Edwards Statement Calling On Senator Clinton To Stop Enabling George Bush's Path To War With Iran

[JohnLocke]

Edwards Statement Calling On Senator Clinton To Stop Enabling George Bush's Path To War With Iran
John Edwards for President
Thursday, October 25, 2007
----
Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Today, Senator John Edwards released the following statement condemning the Bush Administration’s approach towards Iran and criticizing Senator Clinton for undermining the American people’s opposition to the war:

“Today, George Bush and Dick Cheney again rattled the sabers in their march toward military action against Iran. The Bush Administration has been making plans to attack Iran for many months. At this critical moment, we need strong leadership to stand against George Bush’s dangerous ‘preventive war’ policy, which makes force the first option, not the last.

“I learned a clear lesson from the lead up to the Iraq War in 2002: if you give this president an inch, he will take a mile - and launch a war. Senator Clinton apparently learned a different lesson. Instead of blocking George Bush’s new march to war, Senator Clinton and others are enabling him once again.

“I have called for strong, capable diplomacy to deal with the challenge of Iran, and a carrots and sticks strategy aimed at results--not the Bush/Cheney path, which would escalate tensions, enable attacks, and lead to unintended consequences.

“The New Yorker recently reported that one reason the administration has not yet attacked Iran is because public opinion has turned against such a course. Senator Clinton’s actions undermine the American people’s opposition to war with Iran. Today’s advancement of the Bush strategy on Iran shows how much we need strong opposition on this issue. I learned my lesson the hard way in 2002, but it appears that others still have some learning to do.”

http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20071025-stop-enabling-bush-on-iran/

[CoffeeCat]

1. I am getting closer and closer to...

...throwing my support toward John Edwards.

He definitely scored major points with me today.

That is leadership. That is a candidate who is interested
in stopping the madness that is the neocon agenda. He
admitted that his Iraq vote was a mistake and he has explained
how he has learned from that error.

And now...he's being a leader by trying to stop movement on the
train wreck that is BushCo.

I'm very impressed. This gives me hope.

[MichDem10]

2. True leadership...

is exhibited by those who learn from and can admit their mistakes (unlike GWB).

[Bitwit1234]

3. Is Edwards turning into a swift boat creep also

I wish he would not. I really like the man. But is he so desperate to be president he would give up his soul to republican tatics.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

4. Thanks for calling out a chicken hawk.

[Ninga]

5. Edwards is a relevant voice in this debate, he is able to zero in and articulate. I respect his

perspective and world view.

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. I opposed Clinton's vote too

...but there is not much actual difference between the fundemental position taken by Edwards and Clinton toward Iran:

Edwards: “I have called for strong, capable diplomacy to deal with the challenge of Iran, and a carrots and sticks strategy aimed at results".

They have the same position. Clinton of course would claim that the K/L resolution put an essential sanctions stick in place and that the K/L language that could have been interpretted as allowing military action against Iran was removed before the vote; while she has also called for open direct negotiations with Iran during which ALL issues and points of conflicts between the U.S. and Iran would be on the table - Iran's concerns as well as ours.

The K/L amendment was a tactic, one which I strongly disagreed with because of the potential of being abused by Bush, but not a departure from the common POLICY that both Edwards and Clinton embrace. And Clinton has since been speaking out, pointedly asserting that Bush has no authority to attack Iran without specific advance approval from Congress.

How about we ask some of the many other Democratic Senators who voted for K/L to do the same? It would help reduce the potential for Bush to hide behind K/L while acting unilaterally.

[PATRICK]

15. Unfortunately

the challenge does get subtle. I was disappointed in the untimely strong talk earlier in the campaign by edwards against Iran- which also played into Bush's hands. For me it is the conviction that Hillary would not cope with Iran very well is a growing certainty and that she is getting more intricately roped into either Bush policy or total failure on a kinder tack. edwards or Obama would be a departure from Bush but not the whole ME. So how will THEY be engaged, or try to be, in this massive fiasco, this unnamed war crime setting?

Given all the statements and stances I would say it boils down to how you trust each candidate might respond or succeed or face reality or not get duped into the fiasco traps. Even Kucinich cannot envision how it all must work out with diplomatic success or grim retreat from that whole scene. Simple isolationism can. But this is about NOW, the only test available for future choices by the voter or the next president. The commitments and challenges now mean something very important and in that context this a good challenge to the Bush next step to a new horror. If Hillary lets that go on a pass what does that say about her future dealings in the region? After she lets Bush have his way with it with no effective opposition? Will anyone make much of her presidential clout or respectability later? Not likely in the ME and with poor results certainly not in America.

Dodd has set the candidate benchmark for an active Senator in standing up for the Constitution. More bencharks being added by genuine challenges to each candidate to stand up and do or say something about the unfaced crises over which they would preside. The time for sloughing off controversy to coast to a coronation never existed for today's Dems however devoutly and strategically they may have planned for one. Time to engage a real campaign. Way past time.

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. As with everything in the Middle East, it is complex

You ask:

"After she lets Bush have his way with it with no effective opposition? Will anyone make much of her presidential clout or respectability later? Not likely in the ME and with poor results certainly not in America."

First thing to note is that the game is still ongoing. If we agree that Clinton sent Bush the wrong message with that vote, perpaps it is like giveing up two runs in the fifth inning, but there is still time left in the game for stronger oppositional leadership to manifest from her. Cosponsoring the Webb Amendment is a step in that direction. In all fairness, K/L was not the functional equivelent of the IWR, the language that started out inside of K/L that would have made it closer to the functional equivelent of the IWR was removed during negotiations on the final version. I sure as hell wish some language had gotten removed from the actual IWR before IT got voted on also. This is being blown somewhat out of proportion by her Presidential opponents because, well there is a campaign going on. We both seem to agree that the leading Democrats don't differ strongly on U.S. policy toward Iran. But I agree that it was the wrong vote for Hillary to make.

But as to the Middle East, I differ with you there. The outside world does not just see Hillary Clinton running for President, they also see her husband Bill in a way returning to power through her, and Bill had a track record of being a much better honest broker than George W. Bush, and he is a known and respected player in the Middle East. That aspect would give "The Clintons" an actual advantage over other newly elected Democratic Presidents come 2009.

[PATRICK]

17. Now you mention

something I find extraordinary and don't know what quite to make of. That Bill is already an ambassador/Kissinger of sorts without portfolio that might by sheer presence, existence make life chalenging or a vital asset, likely both, for Hillary and the SOS. The Kennedys were brothers and in the cabinet together. This teaming boggles the mind by comparison. You recall that to my mind and I thank you. It certainly is too awesome a fact to miss. Even if it brings a strange element to the chemistry it is a plus and one that betokens peace more than war- I hope. However Bill's relationship with the Bushes is also extraordinary and scarily respectful, considering. And the delivery of tough talk? Leave that to others I guess.

The people of the Mideast as they effect their leaders and how their leaders might mediate through Bill is something to consider positively, with sound hope, on this issue.

[rndmprsn]

7. bravo!

K+R

[dogman]

8. Edwards gave w more than an inch.

He jumped into supporting w with both feet.

[LadyAziz]

10. A least he recognizes that he was wrong

unlike Hillary.

[dogman]

11. Until the winds change. n/t

[Evergreen Emerald]

9. wha? Perhaps Edwards should be yelling at the republicans in Congress instead...oh

yeah--this is only about politics.

[UrbScotty]

12. Seeing as how he himself also enabled Bush's path to war in Iraq...

I'm calling him out on his hypocrisy.

[Lucinda]

13. I don't agree with his stance against Hillary in this

but I understand it.

[jmp]

14. k/r

...