Hillary and Edwards to "Square Off" at AIPAC dinner tonight in New York

[flpoljunkie]

Clinton, Edwards Will Square Off At Aipac Tonight

BY JILL GARDINER - Staff Reporter of the Sun
February 1, 2007

URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/47843

Two of the leading Democratic candidates for president will compete head-to-head tonight for money and support from the same pro-Israel group.

Senator Clinton and John Edwards are scheduled to appear at a dinner for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee at the Marriott Marquis in Times Square.

Mrs. Clinton will deliver the keynote speech, while Mr. Edwards is expected to work the crowd at the cocktail reception before she speaks, making a face-to-face encounter unlikely, but not impossible.

"When it comes to important gatherings like this, there is going to be a lot of pressure on the major candidates to not let one of their competitors have the room to themselves," a Democratic strategist, Daniel Gerstein, said.

Tonight's event is the first time any of the 2008 candidates have competed for attention in the same room since they launched their campaigns in earnest. It is also an important illustration of just how much stock all of the presidential candidates, Democrats and Republicans alike, will put in the pro-Israel community, particularly for campaign dollars.

more...

[ShortnFiery]

1. Wow, working the crowd for that mean green.

Can you hear them pander? ...

Cyrus says "Can you dig it? Can you dig it? CAN YOU DIG IT?" :P

[FrenchieCat]

35. Do you think it will be opened to the press,

or will it be covert?

[ShortnFiery]

2. dupe ... there's them bugs about.

[FrenchieCat]

3. I mean, how often must we hear the pandering?

Will Hillary triangulate and/or will she put her fist through the table when she talks about how we will keep all options on the table when dealing with Iran and insure mucho campaign donations? :shrug:

Will Edwards pander for the dollars and will he do, as he did a few days ago, repeat twice for emphasis, all options will be on table, and we will not allow Iran to have nukes even if it kills us? We he then, once again, advise that Israel join NATO...so that when Israel is attacked again, NATO will have to keep its pledge that it makes to every member, that they will "protect" them if they are attacked? :shrug:

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."
snip
Until Israel has a real partner, according to Edwards, Israel has the right, and indeed the obligation to defend itself, and should be strengthened militarily, politically, and economically.

In a further display of support for Israel, Edwards went so far as to suggest that Israel should even be made a member of NATO, saying it was only natural that the organization would seen to include Israel next.
http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/world/?content_id=5400

[flpoljunkie]

4. Thanks for this post, frenchieCat.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[k_jerome]

34. of course not, we know how he feels about those "New York money people" nt.

[FrenchieCat]

36. Like who?

Keith Murdoch, Donald Trump, David Rockefeller, Austin Hearst, Charles Dolan, Tom Golisano, Mario Gabelli, Michael Jaharis, Kenneth Langone, J. Flowers?

Funny, these folks are worth about 22 billion in New York money....

are they part of AIPAC or something? :shrug:

[k_jerome]

37. the ADL says....

Clark has bought into conspiratorial bigotry.

what is the deal with the ADL? :shrug: maybe they are bought and paid for by AIPAC as well. the plot is more insidious than we thought.

[FrenchieCat]

38. You mean the fact that the head of the ADL was satisfied with Clark's explaination?

ADL accepts Clark explaination

The Anti-Defamation League accepted Wesley Clark’s explanation of a remark in which he blamed belligerence against Iran on “New York money people.”

Clark, a former NATO commander and a likely Democratic presidential candidate in 2008, was quoted on the Huffington Post political blog as saying that his greatest worry is that the Bush administration will attack Iran.

Attending swearing-in parties for the new Congress, Clark told Arianna Huffington, “The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers.”

The Republican Jewish Coalition tagged the statement as anti-Semitic and demanded an apology; the ADL sought an explanation.

Clark wrote that he backed dialogue with Iran while not removing a military option.

“My position on Iran should not be misinterpreted, defined out of context or used to create conspiracy theories about one group’s influence on U.S. foreign policy. There is no place in these critical policy debates for anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that blame the Jewish community for the war in Iraq and for action against Iran.”

Abraham Foxman, ADL’s national director, told JTA he was satisfied that Clark “understood ... how his words could be misconstrued.”
http://jta.org/page_view_breaking_story.asp?intid=6382

[k_jerome]

44. Foxman was very diplomatic and forgiving of Clarks inflammatory remarks...

“He is a friend of Israel and is not an antisemite,” Foxman told the Forward, “but some of the things he said are very, very unfortunate.”

Foxman argued that while he does not accuse Clark of believing in conspiracy theories that paint the Jews and Israel as pushing the United States into war, the former general “fueled the flames and gave credibility to these theories.”


i'll wager Clark does not use the term again.

[FrenchieCat]

62. I'll wager that the GOP fueled the flame themselves....

And since Jewish folks don't own New York, although the Republican Jewish Coalition would like nothing more than to think that they do (of the 22 billion dollars in names I listed in my previous post, none of them are Jewish--watta shame!).

It appears that the Republican Jewish Coalition jumped on that statement and perpetuated the stereotype solely for their own political agenda! To obscure Clark's statement about Iran and Israel and the United States and what's at work behind the curtain.

As Clark correctly said, the Jewish community is divided on the issue of Iran....
just like many other communities.....if you didn't read his quote closely enough, it may be because you are too busy glorifying the Republican Jewish Coalition and helping them in their quest to have folks reasonably discuss the issue of Iran. And the majority of Jewish people that live in New York are Democrats and don't have all of the money.

Here, read it and rejoice!

Netanyahu then said Israel "must immediately launch an intense, international, public relations front first and foremost on the U.S. The goal being to encourage President Bush to live up to specific pledges he would not allow Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons. We must make clear to the government, the Congress and the American public that a nuclear Iran is a threat to the U.S. and the entire world, not only Israel."

There are signs this is already happening in Washington. Before the invasion of Iraq, the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld troika decided the ousting of Saddam Hussein had to become an integral part of the "war on terror." Eventually 60 percent of Americans thought Saddam was behind 9/11, even though there was no link between the two. Today, the Bush-Cheney team faces the same spin scenario: how to weave the global war on terror and the Shiite powers that be in Iran. This one is relatively simple: Iran trains and funds Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Palestinian territories.
snip
Writing in Ynet News (online Yedioth Ahronoth), Tira said, "We need to turn the Iranian issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure. Hillary Clinton and other potential presidential candidates in the Democratic Party (must) publicly support immediate action by Bush again Iran."

As for target Iran, Tira voiced widespread belief in Israel that the Jewish state must coordinate strikes with the U.S. -- "and prepare for the Iranian response." Fearless forecast: It will be formidable.
http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20070102-125318-7565r

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


Notice mention of your Avatar mate?

That's what Wes was pissed about!

cause there are some in the Democratic party playing footies with NeoCons!

Wes Clark is a brave soldier...telling it like it is, and of course he gets smeared for it! So what else is new? He's used to it.

[Clark2008]

39. Actually, the ADL accepted his explanation.

ADL accepts Clark explaination
The Anti-Defamation League accepted Wesley Clark’s explanation of a remark in which he blamed belligerence against Iran on “New York money people.”

Clark, a former NATO commander and a likely Democratic presidential candidate in 2008, was quoted on the Huffington Post political blog as saying that his greatest worry is that the Bush administration will attack Iran.

Attending swearing-in parties for the new Congress, Clark told Arianna Huffington, “The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers.”

SNIP

Abraham Foxman, ADL’s national director, told JTA he was satisfied that Clark “understood ... how his words could be misconstrued.”


http://jta.org/page_view_breaking_story.asp?intid=6382

So, once again, you're waaaaayyyyy off base.

[FrenchieCat]

42. It was the Republican Jewish coalition that put in a complaint.....

because many of them are part of APAIC and are NEOCONS, and they sure in the hell don't want someone running for President like Clark that might end their NeoCon Wet Dreams before it really got started. They need the saber rattling right now...for the GOPs sake!

[dogman]

43. I haven't been able to get an answer for that yet.

I've asked why he is so intent on repeating this Republican advertisement. Why do they fear Clark enough to take out an ad condemning a man who hasn't announced his candidacy yet? And why is it repeated here by one person?

[FrenchieCat]

45. Good question!

Doubt you'll get an answer.

Most likely busy back to the drawing board!

[Clark2008]

40. DUPE

[RegimeChange2008]

79. ADL and AIPAC have unfortunately both become tools of the Likud fascists

And they now accuse anyone opposed to Likudist policy of being an "anti-semite".

Isn't Wes Clark a descendant of the Cohen family, one of the oldest families in Judaism itself??

[FrenchieCat]

86. Yes.....

on his father's side.

ADL was compelled to get an explanation from Wes due to The Republican Jewish Coalition asserting pressure on ADL. They got an explanation, and that was good enough for them...just not good enough for KJerome and the RJC.....of course.

They would do anything to make sure we are not looking too closely at what is going on in reference to Iran and these election candidate.

[RegimeChange2008]

87. If I'm not mistaken, the Cohen's are descendants of Moses' brother Aaron

I'm not necessarily a Clarkie at this point, but if the original Cohens were able to guide the Hebrews to their promised land after 40 years of running around in the desert, maybe their descendant could be the one to lead the Democrats out of 40 years of running around behind corporatist and AIPAC driven bullshit.

Somebody's gotta do it. The General might end up being part of that ticket. I believe his ancestors would approve.

[FrenchieCat]

88. That's what I'm thinking......

:thumbsup:

[Clark2008]

41. DUPE

GD/P is having problems from what I hear.

[Leilani]

5. For Hillary to adress the AIPAC meeting, is no surprise

For Edwards it is proof of a muddled & inconsistent FP.

On one hand, he is the loudest voice for withdrawing all troops from Iraq. He's also scolding others for not moving faster. However AIPAC was one of the lobbyist groups that cheered us into the war, & that Edwards supported by writing the IWR.

And he's still touting the Likud position with regards to Israel & Iran.

Going to war with Iran will make Iraq look like a skirmish.

Folks, does this make any sense? Is there any consistency?

There are 2 choices for the MidEast. We can continue the bellicosity, threaten military action, pander to the Israeli lobby in this country, & send our sons & daughters into wars that do not serve America's self interests.

Or we can step back & change strategy, by talking to our enemies, like Syria & Iran. We can also return to a policy of trying to bring about peace between Israel & Palestine. We must become an honest broker in the area to be seen as credible by all parties. After 9/11, Syria was quite helpful to us & Iran has reached out to us in the past.

[citizen snips]

11. Edwards is not endorsing war with Iran

[Leilani]

16. He is ratcheting up the volume against Iran & Syria

By aligning himself with the very same groups who ARE cheerleading for military action against Iran, that is the impression created whether he means it or not.

That is the point of my post. His FP positions are muddled, inconsistent, & dangerous.

[citizen snips]

18. you said something about going to war with Iran

there is a difference between military intervention and war.

[FrenchieCat]

21. Why don't you expand on that...please, Edwards supporter?

thanks!

Let's discuss the policies for a minute, if you don't mind.

[citizen snips]

22. Lets be objective for a second

please. then we can talk

[dogman]

26. What is the difference between military intervention and war?

When Iran decides an act of war, not us.

[venable]

69. the difference is, say, Darfur, Rwanda, Uganda, etc.

not that hard.

As for Iran, not sure what he meant, but whatever his answer is, it will get slammed, disorted or ignored, just like every single defense of edwards, which is why I, for one, don't want to play this game any longer.

[FrenchieCat]

73. Darfur and Rwanda intervention never happened...Nope, none there....

Uganda...nope nothing there either.

Iran....oooh, lots of hands slamming down on the table.

How are we gonna "intervene" in Iran, Venable? Hey?

Kosovo was an intervention....called The War in Kosovo.

[venable]

77. OK, Frenchie let me ask

where I said there had been those interventions? the question was what is the difference between intervention and war. that was my answer. I did not say they had happened. If we send troops to Darfur, and protect civilians, is that a war? What if there's a firefight in the course of protecting? At some point, given what goes down it can move from an intervention to a war. But can you discern that there is space on either side of that point?

So, which was Kosovo, war or intervention? Does it matter?

Also, if you choose to read my previous post I said that I wasn't sure what was meant by the distinction re Iran. That's what I said. Read it in the post. Why ask again? Seriously, why? If you are, in fact, reading the posts, why would you ask?

[FrenchieCat]

85. So let's not talk of what never was in relations to Edwards harsh words for Iran....

Here are your answers:

Main Entry: intervene
Pronunciation: "in-t&r-'vEn
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -vened; -vening
Etymology: Latin intervenire to come between, from inter- + venire to come -- more at COME
1 : to occur, fall, or come between points of time or events <only six months intervened between their marriage and divorce>
2 : to enter or appear as an irrelevant or extraneous feature or circumstance <it's business as usual until a crisis intervenes>
3 a : to come in or between by way of hindrance or modification <intervene to stop a fight> b : to interfere with the outcome or course especially of a condition or process (as to prevent harm or improve functioning)
4 : to occur or lie between two things
5 a : to become a third party to a legal proceeding begun by others for the protection of an alleged interest b : to interfere usually by force or threat of force in another nation's internal affairs especially to compel or prevent an action
synonym see INTERPOSE
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=intervention

Main Entry: war
Pronunciation: \'wo?r\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English werre, from Anglo-French werre, guerre, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High German werran to confuse
Date: 12th century
1 a (1): a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2): a period of such armed conflict (3): state of war b: the art or science of warfare c (1)obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2)archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2 a: a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b: a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease> c: variance, odds 3
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/WAR


There was a plan to Intervene in Rwanda. In fact, Wes Clark was the one that wrote up that doggone plan. But after Somalia, Clinton's WH said HELL NO when Clark asked for 20,000 troops (not to be all U.S. of course).
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3080866

Did we send troops to Darfur? When and how many?

Now there is a difference between a humanitarian war and a war for oil and power. Somehow I don't see an Iran Confrontation as being "humanitarian" in nature!

[venable]

90. If you wonder

why I and others say you don't listen, please read my previous TWO posts, and think about why you then asked this question:


"Did we send troops to Darfur? When and how many?"

[Leilani]

27. HUH?

There is a difference between military intervention & war?

Please explain.

[FrenchieCat]

28. Yes, please have Matt explain it to us all, Cause Bush would like to know....

as I'm sure an "intervention" is what he'd want to call a strike against Iran right about now...since "War" ain't working out so well currently.

Even as the panel discussed issues from past conflicts, Senator Kennedy used the session to focus on a possible future conflict, asking the panel about what authority Mr. Bush would have to attack Iran. The panel’s members agreed that he had the power to take what actions he saw fit to deal with any short-term threat that Iran might pose to American troops in Iraq, but that he would need some form of Congressional authorization to begin any large-scale or long-term conflict.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/30/washington/30cnd-congress.html

Go ahead Matt, take us to school and "educate".

[Adelante]

6. Edwards will change his tune for this one?

We shall see.

[FrenchieCat]

8. Most likely....

His last couple of appearance with the NeoCon crew with his Lauding Sharom, dogging out Iran and Syria, and giving advise that he has very little control over (Israel joining NATO would be Europe's decision and thus far they ain't for that) didn't play well in many Democratic circles. And in the end, I do believe that if he doesn't change that stance ASAP, it would derail his carefully crafted plan of getting into the White House.

Question is, will he say OOps again......or has he already made a deal and told AIPAC that he's "In like Flint" but must stay quiet prior to getting into the big white house?

So, can he be trusted and did he really learn anything from his support of the Iraq War? :shrug:

You note that the "house" got a lot of play, but his appearance with the neoncon luminaries as the only Democratic candidates didn't.

Well the news media is doing him great favors.....just enough publicity, but not too much. He's one of the 3 contenders; and considering the times that we live in, that's an absurdity beyond itself, but obviously it is a fact. :(

[Skwmom]

15. I thought he planned on "educating" the American public (including progressives

I would assume) about what needed to be done about Iran. Of course, Clinton did say Edwards could talk an owl out of the tree (of course with the media helping to spin him as the anti-war candidate how hard does he really have to work)?

[FrenchieCat]

24. Oh yeah....THAT quote....

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

[Catchawave]

7. Oh darn

From the title, I thought there was going to be a debate! Which would be fun :D

[rhombus]

10. Color me unsurprised - two peas in a pod

we'll be seeing more of their true colors.

:eyes:

[mtnsnake]

12. I'll take Hillary in a 4th round KO over Edwards. nt

[Skwmom]

13. I think the DLC is planning a Clinton/Edwards ticket.

Just based on a bunch of little things. For example, Al From was on t.v. the other day talking Edwards up. Clinton pushed for Edwards as VP last time which sure did set Edwards up for 08 (considering I heard they never thought Bush would lose in 04). The Clinton henchmen, Begala and Carville were very complimentary to Edwards in 04 and Edwards did help Clinton out in the impeachment. Plus building the Edwards compound, Edwards must feel pretty confident about his future.

On edit: By spinning Edwards as the non-DLC anti-war candidate, they could be hoping to keep the progressives in line by making Edwards vp on the ticket.

[citizen snips]

14. I am sure all those people would have praised

the VP candidate no matter who it was. But the rest is nothing but speculation.

[Skwmom]

17. They praised Edwards BEFORE he was named VP. The meme

was that Clark was Clinton's man in 04. But if anyone really paid attention, it was obvious that it was Edwards. Of course, they wouldn't have wanted the Dean supporters to realize that b/c once Dean was knocked out of the race they sure didn't want his supporters going to Clark.

[FrenchieCat]

20. Well, when you've got Dean and Kucinich, who both were

so "anti" Iraq War encouraging their supporters to go Edwards (like Kucinich did during the Iowa caucus), you've got to figure that Edwards is pretty charmingly persuasive; I give him that. I mean...that was still nearly two years away from Edwards apologizing for anything dealing with Iraq and he became Kucinich's best friend? Yet Kucinich couldn't stand Dean? Makes you want to say :wtf: !

[Skwmom]

23. Some people are good at manipulating certain people.

Plus in one interview Edwards said Clinton was giving him advice (and Clinton is really a master in sucking up and manipulating). Plus Edwards had years of experience in manipulating juries.

[FrenchieCat]

19. I'm watching the media like an Edwards' Hawk.....

and yes......they definitely are positioning him "just" right. Hillary's too this; Obama's too that.....and well Southern John WASP Edwards is just right!

I think the ticket the corporate media will eventually push will be an Edwards/Richardson ticket. Edwards needs Richardson's F/C experience (cause his is shitty), the Hispanic vote, and the southwest purple states...and Richardson needs Edwards perceived Charisma...and plus the media ain't gonna push Richardson just yet. They'll keep in top 2nd tier....and allow him some free publicity later on so that he can show up as doing relatively well.

What's ironic is that the excuse why Edwards didn't help Kerry much in the south was because people don't vote for Veep....yet Edwards desperately has holes in his resume that only a proficient other could patch up......

So watch for the selling of Edwards along with anyone who has experience and knowledge where he is lacking. Watch the treatment of Richardson vs. the rest of the 2nd tier.

It will be interesting, but predictable.

and no, Hillary will not be the next president, no matter how much money she spends.

[Skwmom]

25. When you watch the media closely, it's really amazing what

you can notice. I'm facilitating over the Clinton/Edwards DLC ticket but one thing I'm certain of - the GOP would love Edwards to be the nominee. They will hammer home that the next president will have to be able to manage in a crisis. There is no way in heck that Edwards will convince the American Public that he can keep them safe.

The talking heads keep saying that if Iraq is still a problem any Democrat can win. What B.S. If terrorism and the war is still front and center (which is will be) the public will be looking to elect a commander-in-chief. Notice how the media and Republicans are spinning this as a Bush debacle rather than a republican debacle. Plus, how is a Democratic nominee who voted or sponsored the IWR going to try to lay the blame at the feet of the Republican nominee?

On edit: not sure about H.C. being president. I read that H.C. said they were offered a deal in 92 - if they let Bush get re-elected they would give the Clintons a free pass. The Clintons have gotten really close to the Bush family - heck Bush Sr. was even having Clinton stick up for Bush and his handling of Katrina. If the Republican nominee sucks, that might indicate that a deal was made. Of course, maybe that's why they are setting up McCain so bad.

[FrenchieCat]

29. Where are Edwards supporters when you need them?

Either they have us all on ignore, or they ain't touching this one with a 10 foot poll.

Better they wait for Edwards to rehabilitate himself.....again.

[Skwmom]

30. They like posts like these to sink. n/m

[Clark2008]

47. Well, let's kick it for 'em.

:kick:

[rhombus]

33. this is a radioactive post for the Clintonites & Edwardsites

Edwardsites and Clintonites gone hiding. :hide:

The thing is, it doesn't take much to peel the veneer off of shaky candidates. Their actions usually speak louder.

[venable]

54. I'll tell you where all the Edwards supporter are

they are avoiding the clarkies total hijack of a thread that had nothing to do with Clark...seriously, it is absurd and it happens all the bleeding time.

It is such a calamitously adolescent way to conduct a conversation - you show up first, Frenchie, with your snide derogations of two candidates and your endless boosterism of an unannounced candidate who had nothing to do with the thread... How many of these posts are about neither of the two regarding whom the post was begun.

We stay away because you don't listen. You lecture, and you select only what supports your arguments, never honestly looking at the totality of information.

But since you asked: Nobody takes military options off the table. Neither does Edwards. End of story. He does not want war with Iran. If you paid attention to everything he says, not just the things that you think corroborates your fixed ideas about him, you would know this.

It is beyond irritating, and that is why we are not answering this absurdity.

You like to spend time going through texts - count the Clark posts on a thread that is not about him. You might get an idea of why we stay away. This is endlessly annoying. Good night.

[venable]

55. n/t

[CarolNYC]

57. Well, see, this is the pattern I notice....

Any time anyone, whether a Clark supporter or not, dares to bring up anything troublesome for the former Senator Edwards, instead of his supporters answering the criticism or whatever it is, they attack Clark supporters. It certainly seems that, in the absence of any possible real defense, the need is to divert the discussion away from the issue, no matter how legit that issue may be.

You guys would be better served actually coming up with something to defend your guy rather than attacking Clarkies anytime anyone criticizes Edwards.

If you notice, when Clark gets criticized or attacked, Clarkies actually respond to the attacks....

Maybe there just really is no defense for Edwards? :shrug:

I'd hate to think that's actually the case. This man may very well end up being our nominee.

[venable]

58. wow. wow.

you really believe this?

every single defense of Edwards is sneered at, ignored, distorted.

It is not worth it, not with this crowd.

Did you have some thoughts about how this turned into a Clark thread?

[CarolNYC]

61. See, you're doing it right there...

Instead of any kind of real defense, you start complaining about Clark supporters again...It's kind of bizarre, you know?

[venable]

66. good lord, pay attention

my defense of Edwards is show me where he said he wants to go to war with Iran, If you can't show it, quit saying it.

this almost feels like needling for the sake of needling.

that is my defense. show me.

[CarolNYC]

68. See, I think this is your problem right there...

I AM paying attention....

[venable]

70. guess you're not going to show me

where he said it. didn't think so.

good night and good luck.

[Skwmom]

76. Just because you don't say the three letter word WAR - doesn't

mean that's not what your getting at. Please answer my post below (#75)

[venable]

83. I gave #75 a shot n/t

[Clark2008]

64. Well, maybe if Edwards fans would spend less time calling

Clarkies "jealous" instead of answering our questions, that wouldn't happen.

Every single time a supporter of another candidate, whether it's Clark or whoever, asks a serious questions about Edwards' stances on an issue, we get called "jealous" or "back biters" or something.

What's irritating is that you guys don't answer the question and, instead, want to blame Clarkies (or Obamaramas or Koochies) for asking it.

[venable]

67. no you don't get that response.

you simply don't listen to the defense.

I really am checking out of this.

call me whatever you want.

[AtomicKitten]

31. heh

Al Gore was nominated for an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize.

Woo-hoo!

[FrenchieCat]

32. So that means he'll be too busy to go to the APAIC Love in, I reckon?

And yes......Congrat big time to Al Gore. He deserves it!

[NCarolinawoman]

46. Oh brother, both of them were there last year as well.

That's probably where Edwards met that lobbying group that sponsored his trip to Israel last June.

Has he ever gone to Iraq to witness the consequences of war?

[IndianaGreen]

48. This is one award I don't wish to see on a Democratic nominee

Who can pander to AIPAC the best? We need someone that can put American interests first!

[Clark2008]

49. Amen.

I just told my (Jewish) husband about this and he rolled his eyes.

He's all for Israel, so am I, but as its own country. We both realize that what's good for Israel may not be good for the US and vice versa.

[Clarkie1]

50. I wonder how many times they will reiterate that Iran is a serious threat, and the military option

is on the table. This is one special interest I wish did not have the big $$$.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[Clark2008]

52. oh oh...

Somebody's gonna come in and call you anti-Semitic.

(Of course, my Jewish husband said the same thing when I told him. I guess he hates himself and his family.)

[IndianaGreen]

53. Zionism has lost its meaning

When I was growing up, Zionism meant that Jews should have a country that we could call our own, the only place where we could be safe from persecution.

Just as Christianity and Islam have been hijacked by their own extremists, Zionism has also been hijacked by people suffering from the same delusional beliefs of Divine exceptionalism.

[Clark2008]

59. Oh, I know IG.

Even my husband uses it to mean the right-wing government of Israel who will stop at nothing to make sure the world thinks they're correct, even at the detriment of the Palestinians or anyone else.

It certainly does not mean simply securing a homeland for Jewish people anymore.

[venable]

56. this thread is an insult to serious people, and it's not right.

it is just another bizarro hijack.

Edwards doesn't want war with Iran. Edwards supports the existence of Israel. Edwards doesn't take the military option off the table. Edwards does not want to go to war with Iran. Let it all sink in.

I was looking for Clarks name in the OP. Can't find it.

[Clark2008]

60. No it's not.

It's a thread discussing why and how AIPAC shouldn't be considered somewhat treasonous and why candidates like Edwards and H. Clinton are hob-knobing with a group of people, many of whom are known neo-cons who will stop at nothing to see the USA dragged into wars that Israel, if she wants them fought, should fight on her own.

No one is preaching any anti-Semitic rhetoric. No one thinks Israel should be left to defend herself should she be attacked, but people SHOULD question why we should want Israel to help us START pre-emptive wars with her neighbors - and why we should want politicans who believe this.

[venable]

63. one more time

Edwards does not want to go to war with Iran. Show me where he said that. If you can't, quit saying it.

Again, though, please show me where this is about Clark. How did this happen? Every single time. Every single time.

Do you have any idea how it frustrates real conversation?

[Clark2008]

65. You've been shown it, venable.

It's been all over this place for days (granted, it was in between all those useless house threads, so you might have missed it).

And, I didn't mention Clark, other than he's in my user name.

[venable]

91. huh? I'm confused. been shown what?

and did I say YOU brought up Clark? Check out the shape and contours of this thread, and see if what I say is true.

It's also true of almost every Edwards thread.

[FrenchieCat]

71. As an American and a DUer, I will comment on those threads that interest me

and in this case, considering that we are at war, and that now there is a lot of saber rattling going on in reference to Iran FROM BOTH PARTIES, this concerns me. (start listening to Sy Hersch alarm bells for goodness sakes, and stop making excuses for some politician who already shown his worth when he was busy co-sponsoring Iraq shit previously!)

Clark has brought this unholy alliance in reference to racheting up the "Iran had better not even think about it" harsh Rethoric from Democratic candidates out in the open...the fact that NeonCons are bringing some of our candidates "on board" sorta speak. Yet you sit here and complaint about Clark and Clarkies?

You should be writing John Edwards a letter and telling him to fucking cool it. I mean, here is Edwards appearing at a meeting praising Sharom, bringing in NATO in the stew, and make emphasis he had no business making....and no other Democratic candidates were there, but Newt, Romney, and McCain.....? Of course there was also Perle and BiBi! If I were you, I'd be asking him to explain that shit!

and some say that Clarkies are cultlike? Well, hey...at least our guy is attempting to ring the damn alarm bell (and getting smeared in the process, just like he was called a "kook" before for talking about the PNAC Plan).

Looks like your guy prefers just basting in the Neo-con light.....3rd meetings since July of last year that have been made public that John Edwards participated in? will the Neo Cons be moving in to the compound? They pressured Bill Clinton the same way...which is how we got the Iraqi Liberation fucking act....that provided later rational to go into the war we are now stuck in.

Some people just never learn. :eyes:

[IndianaGreen]

72. It was Edwards who referred to Ariel Sharon as a "great man"

not Wes Clark! Great post, FrenchieCat.

[Ninja Jordan]

74. Edwards has his head up his ass on Israel. And I'm an Edwards fan.

[mnhtnbb]

78. Carter is the only guy who's been willing to challenge the idea that Israel can do no wrong.

And look at the piling on he gets!

[Ninja Jordan]

80. Edwards doesn't even have to go as far as Carter's position. Just demonstrate critical thinking!

Edwards is like a robot with a drawl when it comes to anything about Israel.

[venable]

92. Ninja

I'm also a big Edwards guy, and I have problems with some of his Israel stuff. My problem is that his words are described here in ways that are inaccurate.

He does not want war with Iran. He does not take the military option off the table. But he does not want war.

I am confident that his Verzliya speech, and his failure to communicate the range of his thoughts on the subject, will encourage him to be much more lucid, and I'm hoping both you and me will be satisfied. Hoping this happens, and soon. I trust that he is critical, but not been very good at communicating it. I know he is profoundly against war with Iran.

[Cameron27]

82. Thank you for saying that,

I hate to see Democrats pulled into the neocon agenda; the RJC agenda. Iran's in their (neocons) sights and that plan can only lead to a disastrous US involvement.

[venable]

95. I didn't say don't contribute, I asked how a Clinton/Edwards thread

ended up being principally about W. Clark, as happens a whole lot.

And as a matter of fact, Frenchie Cat, I do write to Edwards, asking for clarification on certain things that I disagree with, like IWR, some parts of the Verzliya speech that I was not sure about.

[Skwmom]

75. "This will make the American people reticent toward GOING FOR Iran.

.... So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran."

Hmmm.. what could Edwards mean? I don't think it means economic sanctions because SINCE WHEN has the American people been reticent towards economic sanctions. What in the world could Edwards have meant? Hmmm... I don't think it's to hard to figure out do you?

EDWARDS IN HIS OWN WORDS.

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."
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_kno...

[venable]

81. OK let me try

this is tough, but I believe that it can be interpreted this way:

"the American will come along if they are told the truth"

this assumes that the truth would be that there is a nuclear Iran with aggressive plans.

If that's the case, then Americans WOULD come along.

but here's the rub: Iran does not have nukes. Won't for ten years. If at all, according to Ed Herman who points out the the Mullahs have decreed nukes to be un-Islamic. Herman also points out that the Mullahs are those with actual authority to wage any aggression. Ahmadinejad does not have this power.

So, the truth is that, as for now, and quite likely in the near and distant future, Iran will not be a threat.

Edwards is asssuring Israelis that should that time come, the US will be there for them.

I have agreed numerous times here that the Verzliya language is less than clear, but if you read them in the context of a man who does, in fact, not want to got to war, then the above interpretation works.

I think in the future he needs to leave no room for misinterpretation.

[Skwmom]

84. Well tell Edwards to make sure his daughter Kate is first

in line to defend Israel. If Israel has nukes, and Iran has nukes sounds like a draw to me.

Based on the fact that Edwards co-sponsored the IWR and was one of its biggest cheerleaders why in the heck would I view Edwards as a man who would not want to go to war?

[geek tragedy]

96. That line just creeps me the hell out.

I could overlook it if he had a solid record on foreign policy.

But, he was a mega-cheerleader for the Iraq war and a co-sponsor of the Bush-Lieberman war bill.

Just as bad, and maybe worse, than Clinton.

[CarolNYC]

97. the context

Hey, thanks for at least making an attempt....

"read them in the context of a man who does, in fact, not want to go to war"...See, that's my problem. I don't see that context when it comes to Edwards.

Do I think he's pacing back and forth just waiting for the bombs to drop? No. Do I think that he really really wants a military confrontation with Iran? No.

But he goes to this conference, full of people and speakers who seem all fired up for a confrontation, and sure he mentions diplomacy but he emphasizes that ALL options (including the military one) will remain on the table and he fires up the rhetoric, demonizing Iran, saying the world will not back down, etc, etc....to this audience who's just dying to get the US involved in attacking Iran. And then he tells them that the US might be reluctant to get involved again after Iraq but they can be "educated" out of their reticence toward "going for Iran". Where's the sense in that? (And I don't need that kind of education, thank you.)

I don't know, maybe you don't think this Iranian thing is serious or anything to worry about. Maybe you think if we attack Iran, the consequences won't be so bad. I've seen Edwards supporters on this board dismiss concerns about Edwards remarks about Iran as irrelevant. Well, I hope all of you people who think this whole Iran thing is just something to be dismissed have a lot of sons and daughters to send over there so that we who think it is a big deal don't have to send any.

Is he really against going to war with Iran? If so, he really needs to refrain from firing up people who want to attack. At a time when Bush and his cronies are moving ever steadily toward a confrontation we need all Dems out there arguing against it, not feeding the frenzy, which I think, if you'll be objective here, even you will have to admit he did here whether he meant to or not. Was he pandering or was he just guilty of extremely bad judgment? I'm not sure which is worse but given the gravity of the situation both are pretty darn bad in my book.

First of all, why address that conference in the first place? And secondly if he really felt he needed to address them and really doesn't want war, why didn't he do something courageous and try to tone down the rhetoric in front of that crowd, rather than ramp it up. Why emphasize that the military option is on the table rather than that the diplomatic one is there also and needs to be front and center right now?

Yeah, nobody's taken the military option off the table (well, Clark today put in it our back pocket, I think) but it's also a matter of where the heck you place that option and how much of the table you let it take up. I know you hate Clark being mentioned in this thread but it's relevant to my answer here. If you want to see a totally different approach to having the military option on the table, read the thread I compiled of Wes Clark's statements over the last couple of years. In the face of ridicule and derision and hyped up blood thirsty Fox hosts and audience members, he's constantly saying we have to talk to these people, we have to talk to these people, they are a great nation, these will be the consequences if we do attack, etc, etc. The military option is mentioned almost as an afterthought....but it's definitely not front and center.

But then we come to the context of the man and here's where I have the real problem. I decided I could never support Edwards for President before I'd ever heard Wes Clark's name. My first impression of him was from his answers to the questionnaire that moveon.org had sent to the candidates. I actually knew very little about any of those running at the time and basically, with no preconceptions, went by what they wrote. Lieberman was the first guy I eliminated because he couldn't even be bothered to answer the questions. Edwards was easily the next and that was based on his answers about Iraq. At a time when I was really disappointed in my elected representatives for going along with this rush to war with Iraq, I did not take to his very hawkish statements regarding Iraq. They totally turned me off. After that it took a lot more thought to eliminate the rest of them until I finally had it down to Dennis and Senator Graham. whose answers regarding the Iraq War I liked very much.

So that was my first impression of him. A war hawk at a time when I was looking for a peacemaker. And then he was a cheerleader for that War long after he really should have known better. I hated the way he called out Kerry in one of the Presidential debates for saying that Bush exaggerated the threat from Iraq. How can you exaggerate when 3,000 people have died? Edwards asked, speaking of 9/11 and I said "What the hell?!"

I know he apologized for his vote but he didn't do that until it was clear that the majority of the country was against it. Was he sincere? I don't know but it sure would have held a lot more weight if he did it at a time when he thought saying so might actually hurt him politically.

So, do I think he actually is itching for a war with Iran? No. But he has not shown me one thing since that first impression I got of him from the moveon questionnaire to make me think that he would put so much as his little finger on line to stop it from happening if others were psuhing for it. And I think this stuff is just too important, even if others here don't.

Peace, really.

[FrenchieCat]

98. and then today, Edwards tell us all to stand up and be courageous

to do what's right!

So what was right for him to have done....like you said, maybe emphasize diplomacy to the max and de-emphasize the "other options" like Wes does.

But noooooo....John Edwards's good at saying what sounds good....and thus far he has failed to take his own advice. He really has not stood up for much of anything unless it benefits him and his career directly.

[Nutmegger]

89. Will Hillary and John vote for war with IRAN?

Two *fantastic* candidates.

I was never a fan of Hillary but John has moved a few notches down on my list.

[Eurobabe]

93. Sure sounds like it...

These people are so pwnd.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070202/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/clinton_iran;_ylt=AvYTjh12q6itcxKqVYVqUHyyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

[donsu]

94. sorry to see Edwards wanting money from AIPAC

shucks

[Morgana LaFey]

99. Ah! Who's the best panderer -- that's the name of the game.

Pfffft. And I'd been SO leaning in Edwards' direction.

[FrenchieCat]

100. I'm sure he'll "clean it up".....

Just make sure when you are at his website that you check to see if you can audio or video of any of these meetings; he's had 4 since March of 2006.

If you don't find anything that would allow you to hear or to see what he actually said when he addressed either the AIPAC or the Herzliya Conference, then understand that he's working the various angle without being honest about his views.

I also couldn't find the many newspaper clippings on any of these meetings!

So then I checked his "speeches" on his website...and found this list:
DNC Winter Meeting - Remarks as Prepared for Delivery
Feb 2, 2007
National Press Club Policy Address
Jun 22, 2006
The Transatlantic Partnership in an Age of Global Challenges
Apr 30, 2006
Senator John Edwards Speaks at the United Against Poverty Conference
Feb 8, 2006
Hindustan Times Conference
Nov 16, 2005
Restoring the American Dream: Combating Poverty and Building One America
Sep 19, 2005
American Constitution Society
Jul 29, 2005
London School of Economics
May 25, 2005
http://johnedwards.com/news/speeches/

But couldn't find the text to his speech that he just gave on 1/23/07 at the Herzliya Conference at his website....

so I look elsewhere, and there it was!
http://www.herzliyaconference.org/Eng/_Articles/Article.asp?ArticleID=1728&CategoryID=223

Couldn't find these articles on Edwards website neither:
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/10435.htm
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html
http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/world/?content_id=5400
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/printer_23828.shtml
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3355802,00.html


Meanwhile, Romney, who was also at the Herzliya conference on the same day as John Edwards is proudly displaying a picture, a video of his speech and a prominent link to the text of his speech on his Romney for President website.
http://idahoansformitt.wordpress.com/2007/01/23/mitt-romneys-speech-at-the-herzliya-conference-the-plan-to-confront-iran/


I'm fucking tired of "Secrets" being kept! :eyes: