Edwards wants to educate me on the need to "go for" war with Iran; I'm not "coming along."

[Clarkie1]

"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

"To come along with what needs to be done with Iran," can only be interpreted to mean one thing....war. It is not a problem to get the American people to "go for" or "come along with" sanctions.

Well, Senator Edwards, since you are obviously assuming war with Iran is inevitable if you should ever become president, it assuredly will be inevitable should you become President and hold to that view in mind and heart.

Yes, Senator Edwards, I know you are backtracking today...I've seen the posts of your supports and the damage control you're engaging in, but I don't buy it. You've made the same wrong-headed assumptions about Iran that you made when you voted for war with Iraq, and it's clear you are not qualified to implement a new American foreign policy for the 21st century. Your new words about Iran are just words you think will fix the damage...they not conviction or true understanding.

You're a dangerous man, Senator Edwards. You're dangerous not because of any malicious intent, but because of your ignorance and your willingness to say whatever you think is necessary to get yourself elected. You may be well-intentioned or not in you advocacy for the poor...I honestly don't know if you're more interested in helping the poor, or using them to help your campaign. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that with that perhaps at least you are sincere. What I do know is that you lack the judgment and understanding of the world we need in the oval office. You can't work the global poverty issue effectively without truly understanding the world and how to engage with the rest of the world to bring greater peace and
prosperity to all humankind.

This isn't the time or place of on the job training, Senator Edwards. America and the world cannot afford that option.

[WCGreen]

1. Oh Jesus, what did I miss......

If what you say is true, what a putz....

[Clarkie1]

2. Go to the end of the article link. nt

[venable]

153. He never said he wants war with Iran. He says the opposite, endlessly

this sham is fabricated out of a somewhat unclear speech he gave via teleconference to the Herzliya conference.

Every single thing he says outside of this unclear passage tells us he is profoundly opposed to war with Iran.

[CarolNYC]

191. please list

Hi venable.

You keep saying this: "Every single thing he says outside of this unclear passage tells us he is profoundly opposed to war with Iran."

Can you please list a number of these for me?

I don't know if you read my response to a post of yours in another thread where I said my impressions of Edwards were from his very hawkish remarks leading up to and then well into the Iraq War but you didn't respond to it.

In it I said he's not shown me anything since to change my first impression of him from his responses on the moveon.org questionnaire early in the last primary season...But you keep talking about all of these statements he's made showing how profoundly he is opposed to this war with Iran. I'd like to see some. And I thank you in advance.

No need to post anything from the Ezra Klein piece. I've seen that. All that tells me, in the context of everything else I know, is that he's willing to change his answers and views on this to match what the intended audience wants to hear. I need to get some different information to change that impression. I need to see him make some strong statements against attacking Iran to people who he knows won't be happen with them and I need to see him stand up to folks who will challenge him on those statements. I am waiting for you to provide them. Thanks much.

The thing that bothers me, though, even if he does have a list of 50-100 statements saying he's profoundly and deeply against war with Iran, is why did he show such poor poor judgment in going in front of that crowd and speaking the way he did? This really is a terribly dangerous time for someone to show such bad judgment on such an important issue. You should read the digby thread which voices my real concerns perfectly.

It's not really about what he'll do as Presidnet down the road at this point...but what he's helping to enable Bush to do now. Obviously, you don't agree but I find it inexcusable. This issue is just too serious for us to allow another Iraq to happen.

[venable]

194. CarolNYC

I am running out the door, and will answer tonight when I get home, but please do watch him on Meet the Press today - I suspect he will answer at lot of your questions. Hopefully in a way that safisfies. let me know.

Sorry can't write more now. best to you.

[CarolNYC]

197. Thanks....

Unfortunately, I missed MTP here as I was at Church but there is nothing he could say on there that will give me what I'm looking for.

I understand from Edwards supporters on these boards that Edwards is well aware of the reaction to his unfortunate remarks regarding Iran and that he's doing what he can to appease us. I'm not looking for spin or damage control or appeasement.

I am looking for a consistent set of remarks before that conference and the hubbub it created that show me he is profoundly and deeply opposed to war with Iran and, as I said, I need to see remarks he's made to audiences that wouldn't want to hear them and how he's not backed down when confronted with disagreement to those remarks. Otherwise, based on what I've heard from him, although I don't think he's actively looking for war with Iran, I cannot get the impression that he's profoundly and deeply opposed.

And, as I also said, even if he does have a long series of consistent remarks against attacking Iran, I still have a major problem with the very poor judgment he showed in speaking as he did to the audience at that conference. I'm not sure what would be able to help me with that.


Here, Kevin Drum articulates my feelings on this whole situation, the remarks at the conference vs. the AP interview, whatever he'll say on MTP today, etc:

Let me say first off that I like Edwards. I always have. And I'd very much like to go along with the conventional wisdom that he "backed off" his hawkish Iran comments when he talked to the Prospect yesterday.

But, really, does anyone believe that? I don't. Instead, he was engaging in Politics 101: telling different audiences what they each want to hear. When he's talking to an Israeli conference, he emphasizes the supreme danger Iran presents and implies strongly that military action is a real possibility, while barely even mentioning the idea of engagement and economic aid. When he's talking to a liberal American magazine, he emphasizes engagement and economic aid and downplays the possibility of military action as vanishingly unlikely during an Edwards presidency.

Technically, there was no contradiction between what he said in these two venues. At the Israeli conference he did mention direct engagement with Iran, even if it was only in response to a question at the end. And with the Prospect, he did say that all options had to be left on the table -- including, presumably, military action. Still, you'd barely know it was the same person talking if you read both conversations with no names attached.

There's nothing new about this. It's standard issue politics. But the internet is making this game harder to play, because every word you speak, at every venue, is now easily accessible to people who aren't quite as jaded about this kind of thing as most political reporters are. People like me. And I'll tell you: I'd sure feel a lot better if even a small part of Edwards' comments to the Prospect had made their way into his speech at Herzliya.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010678.php

Again, thanks.

[The Traveler]

3. Hmmm ...

that might require I strike Edwards from my list. Lemme see ... that leaves Obama and ... is Clark getting into this thing or not?

[CJCRANE]

5. Clark wants diplomacy.

He's the kinda guy who remembers the old diplomatic adage "talk softly and carry a big stick" (as opposed to Bushco who seem to shout and wave their stick around and hit people over the head whenever they feel like it).

[DianeG5385]

4. I posted earlier tonight re: Edwards speech

and how I feel Clark is the superior candidate. I think us Clarkies need to coordinate a bit in advance of his impending (I hope based on today's speech) candidacy. I'm seriously thinking of making his candidacy my priority over the next 2 years.

I'm left a bit cold by Edwards who, by the way, I think is a fine man and definitely liberal, but not Presidential for this time given what we face. I'm sure **** will leave a big fat dump for his successor, given his dad's gift to Clinton upon his departure.

Clark can handle the dump and proceed forward to save our nation. We are the defenders of freedom, just not the way B*** envisioned.

[Lone_Wolf]

24. Edwards biggest problem is he listens to others on foreign issues

He really needs to start doing his own research on foreign issues.

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. If that were true

it would be a little late in the game to start now, wouldn't it? Edwards is running for President, that takes massive aomounts of time to do well, and if you don't do it well you lose. Politics on that level is massively time consuming.

[The Count]

33. Been running for the past 5 years now, doing little else....

[FrenchieCat]

6. Clarkie1...an important correction, I think......the quote doesn't say "War"....

is says the American people reticent toward GOING FOR IRAN.

He doesn't say War....although it can be implied fairly easily....but it is not stated explicitely.

[Clarkie1]

7. Which is why the word war is not in quotes. It is clear what he meant. nt

[FrenchieCat]

8. Just sayin'!

I personally take offense just in the fact that anyone feels the need to "educate" me....let alone on a subject I probably know more about than the person stating I'm in need of education. It's pretty condenscending...in particular as I was not in the room when the statement was made....in fact, that was said to Isrealites NeoCons about Americans!

so with war or no war included in the statement, it still stinks like shit to me.

Bush is the decider.

I hope that Edwards ain't gonna be the educator.

[Faryn Balyncd]

23. a new understanding of "education president"

[venable]

17. Thank you, Frenchie Cat - EDWARDS DOES NOT WANT WAR.

I know for a fact that he doesn't mean war. I think his Verzliya speech was ill-shaped. Terribly so.

I was at an event last night and his position is as I thought:

Iran wants the same in Iraq as we do...a majority government.
Ahmadinejad is a nut, and has no support from the Iranian people, or the Mullahs.
We should do nothing that bolsters Ahmadinejad. We should not invade.

After the fiasco in Iraq (and he didn't only apologize - he listed his mistakes 1) there were no WMD and 2) he trusted a man who can not be trusted (bush) - after that fiasco, and we SHOULD LEAVE STARTING TODAY, and the worst thing we could do for the world is to invade another Muslim country, especially one that has many shared interests with us.

He said we must begin now talking with Iran and Syria. Starting now.

I think he meant, in Verzliya that if Iran did have nukes and was ready to use them, and Ahmadinejad had more power, they would have to be stopped. I guess that's what he meant. I agree it was not a clear speech.

He is profoundly and deeply against war with Iran

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. Those are good comments venable

Honest good statements. I don't want to quibble but what I really want to hear is is why the United States shouldn't attack Iran, not why we shouldn't invade Iran, the distinction is extremely meaningful, and I do not consider arguing against invading Iran to be the same as arguing against attacking Iran. Anyone who would support invading Iran is a madman. What would be the rational? The result would be a disaster. Iran is has a much larger population than Iran, their military and economy is much stronger than Iraq's was after over a decade of U.N. imposed sancitons against it.

But I am not fearful of a direct plan to invade Iran, and in fact that is not the scenario that is being debated, or the one that Sy Hersh and Wes Clark have been warning is currently being planned. What I am fearful of is a "limited air campaign" using "surgical strikes" to "take out" Irans nuclear facillities. So coming out strongly against an invasion of Iran frankly is almost meaningless to me, because no one, not even Dick Cheney, is actually pushing for an invasion of Iran. They want to send in our bombers.

They will frame it like the cruise missile attack that Clinton launched against Bin Ladin's camp in Afghanistan. They will frame it like the U.S. bombing of Tripoli in 1986. The U.S. didn't "invade" Libya, we attacked it. The U.S. didn't "invade" Afghanistan under Clinton, we carried out an attack on it's soil. The U.S. won't launch war against Iran by invading Iran, we will selectively target what our President will call strategic military targets against an Irnaian nuclear program that the U.N. has "deemed to be our of compliance with international agreements". Bush will claim that we are not at war with Iran as a nation. But Iran will claim that we are. I think it is the Iranian view that we all need to be concerned with. It not only will carry the force of logic, it will trigger a very dangerous cycle of reprecussions.

No doubt some Democrats will speak out after the attack on Iran "meant to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons", urging Bush to show restraint, to not punish the Iranian people for the actions of one madman. No doubt some Democrats will speak out after the attack on Iran demanding that military actions cease upon achieving that objective, saying it is not U.S. policy to overthrow Iran's government. No doubt some Democrats will speak out after an attack on Iran detailing the lunacy of getting drawn into another ground war in the Persion Gulf. No doubt some Democrats will continue, at that point, to urge diplomacy with Iran, more urgently then than ever. No doubt, each one of them will be correct in all of those statements. But the next war will already have started, even if no invasion of Iran immediately commences.

[Faryn Balyncd]

31. The scenario you describe (#21) is exactly right, Tom Rinaldo.......

What can we do to prevent this from unfolding?

Certainly, for multiple leading Democratic presidential contenders to try to outdo each other in being "tough" on Iran, to go before pro-preemptive-bombing audiences and declare:

"we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table."

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

"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

is not how we prevent such escalation into a broader mideast war.

To the contrary, such drum-beating by Democratic leaders plays right into this Bush-Cheney scenario.

[venable]

40. absolutely correct, Tom R.

Edwards also warned last night against the naivete of thinking there would be little or no retaliation to any attack. He said there would be, it would be strong, and that we have soldiers within striking distance.

[Skwmom]

62. So now Edwards is all concerned about our soldiers being within striking distance

when he played a part in putting them there. Touching, really touching.

Only in politics would accepting moral responsibility = reward me with the presidency.

[venable]

94. yes, he is, since you're asking

would you rather he not be?

you don't have to answer, but you might seriously ask yourself, would you like a major presidential candidate to not care.

[Skwmom]

137. Rhetoric does not = caring.

I was amazed that Edwards had the gall to use the story of a dead solider in his DNC speech but then again, Edwards has never shy about using someone else's misery for his own benefit.

[The Count]

35. First, it was Herzliya not Verzliya. Second, Edwards and "profoundly and deeply"

angainst any war when it comes to Edwards - is it so wrong if I use people's recent history to judge their present words?

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SJ00046:@@@P

[venable]

38. spelled it wrong, thanks. yes, use the past to judge the present, but

do so with some sense of openness and honesty about the sincerity of current statements.

[The Count]

49. Again, sincerity? Edwards has yet to let people know he didn't merely vote

for the IWR (I know, he apologized for THAT one) but he sponsored it (and an uglier amendment with Joementum). Also, I'll believe his sincerity when he comes out with the truth about who won the 2004 election. Until then, I feel entitled to be suspicious.

[venable]

96. If you want to know how he feels about the 2004 election

take a look at Mark Crispin Miller's book on the subject. Edwards feels the way you and I do.

[The Count]

105. Not really interested in his feelings as his support for the truth.

If he feels like I do, why do I have to read a book to find out? (Marc Crispin Miller did his bit for the issue) he certainly is in the news with everything else. Is my vote THAT trivial?

[venable]

114. You asked how Edwards felt about the count, I suggested a read

if you don't want to, fine.

[The Count]

163. I asked that he comes out with the truth. It's EVEN worse if he knows

it was stolen and STFU about it than if he weren't quite sure. Again, my point was

HE HAS A DUTY TO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT IT

. HIS SILENCE IS COMPLICITY TO THE CRIME AND HIS PRIVATE FEELINGS ARE NONE OF MY BUSINESS.

[Skwmom]

60. How could someone profoundly and deeply against war with Iran

make these statements:

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 (WAR). This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran (the American people are NOT reticent about diplomacy or sanctions so what does that leave……. WAR). . 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 ...

[Flabbergasted]

104. He is profoundly not against the war and will do anything AIPAC wants him to do

How else do you get that job?

[venable]

125. you get that job by being honest, and passionate, and compassionate

I hope he gets it.

[Flabbergasted]

127. So you're against these virtues?

[FrenchieCat]

126. Here, I have a question for you, Venable....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3092595

[venable]

132. I gave it a try

n/t

[Texas_Kat]

166. It's good that he's finally read some of what Clark has written

but not good enough when he's campaigning for AIPAC dollars

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

Or should THEY not believe him. Which is it?

[ChiciB1]

45. That's How I Read It,,, But I As An Edwards Supporter Right Now Will

be writing him for clarification. If he advocates War with Iran, I will have to withdraw my support for him. I simply won't follow ANY candidate who wants to go down that road.

I didn't read "war" as a word and perhaps he meant ALL OPTIONS... as complete and intense diplomacy but I can't say what he really meant.

Not simply because I support him, but because I find "war" words to be so controversial for any Democratic candidate it seems unlikely that he meant war.... but still I couldn't swear on a bible about it. He's not a STUPID man IMO, so I will do more research until I know something "for sure!"

[Skwmom]

65. Do you really expect Edwards to write back and say he doesn't

advocate war with Iran (of course maybe if you said you were a wealthy member of AIPAC.....)

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 (WAR). This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran (the American people are NOT reticent about diplomacy or sanctions so what does that leave……. WAR). But I think the American people are smart if they are told the truth (does he really think we are smart when he thinks he can say one thing to one crowd, and something totally different to another), 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 ...

[ChiciB1]

83. I Read The Article... I Thought I Would Ask Him What He Meant

when he used the words... ALL Options? Perhaps he won't write back, I am on his donor list and have been for a very long time. I wasn't planning on asking if he was for a War with Iran.

Just a clarification. I know there are some negative aspects here, but I do like him for other reasons. But anyone who wants to use WAR as a means to solve a problem won't get my vote. But please, let's not re-hash Iraq... there are problems there for more Democrats than not. I have been vocal in the past about those in Congress who let this happen, and those who still won't say squat. I feel in some ways, it has been such a monumental screw-up and many who voted for "authorization" would think many times over again.

I know I'm not comfortable with Hillary for more reasons than just the war. If it was just the war I could support her... I will have to say that I'm a little dis-spirited right now. I like Richardson, but have some problems there too. I'm not against Clark, but have reasons why I don't want to support him. Obama looks good, but I prefer he be Vice President first. I just don't like all the money and behind the scenes crap with Hillary! Plus I just haven't figured out the whole "Bushie" business with the Clintons and them! I don't trust it! I'm upset with Schumer/Lieberman and I think Hillary was there for Lieberman too, even if we can't prove it. I'm not happy with Rahm Emmanuel, Begala, McAuliffe and that whole gang either.

FIRST PREFERENCE.... Al Gore! I've said that many many times, even over Edwards. But I really have a lot of respect for Elizabeth.

[Skwmom]

143. Let's not re-hash Iraq?

Oh why would a little old thing like Iraq be important in choosing our next president? What the heck, it will have only cost this country trillions (when it's all said and done), killed thousands, wounded physically and mentally hundreds of thousands of others, hurt our standing in the world, etc.

Let's not re-hash Iraq? This reminds me of Bush and his decision to hide the coffins coming into the country.

You are right that regarding Iraq "there are problems there for more Democrats than not." Do you think that by ignoring them in the primary that they will be ignored in the general election? Fat chance. Especially if the Republicans nominate someone who did not vote for this debacle. Contrary to what the talking heads say, if Iraq is still a problem in 08, a Dem win is not a sure thing. They will be looking to elect a commander-in-chief and anyone tied to the Iraq debacle will be screwed.

Regarding "I feel in some ways, it has been such a monumental screw-up and many who voted for "authorization" would think many times over again." Well based on Edwards own words on Iran, that doesn't seem to be the case does it.

[venable]

152. Edwards never said he wants war with Iran, he says the very exact opposite

this whole charade is a pouncing upon a certain lack of clarity (for which I blame Edwards), and those who seem to dislike him more than anything warrants have seized upon it.

I think it's good you are writing to him.

I'd also suggest you give a listen to Meet the Press tomorrow. He'll be on for an hour, and I am sure this will be discussed.

[Faryn Balyncd]

176. And George W. Bush said HE never wanted war with Iraq..........

:eyes:

[venable]

193. so? if you think that's a point

than you are not looking very closely at the two men you reference

[Faryn Balyncd]

196. Now is the time for courageous leaders to STOP the run-up to war with Iran, not beat the drums.....

One of our most prescient progressive observers, Robert Parry, recently commented on the ineffective response by Democratic leaders to Bush's run-up to war with Iran in "Bush Is Hiding the Ball on Iran."

Tragically, even as the Patriot missiles are being deployed, even as a 2nd naval strike force steams to the Persian Gulf, even as Bush maneuvers to make eventual war with Iran seem inevitable, more than one prominent Democratic presidential candidate acts as if it is more important to score political points with hardline pro-preemptive-bombing-of-Iran interests than it is to provide actual leadership in opposing the Bush/Cheney Iran war scenario.

Edwards clear and measured words at Herzliya were bad enough,

"we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table....

"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

Unfortunately, Edwards damage control has focused on tortured rationalizations for these words..... and attempts to ease fears about the solidity of Edwards "conversion" from a hawk & sponsor of the IWR to a self-professed opponent of the politics of endless war.

But the damage we should focus on is not the damage to the Edwards presidential hopes.

The damage we should be concerned about is that which is now being done to the prospects for a peaceful world, when Democratic "leaders" fail to lead - - - fail to take on the risk of standing tall against the Bush/Cheney Iran hysteria, and become complicit in the run-up to a pre-emptive bombing of Iran.

And complicity with Bush/Cheney propaganda is exactly what occurs when Democratic presidential hopefuls choose to score cheap political points, even if, in so doing, they throw gasoline on the fires of Iran hysteria.

When Democratic presidential contenders are so afraid of being labeled "soft on national security" (perhaps because of self-perceived weaknesses in their own credentials) that they do not recognize the calculated unfolding of a major escalation of mideast war, and when Democratic "leaders" fail to provide the leadership to prevent such a misadventure, they become part of the problem.


. . . . . . . . .


What is an example of a genuine, constructive leadership regarding Iran?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3092209
http://www.ptnine.com/020207.WMV

[ChiciB1]

204. Late Reply Here... I AM Conflicted About All Of This Edwards Bashing!

For several weeks now it seems to be non-stop. Am I really that stupid to have some faith in him?

WHO do we trust when every single word uttered by ANYONE is dissected to the 'nth degree. Perhaps I'm simply feeling something else, don't know for sure... Depression??

I logged off yesterday because of this. I had been so hyped about coming to D.C. on 3/17 but woke up this morning, fixed breakfast for the family and went back to bed. Didn't fall back to sleep, but SKIPPED the usual Sunday gab fests.

I WAS planning on bringing my grand-daughter who is 11 to the march so she could see first hand what I feel is some sort of Democracy in Action. I kept thinking how I was going to tell her we won't be going to D.C. now. I also wanted to stay a little longer so she could walk through some of the museums to see first hand some of our past American history. It's not that I can really afford it, but felt obligated to those who will be here when I'm gone, so was going to throw caution to the wind and just "do it!". But I'm so sick of what has happened and I'm sick of our in-fighting here! I've always taught my kids "if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything!" I wonder if now I'm just falling for anything.

There ARE qualities I like about Edwards and I can't say I've abandoned him, but I really don't feel drawn to anyone else right now. I used to be a big Hillary fan, but she's changed so much in my eyes. I didn't read what Edwards said as War, but there are so many here who "think" that's what he said. I certainly don't want to be part of electing anyone that will do MORE DAMAGE, if that' even possible!

Yes, I know politicians will tell you anything to get elected, but after THE IDIOT and how he has ruined so much in America, getting rid of him is only the "beginning" because of the DAMAGE done! I just wonder if we as Democrats can get it together enough to rally behind any candidate.

There are also times when I think we really really need a THIRD PARTY! I guess it's just my "angst" talking right now!

[venable]

208. I also find the bashing here so ugly

that I often say enough, I'm not coming back here.

The Edwards' hating here is astonishing. He is very well regarded on other progressive sites.

[Faryn Balyncd]

210. "There ARE qualities I like about Edwards and I can't say I've abandoned him...."

"There ARE qualities I like about Edwards and I can't say I've abandoned him...." (ChiciB1, #201)

I,too,LIKE Edwards. I was, moreover, excited about his candidacy, primarily because of his clear statements that he regretted his support of the IWR, that he was wrong, and that the war was wrong and needed to end. My excitement for Edwards was not dimmed by the fact that he had been a supporter, even a sponsor, of the IWR. IT ONLY CHANGED when he went to Herzliya and fanned the flames for another pre-emptive attack, this time against Iran.

I also LIKE Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately, her position on the vital issues of foreign policy have consistently FOLLOWED that of the general public. When it comes to ENDING an ill-conceived war, she has consistently refused to LEAD. She has only adopted antiwar positions when she feels the overwhelming opinion of both the American people and her Democratic base absolutely forces her hand.

Why should we choose a candidate who will adopt the losing DLC strategy of pandering to the pro-war Lieberman/Zell Miller voter? Those voters are not reachable anyway, and they represent the MINORITY of Americans.

Democrats won in 2006 by doing the exact opposite: By clearly denouncing GOP policy for what it was, Democrats won by attracting the votes of millions of independents, moderates, and even many historic conservatives and registered Republicans who are sick of the neo-conservative, warmongering,constitution smashing, liberty-betraying GOP.

And we have plenty of Democratic leaders who WILL LEAD constructively and without being complicit with Bush/Cheney Iran hysteria:


Dennis Kucinich, Al Gore, Russ Feingold, Wes Clark, Jim Webb, Chris Dodd...... Each one of these provide principled, inspired leadership that does not compromise principle.





We don't have to settle for a media darling who lacks the foresight or the guts to oppose the build-up to an attack on Iran.

Are you listening, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton?

[Eurobabe]

9. Edwards and Clinton's drumbeats towards Iran are not to my liking either

I've ruled one of them out completely, the other one is skating on thin ice.

[AndyTiedye]

10. Ixnay on Edwards, Ixnay on Hillary

Gore isn't running. If he does, the media will recycle all their old attacks from 2000. Still our best shot by far if he runs, but will he?
Feingold isn't running, and he's been too quiet lately to start now. (Unlike Gore, who is not-running all over the country with a book and a movie).
Kucinich is great but he has as much chance as a snowman in July.
Clark has never held or run for any elective office whatsoever. Almost as much of a long shot as Kucinich.
Clinton and Edwards are becoming more hawkish every day, and one of them is likely to be nominated.
The antiwar majority will have nowhere to go. That is the plan.

Looks like the general election in 2008 is gonna be one of those "hold your nose and vote" affairs.

[cui bono]

12. The other thing that bothered me about Edwards is

when he started saying "the McCain Doctrine". I didn't think that was very mature or professional or statesmanlike. I was surprised by it and disappointed.

[DaveinMD]

47. that was a great move

McCain is the person who first started talking about escalation and this language has led the McCain's drop in the polls. Good for Edwards and for Vilsack on this matter too.

[cui bono]

86. I think that would have happened anyway. I think he could have stated that

McCain was for it without resorting to calling it the McCain Doctrine.

Anyway, now that he's not against attacking Iran he's off my list of possibilities so the McCain issue is moot.

[DaveinMD]

95. it was perfect framing

and he's not if favor of attacking Iran. He's for constructive engagement with Iran.

[cui bono]

100. You can say it once again after I post this it doesn't make me think it's true.

Surely you've heard of opinions?

And I think the jury's still out on his stance on Iran. Hopefully he clarifies what he was saying.

[DaveinMD]

106. read this

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=19423

[cui bono]

110. Well now I'm certain I can't vote for him.

In his explanation he starts the first paragraph saying "Number one..." then he starts the next paragraph with "First...". How can I possibly vote for someone who can't count?

Seriously, thanks for the link. He explains himself much better there.

[Skwmom]

181. I wonder if in the long run it will prove to be such a great move. If the Republicans

become frustrated with the war, they may turn to Giuliani hoping that he will save the day (writing McCain off because he is so closely tied to the Iraq debacle) - or turn to some other candidate that did not vote for the IWR.

A Democratic nominee that voted (or maybe even co-sponsored the IWR and had his Iraq rhetoric included on the whitehouse website during the run-up to the war) vs a Republican nominee that can't be so easily tied to the Iraq debacle. Hmmm...

Won't it be ironic if the brilliant Democratic strategists knock out a damaged, weakened McCain and replace him with a stronger Republican candidate in the general election. Maybe they shouldn't have been so eager to hang the Iraq debacle around his neck this early in the election cycle.

[AndyTiedye]

58. Edwards Seems to Be Proposing The Same Bellicose Approach to the ME as McCain Too

WE DON'T WANT THAT! IS ANYBODY LISTENING?

[Frank Cannon]

16. Gore is a wooden egghead

That's about the worst thing the American media Wurlitzer was able to say about him in 2000, but they played this tune 24 hours a day, 7 days a week--and that's what they will be doing again if he runs again.

Fuck them. I WANT an egghead in the Oval Office. Badly. I think most of this nation does.

[The Count]

37. Only proof we cannot base our choices on what MSM will say

They actually compared Edwards with MLK recently - and that should make us think...
BS such as "electability" and likeability" is made up by the propaganda machine - and stands for "whom we tell you to vote for"

[The Count]

25. Actually, Hillary urges talks, while Edwards says "all options on the table"

Not a fan of Hillary, just pointing the differences.

[Usrename]

84. She sounds just like Bush, what’s the difference?

Hillary Clinton calls Iran a threat to US, Israel (AP)2 February 2007

snip>

US policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons,’ the Democrat told a crowd of Israel supporters. In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table.’

snip>

To deny the Holocaust places Iran’s leadership in company with the most despicable bigots and historical revisionists,’ Clinton said, criticizing what she called the Iranian administration’s pro-terrorist, anti-American, anti-Israeli rhetoric.’

snip>

Clinton, the front-runner for her party’s presidential nomination, called for dialogue with foes of the United States, saying Iran uses its influence and its revenues in the region to support terrorist elements.’

We need to use every tool at our disposal, including diplomatic and economic in addition to the threat and use of military force,’ she said.

snip>

http://www.khaleejtimes.ae/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/theworld/2007/February/theworld_February53.xml§ion=theworld

[PFunk]

11. Same here.

It sounds like a major case of "Cover My Ass" syndrome to me. You want my void, disown AIPAC.

[midnight]

13. Poverty is created when war is created. Here is a man who

wants to eradicate poverty. He needs to rethink this war with Iran thing.

[DaveinMD]

57. he is not favoring war with Iran

he favors diplomatic engagement with Iran. This is a false smear plain and simple.

[Lasher]

14. Incredibly stupid mistake, from all appearances.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next several days but I don't see how it can be interpreted any other way. Looks to me like Edwards is toast.

[Skwmom]

71. Wow, it seems that Edwards is not ready for prime-time.

Sorry, but I just couldn't help myself.

I doubt if he's toast. He has the media, big money people, and the republican operatives helping him out.

[Lasher]

80. Well I don't want to go concrete with this just yet

I'm just saying that's very much what it looks like and will try to keep at least a quasi-open mind. I've not seen anything so far that can un-ring this bell.

[CabalPowered]

15. "So Americans can be educated to come along with ..."

..what needs to be done with Iran." :wtf: No Senator Edwards, I will not be coming along.

[chimpymustgo]

18. What is this OBSESSION? Fueled by lies and insinuations? Post something about your guy

rather than making shit up and inferring and implying, and surmising and supposing about Edwards.

It's really craven.

[Clark2008]

121. How is it surmising and supposing?

The OP gave links and quoted Edwards nearly verbatim.

Don't YOU want others to be, I don't know... EDUCATED about Edwards' positions?

[abburdlen]

19. American Prospect interview

Edwards On Iran

The first part of the interview Edwards sounds completely reasonable and began to ease some my misgivings.

"First, America should be negotiating directly with Iran, which Bush won’t do."

He seems to have some idea that attacking Iran is a bad idea.

...what happens if America were to militarily strike Iran? Well you take this unstable, radical leader, and you make him a hero -- that’s the first thing that’ll happen. The Iranian people will rally around him. The second thing that will happen is they will retaliate. And they have certainly some potential for retaliating here in the United States through some of these terrorist organizations they’re close to, but we’ve got over a hundred thousand people right next door.

But as the questions get more involved and the answers require more than a cursory understanding of the entire situation Edwards responses point out why he ought to stick to speaking about poverty. I don't think John Edwards is a bad person. I don't believe he is a war monger like Wolfowitz or Cheney. Foreign policy though just isn't his strength. As a Senator he was mislead. I heard anything from him yet that makes me comfortable he wouldn't be make similar mistakes as President.

[The Count]

27. If he's not a warmonger, how do you explain this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2934244

How many "oops"es is one allowed to have on wars before we withhold our votes?

[abburdlen]

51. The current adminstration

intended to take us to war.
I don't see John going to war on purpose. I think it's entirely possible we'd still find ourselves in a misguided war were Edwards elected. An 'oops' though rather than planned.

The consequence would still be the same.


I think he's a good guy. And I'm glad he's speaking out about poverty. I just don't think he's up to the job of President.

[Texas_Kat]

61. That's a big point

Would John Edwards wind up getting us into a war with Iran by accident?

There are mistakes that you can apologize for and then mistakes you cannot. He is so inexperienced in REAL international affairs that I could actually see him mistakenly believing that belligerent actions (such as bombing Iran's supposed nuclear sites) isn't "war".

The middle east is already a lit match.

[Change has come]

102. Thanks for the link

That sounded like Edwards has the same speech writer as Kinda Sleezy.

[Luckyduck]

187. In his speeches before the Iraq war-he sounded just like Cheney

Why should we trust him now?

[benny05]

20. American Prospect Interview by Ezra Klein

Is the latest news on Senator Edwards' position about engaging Iran first. The interview was conducted yesterday that clears up some misunderstanding from the news of January 23rd. It appears ome supporters of other candidates are behind on the news, or refuse to believe what they read by some interviews by the top liberal pundit/bloggers.

Edwards: Do you mind me taking just a minute to lay out where I am on Iran and then you can just ask anything you want? Here’s my view about what we ought to be doing in Iran.

Number one, you have a radical leader, Ahmadinejad, who is politically unstable in his own country. The political elite have begun to leave him, the religious leaders have begun to leave him, the people aren’t happy with him, for at least two reasons: one, they don’t like his sort of bellicose rhetoric, and second, he was elected on a platform of economic reform and helping the poor and the middle class, and he hasn’t done anything. In fact, while he was traveling, the leaders of the legislature sent him a letter saying, ‘when are you gonna pay attention to the economic problems of our country.’ So, I think we have an opportunity here that we need to be taking advantage of.

First, America should be negotiating directly with Iran, which Bush won’t do. Second, we need to get our European friends, not just the banking system, but the governments themselves, to help us do two things -- put a group, a system of carrots and sticks on the table. The carrots are, we’ll make nuclear fuel available to you, we’ll control the cycle, but you can use it for any civilian purpose. Second, an economic package, which I don’t think has been seriously proposed up until now. Because there economy is already struggling, and it would be very attractive to them. And then on the flip side, the stick side, to say if you don’t do that, there are going to be more serious economic sanctions than you’ve seen up until now. Now of course we need the Europeans for this, cause they’re the ones with the economic relationship with Iran, but the whole purpose of this is number one to get an agreement. Number two, to isolate this radical leader so that the moderates and those within the country who want to see Iran succeed economically, can take advantage of it.

Now that’s on the one hand, the flip side of this is what happens if America were to militarily strike Iran? Well you take this unstable, radical leader, and you make him a hero -- that’s the first thing that’ll happen. The Iranian people will rally around him. The second thing that will happen is they will retaliate. And they have certainly some potential for retaliating here in the United States through some of these terrorist organizations they’re close to, but we’ve got over a hundred thousand people right next door. And most people believe that they have an infrastructure for retaliation inside Iraq. So, that’s the second thing that’ll happen. And the third thing is there are a lot of analysts who believe that an air strike or a missile strike is not enough to be successful. To be successful we’d actually have to have troops on the ground, and where in the world would they come from? So, to me, this is the path, I don’t know if you read Tom Friedman’s column either yesterday or the day before?

Klein: I did not.

Edwards: It’ll be easy to find. Take a look at it, I think it’s very smart and he’s thinking about this exactly the right way.

Klein: He says should we do something sensible, that both sides can agree on?

Edwards: Amazing yeah.

Klein: So, I just want to get it very clear, you think that attacking Iran would be a bad idea?

Edwards: I think would have very bad consequences.

Klein: So when you said that all options are on the table?

Edwards: It would be foolish for any American president to ever take any option off the table.

Klein: Can we live with a nuclear Iran?

Edwards: I’m not ready to cross that bridge yet. I think that we have lots of opportunities that we’ve … We’re not negotiating with them directly, what I just proposed has not been done. We’re not being smart about how we engage with them. But I’m not ready to cross that bridge yet. And I think the reason people react the way they do -- I understand it, because, when George Bush uses this kind of language, it means something very different for most people. I mean when he uses this kind of language “options are on the table,” he does it in a very threatening kind of way -- with a country that he’s not engaging with or making any serious diplomatic proposals to. I mean I think that he’s just dead wrong about that.

Klein: So we should, first step, talk to Iran, try to open up negotiations?

Edwards: Correct

Klein: Do it, if necessary, bilaterally?

Edwards: Absolutely.


Unlike the commenter before me, I think he will look at the situation from all sides as much as he can. He will have more access to information as President that he didn't have as a senator (even being on the Intelligence Cmte).

To end, I recall a friend from Turkey who said the following last summer: US and Iran are playing a chess game. Israel and Hezbollah are playing poker under the chess board.

[The Count]

29. Yeah, cuz anyone who gets his info from Tom Friedman, deserves my vote!

" are a lot of analysts who believe that an air strike or a missile strike is not enough to be successful. To be successful we’d actually have to have troops on the ground, and where in the world would they come from? So, to me, this is the path, I don’t know if you read Tom Friedman’s column either yesterday or the day before? "

I missed this part, thanks for bringing it up!
Who was calling here Edwards an "anti-war activist" before? :lmao:

[Bjorn Against]

44. Yeah, because we know Tom Friedman was so right about the last war...

Anybody who still views Friedman as a credible source on foreign policy does not understand anything about what is going on in the world. How many times can a person be wrong before we stop taking them seriously?

[noamnety]

48. The self-appointed leader of the war on poverty

wants to impose sanctions on Iran because their elected leader hasn't solved his own country's poverty problems.

Can someone explain to me how sanctions against Iran will help the poor there? Is that kinda like how sanctions against Iraq helped the poor by killing thousands of their children? I guess it works by reducing the number of mouths they have to feed on their limited budgets, eh?

In our own country, our "elected" leader hasn't done a thing to solve poverty. Everything Edwards has said about Iran's leader could be said about our own. Why isn't Edwards out there asking European countries to put sanctions on us?

"we’ll make nuclear fuel available to you, we’ll control the cycle"

Hypocrisy, Colonialism, Imperialism, Racism, Privilege.

[mzmolly]

207. Where does he say sanctions are an avenue to help the poor?

I think you need to re-read the article?

[noamnety]

209. He doesn't say sanctions will help the poor

He just criticizes Ahmadinejad for not doing enough to help the poor - and then suggests sanctions as a stick - which he obviously suggests because he is so concerned about their poor. :eyes:

"Number one, you have a radical leader, Ahmadinejad, who is politically unstable in his own country. The political elite have begun to leave him, the religious leaders have begun to leave him, the people aren’t happy with him, for at least two reasons: one, they don’t like his sort of bellicose rhetoric, and second, he was elected on a platform of economic reform and helping the poor and the middle class, and he hasn’t done anything. In fact, while he was traveling, the leaders of the legislature sent him a letter saying, ‘when are you gonna pay attention to the economic problems of our country.’ So, I think we have an opportunity here that we need to be taking advantage of."

[mzmolly]

216. We can actually have thoughtful sanctions that don't harm the poor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions

Economic sanctions - typically a ban on trade, possibly limited to certain sectors such as armaments, or with certain exceptions (such as food and medicine)

[mzmolly]

206. May I suggest a thread?

Thanks for posting, great info. Edwards just moved up a few notches with me. Not that I wasn't open to his candidacy, but I am more so now. :hi:

[tblue37]

22. Good Lord! What an idiot!

Clark or Gore for sure. I want either of them on the top of the ticket. But I had thought Edwards might make a good VP candidate. I think he just destroyed any chance he could have had--with me as well as with the rest of the Dem voters.

[benny05]

28. Read my post above yours n/t

[The Count]

32. By what twisted logic do you think that helps? We all read the interview.

Your post just helped me notice the missed "quoting of the experts" as in Tom Friedman...geez...

[benny05]

42. Concur Friedman is not one of my favs

But I'm pointing out that Edwards is not the saber-rattler either:

1) First engage the Syrians and Iranians because they are supporting Hizbollah (who seems to have hijacked the Lebanese cabinet and there have been murders of Lebanese leaders because of them)
2) Be bi-lateral
3) Wait longer until negotiations are exhausted and not be pre-emptive
4) Support the idea of a peace process between Israel and Palestine, but with the understanding that no leader should be saying "The Holocaust never happened" or "Let's wipe them off the planet"
5) And that with all of our anti-war sentiment, there are dangerous people out there, and we shouldn't be in denial of it either.

If you wish to deny there are dangerous people who threaten our allies and potentially us, then that's your choice.

[suziedemocrat]

30. "Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table."

Scary - K&R.

[windbreeze]

50. To me....that statement

is one I don't really want to hear any Democratic candidate make....it sounds too much like *...I do want to hear...war is NOT an option...
wb

[mzmolly]

73. And, Clark and many others have said essentially the same thing.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/1/115124/5806

[dogman]

79. From your link.

Snip>You’ll notice that he doesn’t take the military option off the table but he deals with it a heck of a lot differently than some others do. He always takes the opportunity to try to get the rhetoric toned down (often when facing belligerent and fear-mongering Fox hosts), he takes the time to consider what an attack on Iran would really mean should it happen, and he’s not afraid to say that the Iranian threat may not be as scary as some are trying to make it out and that we may have to consider living with a nuclear Iran. He reminds us that Iran is a great nation with a tremendous heritage and that we share some responsibility for the power that Ahmedinejad now has...And he believes that we, the ‘little people’, so to speak, can make a difference if only we care enough to make a fuss before it's too late.<snip

The point is how it is said, secondly, who it is said to. It seems Edwards is reformulating and refining his message to match his perception of his audience.

[mzmolly]

116. Yes he does. He's a five star general, he doesn't have to "talk tough" he's

proven himself in this regard. Edwards may be tailoring his message, but in all honesty I think he's talking simply and directly because he needs to bolster his national security credentials? As a person who "studies" politics, albeit informally, I understand the "sales" aspect of the job. And, each candidate will have a different idea to sell based upon their perceived weakness.

[TwilightZone]

162. Four-star, actually.

There hasn't been a five-star since Omar Bradley.

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/faq/FAQ-5star.htm

[citizen snips]

109. and who is not going to say that?

[Algorem]

34. Edwards'll be on npr on tuesday

Tuesday February 6, 2007
Join the show: 1-800-433-8850 ([e-mail]) or 10:00Senator John Edwards

Guests
John Edwards, former US Senator (D-NC) and Democratic presidential candidate. Author of "Four Trials" (Simon & Schuster)

http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/07/02/06.php#13095



Schumer on Monday-

Monday February 5, 2007

Join the show: 1-800-433-8850 ([e-mail]) or contact us

10:00Sen. Chuck Schumer: "Positively American" (Rodale)

Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer of New York believes the Democratic Party has a lot of work to do to regain its past identity as the party of the middle class. He joins Diane to talk about the path he believes Democrats must take, plus his views on the war in Iraq, global warming, health care, and other top issues.

Guests
Senator Chuck Schumer, senior U.S. Senator from New York and chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee

[The Count]

36. Schumer - another idiot! Told Charlie Rose Feingold wants to take money from

the troops! That ought to be a good show!:sarcasm:

[benny05]

41. Edwards is on MTP tomorrow n/t

[leftwingnut]

39. I knew there was a reason I wasn't backing Edwards...

what a tool.

[PATRICK]

43. We are at war: The universally missing point

That only America is successfully evading is that by all the past signs and actions and lies of this unilateral WH we ARE at war with Iran. The WH knows the effect of what it is doing and so does everyone else outside the MSM Curtain, and all too many within who mince their words and accept traditional distractions.

What needs to be said is much plainer than criticisms of Bush's "methods" and outcomes. We must stand down from imminent and clear present de facto declarations of war. Halt the carriers. Soothe the Israelis. Stand up for diplomacy. All those ingredients are in Edwards' efforts but nothing has been mixed, nothing made from it. This is true more or less of most others, even the anti-war effort fundamentally distracted by Iraq and the surge.

Diplomacy is played out with global crayons large and clear. American moves similar to the pre-Iraq incursion are a clear signal of intent to war. Married to the utter disregard for diplomacy or the UN or even vigorous US propaganda to its own disaffected people it cannot be interpreted any other way. When offered the chance to get what we SAID we wanted from Iraq Bush attacked, alone, anyway. he lied through his teeth then and he makes only feeble efforts to do that now.

Bush is at war with Iran and everyone knows it who cares to get the words out front and center. The imminent WMD's and threat to world peace- and national interests- is the Chimperor in Chief and his Puppet Master.

Edwards is finding out what dancing vigorously and with good intentions around this is getting him and everyone. The front row to an avoidable disaster. No one else has brought this debate up indirectly and most of the MSM is swallowing up Edwards' words as they do Clark's, spotlighting those "dangerous Iranians" and ignoring the implications of the rogue WH NOW engaged in an act of war.

Challenge it. Stop the rogue executive. We are at war, but the killing hasn't started yet. It can be rolled back and brought back to the base Bush ruined and skipped in his deliberate attempt to knock down Iran at any cost. In fact the motives of a liar are nothing to go by when actions have given the most clear indications possible.

[DaveinMD]

46. this just isn't true

and its more baseless attacks against Edwards by you. How about this. Write posts in support of your candidate. This is getting old and fast.

[FrenchieCat]

52. Then why is Edwards' website devoid of information on

any of his 4 meetings since march of '06 with AIPAC et al? :shrug:

I couldn't find any speeches, news stories, videos, audio, transcripts, etc... about these AIPAC and Herzliya Conference meetings at John Edwards website!

Well I did find 1 items....

Senator Edwards Speaks at AIPAC's Annual Policy Conference
Senator Edwards speaks at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's Annual Policy Conference in Washington, D.C. on March 6, 2006.
Watch (Real Video)

but when you hit play.....the response is "requested file not found"
http://johnedwards.com/media/video/aipac20060306/

And there's nothing on his website at all about the meeting that he attended a day or so ago....
nor about the Herzliya Conference of a week ago which is reported about here:
http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/world/?content_id=5400l

Nothing to read, nothing to hear, and nothing to play. :shrug:

but the DNC video at Edwards' website is up and running just fine!

So I guess that watching him actually "doing" foreign policy with groups other than Democratic activists is not our business.....but everything else is. :shrug:
------------------------------

If one can't find anything on Edwards' website that allows us to hear or to see or to read what he actually said when he was addressing both the AIPAC and the Herzliya Conference those 4 times since March of 2006, then it can only lead one to better understand that he's working the various angle without being honest about his views...being two faced sort of speak, which goes to the heart of his "authenticity"....which many of us have doubted for quite some time.....and others are starting to see better.

his "speeches" on his website:

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/

NO SPEECHES to the Herzliya Conferences are being put up.

so I looked on the web via google and I find his week old speech elsewhere!
http://www.herzliyaconference.org/Eng/_Articles/Article.asp?ArticleID=1728&CategoryID=223

Then, I couldn't find any press articles about John Edwards at the conference at his website...although there are plenty of press clipping over there...just none dealing with the issue of Iran.....

Like these:
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/

Edwards Website in reference to his cozy meetings and exchanges with AIPAC et al? Not photos, not video, no audio, no transcript, no articles, nada, zero, zilch!


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

[DaveinMD]

56. because

its not up the campaign to put every speech he makes on the site. I'm sure you can find what he said at the AIPAC site.

This entire line of questioning was refuted last week. But some people here just keep insisting on peddling false information.

[Texas_Kat]

130. Clark, with his tiny staff, manages

How is it that Edwards (with his much larger and way more well-paid staff) managed to miss posting transcripts of these speeches/meetings?

It really DOES smack of 'maybe no one will notice'.

[Skwmom]

63. Well when your trying to repackage yourself from being the IWR Co-Sponsor who

cheer-leaded so loudly for the war that your rhetoric was included on the Whitehouse website, to the anti-war (I'm sorry, accepting responsibility, now reward me with the presidency) candidate I'd say having those transcripts on his website wouldn't fit with his latest PR image.

[mzmolly]

72. The post above is not about the IRAQ war, it's a desperate attempt to say

Edwards is pro-IRANIAN war, which has not been demonstrated. And for the record, if Clark were running, I'd support him over Edwards.

[dogman]

54. Why is information an attack?

Edwards is one of the few declared candidates. As such he is subject to scrutiny. Should we just attain knowledge of him through his PR machine? I want to know if a candidate is going to give us a knowledgeable approach to a subject. I think Edwards supporters should actually be thankful that these issues are being raised now. As we have seen, he is already adjusting his framing to the criticism, as can be seen in the Ezra Klein piece. He may actually morph into a real "peace" candidate before our eyes. There are plenty of positive posts about candidates, both announced and hoped for. I am not in favor of smears or lies about any Democratic candidate and even minor criticisms are not necessary. Items as serious as war and peace are certainly fair to explore, however. He does have a record and can only distance himself from it to a reasonable degree. If this is already gotten old fast, remember, he is the one who felt it necessary to get out ahead of the pack with an early announcement.

[DaveinMD]

55. its a false attack

Edwards has said engaging Iran is the best solution to the nuclear issue. This includes economic assistance as part of an agreement and the ability to use nuclear power for energy.

He wasn't the first to announce, so that was a canard. This entire thread is a complete distortion. Karl Rove and swiftboaters would be proud.

[mzmolly]

75. Agreed Dave.

I am not an Edwards supporter, but "Clarkies" must seem him as a threat the way they are behaving toward him?

[DaveinMD]

77. Its a shame

I was Clarkie 4 years ago. I don't think he'd approve.

[mzmolly]

117. I don't think he would either. I think those who support him should emulate his "class."

:hi:

[Clark2008]

123. Then how in the hell can you support Edwards?

HOW?

How can you look at what he says, compared to what Clark says about the same subject and end up supporting Edwards this time around? I don't get it, myself.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if Edwards is the nominee, my vote is going elsewhere and I will, sadly, leave this board so as not to violate DU rules. But I'm NOT voting for a foreign policy baby just because he has a "D" after his name - we've had entirely too much of that for six years.

[Skwmom]

135. Republicans voting for Bush because he had a R after his name

is what gave us two terms of Bush. I for one am not getting on that merry-go-round.

[DaveinMD]

140. that's your choice

and I care about more than foreign policy. I can about economi inequity. I care about labor getting a fair shake. I care about universal health care. I care about protecting our civil rights--including reproductive freedom.

Foreign policy is important. I trust Edwards as much as I trust any of the other top candidates in this race. If Clark was serious this time, he would have gotten in sooner.

There are huge differences between Edwards and whoever the Republicans nominate. I want our country back and I think Edwards will take it back.

[mzmolly]

149. Has Clark announced?

A "foreign policy baby?" :eyes: Uhm, read the constitution huh? It does not require a 5 star general run for President.

[Clark2008]

122. No - we don't see him as a threat to our candidate - we see

him as a threat to our country because he's so damned fake.

He doesn't know the first thing about the Middle East, diplomacy, foreign relations and national security and he scares me with how often he changes his mind to suit his audience.

Clarkies, by and large, don't like Edwards, not because of any perceived threat against Clark, who hasn't declared, but because we look at the difference of knowledge between the two and find Edwards far, far lacking.

[mzmolly]

Bullcrap. Didn't you vote for the Kerry/Edwards ticket in 2004?

You don't find Edwards lacking you find him formidable. Kucinich, for example, is "lacking" and you all leave him alone. It doesn't take a rocket scientist.

[Skwmom]

170. What's scary is that after 8 years of Bush we could end

up with someone like Edwards sitting in the Whitehouse. Since Kucinich doesn't talk out of both sides of his mouth, why wouldn't people leave him alone?

[mzmolly]

199. Someone like "Edwards" is scary? If he was so "scary" why did you vote for him on the VP

ticket in 04. You people really are afraid aren't you? You're afraid that Edwards is going to win and Clark will be a distant memory. Speaking of Kucinich, isn't your mass concern about Edwards "he doesn't have foreign policy experience." Again I ask, why Kucinich's lack of experience in this regard doesn't warrant your collective panic?

[FrenchieCat]

183. Nobody votes for fucking VP.....isn't that what Edwards supporters keep

reminding folks who ask why promote someone who didn't help last time?

That's why I voted for the Kerry/Edwards ticket. I was voting for Kerry, not Edwards.

[mzmolly]

201. VP is a consideration for rational people.

However, in your defense - the word "rational" doesn't apply in your case.

[jen4clark]

177. I can't speak for all Clarkies

so I will speak for myself. I do see Edwards as a threat. I'm scared silly that this man, with such limited foreign policy expertise will be our next president. I really don't want another president whos decisions on matters of this magnitude will be guided by advisors.

[mzmolly]

202. Clinton had limited FP experience, so did just about every President we've ever had.

Since when do Democratic candidates have to be FOUR star generals? :eyes: It could be argued that domestic policy experience is at issue. Also, fighting wars is not desirable foreign policy experience - it's war experience.

Spare me your faux concern about Edwards. Kucinich doesn't have FP experience, you are not fretting over him. The reasons are clear.

[dogman]

81. Canard?

You are the one misquoting here. "few declared" and "early" are not "first". Would Karl be proud of that spin? I acknowledged Edwards has begun to change his tune about Iran. Maybe our posts have forced him to educate himself on the subject. He has gone from his speech to the friends of the neo-cons to almost direct quotes of what Clark has been saying for years. To the point of mentioning "carrots and sticks". Maybe after Biden announced and took him to the woodshed for his ignorance of foreign policy he felt the need reformulate and refine his position. Is Biden working for Rove also? Would you smear Biden with that statement?

[DaveinMD]

82. I'd smear Biden

by saying he should learn how speak properly. His burst of remarks the other day did no help to him. Its a sign of weakness that he felt the need to attack the top three contenders at this point of the campaign.

[dogman]

87. So smearing some Democrats is OK?

By the simple trick of leaving out a comma from the transcript his whole message was converted to a smear. Since when is truth a sign of weakness. I disagree with Biden's plan also, but that is not a smear, that's an opinion. You still have not shown where I wrote "first". Tell me what Edwards' plan for Iraq is. Tell me what it is based on if you could.

[DaveinMD]

93. Edwards plan

is to withdraw troops from Iraq and redeploy existing troops from Bagdad and then to negotiate a political settlement. Its a similar plan to what most other Democrats are saying. Since I am not part of the Edwards campaign or an advisor, I can't tell you who devised his plan or what elements it is based on. But you knew that. This smearing of a good Democrat is just silly.

[dogman]

97. So tell me, who are the "good" Democrats?

That way I will know who can be held accountable for their statements and who gets a pass. Where did Edwards come up with the number of troops to pull out? Does that put the remaining troops at greater risk? How do you move troops when you have cut the funding as he has suggested? How is discussing his statements in a discussion forum a smear? Edwards is a very intelligent man. He is also an actor. As a trial lawyer he assesses his jury panel and paints a picture with words and mannerisms that they will be able to visualize. He knows the power of words, he doesn't just misspeak. Myself, I would not support a person that didn't make clear to me the source of his ideas. I would not support a plan that I did not understand.

[venable]

115. You 'wouldn't support a person who didn't make clear the source of his ideas'?

what in the name of god does where they come from matter?

that is unbelievable. please just get off the hating, and finding new ways to hate.

you don't like his ideas, then he says things that you do like, but you can't support him because you don't know where he got that idea?

are you serious?

[dogman]

151. Of course, as I've said I don't need a windsock.

I want a leader, not a follower. We've seen w follow Dick and the neo-cons. I do not hate Edwards, I even considered supporting him in 2000 when he first began to run for President. Then I studied and found that I was not interested in a fabricated candidacy. As has been asked before, what has he done to qualify him for the Presidency?

[Clarkie1]

138. Words are cheap.

Sure, Edwards is saying all the right things now. That's hardly surprising.

The reason this is not a false attack is because the first statements Edwards made about Iran revealed his unedited view of the situation.

Of course, Edwards does not want to go to war. However, the message I get from his statements is that he believes we will probably have to, in the end. The message I get from Clark is that he has the ability and know how to probably prevent us from ever having to excercise such an option.

[DaveinMD]

142. I don't trust

anything you say about Edwards. You have a visceral hatred of the man that is hardly based in reality.

[Clarkie1]

146. That's absolutely not true. I don't hate Edwards, but you don't need to trust what I say.

All I ask you to do is examine what Edwards says and think about the points I'm raising. I don't expect you to necessarily come to the same conclusion.

What I hate is the thought of a leader of the free world in the oval office who isn't up to the job in 2008-2012...and that's the truth, whether you trust what I say or not.

[DaveinMD]

148. I apologize

I was confusing you with someone else. I am truly sorry.

[Texas_Kat]

158. I'm AFRAID of Edwards

because he has only a limited understanding of global issues dealing with war and peace.

[DaveinMD]

160. with all due respect

that's silly. President Clinton was very successful at foreign policy and had never dealt with it prior to being President. Edwards at least has some international experience from his time in the Senate.

[Texas_Kat]

165. Actually Clinton wasn't that successful

even though he had the BEST advisors possible

Rwanda
Bosnia
Somalia

(my short list doesn't include failures in the ME)

[DaveinMD]

175. He did a great job in Bosnia

he stopped ethnic genocide there. Somalia was a leftover disaster from the previous administration. His actions in regards to Northern Ireland halted years of violence. Lots of work to do there, but the first steps towards peace were finally taken. And he was well on the way to peace in the middle east, but the current administration never even attempted to bring the parties back to the table until it was too late.

[FrenchieCat]

184. You're confusing Bosnia with Kosovo.....

200,000 deaths in Bosnia before the Dayton Accords.

7,000 dead in Kosovo before the Intervention.

But what do you care? :shrug:

[DaveinMD]

195. what does that mean

what do I care.

[Texas_Kat]

188. I said Bosnia and I meant Bosnia.

Northern Ireland? I'll agree with you there, but as important as Northern Ireland was, 100,000's of thousands of people weren't dying.

AND it took him over 3 years to accomplish it.

You said he was successful. I said 'not so successful' in foreign affairs.

Northern Ireland was never going to erupt into a regional war. Iraq is likely to.

When Bush bombs Iran, and the region goes up in flames, the Democrats will have to have a skilled.... I mean SKILLED ... leader in international diplomacy.

[Skwmom]

67. What is getting old fast is the b.s. spin constantly put out by

Edward's PR people. They are the geniuses trying to repackage Edwards as the anti-war candidate. Just because it is spin coming from a Democratic candidate (and not Bush) doesn't make it any more palatable or acceptable.

[mzmolly]

74. Edwards vote is on the record, and I don't think anyone thinks of him as an anti-war

candidate.

[DaveinMD]

78. untrue

Edwards is positioned as the most progressive candidate overall with a real chance of winning. He's the only candidate to address poverty in any real way. The rest of the field just talks about the middle class. He's the only candidate that has said universal health care is more important than the budget deficit. And yes, he has apologized for his vote on the war and said resolutions aren't enough.

[Skwmom]

150. I wonder if Edwards has focused on poverty while Hillary

goes for the middle class,(because based on Clinton's record going for the poor would probably be difficult). Then a Clinton/Edwards ticket can hope to garner both the middle class and poor.

The only candidate to address poverty in a meaningful way? He gets up there and mouth platitudes. Yeah I know, he's given out scholarships, went to New Orleans, and did marches to raise the minimum wage all AFTER he started to run for president.

About that budget deficit. Pardon me for not applauding but maybe John should listen to the Comptroller General of the United States - this country is going bankrupt - so we'd darn well better do something about the budget deficit and the national debt. Nothing like ignoring a problem.

Facing Facts about America's True Financial Condition and Fiscal Outlook - http://www.gao.gov/cghome/2004/nabe3252004.pdf

[DaveinMD]

159. he talked about poverty in his last campaign as well

I think a child not having health care is more important than the deficit.

[Texas_Kat]

129. Serious discussion of the issue and why JE is wrong

Clark understands the consequences of ANY strike against Iran. and look to Friedman (or anyone else) to tell him what his opinion is.

Fox news Interview 2/5/06

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well that's the problem with the military option, Eric. 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.

Sorry, no direct link.

[DaveinMD]

141. and Edwards is not advocating an attack

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=19423

[Texas_Kat]

157. I read that so does that make you feel better?

It doesn't make me "feel" better -- cos frankly words are a dime a dozen. His actions (and his ongoing and enthusiasic association with AIPAC) are very very troubing.

They 'sponsored' his trip to Israel last summer. He said essentially the same thing during the summer trip in the recent video conference.

I'll put it in terms a trial lawyer would appreciate:

"Were you lying then, or are you lying now?"

[DaveinMD]

161. not a trial lawyer

and there were no lies at all. Attacking Edwards because he's a trial lawyer is attacking him for defending average people against huge corporations who harmed them. Secondly, he's pro-Israel. So is every Democrat running for President. Thirdly, nothing he said then is different. It has been misconstrued or taken out of context by those with an agenda. I will stand by for swift boating, whether it happens in the primary or the general election.

[Texas_Kat]

164. It's all about the money.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/02/enforced-orthodoxies-and-iran.html

Enforced orthodoxies and Iran

.... snip

So, according to The New York Sun (and the sources it cites): (1) financial support from groups like AIPAC is indispensable for presidential candidates; (2) the New York Jewish community of "influential" donors is a key part of the "ATM for American politicians"; (3) the issue which they care about most is Iran; and (4) they want a hawkish, hard-line position taken against Iran. And the presidential candidates -- such as Clinton and Edwards -- are embracing AIPAC's anti-Iran position in order to curry favor with that group.

If any public figure made those same points, they would be excoriated, accused of all sorts of heinous crimes, and forced into repentance rituals (ask Wes Clark). But this is what the New York Sun reported on Thursday.

As expected, Sen. Clinton matched Edwards' hard-line anti-Iran rhetoric by including all sorts of hawkish threats in her AIPAC speech:


snip...

[Forrest Greene]

53. Nice Big House, Though

Gotta be smart to earn the money to build a house like that. Better vote for him. How'd that jingle go again?

[mzmolly]

59. Is there a quote which shows Edwards wants war with Iran? Seems like spin

so far?

"For 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."

Seems like he's looking to diplomacy, international involvement and possible sanctions to me?

He does say all options should remain on the table, but I would imagine that Clark as a former general would say something similar?

[Skwmom]

66. Spin? This is Edwards in his own words!

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 (WAR). This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran (the American people are NOT reticent about diplomacy or sanctions so what does that leave……. WAR). . 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 ...

I think the spin is his pr team working overtime to reconcile this with Edwards "anti-war" candidate image.

[mzmolly]

68. Actually they are not his words, you inserted a bunch of your own.

I'll await the actual quote that Edwards is pro-Iran war, thanks. Also, I don't think of most of our candidates as "anti-war" candidates, and certainly not a 5 star general.

[Skwmom]

69. Well here it is without my inserts (which I clearly separated from

Edwards 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 ...

So are you waiting for Edwards to say "I am pro-Iran war." Those EXACT words have to be used before you consider Edwards pro war. WOW.

Amazing that it's generally the chicken-hawks that are pro-war and the military that only want to use it as a last resort. But as they say talk is cheap (and when it's not you or your kids on the front line it's easy to be a war hawk).

Clark wanted to go in and stop the Rwanda genocide - what a bad, bad, bad man. To think that he would want to use military force to stop genocide - the horrors of it.

[mzmolly]

70. Without your inserts, and taken in the context of his entire statment

it means we have to "deal" with Iran, and that the best way to do that is with a President we can trust. Sorry, I don't see the pro-Iran war stance SOME Clark supporters are itching to promote.

Here's another quote by Edwards in the article above, perhaps you missed it the first time I posted it. Tell me what you think he means by "direct engagement with Iranians."

"For 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."

And, who the hell said Clark was a bad man? I like Clark, but some of his supporters here nauseate the piss out of me.

[Skwmom]

145. So what does he plan to educate the American people on

so they will come along? What?????? You don't need to educate the American people on diplomacy OR sanctions so what is left on the table?

[mzmolly]

147. Does the word "context" mean anything?

He basically said once Americans feel they are in the hands of leaders they can trust, we will be open to "discussion" with Iran. That's my take, you go ahead and spin all you like. John Edwards has lost one son, I highly doubt he takes the concept of war lightly.

[Skwmom]

156. Do you honestly believe what you are writing?

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."

How in the heck do you turn that into

He basically said once Americans feel they are in the hands of leaders they can trust, we will be open to "discussion" with Iran.

[mzmolly]

200. Yes, I do. YOU?!

Again "context." You keep leaving out the part where Edwards mentions dialog. How transparent of you.

[atre]

134. Illogical conclusion

What is going on in Iraq may be war, but it doesn't logically connect that he is referring to war with Iran. It's entirely possible that he's referring merely to engagement - be that diplomatic or otherwise - with Iran.

Please check the hate at the door.

[Skwmom]

174. So he would need to "educate" the American public so that they

would agree to diplomatic engagement. Oh that is really logical.

[mzmolly]

205. He would need to educate the public so that we are open to ANYTHING at this point,

yes.

[RegimeChange2008]

64. Nobody can or will "educate" me into accepting this insane, genocidal, imperialist, fascist

foreign policy. And a big "FUCK YOU" to anyone who thinks they can. We've had enough of this shit, Mr. Edwards. Regime Change isn't about trading one warmongering dictator for another.

[Luckyduck]

76. This is what I have been talking about!

Enough of the bullshit!

Kucinich is Right on Iran: Hillary, Edwards, and Obama are following Bush's propaganda
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x117584

Here is a great video of Kucinich's response to Bush's State of the Union on Washington Journal talking about Iran
http://youtube.com/watch?v=l79UxLFcauA

[Radical Activist]

85. It can only be interpreted one way if you have an axe to grind.

Its fine that you don't support Edwards but don't play Limbaugh style games and put words in his mouth. Act better than the Republicans, OK?

[FrenchieCat]

88. Personally, I just resent someone telling a cadre of NeoCons

located in another country, that I, as an American, can be educated to seeing things in a particular way in reference to "going FOR Iran"....whatever that is supposed to mean to you.

[dogman]

89. So how do you interpret "going for Iran"?

Isn't accusing the poster of "Limbaugh style games" as "Republican" as it gets?

[Radical Activist]

91. It can mean many things...

Diplomacy, sanctions, blockades.
These kind of games are why candidates have to be so gaurded about what they say. Then people complain that candidates aren't open and frank enough about how they feel. This type of post lowers the quality of debate.

[dogman]

92. Put it in context.

This post is what debate should be about. I, as a Clark supporter, am not concerned about what Edwards said. I am concerned as an American citizen who has seen the damage chickenhawks can do. Edwards is playing the games here. Reformulating and refining his message to the audience, to be all things to all people. Why do pro-War groups get a different message than anti-War groups. That lowers the quality of debate because it's hard to debate an inconsistent stance.

[Radical Activist]

111. In context its clear

that he isn't advocating for war against Iran and that the original post is a flimsy attack from someone backing another candidate.

[Texas_Kat]

168. Sanctions, blockades, diplomacy

Which of those do Americans need to be educated about. Even my right-wing mother in-law understands and agrees with those concepts.

Edwards is courting the right-wing lobby for campaign cash

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

He talks 'tough' 'cos otherwise they won't give him any money.

[venable]

98. THANK YOU, Radical Activist

my sentiments exactly.

one more time: EDWARDS DOES NOT WANT TO GO TO WAR WITH IRAN. QUIT SAYING HE DOES.

See what he says on Russert tomorrow. I believe he will address this, among many other things. He has an hour on the show, I think, and should cover quite a lot.

[Clarkie1]

180. That's a straw man you are setting up. Nobody is saying Edwards wants to go to war. nt

[venable]

198. many here are wrongly saying he wants to go to war

look through any thread of the last week about Edwards - a large contingent are saying he's chomping at the bit to attack Iran. they are lies.

[dogman]

203. Not exactly.

Many are saying his rhetoric puts war on the front of the table. Lately he has adjusted according to the audience and has pulled back somewhat. In his Ezra Klein interview he has even reverted to what Clark has been saying for years. Even to the point of adopting Clark's language, such as "carrots and sticks". Today however he has already reverted to his old self by rephrasing this in his MTP appearance. He said "sticks and carrots" today. As I have noted many times it is a question of how the table is set. It is interesting that he has already moved "sticks" to the front.

[citizen snips]

107. I agree

edwards never said he wanted to go to war with Iran and to say he does is taking his comments out of context

[Clarkie1]

139. I disagree.

In my opinion, the statement clearly shows that he believes war with Iran is the most probable outcome of the developing crises.

Of course, Edwards does not want war. Of course he is saying all the right things now, furiously editing his initial, shoot from the hip remarks to AiPac.

If you believe something is inevitable or even likely, then it's likely to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. The message I get from Edwards is that he believes, deep down, that war with Iran probably will come no matter what we do to try to prevent it. The message I get from Clark is that he believes he has the skills, experience, and understanding of the dynamics of international relations to very probably prevent it.

[Sparkly]

90. I really find him unclear.

From the speech: "Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons."

From the interview:

Question: Can we live with a nuclear Iran?

"I’m not ready to cross that bridge yet. I think that we have lots of opportunities that we’ve … We’re not negotiating with them directly, what I just proposed has not been done. We’re not being smart about how we engage with them. But I’m not ready to cross that bridge yet."

What's "that bridge?" Allowing them to have nuclear power, or disallowing it, or making a decision?
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=19423

I find him non-committal at best, and touting being "good and decent" (or having "good judgment," as he's said before) to make up for lack of foreign policy experience. This sounds almost Rumsfeldian to me:

One of the things, one of the realities, I think, of the responsibilities of the president, are that, is that, the criteria for ever using American force is pretty clear. You know when there’s an imminent threat to America, or our allies, when we have a treaty obligation, or when there’s some huge humanitarian crisis. But those are very broad, obviously, and so the kind of human being you have in the White House is enormously important -- I would argue more important than trying to have somebody predict, off in the future, what you’ll do when confronted with it, because I think its unknowable. I think what’s more important is to know that you have a good and decent human being who, who really wants to do the right thing and understands what the consequences are.

[dogman]

99. Who's the jury?

His message will be crafted accordingly.

[vote 4 democracy]

101. . . . and trust their pResident? Puh leeeze!!!!

[FrenchieCat]

103. And Edwards should know better, as he chose to trust pResident Bush on Iraq!

Here is Edwards saying specifically just that in discussing further is "reward me now that I'm sorry" Mea Culpa....

stating that he didn't vote against Iraq due to lack of intelligence....

John Edwards, meanwhile, wants to set the record straight - he was not fooled by the administration into supporting the war. And, he adds, neither was any other senator.
SNIP
Edwards refused to single out anyone, but Goldberg wrote that he appeared to be referring to John Kerry, who chose Edwards as his 2004 presidential running mate. Like Nelson, Kerry claims he was misled and "given evidence that was not true."

"I was on the intelligence committee," Edwards went on, "so I got direct information from the intelligence community. And then I had a series of meetings with former Clinton administration people. And they were all saying the same thing. Everything I was hearing in the intelligence committee was the same thing I was hearing from these guys. And there was nary a dissenting voice."

For Edwards, the question at the time was not whether the information he was getting was accurate but whether to trust George Bush. "I decided to do it, and I was wrong."

He should have listened to Bob Graham.

http://www.ocala.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070117/OPINION/201170311/1030/OPINION01

[citizen snips]

108. another polarizing hit piece

[anitar1]

112. He is definately crossed off my list. Not that I can

work up much interest for any of the candidates.I have followed the speeches Edwards makes, but am not impressed.zero in my book.

[Mrspeeker]

113. KUCINICH

well I don't know much about Edwards and there is a reason for that.
I do know about a man that has a different vision for America.
Department of Peace!
All the others start falling off my xmas presidential list, then the one guys name comes up that I can't seem to find anything wrong with...KUCINICH!!!!!

[Clark2008]

118. Edwards wants to educate someone about the Middle East?

:rofl:

That's rich since he wouldn't even bother to meet with his North Carolinian constituents from the Middle East after 9/11. How is he supposed to educate anyone when he won't educate himself?

(No link: I know this from personal knowledge).

[citizen snips]

119. you are right

it is not a job of a US senator to educate the public about the middle east that is the schools job.

[Clark2008]

124. But he clearly wasn't educating himself much either.

And, judging from his advocacy of the war in Iraq (and now in Iran), his lack of education showed.

[JNelson6563]

120. I don't see this as a push for war

I feel every candidate should claim "all options are on the table" so as not to limit themselves in the future. Claims to never go to war with Iran no matter what can only lead to trouble.

I'd be interested to know in greater depth what Edwards thinks should be done about Iran. The quote you give only gives part of the story.

Julie

[FrenchieCat]

128. Well, we will know soon enough, as Edwards is making the

media rounds again.

He will clean it up....and considering that the prospect article in where he regurgetates Clark's words for us after the fact of the many on the net denouncing his words for the NeoCons....Edwards' PR department will "handle" this fine in a long run. In the end, it will only prove that Edwards willing to say whatever it takes and to whomever.....even if it as the same time.

Understandably that is a quality you obviously admire.

As I know that you are a Dean supporter, I'm at a loss that honesty of one man can be replaced with the panderings of another without losing a breath. sad.

[JNelson6563]

192. When it comes to the primaries

I'm actually not a supporter of anyone, certainly not Dean who I want to remain where he is as long as he can be convinced to do so.

I'm holding out for President Gore. If he doesn't enter the race I will have to decide on who to support in the existing field.

As to qualities I admire, when it comes to politics I think it would be good if we had a candidate who can connect with voters and articulate their message clearly (preferrably in less than a million words).

One could have the potential to be the greatest president ever. If one is unable to get elected than those abilities as potential president are completely useless.

Julie

[porkrind]

131. Wow, so much for Edwards. Next?

Seems like Kucinich is the only one talking sense.

[atre]

136. Try reading the article yourself

nm

[atre]

133. Where the hell does this article say that Edwards wants war?

All it seems to say is that all options - including war - must be kept on the table to ensure that Iran's nuclear ambitions are checked. That doesn't say that war is the first option; it is entirely consistent with all of his other statements (and the statements of other candidates) that the first choice is diplomacy.

Unless you can find any other legitimate candidate who says "I wouldn't go to war with Iran under any circumstances" (and Clark never says this), then all this is much ado about nothing. And if a candidate should say such a thing, you should be wary of supporting such a Neville Chamberlain.

Do any of you rubes who believe this Clarkie-fueled nonsense bother to read the article? Hint for future reference: if you see "Clark" in the username or signature line and the subject is Edwards - find a clothespin and plug your nose, because all you're gonna get is B.S.

[Clarkie1]

144. Edwards does not want war, but he seems to believe it is the most likely outcome

which can quite easily become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

See my post #138 above.

[Skwmom]

154. Much ado about nothing?

These statements are not saying all options are on the table.

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."

[The Count]

167. Did you not read his speech or just play games with us? HIS WORDS:

"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."

[Skwmom]

172. A speech is written by someone else. This is Edwards in his own words,

answering a question - and being authentic I might add because isn't that what Edwards himself has told us - that he is authentic and just says what he believes -

"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."

[atre]

221. Yeah - completely ignore the synthesis between the two statements

Outstanding cognitive dissonance. Using plain, unadulterated logic, you can interpret the statement in light of the speech and make them consistent - you refuse to do it!

[dogman]

155. Yeah Rubes, look at the dazzling charm.

Ignore the untidy facts. Nothing is off the table, but how the table is set is indicative of thought and purpose. Ther is one table set for the neo-cons and now we see a new setting for Democrats. B.S. is the cornerstone of Edwards' foreign policy. It's fertilizer to make the money tree grow.

[Adelante]

169. "Clarkie-fueled nonsense"

You need to get off DU and take a tour around to see what liberal and left bloggers are saying.

Here are a couple of links to start you off:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_digbysblog_archive.html#117046464485756663

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010678.php

http://leftword.blogdig.net/archives/articles/February2007/03/Hillary_and_Edwards_Harmonize_on_Purported_Iran__Threats_.html


Instead of trying to cut off discussion by accusing Clark supporters of inventing this controversy, recognize that (once again) John Edwards fucked his own self with the snake oil. The man is running for President of the United States, for Christ's sake. We're SUPPOSED to question and discuss.

"Rubes," indeed. Who fell for the "Son of a Mill Worker" baloney? The people in this thread... or you?

[Skwmom]

173. It's always been my experience when they attack you personally they

don't have a leg to stand on.

[atre]

220. really?

How's life in your wheelchair, then?

BTW, look up the definition of "personal." Calling out Clarkies as a group for persistent dishonesty is not "personal"- by definition, it cannot be.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

171. Nothing needs to be "done" about Iran

They've been liberalizing gradually, and if the U.S. government stops poking at them, they'll settle down.

On this issue, John Edwards either is swallowing the military-industrial complex's Kool-Aid or he mistakenly thinks that he needs to get his Seriousness Badge from the armchair warriors in the foreign policy think tanks.

[Clarkie1]

179. I agree. nt

[Imagevision]

178. Hillary, vote for me I'll end the Iraq war, Vote for me I'll start a new one with Iran...

[Faryn Balyncd]

182. STANDING AGAINST the Bush propaganda & Iran hysteria - - Kucinich - - Gore - - Clark - - Webb - -

[slipslidingaway]

185. His words troubled me as well and glad to see this is receiving

more attention.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=42383

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=53732&mesg_id=60474

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x60840


The question needs to be read along with the answer.


snip>>

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?


And then in the new interview he 'proposes' that we will control the fuel/cycle making them dependent on us. We'll control???


"The carrots are, we’ll make nuclear fuel available to you, we’ll control the cycle, but you can use it for any civilian purpose.

[alittlelark]

186. I'm hoping he didn't make a Faustian deal to become the nominee

.....but I can't think of any other logical explanation.

[k_jerome]

189. you attack and question John Edwards....

yet support a man that oversaw the cluster bombing of civilians. ironic.

[FrenchieCat]

190. you attack and question a Duer.....

yet you say that you support a woman who's husband enabled others to be command for the cluster bombing of civilians? Even more Ironic.

However, 500 civilian death while possibly saving a million or two was the price paid. Maybe too high a price, maybe not.

Barbara Boxer doesn't think so.

Here she is talking during the Condi Rice SOS Hearings:
"My last point has to do with Milosevic. You said you can't compare the two dictators. You know, you're right; no two tyrants are alike. But the fact is Milosevic started wars that killed 200,000 in Bosnia, 10,000 in Kosovo and thousands in Croatia, and he was nabbed and he's out without an American dying for it. That's the facts. Now I suppose we could have gone in there and people could have killed to get him. The fact is not one person wants either of those two to see the light of day, again. And in one case we did it without Americans dying. In the other case, we did it with Americans dying. And I think if you ask the average American, you know, was Saddam worth one life, one American life, they'd say, "No, he's the bottom of the barrel." And the fact is we've lost so many lives over it. So if we do get a little testy on the point, and I admit to be so, it's because it continues day in and day out, and 25 percent of the dead are from California.
We cannot forget. We cannot forget that. Thank you. "
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00F1FFA385C0C7A8DDDA80894DD404482

And Clinton didn't support intervening in Rwanda while Wes Clark did. That 800,000 deaths just right there.


So lemme see, who do I support?
The guy who saved 1,800,000 lives and who oversaw an operation to save over 1/2 of those and 500 civilians were killed and no American casualties?

Or do one support someone who allowed 800,000 to be macheted to death?

Or do one support someone that co-sponsored the IWR, which resulted in a war that is still going on, has cost hundreds of billions, and killed and maimed hundreds of thousands...and is acting like another war is maybe OK?

[venable]

211. really tired of the double standard

endless, vitriolic ad hominem attacks on Edwards, and if someone calls it as such, they are mocked.

and also really tired of Edwards stance on IWR being attacked by those who pretend their candidate wouldn't have. You can't have it both ways. Try honesty. Support your man honestly. He's a good man, he doesn't need revision.


From Common Dreams

"On both the question of the initial authorization and the latest request for financing, General Clark said he was conflicted. He offered the case on both sides of the argument, as he appeared to struggle to stake out positions on issues that have bedeviled four members of Congress who supported the war and are now seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.

General Clark said that he would have advised members of Congress to support the authorization of war but that he thought it should have had a provision requiring President Bush to return to Congress before actually invading. Democrats sought that provision without success.

"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," General Clark said.

A moment later, he said: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position — on balance, I probably would have voted for it."

Moving to fill in the blanks of his candidacy a day after he announced for president, General Clark also said that he had been a Republican who had turned Democratic after listening to the early campaign appeals of a fellow Arkansan, Bill Clinton.

Indeed, after caustically comparing the actions of the Bush administration to what he described as the abuses of Richard M. Nixon, he said that he voted for Mr. Nixon in 1972. He also said he had voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984.

The general's remarks in a free-rolling 90-minute airborne interview suggested the extent of the adjustment he faces in becoming a presidential candidate.

"Mary, help!" he called to his press secretary, Mary Jacoby, at the front of the plane, as he faced questions about Iraq. "Come back and listen to this."

At one point, Ms. Jacoby interrupted the interview, which included four reporters who were traveling on the general's jet, to make certain that General Clark's views on the original Iraq resolution were clear.

"I want to clarify — we're moving quickly here," Ms. Jacoby said. "You said you would have voted for the resolution as leverage for a U.N.-based solution."

"Right," General Clark responded. "Exactly.""

For such a FP expert, who claims anti-war status, he seems more confused and hawkish than one might expect. Nothing wrong with that, it was an awful and polluted time. Let Clark stand on his own, real and impressive merits. He is a wonderful anti-war voice now, that's what I appreciate about him. Stop the revision.

[CarolNYC]

212. He was also a wonderful anti-war voice way back in 2002....

This from Gene Lyons:

I do think his concerns are honest. I think his criticisms of Bush are exactly what he believes. One reason that I think that is I have had an opportunity to talk to him in a sort of a semi-private way.

Going all the way back to the summer of 2002, I got a sense of how strong his feelings about Iraq were. Long before it was clear that the administration was really going to sell a war on Iraq, when it was just a kind of a Republican talking point, early in the summer of 2002, Wesley Clark was very strongly opposed to it. He thought it was definitely the wrong move. He conveyed that we'd be opening a Pandora's box that we might never get closed again. And he expressed that feeling to me, in a sort of quasi-public way. It was a Fourth of July party and a lot of journalists were there, and there were people listening to a small group of us talk. There wasn't an audience, there were just several people around. There was no criticism I could make that he didn't sort of see me and raise me in poker terms. Probably because he knew a lot more about it than I did. And his experience is vast, and his concerns were deep.

He was right, too.

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/10/int03221.html

And then there was his testimony in Congress that helped convince at the very least Teddy Kennedy and Paul Wellstone to vote against the IWR....

But, you haven't forgot my question which you promsed to answer all the way upstream there, have you?

Thanks!

[venable]

213. I agree, but I also believe he had serious conflicts

which led him to the statements I just posted above.

It's not a witch hunt. It is simple documenting. I like Wes Clark. I understand he has been a strong voice against the war for quite a while. I also feel no need to pretend he didn't say the things about the IWR that he did say.

He obviously changed his mind. Sooner than did my guy. I recognize and appreciate that. What I dislike (intensely) is the rabid attacks on Edwards vote, when Clark, at least at some points, would have voted for the IWR.
His supporters denial of this salient fact is what annoys me. They can't forgive Edwards, but they whitewash Clark.

Why are we always talking about Clark?

As for the above promises upthread - I would have thought that his cogent setting forth of what he believes on MTP would have answered it. I also believe, tell me if I'm wrong, that you said there is nothing he can say to win you back, or something like that. That sort of precluded a need to answer. Maybe I misunderstood that statement (it wouldn't be the first time I misunderstood something).

I argued that his Herzliya statements were ill-formed but were not hawkish or pandering. Just very badly stated. I think it is the totality of his remarks that we must use to discern his position.

Basically, as per MTP, his position is: We can't be attacking Iran. We must further marginalize Ahmadinejad, who is very unpopular in Iran. Attacking would make him a hero, and would send a message to the rest of the world that we have learned nothing from the fiasco in Iraq. We must talk to Iran. And Syria. We must organize the governments of Europe to negotiate and use sanctions and economic incentives to further the negotiations. Interestingly, when asked if Pres. Edwards would allow a nuclear Iran, he demurred. He was not willing to say NO. I found that courageous. He said we have a long, long way to go diplomatically before that bridge. He also said that nobody would ever, this early, take the military option off the table. He also said that there would be serious and tragic consequences to an invasion of Iraq.

I wish he had also said, which he has done before, that the Mullahs, who really run Iraq, have decreed that a nuke weapon is un-Islamic. That may be why he demurred on the future of Iranian nukes.

[CarolNYC]

214. Well, my reply's right in this thread....

but here's what I wrote:

Unfortunately, I missed MTP here as I was at Church but there is nothing he could say on there that will give me what I'm looking for.

I understand from Edwards supporters on these boards that Edwards is well aware of the reaction to his unfortunate remarks regarding Iran and that he's doing what he can to appease us. I'm not looking for spin or damage control or appeasement.

I am looking for a consistent set of remarks before that conference and the hubbub it created that show me he is profoundly and deeply opposed to war with Iran and, as I said, I need to see remarks he's made to audiences that wouldn't want to hear them and how he's not backed down when confronted with disagreement to those remarks. Otherwise, based on what I've heard from him, although I don't think he's actively looking for war with Iran, I cannot get the impression that he's profoundly and deeply opposed.

And, as I also said, even if he does have a long series of consistent remarks against attacking Iran, I still have a major problem with the very poor judgment he showed in speaking as he did to the audience at that conference. I'm not sure what would be able to help me with that.

You keep talking about the totality of his remarks....I need to see some of these remarks. For you to have this impression that he's deeply and prfoundly against war with Iran, he must have said something to that effect BEFORE the conference, no? Otherwise, how do you get that impression?

I'm looking for those remarks. Surely, considering you have Clark interviews easily at hand, you must know where to find some of these remarks of Edwards you are always referring to, no?

I may still have a problem with the god-awful judgment he showed in addressing that conference but I'd at least be able to see how profoundly and deeply he is against was with Iran, right?

Thanks again!

[venable]

215. I don't have Clark quotes readily at hand

I have, in two years, posted two quotes or mentions of Clark (both of which were sent to me by a friend who is tired of me complaining about the Clarkies treatment of Edwards). I'm not inclined to do this kind of tallying, as helpful as it obviously is to many. (Frankly, I've been spending way too much time here just typing, as I work something like 80 hours a week, have two kids, and it's college basketball season, which I waste time watching). I don't think I'm here to make arguments, really, just voice some opinions, derived from whatever experiences and predilections I have.

Anyway, the totality of his remarks are things that I've heard him say here and there, the odd speech, the talk at fundraisers, etc.

So, I'm not going to be able to provide you with what you want. Why does the MTP interview not satisfy? Seriously. It seems very candid and detailed.

My inability to provide quotes means you will believe what you believe and I will do the same.

I am desperately against US military intervention in Iran, as I was in Iraq, and I have a very strong belief that Edwards feels the same. I don't think he's perfect, not by a long shot. The most damaging attack on him, it seems to me, that STICKS, is that his Herzliya remarks were so easily interpreted as hawkish. I blame him for that. a very bad speech. Like his vote for IWR.

Sorry you're not on this team, as you seem honest.

[CarolNYC]

217. Thank you for your response....

Let me try to answer.

The MTP interview doesn't satisfy for the reason I stated. Edwards went to that conference and made a decidely hawkish speech to a very hawkish audience...a speech that I imagine he didn't expect the rest of us to hear or to notice. From an Edwards supporter on this board, I am led to understand that Edwards is fully aware of the distress amongst bloggers (and it's not just Clark supporters on DU that have expressed that distress, mind you) that those remarks have caused and that he thinks the bloggers are important. OK, he knows the bloggers are upset by the hawkish remarks, he thinks the bloggers are important. He gives an interview to Ezra Klein that is decidedly different in tone than the remarks at the conference. Basically, he emphasized the possibility of military action to the hawkish crowd and emphasized diplomacy to the "anti-war" crowd. Without any other info, all that tells me is that he's willing to say what he thinks his audience wants to hear. So, he goes on MTP, fully aware that this furor is still swirling. Based on what I know, of course he's going to try to appease those who are upset. But, as far as I can tell, that's just more pandering, more tailoring his remarks to fit what his audience wants to hear. I need something else to convince me that that is not what's going on here because all of the information I have tells me it very well may be. What does he believe? I don't know. Without anything else to go on, it seems to me that depends on what his audience wants to believe he believes. Does that make sense?

So, here's what I have.....

I have that first impression I got of Edwards, where he answered the moveon questionnaire in such a hawkish manner that he (along with Lieberman who doesn't really count) was the only one of the candidates at that time that I was able to eliminate easily. Then I have his co-sponsoring of the IWR. Then I have his basically cheerleading for the War and continuing to cheerlead for it long after I think he should have known better. I have him going back to a previous question in a debate because he thought it was so important to call Kerry out for saying that Bush exaggerated (or maybe lied) to get us into the Iraq War. "How can you exaggerate when 3,000 are dead?" he asks.

Then, years later, when the country has turned against the war, he apologizes for his vote. No political risk there or anything. Is he truly sorry? Maybe but, based on what else I've heard from him, how could I know that? Had he come to that conclusion much earlier, when to say so may have carried some political risk, then I may be more convinced.

Then I have you telling me that he's profoundly and deeply against war with Iran. Is that true? Maybe. But I've also seen you saying that Wes Clark (sorry to bring him into the conversation) was for the war before he was against it and that he has no diplomatic experience....two statements that I know, through considerable research of my own, are just plain wrong. So, you see, I need something else. Something from Edwards himself.

I did lots and lots of research about Clark before I could ever decide to commit to him. I didn't just trust what others told me. I went and found out for myself. Most other Clarkies I know did the same. It's why, when a question is asked about Clark, or a criticsm is made, Clarkies come back with a gazillion different sources. Actually, I think Kerry supporters are a lot like that too. They seem to have researched their guy well also.

I just can't trust what someone tells me they think or feel without some kind of other documentation. Sorry. And I'm willing to listen and evaluate if anyone has any documentation.

As I said before, I don't think Edwards is actively seeking war but I have seen nothing yet that gives me any confidence that he'd put so much as his little finger on the line to stop it if others were pushing it. I need something other than someone saying they know he's profoundly against it to change my opinion. That's just me.

Again, thanks. I hope you are right about Edwards because, as I said, he may very well end up being our nominee and, forgetting 2008, we really do need everyone possible to work to stop Bush's war with Iran right now, before it happens. This is really serious, no matter how much cvertain people want to dismiss it.

[venable]

218. that's all fair

and I won't try to persuade you.

Here's the only different inflection I take.

His vote was made because he thought he would be saving lives, not wasting them. He was wrong, but it wasn't made to seem macho, or satisfy a mood in the country.

His slowness in apologizing was from a sense that he could not tell the loved ones left behind that their sons and daughters had died for nothing. That's why he often said, when asked, "It's a good thing that Saddam is gone". I have heard Elizabeth Edwards say that to someone, that that is why he would not say the war was a mistake. It finally got to the point where he could no longer cover for the atrocity of the war. And so his apology was unequivocal, the most unequivoca of any thus far: "I was wrong".

His speech at Herzliya was, as I have said, disastrously phrased. Was it for that audience? Maybe, but I'd like to think not. He knew it would be reported. I think he just blew that speech.

His MTP appearance jibed with what I have heard from fundraising talks.

Further, his courage in saying that a President Edwards might or might not allow Iranian nukes shows that he is not playing to the widespread feeling that it can never be allowed. (coupled with his courage in admitting up front that he would raise taxes on the rich to pay for universal health care).


As for Clark. I was wrong to say he has no diplomatic experience, as I've read more about his role as SACEUR.

However, I am not convinced that his pre-war stance was ALWAYS against the IWR. I don't hold it against him, but I see it differently than do you.

In any case, you are now the second of Clark supporters here that, in my experience, actually engages in reasonable dialogue. Tom R is the other. It's appreciated. You're always welcome in the Edwards camp, should you change your mind.

[CarolNYC]

219. Fair enough...peace to you. n/t