Why does Hillary get bashed more than Edwards for sucking up to AIPAC

[geek tragedy]

and threatening war with Iran?

I'm not a big fan of either (on foreign policy anyways), but it seems that she gets bashed a lot more than he does when he is just as bad, and maybe worse.

There's been plenty of threads denouncing her for being an AIPAC devotee and hawk, yada yada yada, but Mr. IWR co-sponsor gets away with even more inflammatory rhetoric. From his remarks in Israel:

http://www.herzliyaconference.org/Eng/_Articles/Article.asp?ArticleID=1728&CategoryID=223

I am aware that it was at this conference that PM Ariel Sharon gave his courageous speech outlining his disengagement. He helped Israel face some of its major challenges.

Throughout his career and public service Sharon has shown courage, including his historic decision to evacuate Gaza. More than anyone else, Sharon has, in my judgment, believed that a strong Israel is a safe Israel and that Israel needs to defend itself against security threats.

Well, ain't that just charming.

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.

Note his choice to emphasize his willingness to use military force against Iran. Does "ALL options" mean just military force or does it include nukes? Note also his ridiculous hyping of Iran's threat--a threat to 'the whole world?" Funny that the whole world tends to disagree with John Edwards.

Question and Answer:

Cheryl Fishbein from NY: 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?

A: My analysis of Iran is if you start with the President of Iran coming to the UN in New York denouncing America and his extraordinary and nasty statements about the Holocaust and goal of wiping Israel off map, married with his attempts to obtain nuclear weapons over a long period of time, they are buying time. They are the foremost state sponsors of terrorism. If they have nuclear weapons, other states in the area will want them, and this is unacceptable.

As to what to do, we should not take anything off the table. More serious sanctions need to be undertaken, which cannot happen unless Russia and China are seriously on board, which has not happened up until now. I would not want to say in advance what we would do, and what I would do as president, but there are other steps that need to be taken. Fore 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.

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.

Isn't that how we wound up invading Iraq?

[Colobo]

1. Both are pandering to those warmongers

That's not what the country needs right now. We don't need more Bush-style "leadership"...

[geek tragedy]

2. Amen. Wes Clark and Barack Obama have raised

concerns about the war drums beating for a conflict with Iran.

Why are Edwards and Hillary dancing to the beat of those drums?

[FrenchieCat]

5. Cause they are dancing for dollars...

that's why.

[AtomicKitten]

16. "dancing for dollars"

[atreides1]

3. Then Edwards should get the same treatment

If he's saying that he's for war with Iran just to get a little cash, then he's just as bad as Hillary and should be slammed just as hard for his words.

[Colobo]

6. Obama, Clark, Richardson...

The Democratic Party has much better candidates around than Clinton and Edwards...

Heck, even Hagel sounds better than Hillary at this point, and that says a lot.

[Adelante]

13. I agree

I'm not a Hillary supporter, but the unequal treatment is disgusting.

[AtomicKitten]

14. word

Vows were taken in the Kerry Forum to annihilate Hillary's campaign on these boards, and you can see their dirty work here 24/7. She isn't my candidate in the primary either, but the inequity in treatment here is disgusting. This is DEMOCRATIC Underground? None of my Dem friends and associates have the stomach to hang here and that speaks volumes.

[Adelante]

17. I saw *something* was up with you

But I had no idea.

[aquart]

4. Heaven forfend the US defend a tiny democracy

Surrounded by hostile nations with stated intentions of destroying Israel.

Really, all Jews should just take the soap and shut up. Defend themselves? Wrong, just wrong.

[FrenchieCat]

7. I don't think anyone is not for Israel's right to defend herself,

and I believe that Israel as more than the capability to do so.

I never knew that it was our responsibility to defend Israel ourselves beyond providing them with what they need...which we have since the 1947.

Many in the Jewish community do not want war with Iran....and I want to remind you that many in the Jewish community are NOT part and parcel of AIPAC. Yet AIPAC is the organization that Hillary and Edwards met with.

Unless you are saying that all Jewish people think alike and each and everyone of them are NeoCons, than I believe that your comments do not reflect in any of the realities of this OP.

[geek tragedy]

9. Who said anything about Israel defending itself?

The issue is whether the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA should start a war with Iran over an overhyped nuclear program.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. And what does war with Iran have to do with Israel defending

itself?

And if Israel is such a staunch defender of democracy, why does it refuse to deal with the democratically elected Palestinian leaders?

Israel, under the Likudniks, has transformed itself so far from its democratic socialist roots that I hardly recognise it anymore. AIPAC is the Likudniks' lobby.

It's not Israel. It's not Jews. It is the RW fascists who have so twisted their democracy, and our kissing up to them.

BTW - those hostile neighbors include Egypt and Jordan, who both share borders with them and have made peace with them, and Lebanon and Syria who have not, but who are no match for Israel militarily, and Lebanon does NOT believe in the destruction of Israel.

If Israel was to make an honest effort at settling the Palestinian issue, 90% of their problems would go away. But that won't happen under the Likudniks, so the rest of the middle-east will continue to see Israel as a proxy for American imperialism.

[Dogmudgeon]

11. Poor, weak little Israel!

Armed to the teeth with one of the best militaries and THE best intelligence apparatus in the world, and heavily funded by the USA and Europe. However will they protect themselves from technology-poor, religion-obsessed peoples whose leaders are at each others' throats and whose only source of money is oil?

As soon as the oil bonanza is gone, Israel will be able to move in and annex every country from Lebanon to Afghanistan. We ought to be trying to keep the Israeli liberals in power, instead of the wingnut Likud/Shas/JDL factions.

There aren't a lot of people calling for Israel to bare its neck to the "A-Rabb" wolves. The point is to keep Israel from becoming just another tyranny on the pretext of protecting itself. Yet that idea attracts accusations of anti-semitism. So it's now immoral, in Israel's eyes, to keep your friends from going bad.

The French tried it with us, and look what it got France.

If Israel wants international scorn and Freedom Fries that badly, it will surely be able to achieve that goal. But some of us will stand up and decry that behavior. Israel should be a "light to the nations" -- not the New Sparta.

--p!

[Skwmom]

8. Sounds like Edwards is advocating for War with Iran.

The vast majority of people are concerned about what is going on in Iraq (war is what is going on in Iraq). This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran (the American people would not be reticent in pursing economic sanctions or diplomacy so what's left).. 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. (just how do you expect to educate us John?).

[FrenchieCat]

12. It's not that he "advocating" war as much as he is saying what

AIPAC wants to hear so that he can get into the office. But, he's indeed not taking any "courageous" stands as he was asking us to do today in his speech. It would be good if he took his own advise.

[IndianaGreen]

15. This goes back to her pandering trip to Israel in 2002

Joe Lieberman also went to Israel that year. Lieberman met with political leaders across the political spectrum, and the political divide, including Israeli peace activists and Palestinian representatives.

Hillary only met with Likudniks and crazy pro-settlement people.

Holy Joe got kudos from me on the I/P forum, while Hillary got a Pander Bear Award, her second one.

[zulchzulu]

18. What's unfortunate is that AIPAC has such influence to make this occur

Israel needs us as an ally and it's certain that we* need them as well.

Whenever any criticism of Israel's foreign policy is questioned, many members of AIPAC make sure to throw the "anti-semetic accusation" like Excess Defense Articles lobbed into Palestinian ambulances escaping another attack.

The US weapons industry* (Lockheed Martin, McDonnell Douglas, Boeing...) certainly enjoy their lucrative relationship with Israel (and secretly Iran for that matter). Israel's military occupation is mostly carried out with American-made arms, mostly paid for by American taxpayers.

Although Israel has been very secretive about the number of nuclear weapons they currently have, estimates range from 100 to possibly 400. They also have a very strong biological warfare program. Many estimate that Iran may be able to make one nuclear bomb in 10 years. Some threat they are.... The National Air and Space Intelligence Center doesn't bother to list how many nuclear weapons Israel has in recent reports, yet list other American allies like Pakistan, Egypt and others.

So essentially, if you want to feed at the AIPAC money pit, you need to pound your chest that Iran is the "new threat" and Syria "needs to be taken care of".

Any mention to the AIPAC audience about whether they would want to disarm the Middle East of nuclear weapons or even mention the Israeli nuclear program would be greeted with denouncement, accusations of anti-semitism and a few quick phone calls to the DNC. From that moment on, you may as well kiss your political career goodbye.

More about Israel nukes: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/