Clinton, Edwards and Obama: Strike Iran -- Why the Democrats Won’t Save Us (Joshua Frank)

[Tace]

Joshua Frank -- World News Trust

Feb 6, 2007 -- Over the past weekend Hillary Clinton pledged to end the war in Iraq if she is elected. “If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will,” she told a large crowd at the Democratic National Committee’s winter convention in Washington.

It was the first time since announcing her candidacy that Hillary acknowledged the growing movement against the war when discussing Iraq, which faced its bloodiest period since the invasion almost four years ago with more than 1,000 reported deaths in the last seven days alone. Also in attendance at the DNC meeting were other presidential hopefuls, including John Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama, who both attempted to paint themselves as the best antiwar candidate in the hunt for the White House.

The top candidates’ tepid words on Iraq were a sign of what’s to come over the next year and a half as their rhetorical talents are turned on high. Despite Obama’s reassurance that he did not support the war from the beginning, along with Edwards’ claims that he’s had a change of heart on his past pro-war votes -- neither candidate distinguished their position from the Bush administration when it came to the looming Iran confrontation.

In fact two weeks earlier, while visiting Israel, Edwards laid out his position on Iran quite succinctly:

"Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons … 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.”

more

http://www.worldnewstrust.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=932&Itemid=9999

[venable]

1. Edwards has made it abundantly clear that he is against attacking Iran

He stated his reasons very clearly on MTP in an extended interview

- Ahmadinejad is marginaized. We would be giving him credibility by attacking. We marginalize him by negotiating
- We can not, after the fiasco in Iraq, show that face again to the Muslim world, to the rest of the world, or to our own people.
- An attack would have serious consequences, maybe at home, but certainly to our forces nearby.
- We should negotiate with Iran and Syria. We should bring European govts to join us in economic sanctions AND incentives.
- He didn't state this here, but he did state at a fundraiser, that the Mullahs have the power in Iran, and they have decreed nuclear weapons to be un-Islamic.
- He even went so far as to not insist that a nuclear Iran would not be allowed under an Edwards administration. He said we are a long way from having to address that. This answer is enlightened, and diplomatically correct. I've not heard it elsewhere.

I don't know for sure about HRC, but my guess is Obama would not strike Iran. I doubt, seriously, that HRC would either.

About Edwards, there is no doubt - he would not strike Iran.

Nobody would ever, for no reason, unilaterally take military options off the table. It is not necessary and makes no sense.

The quoted Herzliya conference speech was ill-formed, and clearly (as per what he states above) does not represent his approach.

[DaveinMD]

2. this just isn't true

These distortions are too much.

[Smarmie Doofus]

3. He's gonna 'educate' *whom* about *what*?!

>>>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.”>>>

If by some miracle they are handling Iran legitimately, it won't be up to Edwards, Clinton or anyone else who caved, connived or collaborated to produce Iraq, to inform us of this fact.

We can do without lofty, condescending pronouncements re. the Iranian 'threat' from the people who brought us Iraq. If anyone, I'll take seriously the positions of Kennedy, Byrd,etc whose judgment in this area has been established.

But no not Clinton; not Edwards. Their best contribution to the debate at this point would be to stay OUT of it.

[hopein08]

11. Isn't Dubya always giving speeches to "educate" us about Iraq? Thanks but I'll pass...

Like that one last month from the cozy/scholarly library?

And I won't be coming along and I won't be educated to trust my president. I'll educate myself to decide who to trust!

I used to be all for Edwards...100%, but no more.

[venable]

14. if you got off of Edwards because you think he wants to attack Iran

you ought to look closely. He DOES NOT WANT TO ATTACK IRAN. HE NEVER SAID HE DID.

This is all a smear from certain DU'ers.

Listen to his enlightened views as expressed on MTP. They are exactly the opposite of how he is being portrayed here.

Not at the intentional misreading of his Herzliya speech.

[hopein08]

17. That isn't the entire reason. But, believe me, I have looked closely...

I realize that certain DU'ers are smearing things to sound much worse than they are. It can be epidemic around here. Knowing that, I always take things with a grain of salt and then investigate for myself. And that is what I did.

I wasn't able to watch MTP on Sunday but I did read the transcript. And it was too hawkish and contradictory for me. I don't understand how he can campaign on cutting funding for Iraq and bringing the troops home now from a war that was entered into based on lies (which he basically admits now) and then, in the next sentence, quote generally unfounded stories about all of the evil things Iran is doing in regard to their nuclear program and tell me that, if necessary, he will educate me to come along in support of military action if he, as president, says it needs to be done. It is simply too contradictory and borders on condescending, in my opinion.

I also cannot be 100% sure but I do believe that I also read a transcript of the Herzliya speech. And perhaps I misread it, due to biases and filters picked up at DU and other places, but it just doesn't work for me. We cannot go to war with Iran for Israel or Israel's sake, in my humble opinion. We shouldn't even threaten it.

I am behind virtually all of his domestic ideas. But his foreign policy leaves something to be desired, in my own view of how things should be.

But I badly and desperately wanted to support Edwards. I probably still do and would were it not for those few things. In 2004, he was the candidate I wanted to win the nomination (of course, I live in PA, so it was decided by then). And I think the main reason I supported Kerry as strongly as I did is because he picked Edwards. I don't know what changed. Maybe I opened my eyes since then with clearer vision, or did more research, or two additional years of Dubya made me skeptical.

But I have looked closely. But I really am more than willing to change my mind if you or anyone else can show me what it is I'm missing. Please, convince me.

[venable]

19. You say he wants to go to war with Iran, and you say it this way:

'and then, in the next sentence, quote generally unfounded stories about all of the evil things Iran is doing in regard to their nuclear program and tell me that, if necessary, he will educate me to come along in support of military action if he, as president, says it needs to be done. It is simply too contradictory and borders on condescending, in my opinion."



This is my point. He did not say he wanted to bring the US public to military action. He never said that. So what did he mean? Well, read the MTP transcript, where he goes into detail, and it show he was saying and is saying THE EXACT OPPOSITE.

(I think you are confusing the Herzliya speech with MTP. In the Herlzliya speech he was vague, and it could be read as hawkish - and that is Edwards fault. So, to clarify, look at what he says when he spells it out.)

Please, please read the MTP transcript. He is the least hawkish person on Iran that I've yet heard. And he gives very clear reasons.

[demnan]

4. I agree with the other posters here

Edwards talked at length about Iran on Meet the Press on Sunday. Too bad Joshua Frank reads right wing Israel newspaper accounts instead of seeing the man talk for himself.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

5. This is one reason I can't support any of these three in the primaries

Instead of actually thinking the situation through, they're mouthing the words that their advisors tell them they need to utter in order to sound "strong on defense."

It's time the Dems fired their advisors, smashed that Reagan-era meme, and educated the public about what would really make America strong. Not more missiles. Not more troops. Not more invasions or covert overthrows of other countries. None of that macho bullshit.

Right now we're like the crazy old guy who lives in a rundown house with starving children, a pack of Rottweilers, and a private arsenal in his basement.

[venable]

6. How does Edwards saying he wouldn't rule out living with a nuclear Iran

and that we should talk to Iran, and that we should not attack, get morphed into you saying that he is mouthing words to sound strong on defense?


Please explain

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. And how do you reconcile that with what he said here:

In fact two weeks earlier, while visiting Israel, Edwards laid out his position on Iran quite succinctly:

"Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons … 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.”

Which is the real Edwards? Or does he adjust his message to his audience?

[venable]

8. for the 7 billionth time

I take away from the totality of his speeches that he is against war with Iran. He made a badly phrased speech, during which at no time did he say he wanted to attack Iran. His words were vague and ill-chosen enough to give red meat to his detractors.

I have no interest in doing this forever. If you can't reconcile them, don't. I have.

[A Simple Game]

9. You would have me believe that when Edwards says

"Let me be clear" that we should not believe what he says?

People trying to be ambiguous talk like this; "He even went so far as to NOT insist that a nuclear Iran would NOT be allowed under an Edwards administration."

I'm sure any English teacher would love to pick apart that sentence.

[venable]

13. the sentence means what is says, no more, no less

Russert's question: approximately - Would a President Edwards demand that Iran not gain nuclear capability?

Edwards: I don't want to insist upon that. There is a long way to go before we have to confront that.

Hence: "He even went so far as to NOT insist that a nuclear Iran would NOT be allowed under an Edwards administration."

It may be complex to you, but so, maybe, is the question and answer. You see? He is not saying he would allow a nuclear Iran. He is saying he will not insist at this point that a nuclear Iran would not be allowed to exist.

There is a difference between attempting to reflect the complexity of an exchange, and being willfully ambiguous.

Any 'English teacher' who had read Henry James would find this thoroughly transparent, if not simplistic.

Edwards position here is quite brave, IMO.

[A Simple Game]

15. Yes it is complex to me, I just can't make the same assumptions

that you do.

To me, " I don't want to insist upon that.", does not equal, "He is saying he will not insist at this point".

"Don't want" does not equal "will not", it never has, it never will.

In the following sentence substitute any word for work, say maybe war!

I don't want to go to work tomorrow, doesn't mean I will not go to work tomorrow.

People often read or hear what they need to reinforce their positions or wants. We obviously have differing positions.

[venable]

16. Read the transcript, watch the interview - it is very clear.

As the late Sam Ervin said during Watergate, when asked by John Ehrlichman how he knew certain words meant what Ervin assumed they meant:

"Because I speak the English language. It's my mother tongue."

I understand exactly what Edwards was saying, and I take great comfort in it, as a pacifist.

[paulk]

10. Don't pay any attention to Joshua Frank

he's nothing but a right wing water boy, posing as a "leftist".

Here he goes after all three Democratic Party frontrunners.

it's a trifecta...

[ripple]

12. Has Frank EVER spoken favorably about a democrat?

I think he's a Nader guy, isn't he?

He also has a tendency to throw some seriously provocative opinions out there and let them churn around the blogosphere. I'm guessing part of the motivation for that is to get the most reaction and a higher number of hits to his blog.

I take his opinions with an extra large grain of salt.

[zulchzulu]

18. This crap from Frank is simplistic hogwash

Obama came out with these statements in 2004:

Obama said the United States must first address Iran's attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security Council and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iran to cease nuclear activities. That pressure should come in the form of economic sanctions, he said.

But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said.

... Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S. and the Arab world.

"In light of the fact that we're now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in," he said.

"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. ...

...if President Pervez Musharraf (Pakistan) were to lose power in a coup, the United States similarly might have to consider military action in that country to destroy nuclear weapons it already possesses.

Obama said that violent Islamic extremists are a vastly different brand of foe than was the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and they must be treated differently.

"With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don't want to be blown up, we don't want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain," Obama said. "I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don't make those same calculations."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/elections/chi-0409250111sep25,1,6128171.story

A sober assessment of addressing what should indeed be on the table (and not like Bush) have as an option in the case of a militant Islamo-fascist group of wackos hellbent on blowing up the "Devil" (re: US) is needed. Granted, Iran is projected to not being able to have a working nuclear program for up to 10 years.

Perhaps Frank wouldn't give a rat's ass if nukes were in the hands of suicidal maniacs blinded by theocratic morass. But any President should certainly weigh out the possibility.

Making the Middle East a nuclear-free zone (including Israel) would be my first effort if I was President. I would think that Obama would want to go in that direction.

Bumperstickering Obama (and even Edwards and H. Clinton) as wanting to attack Iran given the chance is bunk. Diplomatic strategies and other counter-measures within the UN would be the first choices.

[geek tragedy]

20. Frank is full of shit. Here's what Obama said in 2005:

He dismissed the possibility of an invasion of Iran, which is under scrutiny for a nuclear program that critics say seeks to develop nuclear weapons.

"We can rattle our sabers all we want but, realistically, we don't have troops for an invasion and surgical strikes aren't going to work," Obama said.


http://obama.senate.gov/news/050225-obama_pledges_to_improve_schools_health-care_access/index.html