Cheerleading for a military confrontation with Iran....

[CarolNYC]

Interesting list of speakers for this conference....

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

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

Israel Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (well, he's local)

Likud Leader Benjamin Netanyahu (he's local too)

Defense Minister Amir Peretz (another local)

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni (another local)

Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England (replaced Wolfowitz)

Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns (has been acting simultaneously as Condi's Deputy, Counselor, and UN Ambassador lately)

Presidential Candidate and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney

Presidential Candidate and U.S. Senator John McCain (via satellite)

Presidential Candidate and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani

Presidential Candidate and former U.S. Senator John Edwards (via satellite)

Richard Perle (needs no qualifiers)

Former CIA Director and Committee on the Present Danger Chairman R. James Woolsey

Former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar (probably the only European neocon)

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

-- Steve Clemons

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

Maybe Wes Clark can organize a "cheerleading for a non-military confrontation with Iran" conference...Lord knows he's been trying valiantly for a long time now to keep us from getting into another mess like the one in Iraq....Hopefully there are others willing to do the same.

[generaldemocrat]

1. What the hell is Edwards doing mixed up with these Likudniks?

If he wants to make amends for IWR, then he needs to not have meetings with pro-war entities.

[Freddie Stubbs]

20. Perhaps he met them at the 2004 Bilderberg meeting?

:shrug:

[Wiley50]

2. Very Concerned to See John Edwards Name On That List

Seems a bit out of character

although I think he attended the Bilderburg Conference a few years back

[Freddie Stubbs]

27. How exactly is it out of character?

:shrug:

[eerriicc]

35. he wanders back and forth on that one

he will change his mind by next week

[blm]

3. Kerry joins him, Carol. Last summer he spoke at a Dem event in SC and warned

us that Bush was going to drum up a reason to go into Iran. He said the intel has been in and they already KNOW that Iran is FIVE YEARS away from nuclear weapon capability - he said that would give the US over FOUR YEARS to get their diplomacy right.

[CarolNYC]

4. Yep,

I'd expect as much from Senator Kerry....Somebody's got to do something to stop this madness....As I said in a post a little bit ago, Kerry is one who I trust would do his best to keep us out of another war.

[blm]

6. That's why it's Kerry, Clark or Gore for me.

I swear they are the only ones of the 'name' Dems I trust at this point. If I thought Kucinich had a chance in hell, I'd include him on the trust front.

[motocicleta]

7. NICE LIST (goddamn caps lock)

Nice list you got there, blm. Those are my three as well, although... how about Russ? Does he not rise to the level of 'name' Dems?

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. Russ was always high on my personal list

But unlike the other names mentioned, he has given a rock hard "No" to the idea of running for President in 2008. Gore has come close, but not quite so definite as Feingold about it.

[motocicleta]

9. I lied. I forgot for a moment that Kerry voted for IWR. nt

[CarolNYC]

10. Yes, he did....

for whatever his reasons...and I have my problems with that vote as well...but, in spite of his ill-considered (IMO) vote, he did speak out against the invasion....and he didn't wait years to do it....

And though I might get blasted again for saying it, I do think he'd work to keep us out of another war....At least he's not speaking before conferences cheerleading for us to attack Iran, you know?

[motocicleta]

11. Agreed.

Ands just because he isn't 'on my list' doesn't mean I won't line up behind him if need be.

[CarolNYC]

13. Yep, and I don't doubt Russ

would work to keep us out of another mess as well...I wish he hadn't decided not to run in 2008....

[dogday]

36. I feel the same way

We are missing out big time....

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. I havr faith that Kerry would work to avoid another war

Kerry was willing to go to Syria for negotiations.

[NCarolinawoman]

15. I feel the same way.

I'd put Obama in there if he had more experience. At least his instincts are right.

[mmonk]

18. Kerry, Clark, and Kucinich will not carry us into any elective wars IMO.

Yes, Kerry made a mistake thinking the IWR could be voted for for leverage instead of inevitable and planned out determined war, but he was only human and miscalculated the bush administration.

[partylessinOhio]

5. We're screwed. They are all in the same "insane" bed together.

So many in the race make very, very strange bedfellows.

[CarolNYC]

12. Yep, totally screwed...

I remember hearing Wes Clark talk about how he was called from the golf course, I think, on New Year's Day 2006 to come into the studio and appear on Fox to talk about the threat of Iran...Fox had gotten their orders...ramp up the Iran rhetoric. It's really pretty scary. Somebody better be out there hollering about this BEFORE it happens, not after it's too late to stop anything. if these guys get their way and we get into another war we shouldn't be in...it will be really bad. An 'ooops, my bad' after things get out of control again is not going to cut it.

[NCarolinawoman]

14. Okay, this is the NEO-CON brigade and Edwards is there.

This time by satellite, unlike the trip he took to Israel last June sponsored by that AIPAC related group.

I am sorry but this is downright pandering, or Edwards is still a warhawk.

Or both.

WE DO OT NEED A WAR WITH IRAN!

[Scurrilous]

16. US presidential candidate: Iran serious about its threats

Former Senator John Edwards (Dem.) tells Herzliya Conference serious political, economic steps should be taken against Islamic Republic; 'in order to ensure Iran never gets nuclear weapons, all options must remain on table,' he says, adding that Syria should be held accountable for its support of Hizbullah, Hamas

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3355802,00.html

<snip>

"Iran is serious about its threats," former US Senator John Edwards told the Herzliya Conference at the Interdisciplinary Center on Monday.

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

In his speech, Edwards criticized 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."

<snip>

"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."

[Leilani]

19. This is very scary

Edwards has no sense of the world, foreign policy, diplomacy, & the military.

[KittyWampus]

32. Leilani, I don't think Edwards would have the strength to stand up to the Neocons

should he be elected POTUS.

He, like Clinton, would be forever having to prove he was 'strong on defense' and thus very likely to overreact or be lead by the nose.

[dogman]

21. He can always say he is sorry after the fact.

Once again proving he is the "real" Peace candidate and a "genuine" nice guy.

[mnhtnbb]

22. I"ll reserve judgment until seeing a transcript of the speech

Edwards was scheduled to make VIA SATELLITE. He was NOT in attendance.

[seemslikeadream]

23. will this help?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=10734&mesg_id=10734

[mnhtnbb]

24. Not much. I'd like to see the whole speech. I'd like to see the quotes

in context. What I do see suggests

--allowing Iran to develop nukes is not a good idea

--economic and political sanctions must be applied

--the rest of the world needs to stand up on this.

--all options are on the table.


I don't see a problem with any of that. One NEVER takes options off the table when negotiating without considerable give on something else.

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. Bush said all of the same things before he launched a war against Iraq

One not only has to look at the words said, but the context in which, literally, they were said, to guess how the standards you lay out will be judged in practice by those in attendence. We've been here before during the debate about Iraq before the invasion.

This meeting did not draw much from the full American political spectrum, although there were several American Presidential candidates who addressed it.

[CarolNYC]

26. True

It's more than just the words said here that is troubling about this....

[mnhtnbb]

28. Except in the case of Iraq, the UN inspectors were there and the word

coming out from very reliable sources was that there were no WMD's.

Also, Bush continually tried to tie attacks of 9/11 to Iraq, which we knew was untrue.

C'mon.

[Tom Rinaldo]

30. Your points are valid

I was not trying to directly equate one situation with the other because rarely does history repeat so perfectly. I was only saying in response to another poster who argued that there is nothing wrong with the following position...

"--allowing Iran to develop nukes is not a good idea

--economic and political sanctions must be applied

--the rest of the world needs to stand up on this.

--all options are on the table."

...that if you substituted Iraq for Iran in that summary, there is nothing in those words that George Bush did not say or would not have felt comfortable being identified with in the Fall of 2002. Therefor the simple fact alone that the positions listed are not on the face of it necessarily unreasonable does not by itself erase all of my concern that someone, anyone, who puts forth that as a position might not show the wrong judgement later.

Or to put it another way, putting forth such a position does not settle the matter for me that I can back someone who has put forth that position. Nor does it by itself eliminate anyone from my consideration to support for that reason. So I have to look for more clues. For me, participation in this event is a warning flag. Not all warning flags end up being valid warnings. On another thread I already stated that I trust John Edwards regarding Iran more than any possible Republican candidate for Presdident (possibly excepting Chuck Hagel) but not as much as some of the other possible Democratic candidates for President. That's what I say now. There is plenty of time for my opinion to change in any number of ways for any number of reasons

[CarolNYC]

34. Here's a link to the speech transcript from Raw Story....

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

I imagine some here will find no problem with it but, considering the make up of this conference and the fact that there definitely is a group of people who really really want a military confrontation with Iran, this sounds way too hawkish for my taste....

This really is a serious situation. We need all hands on deck to try to tone down the rhetoric and stop Bush from starting another mess. We certainly don't need folks ramping it up.

This, to me, sounds a little too ominous considering the situation:

"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."

[Pithy Cherub]

29. Speaks to a complete lapse in judgment to be at this war council

and of course Edwards could not help himself...
His judgment is suspect on all things national security related, then and now.

:eyes:

[karynnj]

31. Carol, this is actually a brilliant idea

"Maybe Wes Clark can organize a "cheerleading for a non-military confrontation with Iran" conference..."

It may have been said part in jest - but it could interesting. There are good politicians and diplomats, as well as some foreign leaders on this side. This would allow them to at least put their ideas together and to send a strong signal that there are other alternatives.

[FrenchieCat]

37. Karynnj, to a great extent, I think that is exactly what Wes will be doing

Here....and considering the topic, what else could the conference be but about Iran, and North Korea? And since Clark is the host, and he's talked consistently about "diplomatic" efforts, what y'all just talked about is exactly what this will be...I think!

There will be losta speakers there since it goes on for two days.

March 6 thru 7, 2007 - Host: Burkle Center for International Relations (UCLA) Inaugural Conference on National Security
Start: Mar 6 2007 - 1:00am
End: Mar 7 2007 - 11:00pm
description:
On September 2006, Gen. Wesley Clark, former supreme allied commander of NATO and author of “Waging Modern War,” joined the Burkle Center as a senior fellow.

Clark will host the center’s inaugural conference on national security.

The first conference, to be held March 6-7, 2007, will explore the emerging challenges of nuclear weapons in the 21st century.

Watch this page for details.

Location:
Burkle Center for International Relations, UCLA
calendar
http://securingamerica.com/node/2037

[karynnj]

38. Nice, I hope he gets the type of coverage this needs

It is more important that the hours of horse race coverage one year out.

The alternative of diplomacy NEEDS equal coverage to the fear mongering (like ths segment on this in the SOTU). We need a sane, non ADD media.

This sounds like it should be interesting - good luck to General Clark on this.

[CarolNYC]

39. I was going to come back and post about this conference...

after I saw your suggestion but Frenchie beat me to it.

One would hope it would get coverage but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it to happen.
:(

Yep, the alternative of diplomacy really needs to be stressed at every possible moment. I've seen Gen Clark talk about this looming confrontation with Iran a number of times at various 2006 campaign events over the last year and he's really worried about what might happen if people don't attempt to stop this drift toward another war BEFORE it's too late to do anything about it.

[Jcrowley]

33. K&R n/t