Edwards: Iran Threat Serious

[Herman Munster]

http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/world/?content_id=5400

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

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

In his speech, Edwards criticised the United States' previous indifference to the Iranian issue, saying they have not done enough to deal with the threat.

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

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

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

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

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

After opening his speech with great praise for Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Edward's continued to express great appreciation for the Israeli people and the special bond between the two countries, saying it was "a bond that will never be broken."

[Isthathwryrgnabe]

1. Interesting

Does this not sound like a prelude to war with Iran?

[lostnotforgotten]

2. Pakistan Has Nuclear Weapons - Are They Any Worse That Iran?

eom

[pettypace]

21. From the US POV, a resounding yes

I may be wrong, but I haven't heard of either Al-Qaeda remnants in Iran or Iranian nationals incorporated into the Al-Qaeda.

There is no denying Pakistan has arguably the greatest collection of Al-Qaeda/Taleban/Islamofascists..etc than any other Islamic nation.

However, the dichotomy of Pakistan is that they also have a very modern, western style/educated government, so the relations with the US will always be strong.

[Isthathwryrgnabe]

27. And, that, I believe is the distinction.

The Pakistani Govt. is not hell bent on the destruction of the western world.

[Buck Rabbit]

45. Yes, and Poland was a threat to Nazi Germany and attacked first..

And Iraqis threw babies from incubators in Kuwait.

Justifying war is always easier when you just make shit up.

[Isthathwryrgnabe]

83. You are saying Edwards is making this up to justify war with Iran?

[Buck Rabbit]

87. Edward's didn't mix the Koolaid, he just loves the stuff.

Frankly, I don't know if even he would buy your line that the Iranian government is "hell bent on the destruction of the western world."

I mean that statement is pulled out of somebody's ass and reeks of just that. Not in word or deed is that statement justified. Even Ahmadinejad who is a conservative within the Iranian political spectrum is embrassive to the West in both his UN speech and letter to America. Heck his UN speech was a lot more like Ghandi than Khrushchev.

From his speech at the UN regarding weapons of mass destruction:

A brief glance at a few examples of the most pressing global issues can further illustrate the problem. A, the unbridled expansion of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Some powers proudly announce their production of second and third generations of nuclear weapons.

What do they need these weapons for? Is the development and stockpiling of these deadly weapons designed to promote peace and democracy or are these weapons, in fact, instruments of coercion and threat against other peoples and governments?

How long should the people of the world live with the nightmare of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons? What bounds the powers producing and possessing these weapons?

How can they be held accountable before the international community? And are the inhabitants of these countries content with the waste of their wealth and their resources on the production of such destructive arsenals?

[Isthathwryrgnabe]

89. Of course not,

No more than I am buying the notion that you are going to pick up a turd from the clean end. You are deceived! Ok, lets believe the words and actions of those who have known to lie. Are you believing what Bush says too, despite the actions? What are you talking about?

[Buck Rabbit]

40. True, True, False

Pakistan is one well placed bomb under a limo from being an Islamic Republic with Nuclear weapons and a very sympathetic history with Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

In Musharraf's book and interviews promoting it, he states he choose to support the US against the Taliban under a direct threat of annihilation. Even then he first War gamed out fighting the US and only then decided it would require too much sacrifice so he decided to withdrawal direct support of the Taliban whom they were the patrons and sponsors of.

That was at a time the US had a reputation of military invincibility from Gulf War I and was feared by all. The Iraq war has exposed the US military as being able to easily conquer in a favorable terrain but hard pressed to control what they conquer.

I am sure you would find many militant Islamics in Pakistan who would relish a guerrilla war against the US on their very forbidding home turf.

[eridani]

54. Also they are too damned big to invade, and they already have nukes n/t

[Bucky]

73. There's other reasons that we're politically close to Pakistan

1st, as the home of all those Al-Qaeda/Taleban/Islamofascists, we need to stay on good terms with their rulers in order to get at our top genuine nemisis in the world. It's still 50-50 that bin Laden is on the Pak side of the border.

2nd, since at least Nixon, we have used Pakistan as a regional counter balance to the India-Russia alliance (and since Carter as a counter to Iran).

3rd, after Iraq they have had the most modern, progressive, and economically developed educated class in the region (altho Iran is catching up and Iraq is slipping back due to the exodus of their professionals). Pakistan is going places and they're the only ones in the region who don't utterly hate us now.

[Leopolds Ghost]

86. You have to draw a distinction between Tribal Pakistan and Urdu/Punjabi Pakistan.

The Punjab is highly civilized with centuries of advanced art and architecture and religious diversity, in addition to a highly-educated, technically-savvy civil service descended from the British Raj.

The Tribal Frontier has never been conquered, even by the British.

Imagine if the US had won the civil war but failed to conquer Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, and the Ozarks.

But we ended up absorbing Alabama and Mississippi as "Autonomous Territories" with their own law, continued slavery etc.

Meanwhile the rest of the US continued on its present course.

And then England invaded Texas 100 years later.

[LSK]

3. yes, Edwards is now trying to loose my support

:shrug:

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

5. ....

I call your :shrug: and raise it a :wtf:: MKJ

[LSK]

7. maybe Edwards is going after certain PAC money

:shrug:

[Bucky]

74. "certain"

You nailed it.

[leftchick]

12. $$$$$

and AIPAC support goes a very long way in a race based solely on MONEY!

[LSK]

14. we so fucking need public financing of elections

3 months in Iraq could pay for it.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

6. Strange positioning...

Is it inevitable then? And if it is -- Fuck all those assholes in D.C. that won't stop it!

[LSK]

8. Obama has said similar stuff, I guess DK might be my top choice ATM

[MannyGoldstein]

4. This is Different Than Iraq Being An Immediate Threat?

Right?

Or is this another one that Mr. Edwards will regret? (And Mrs. Clinton won't?)

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

9. A new group, "Manny and the Rhetorical Questions". n/t

MKJ

[MannyGoldstein]

13. I Love It!

Sort of "Question Mark and the Mysterians" - esque, no?

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

33. LOL,

You took that to the perfect level, :rofl: MKJ

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

36. LOL, well

my creativity isn't that nuanced, but I really appreciate the anology..

"? and the Mysterians". Cry, cry, cry.

:toast: MKJ

[MannyGoldstein]

43. I Actually Own The Record

Scary, eh?

Very amusing to play at parties, particularly after much :toast:

[Matariki]

11. and like they wouldn't try to be after seeing what happened to Iraq?

[leftchick]

10. reminds me of hil

and bill and all of the other DLC/Aipac beneficiaries.

[originalpckelly]

15. Oh that's nice. So he's a double-talker and a kiss-ass.

Well, he's a trying liar after all, what do we expect?

The man has just sickened me, and I really fucking thought he could have had the nom too.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

16. So Edwards is a hawk.

"Iran must know that the world won’t back down"...yeah, he's tough.

Now, we'll have to move on to a smart diplomatic candidate, one who will move us away from WWIII.

[originalpckelly]

17. Yep, someone still hasn't learned his lessons from Iraq...

I beginning to think the only thing Edwards regrets about Iraq is that he voted for it and now it's politically inconvenient.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

25. Amen.

I don’t want anyone who granted the Kings of PNAC the OK to fore fill their dreams, leading our country.

[Isthathwryrgnabe]

23. WWW-III is beyond our control.

Question is; where will it happen: there, Israel, or here. Even Edwards realizes that if we back away, the threat grows larger. See the war of gog and Magog.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

28. Here's what I wish would happen...

Under our new democratic leadership we could wipe the slate clean.

We throw Bush and Cheney to the wolves.

We beg the world for sympathy and forgiveness.

We explain how our elections have been fraudulent and how we were taken over by a crazy greedy dictatorship that used MSM as a tool for propaganda.

Then we take PNAC off the table, because that was the start of all our problems in the first place.

Through diplomacy we ask the world for support, we allow every nation to take part in the rebuilding profits.

We promise Iraqis that if they divide themselves into three smaller counties, the world court would over see that oil profits are divided equally.

[Isthathwryrgnabe]

32. You are deceived!

This country was never founded on "begging for forgiveness" Republican or Democratic leadership will not kiss ass to the rest of the world. I appreciate your desire for peace, but submitting will make your worst fears come true - snap out of it!

[Just-plain-Kathy]

34. Diplomacy is not a four letter word.

Most people outside of the United States think Americans back Bush. Heck we “voted” for him twice.

The world knows we have enough nukes to take out any country that looks at us funny.

Iran made no threat to us, and it’s even questionable if they ever threatened Israel.

We have to stand at ease and get away from the bully mentality that we shove down everyone’s throats.

[Isthathwryrgnabe]

35. See post #32

Which part about the Iranian leader saying Israel be wiped off of the map did you not embrace? Sounds like a threat to me!

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[Isthathwryrgnabe]

39. Pisses you off when someone disagrees with you?

I will bet that happens a lot. Again, see post 32. By the way, not offended by the cheap shot insults and not will not retaliate though inspired. Edwards is the one who said Iran would have to be dealt with - save your freeper baiting animosity for him.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[fafafafa12]

50. That was uncalled for.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

51. Isthathwryrgnabe...

I heard with my own two ears Ahmadinejad, at the United Nations say he didn’t want to cause any harm to Israel (I’m paraphrasing).

Iran is not going to hurt us...they know Bush would happily kill them all -if they gave us a reason.

check out this post...It's titled....

The myth of Iran's president calling for "wiping Israel off the map"...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=150452

[fafafafa12]

53. Thanks. I checked the link and agree with post #4.

Ps. you were there at the United Nations? Have you heard that Ahmadinejad claimed to hear from Allah and that he believes that he has been chosen to hasten the return of the 12th. Imam by initializing a great war?
This was not a slip of the tonque, Ahmadinejad has referred to this more than once. What are you talking about? Even if I were wrong, Edwards, and many others, feel this is one of the most serious threats to the US. You mean to tell me they do not believe Iran is a threat to the US or Israel?

[Just-plain-Kathy]

58. I believe our actions in the Middle East is turning Iran into a threat

They all see us as terrorist...We killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings and stay to occupy their countries...We’re the terrorist who never leaves.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[ms liberty]

62. And the criminal in the WH says God talks to him...

and that he was appointed by God, and listens only to God. I really have a problem with a person running MY country saying crazy things that would get any of the rest of us put in a straitjacket.

And something else...we're more of a threat to Iran than Iran is to us, or Israel for that matter. And Israel - they can take care of themselves, you know. Plus, they're their own country! Not one of the 50 United States, or even one of our Protectorates! They've got a kick ass military, and we've given them tons of money and arms to do it with. They've even got their own nukes right now...which is a lot more than Iran can say, or will be able to say for at least 5-10 more years.

[Forrest Greene]

88. We Have Tried War

...for thousands of years. Snap out of it! It's time to try something new.

[GreenArrow]

26. He's a hawk when it's convienient...

whatever it takes to secure the nomination, and ah, the Presidency.

[Luckyduck]

18. This is why I LOVE the internet

Politicians can't get away with their bullshit anymore.

Why doesn't he pay attention to the intelligence THIS time??

And how can he possibly expect us to take him as an anti-war candidate?

[originalpckelly]

19. Well, how shall we put it?

Edwards is the anti-war candidate, because the war went badly and it's now politically convenient to be anti-war.

[LSK]

24. but theres still Dennis Kucinich who was anti-war before the war

[originalpckelly]

38. I believe his position is the right one...

You know, this conventional wisdom about him not being a real contender might be an underestimation of the American people. I don't know, if Ross Perot could be a serious contender for President, and people liked him, maybe they would like Kucinich, he's a pretty quirky kind of guy.

[The_Casual_Observer]

20. If they are, somebody else would have to convince me. After Iraq

he has no credibility with me.

I have grown tired of the boyish looks, southern twang, bushy across the forehead haircut and the smooth "I've got a non-specific answer for any question".

[cynatnite]

22. I do think we should be concerned about Iran...

but as to whether the threat is as serious as the bush regime claims...well, that I have doubts about.

[Herman Munster]

29. transcript of his comments

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x33663

At the top of these threats is Iran. Iran threatens the security of Israel and the entire world. Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons. For years, the US hasn’t done enough to deal with what I have seen as a threat from Iran. As my country stayed on the sidelines, these problems got worse. To a large extent, the US abdicated its responsibility to the Europeans. This was a mistake. The Iranian president’s statements such as his description of the Holocaust as a myth and his goals to wipe Israel off the map indicate that Iran is serious about its threats.

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

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.

[JohnnyLib2]

30. Hmmm. This got my attention, not in a favorable way.

Seems that this is new and hawkish territory for him? And what a curious time to sound anything at all like Bush, knowing the commotion going on in D.C. this week. Perhaps he's saying to this audience, "I would be a tough president." Hmmmmmm.

[confludemocrat]

31. Obama, Kerry, Edwards, Bush all talking war w/ Iran

You lost me, John Edwards. All the talk about solving poverty and healthcare issues will matter little if in supporting war against Iran, it comes to pass, as the Iraq war did, with your support, and the waste of national resources and lives and the killing that will result risks our security for a generation. And all this for a "bond that wil never be broken".

[Lusted4]

44. Wake me up when you guys start bashing Edwards campaign manager. nt

[cynatnite]

49. The family pet is next n/t

[Lusted4]

52. His campaign manager is David Bonior. READ THIS

Check out the date on this first.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/737zcgnk.asp

[cynatnite]

55. I was being sarcastic...

should've used the :sarcasm: in that post. My apologies. :)

[Lusted4]

56. I got it. Did you go to the link?

[Pastiche423]

41. The question is...

In twelve months, who will remember this?

(I'm going to bookmark this thread, just in case.)

[Poll_Blind]

42. Yes, the quest for nuclear energy and possibly nuclear arms in the Middle East has...

...has nothing to do with the fact that Israel has posessed both without IAEA nuclear inspections, mind you for decades. Move along now, nothing to see on that count...

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.

  In perpetuity? Is that even realistic? Also, according to a report from FAS the IAEA has indicated that "Algeria, Egypt, Morocco and Saudi Arabia...Tunisia and the UAE" are working on nuclear programs of their own. Along with this post from a few hours ago stating that Jordan is also working on their own nuclear energy program.

  Who gets them in the Middle East? If anyone? Do we get to make that call? Are we gonna back that up with...with what again?

  Are we going to threaten all of them with sanctions? I hear in a decade or so the president says we'll need to reduce consumption of foreign oil by 20%. That'll show 'em. And the Saudis? How exactly will we leverage them? They along with the UAE own big chunks of us. How's enforcing that going to work?

  Maybe if we attack Iran the rest will reconsider, Mr. Edwards? I'm sure that's a tactic. All options are on the table, as you state.

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.

  What you fail to realize, Mr. Edwards, is the reason that 70-80% of Americans consider Bush a worthless president is that they educated themselves on the reality of the situation. The mainstream media certainly didn't do it for them. And that's how you'd be pushing out your education on the matter.

  And what exactly do they need to be educated to "come along with what needs to be done"? I think Americans are overwhelmingly for sanctions against Iran. Is there something a little more radical you were thinking of?

  And on the matter of striking Iran, militarily, which is surely what you hint at. With our forces so heavily deployed in Iraq and no way out of that mess in sight, when you hint at the possibility of a military strike I say "You and what army?"

  Ah, I get it now. Nevermind...another "Coalition of the Willing".

  (RRRRIIIINNNNGGG) (RRRRIIIINNNNGGG)

  "Hello, Tuvalu? I've got Palau on the line. We're whipping together another Coalition, what's your price this time? We've already got commitments for marshals from the Cooke Islands. Wait, maybe that's cooks from the Marshall Islands..."

  But it doesn't stop in the Middle East, our signing of a deal with India and giving them nuclear technology even though they haven't signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty...isn't that pretty obvious hypocracy? How about our support for Pakistan who also has nuclear weapons? Could Pakistan be any more unstable? And North Korea. Let's not mention them. They beat us at the game, so we're just not going to talk about them. They don't count.

PB

[k_jerome]

46. bravo Mr. Edwards. nt.

[wuushew]

85. why?

You a fan of preemption? Logically you must have supported the Iraq debacle since the same means were used used to prevent the hypothetical ends.

[mmonk]

47. I'm sure Iran can't wait and commit suicide.

Sure, makes good damn sense to me.

"Let's get ourselves erased from the face of the earth. Let's let a country of 300 million plus residents with weapons unmatched in the history of humanity unleash that certain oblivion upon us." says their president and the mullahs. And all their people applaud and say "yes, let us die".

[Tom Joad]

57. Edwards. He took the lead for Bush on Iraq. He is now taking the lead for Bush on Iran.

Thanks for nothin' dude.

[MoseyWalker]

59. All of the threats are serious

and have been for hundreds of years. Nothing new here, though, admittedly, the extent of the damage could be larger. Maybe that is what makes people fall into the fear trap so easily.

Iran. North Korea. Hell, why not add in Venezuela, a free Noriega in Panama, the Hispanic "invasion", killer bees, bird flu, and last, but certainly not least, the Great Gazoo.

You picks your threats you pays your fear.

[ConsAreLiars]

61. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Goodbye Johnny, been nice to know ya.

[Straight Shooter]

63. "opening his speech with great praise for Ariel Sharon."

Ugh.

Edwards has always been a hawk. This is no surprise.

I wish someone who had a deeper understanding of the political power structure in Iran could explain why Ahmadinejad (sp?) can rant on without it necessarily meaning that he can follow through on his threats.

FWIW, if I were Iran, you can bet your boots I'd be seeking nuclear weapons, too, especially with our current nutcases in the White House.

[Bucky]

64. He's right that Iran is a serious regional rival to us. Their influence grows at cost to ours.

We do NOT want Iran going nuclear. They are a threat to us and Israel in ways Iraq could never be. The problem, my naysaying friends, is that the brat king cried wolf about Iraq when it was totally implausible as a threat to us. People now assume dealing with Iran means military intervention. I'm certain Edwards intends nothing of the sort. If we swap lead and steel with Iran, we lose. They probably lose, too, but we lose bigger. We have to confront the threat of Iran, but we have to be smart about it. That's why the surge has to be stopped. That's why the brat emperor has to be checked from his reckless destruction.

I applaud Edwards's move here--his visit and his words. He's building up exactly the right kind of credit a president will need in the next eight years to keep our rivalry with Iran from becoming deadly.

[NCarolinawoman]

68. You have got to be kidding?!!!

He's in over his head again. He's sounding like a Neo-Con!

Retired General Barry McCaffrey said that attacking Iran would be insane. He said we shouldn't even be talking about it in such a way. He says we need to cool the rhetoric. It endangers our troops.

Edwards co-sponsored the IWR. He is the last one with any credibility.

He sounds like Barney Fife.

[Bucky]

70. Sorry, but anyone determined to deal with Iran *must* say "All options are on the table"

The problem with Bush isn't that he's keeping all options open, but that he's keeping only one option open. Edwards only sounded like a neocon to the extent that neocons mimick human beings in their pre-war chatter. McCaffrey is right, attacking Iran would be worse than disasterous, but he's not diametrically opposed to what Edwards was saying. But my point wasn't that Edwards was laying out sound policy, but that he was practicing smart politics.

Iran is not an immediate threat to us, the kind you have to consider war with, but their acquisition of nuclear weapons--an option they are clearly keeping on their table--does present a threat to US interests. Our primary interest in the MidEast is keeping the region stable and to get it moving toward peace and disarmament. Iran going nuke is a step in the wrong direction--both Saudi Arabia and Israel will feel the need to counter it. It's escalatory and as insane as Bush's escalation in Iraq.

Edwards now says his support for the IWR was wrong and he regrets is. I take him at his word. Like any candidate running for the office, he's going to believe in a strong executive and most of those supporting the IWR believed they were voting to give Bush a negotiation tool. I take them at their word and anyone who says now that it was a mistake to take Bush at his word (as Edwards does) is nearly as acceptable as someone who didn't trust the monkey from the gitgo.

I'm repeating myself, but it's important to say. Edwards lines up with Clark (my preferred candidate) here: you have to deal with Iran from a position of strength to prevent more violence. We have to maintain a credible military threat (as opposed to Bush's absurd sabre rattling) and then engage Iran in direct talks. Bush has done neither and the situation is more dangerous than ever.

[FrenchieCat]

76. I disagree, Edwards only lines up with Clark in generalities....but in

specifics he and Clark are miles apart.

You see the difference is in emphasis and tone.

Wes Clark dwell much more on what we should do before even getting to the U.N. and he doubts that a sanction answer is the way to go. He's more into engaging Iran business wise; he wants to persuade with soft power. Further, Clark goes and looks beyond the military option by discussing what that would mean, how Iran would react, how the region would react and whether it would really put us in a better place to have acted militarily against Iran. He also asks that we also look at what it would mean to have a Nuclear Iran......what would that really look like....

In other words, Clark looks at the issue much more profoundly and asks all of the questions around it, and he keeps the "Military option on the table" talk at a minimum. It is not the point to his discussion, because he knows that it really does go without saying that the US always has and always will keep that option on the table. No need to underline it in bold....as that is emulating that Bravado mannerism that Bush seems to prefer.

Edwards does the opposite. He highlights sanctions and emphasizes them more than dialogue. Then he goes to the Military option being on the table....something he stresses as thought that was the center of the point. and Edwards never goes further than that. He never looks at what the ramifications would be to us or to the region if we did attack Iran. He acts like they would just "poof" disappear.

So you see Bucky, Clark and Edwards' approaches and philosophies about Iran only looks similar on the surface...cause in reality, Clark digs deep and Edwards stays right there on the surface.

And that is the difference between a politician attempting to emulate a leader....and a leader trying to work for the best possible outcome for all concerned.

You keep repeating yourself, you say....but I don't know if that makes what you say anymore potent.

You can take Edwards at his words that he is "regrets" his votes...and I certainly will move on by forgiving him for it....but what I will not do is forget anything and also rewards Edwards with the White House just because of his regrets. If he wants to attone, talking with bravado about Iran...and saying that Israel should join NATO while he speaking in front the worse of the warmongers at some Isrealite summit is the wrong move, IMO. He ain't that slick.......even if he's gotten away with quite a bit.

[BurtWorm]

65. What a breath of fresh air.

:sarcasm:

[Clarkie1]

66. If it's Edwards supporters who are recommending this....

I very puzzled as to why.

The tone and content of his rhetoric is disturbing. I'd like to see more of an emphasis on "we must talk with our enemies," "war is a last resort," etc.

He sure doesn't sound like Clark...Edwards seems much more eager to engage the military option.

[Bucky]

71. I think that's because Clark only has to show up to demonstrate a credible military option.

Iran's leadership knows what Clark did in Serbia and Kosovo; how he was one of two or three key architects of that campaign, that he managed it, and that as the author of the "engagement and enlargement" strategy, is one of the principal designers of the current US foreign policy consensus. Edwards has a bit less weight in this area and has to demonstrate resolve and strength differently. The substance of what he's saying is not different from what Clark says. Don't forget that Clark is a policy wonk first and a politician second. Edwards is foremost a politician. That difference amounts to style only. In pragmatic terms they aren't that different.

[FrenchieCat]

78. Again, I disagree....and I have posted upthread.....

But here you say what you said above much better.....but I think that is exactly what finesse, Gravitas, diplomatic savvy and experience accomplishes.....a much better result.

which is why Wes Clark in the area of Foreign policy is a heavyweight and Edwards is a lightweight....which leads me to wonder, considering the times we live in why Edwards is the "frontrunner" and Clark is barely talked about. You see, even in the area of Domestic policies, Edwards ain't all that. He "talks" a good game, but when one looks at his records before he ran for President, there ain't not poverty there, and he had 6 years in the senate to have dones something other tacklin the easy issue of minimum wages.

So in essence it is the "quality" of the candidates we are looking at....and Wes Clark is more of an honest broker when it comes to his foreign policy approach. Edwards is status quo as it stands currently. Edwards takes no risks....and tackles everything that has some majority concensus of sorts....which is why it took three years of him to be sorry about his vote.

[Bucky]

82. "you say what you said above much better"

God, Frenchie, I am such a sucker for a compliment. So it is with no objectivity at all that I say I agree entirely with your post. Perhaps it's that I'm too much of an optimist. John Kennedy was also a lightweight who ran as a hawk in an time of danger and, because he had an agile mind, came to represent a sane balance in the Cold War. If I were to compare the two, I'd suggest that Edwards has a far wider range of life experiences in 2007 than Kennedy did in 1960. I admit I don't "get" Edwards's appeal to so many voters, but I think if so many Democrats admire him, there must be something of substance there.

But obviously Clark is the better choice.

[FrenchieCat]

67. There are politicians, and then there are leaders....

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

George Stephanopoulos: Directly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neil Cavuto: I see.

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

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


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


Neil Cavuto: Yeah.

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

all Interviews transcripts sourced here....
http://securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term/8

Clark understands that all stays on the table...the difference is that it doesn't become the point of emphasis...or the central thesis.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

69. Politicians love to erect Bogeymen. EEEEEK!

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H.L. Mencken

[nicknameless]

72. Disgusting. No war-monger will get my vote.

Edwards obviously didn't learn the lesson about IWR ... except that it was unpopular.

[Hekate]

75. Bush has stirred up an ant hill in the Middle East.That much is raw fact. Edwards could be right...

I don't want to believe another word coming out of Bush's mouth -- or Cheney, or anyone else from the administration. But even a broken clock is right two times a day.

If Richard Clark confirms (as he did the other night) that Al Qaeda really is trying to send another team into the US on student visas, then we know that much is true. We have no assurance that the blithering incompetents in the Bush admin will deal with the situation with any more intelligence than they have before, but from Clark we at least know Al Qaeda's intention.

John Edwards is known to us to be a truthful man, insofar as he has the information he needs to tell us what is so. Unless he's been duped again, the Iran thing is credible coming out of his mouth. That information alone does not make him a hawk. It just means he knows something the rest of us do not.

I don't hear him or anyone else outside the insane Bush administration and their Neocon pals talking about invading Iran. Iran's a much bigger country than Iraq, and we have worn out our army and spent all our money already and are still losing in Bush's war of choice.

The thing is, everyone but Bush, Cheney, and the Neocons seem to understand that we don't have the wherewithal to take on any more wars of choice. We HAVE TO negotiate with countries who don't like us, just like we did with the old USSR. Speaking of the USSR -- understanding that they had nukes pointed right at us was just good intelligence, not something that necessarily made the bearer of this knowledge a warhawk.

So I think we have to hear John Edwards out. I think he's the kind of man who would rather acknowledge the facts as they are, and then use diplomacy.

Hekate

[FrenchieCat]

80. I'm not buying this line....

that you used...."It just means he knows something the rest of us do not."


Last time it appears that we knew something that Edwards did not.
Why would it be exactly the opposite this time round?

Fool me once, shame on you, and say you're sorry
Fool me twice, shame on me....cause now I'm the big ass fool and Edwards is in the White House.

The okey doke ain't good enough for me, and actually it never was.

First some want to reward Edwards for saying sorry 3 years after the fact to some fatal bad judgment on war and peace by making him leader of the free world. Now we are supposed to also believe that he's got it all right, and we are wrong or don't know what he knows.

If I recall, he was the one that was misled....not me!

Do you also have a bridge in there somewhere to put on the market too? :shrug:

[VenusRising]

77. Edwards will not be a viable candidate for the Democrats.

If he did not learn his lesson from the IWR and our last election, then he is out of touch with the American people. The occupation in Iraq was an under the table get rich quick scheme for the military industrial complex at the expense of the average American. We are laden with debt owned by foreign countries who do not have our best interests at heart. If Edwards is going to choose the same path for Iran as he did with Iraq, then America is better off without him.

Edited to add: I never liked his stance on the death penalty. I don't know what would have made his view different on war. It's the death penalty for all those innocent civilians whose only crime was being Iraqi. Now we're going to do the same to Iran? No thank you, Edwards. My money, time, and vote go to the anti-war candidate.

[JCMach1]

79. if IWR wasn't enough... he JUST lost me... typical politician

telling the audience what it wants to hear...

Sorry John, but...

:grr:

[magellan]

81. Well! The list of candidates I'll support if nominated is being whittled down quickly.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

84. During the 2004 election he went overseas to the Bilderberg meeting. He must

have kissed David Rockefeller's ring......