beliefs. When he gets in the habit of not saying one without the other, his capacity for FP leadership will be more apparent.

Again, thanks so much for the civility (it is so refreshing to find it here). Let's see what happens in coming days. He's on Russert soon, for an hour, and I suspect there will be much FP talk then.

[Leilani]

153. You're very welcome

I really don't like huge fights at DU.

I want to argue issues rather than personalities.

I know you really like Edwards & although I disagree, I respect your opinion.

:toast:

[Tom Rinaldo]

155. veneble, I too have been impressed by your civility

And also by the open way in which you support the candidate you believe in. You don't duck real issues, or say that it is unfair that people have questions or concerns, you face them and give quality replies. It is a good standard for us all to live up to.

And I waited to post this comment until this thread was toward the top of the page again. It didn't seem fair to have this reply be the one that bumped a thread critical of your guy. For the record, I remain highly supportive of Edward's stand on poverty and related issues, and while I do quesion him regarding foreign policy, I know we would be in far better shape there with him at the helm than where we currently find ourselves.

[venable]

160. Thanks Leilani and Tom Rinaldo

A bit of civility makes this interesting place bearable. Same appreciation back to both of you.

The seldom remarked thing is that Clark and Edwards share an awful lot in common, I think. I may be wrong, and they certainly have some differences in substance and style, but I see a couple of Southern guys who have made their way in the world - different ways, both of real value.

The main thing is that both men, and many here, seem interested in real things, real problems and real solutions.

Though Edwards is my man, I have admiration for both men.

[antiimperialist]

126. Opportunistic John Edwards voted for the Iraq war

And so did opportunistic Hillary.

[Infinite Hope]

137. Clark has also said all options remain on the table. All Dem candidates have the same basic position

...that military action is a last resort, but it's on the table even if it's plan Z.

[Clarkie1]

138. All Dem candidates DO NOT have the same basic position!

The question is...when is the "last resort" the "last resort."

It is quite clear to me which candidates would embark on a path more likely to lead to war sooner, and which would be more likely to wage war.

Edwards and Clark have a completely different understanding of the dynamics of Iranian society and politics, which leads to a complete different understanding of the threat level, and how the threat can most effectively be addressed.

[FrenchieCat]

139. Did you miss the conversations upthread.....

cause it was made very clear how Clark and Edwards approach are quite different.

YOu might as well say that Clark and Edwards positions are like Bush...while you are at it.....

Diplomacy and Foreign policy issues is about the details...that's where the devil is...and that's the part that Edwards doesn't seem to grasp.

[Imagevision]

140. Israel should deal with Iran instead of crying the blues to the US. they

know George has the two carrier groups just waiting for the green light to begin shock n Awe part 2!!!

[anitar1]

143. Bye, Bye, Mr. Edwards. Anyone who pushes is dead

in the water, inmo. We should drop them into war zones and find out what they think 3 months later.

[FrenchieCat]

154. Then building of his new house is getting more play than Edwards

meeting and words on Iran.

Why am I not surprised? :crazy:

[karynnj]

158. Because we have a very superficial media

Attacking Iran will be a huge catastrophe beyond that of Iraq.

The house is a non story. Amulti-millionaiare sold a $5 million house and is building a $6 million house. There is no significant difference here.

[FrenchieCat]

159. Well somehow buying a giant house make folks sympathetic to

the Edwards....while his stance on Iran, and the unsavory band of merrymen he was hanging out with becomes obscured.

brilliant.....

[venable]

161. the house is getting more trash than love

I agree with you, though, it's a non-issue.

Neither JE nor his wife were born into it, so kudos to them. They also spend a lot of their money for some good things, with no fanfare.


As for the unsavory types - yeah, rough group. I think they should be talked to and dealt with though, but more with an attempt to moderate them then encourage them.

[high density]

164. Yeah because we're all millionaire land barons

With 600ft² bedrooms in our homes and attached "recreational buildings." Actually Charles Cawley, the founder of MBNA comes to mind... He has a huge estate in Camden, ME. I wish I had an aerial photo of it so I could compare it to this monstrosity that Edwards has built. It's certainly in the same league.

[Mass]

156. Was Lieberman Edwards's mentor in foreign policy?

First, co-sponsoring Lieberman's version of the IWR, then writing a report about Russia with Jack Kempf and being blasted by one of the authority concerning Russian's history, Stephen F. Cohen, and now this.

I like Edwards's message in domestic policy (even if I would like more details), but this looks like a lack of understanding that is worrying. May be he could need remedial foreign policy.

[mayflower]

162. He Lost My Vote Then...For Good.

[Porcupine]

174. Count me in on that. nt.

.

[AX10]

165. Go back to your multi-million dollar estate and stay out of politics.

Is Iraq a potential problem. Yes. Can we deal with them diplomatically, most likely yes. Do we need to rush into another war at this time, no. Also, we do not have the resources to take on another war at this time.

Vote Wes Clark!

[DaveinMD]

166. and that is why

he urged sanctions and diplomatic overtures towards Iran. But continue to rant. Anger is easier than reasoned analysis.

[Tom Rinaldo]

167. OK, here is my analysis then.

It''s sensible to say that all options toward Iran should be left on the table, but for one thing Edwards doesn't say that. He has taken one option, attempting to coexist with a nuclear Iran like we did with the Soviet Union, completely off of the table. My clear read on John Edward's comments is that he says under no circumstances can we allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. That is a hard edged position with no ambiguity, unless you can explain to me how it isn't. Given that John Edwards openly says that the use of military force against Iran to stop them from going nuclear DOES remain on the table, how can we add two plus two here any other way?

What I hear John Edwards saying is that all options for attempting to convince Iran not to pursue a nuclear program should remain on the table, including diplomacy. Failing that though he defaults to one and only one option, an attack on Iran.

Then there is the matter of where the buck stops, to once again quote old Harry. It's one thing to agree that options should be left on the table, but when push comes to shove the President decides which options to actively pursue and which to shove onto the back burner. The President decides what type deal to offer a potential adversary if any. The President decides what type stance the United States should take in diplomacy if diplomacy is even offered. That very much influences whether diplomacy can or can not succeed.

In 2002, when Congress was debating the IWR, George W. Bush also said that all options must remain on the table, and he included diplomacy in that group of options. But he never believed in diplomacy. Bush never was willing to consider specific diplomatic options, he ruled those out. So Bush could say that he favored diplomacy, and then make impossible diplomatic demands, but sure he never took diplomacy off the table, and theoretically he never took continuing to contain Iraq off the table as an alternative to attacking Iraq. Not initially he didn't, only when it came time to make hard choices. When the time comes to make hard choices most options suddenly are removed from the table. George W. Bush chose his option, and John Edwards unequivically backed the actual invasion of Iraq at the time and for many months, if not years, after.

So it is not enough for me to hear a Democrat who seeks to be President say that "all options must remain on the table". That is too easy, any semi competent leader would say that. But that by itself it gives me little insight into which option that person ultimately will choose if they become President, and after all that really is the bottom line. A President will make a choice. So I also look to see who a person tends to allign with on an important issue. In 2002 most Democratic activists knew who had George Bush's ear on Iraq. We knew all about the neocons standing behind him. That is precisely why we didn't trust George Bush when he said he was committed to finding a peaceful solution in Iraq, when he said that option remained on the table.

And I also look to see where the overall thrust of a persons comments and concerns tend to lead toward on a critical issue. I can show you videos of Wes Clark arguing with Bill O'Reilly that the United States can pursue a different policy toward Iran, that we can coexist with them like we did with the Soviet Union, that we can work over years to influence Iran culturally, like we did with the Soviet Union, and that we can possibly contain a threat from Iran. I can show you videos of Wes Clark describing how dangerous it can be long term if the United States attacks Iran, how it can lead to entrenched hostilities that can spread throughout the Islamic world. I can show you Clark making the case for why an attack on Iran ultimately may not work out in our interests, although he of course agrees that we can "set Iran back" short term if we do.

To date I haven't seen John Edwards go out on much of a limb to argue for Peace with Iran. I've seen him favor direct diplomacy with Iran, and I appreciate that. But in the full context of all of his comments, that doesn't reassure me as much as I would like it to.

[DaveinMD]

170. that's fair

I think he's sure to go to every length to use diplomacy to stop Iran from going nuclear. I don't think coexisting with them is an option either. We should do everything in our power to find a peaceful solution, including paying them off to give up their nuclear program.

[Clarkie1]

168. Dave, you have to admit that he's viewing Iran through a different lens than Clark.

If you read both of their recent statements it is quite clear they do not see the Iranian problem in the same light. It is quite clear to me that with Edwards sitting in the oval office we would be far more likely to go to war than with Clark sitting behind the desk because Clark sees the possibilities and complexities more cleary, whereas Edwards' view is much more narrowly focused, which narrows the options he sees, and limits a lot of opportunity to avoid military conflict.

[DaveinMD]

169. I think Clark

is more careful in his words. I wish Clark had gotten in earlier. I don't think Edwards will go to war with Iran. I think he'd use the world community to keep them from going nuclear.

[Clarkie1]

171. I don't have confidence Edwards is capable of that.

In the end, it's the leader of the U.S. that has to take the lead. The only way to be effective in that role is with a depth of understandiing and experience which Edwards lacks.

And I completely disagree with you that it's just that "Clark is more careful with his words." Yes, Clark is careful with his words, but his words reflect an understanding of the world that is not identical to the narrow, more limited focus of Edwards.

[FrenchieCat]

172. Clark is not more "careful" with his words......

he is more thoughtful and thorough with his words.....and that's a big difference.

I don't know what John Edwards' really want....but wanting Israel to join NATO doesn't sound like he has much of a clue!

[DaveinMD]

173. in your opinion

this charactor assassination of all our candidates needs to stop. It was wrong when people did it to Clark and its wrong with other candidates.

[FrenchieCat]

175. So please provide the rational about Israel entry into NATO....

because I'm not calling Edwards a "War Criminal"....or anything else beyond saying that I don't agree with his approach on the couple of ME issue that he just talked about via satellite with that group of folks.....

and when Clark was/is called that, I post what I know, and give information as to why it wasn't so.

You're almost saying that questioning the wisdom of Edwards words on this specific issue is "character assassination". I want to know why that is in your opinion.

[DaveinMD]

177. the idea

is in order to join NATO, you must solve all your disputes before entry. So, for them to join they would have to solve the dispute with the Palestinians.

[Adelante]

176. It is not character assassination

To critique a presidential candidate on abilities and policy. It's character assassination to lie about it, but not to reach judgments based on his own words and actions. We're not participating in a thread about Edwards' new house here or his hairstyle. This is life and death and war for our country and the world. It is irresponsible to not criticize any presidential candidate, especially Democrats we may have to end up voting into the highest office, including Wes, when it is the truth. Here on DU it's up to Edwards supporters to prove the case for Edwards throughout the primary season, but it's up to Edwards to give you a case to prove for why we should all elect him president.