Edwards: Stand Up To War With Iran

[babylonsister]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/25/431452.aspx

From NBC/NJ's Tricia Miller

CORNING, IA -- At his first event today Edwards told an audience here that Democrats need to stand up to efforts to go to war with Iran. He again ran down the Senate vote a few weeks ago in which Biden and Dodd voted against declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, but Clinton voted in favor. Today, that bill was signed into law, Edwards noted.

"You cannot give Bush and Cheney this kind of authority," Edwards said. "And here are the consequences. The consequences are, today the administration declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. And they said they’re also proliferating weapons of mass destruction. So here we go again. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?”

Edwards also took aim at Romney, who told a New Hampshire voter that he would consider military action in Iran.

“And then I listened to Romney yesterday," Edwards said, "a Republican who’s running for president, talking about Iran, and he said, among other things, he’d be willing to bombard Iran. You know, you expect that from Republicans, but the Democrats don’t need to be helping."

[Nutmegger]

1. R&K .....

..... For Edwards!!! :thumbsup::kick::thumbsup:

[waiting for hope]

3. I love that picture!

[MethuenProgressive]

6. Dosen't his hair look great??

:rofl:

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[IndianaGreen]

32. At least he doesn't color his hair like Hillary does.

Why can't Hillary show her gray stuff?

[amandabeech]

38. We ladies don't like to show it unless we can show it attractively.

Hillary colors her hair, and so does Tipper Gore (the last time I saw her), Elizabeth Edwards (who used to be a much darker brunette) and me. Kucinich's wife is too young to have to color (unless she's already brightening that beautiful red hair, which tends to fade with age), and I can't recall what the spouses of the other candidates look like.

Frequently, we middle aged types look better with lighter hair like Liz and me (I go a shade lighter and add red) and many of us enjoy looking a little younger.

Gray is worse for brunettes, too, because every gray strand sticks out. Those with more golden skin undertones (look better in gold jewelry) have a more difficult time with gray hair which clashes with their skin tones. Those with pinkish or bluish complexions (who look better in silver) have an easier time with gray hair.

The older you get, the more you need to show some gray to avoid looking silly, like my great aunt did when she died at the age of 95 with bright red hair.

Hillary's not there yet, and I'm sure that she and the wives of other candidates have had some focus group or polling time on just this issue.

In the end, it's a girl thing.

[IndianaGreen]

39. I don't color mine

I've earned every gray hair I've got!

[amandabeech]

40. I respect you for that, but I think that you may be in the minority.

I never bothered to check your C.V., but I've always thought that you were male. I don't know why.

Sorry about writing things to you that you've already heard a zillion times.

[Nutmegger]

11. Thanks!

I have others, but that one is my favorite. Maybe this one too:





I know how you feel too. :hug:

[waiting for hope]

12. This is one of my favs:

and Thanks.. :hug:

[jenmito]

2. Good. When he drops out it looks like his supporters will go to Obama

way more likely than Hillary.

[waiting for hope]

4. Edwards is right on this -

We do not need to be picking a fight with Iran.

K&R!

[slipslidingaway]

5. That's great, but where has he been on this issue for the last

couple of years while the administration and media have been turning public sentiment towards a war with Iran. Is it safe now that others have paved the way?

And of course he is using the issue to attack his rivals instead of speaking about the ongoing inspections / findings and Iran's right to enrich uranium under the NPT. From what I've read Edwards speaks of giving enriched uranium to Iran for their energy needs, they will be dependent on others for the fuel, I think that some in Iran might see that as a form of control.

:shrug:

[CarolNYC]

8. Good points...

Seems the coming war with Iran is of concern to Edwards only insomuch as he can use it as a club to knock political opponents over the head with...same as a lot of DUers unfortunately. :(

Where was his concern about ratcheting up the rhetoric when he was telling the folks at the Herzliya conference that Americans, because of their concern with what's going on in Iraq, would be "reticent toward going for Iran" but that we can "be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran"? Ugh! Just what a warmongering audience needed to hear...He does have a knack for telling people what he knows they want to hear, I'll give him that.

[slipslidingaway]

13. Why everyone is willing to overlook and not even question the

inconsistencies and motives of speaking now is beyond me. Much of the damage has already been done with respect to sentiment and the American people, Iran has been marketed for years and they remained silent :(

And on the language that Edwards used at the Herzliya conference about Iran is what I was thinking of earlier when I wrote this...

Just one other note, sometimes you'll find a candidate speaks one way to an audience in the US and then they address an audience in another country which has a markedly different tone. Then you have to ask the real person to stand up, so to speak :)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3646541&mesg_id=3646785

Thank you!

[CarolNYC]

18. Yep...

but people, even here, seem to want for their politicians to be panderers rather than truthtellers. Sad, really.

[venable]

15. you've not been paying attention then

- he told Russert that he would not, last Feb., declare that a President Edwards would forbid the existence of a nuclear Iran. He thought such a statement ignored many realities:

- that Ahmadinejad has no FP authority, and was, in fact, highly unpopular in Iran

- that the mullahs ran FP and they have declared nuclear weapons un-Islamic

- that the Iranian people traditionally are very supportive of the US and the American people

- that diplomacy has not been given a real try

- that Iran has every right to develop nuclear energy sources


this was on MTP about last Feb.

As for the Herzliya conference: His appearance on Russert, about two weeks, or shortly after his Herzliya speech, was to set the record straight. At no time did he say that we should bomb Iran. He was referring to the American people coming around to the need to open dialogue with them. .

Don't believe me? Shortly before that time it was reported in the Hollywood Reporter that he was at a fundraiser in LA, and was asked what was the biggest threat to world peace. He said: "Israel attacking Iran is the biggest threat to world peace'. This was to an audience that didn't want to hear that, went 'chilly' according to the reporter, and the fundraiser ended with no takers, because he argued against action attacking Iran.

So, that's where he has been, and I hope you can stand corrected on this point.

[CarolNYC]

17. Well,

the Russert thing was, I believe, just more proof of his being willing to say what he knows the audience wants to hear....He's warmongering in front of the warmongering audience and then calming down in front of the audience that he knows was upset with his warmongering. As I said, he's good at telling people what they want to hear. I don't exactly see "going for Iran" as opening dialogue with them.

As for that other event, as I remember, when reading the actual accounts, your interpretation of the event isn't exactly the same one I would come up with. Can you post a link to this story you speak of so people can see what the report actually said?

Thanks

[slipslidingaway]

21. When I looked all articles/posts pointed back to this article

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117957727.html?categoryid=1&cs=1

[slipslidingaway]

22. Here's his speech as reported on the conference site...

"As for the Herzliya conference: His appearance on Russert, about two weeks, or shortly after his Herzliya speech, was to set the record straight. At no time did he say that we should bomb Iran. He was referring to the American people coming around to the need to open dialogue with them."


Why would Edwards think that the American people have to 'come around' to the idea of dialogue? I would imagine that the average person feels we should first engage them in talks instead of bombs. If anything my interpretation would be just the opposite of yours, especially in light of the question???

:shrug:


January 22, 2007

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

"Question and Answer:

Cheryl Fishbein from NY: When you do learning of Jewish texts, you give credit to ideas of scholars who have helped you ask questions, I would like to give credit to my friends and colleagues who have had this same overriding question of shared a existential threat: 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."


List of speakers and dates...

http://www.herzliyaconference.org/Eng/_Articles/Article.asp?CategoryID=223&ArticleID=1598

[venable]

25. nt

[slipslidingaway]

26. ?????????????

"He was referring to the American people coming around to the need to open dialogue with them."

Is that still your belief after reading the question and then his reply? Or do you see how others might interpret that differently.


Here's his speech as reported on the conference site...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3645723&mesg_id=3650551

[venable]

33. I can't know what he was thinking, as it is not spelled out, so I look to the

larger context of his cumulative statements on Iran, Israel, diplomacy, etc both before and after that speech.

Even if, IF, I was certain that he was war-mongering in the Herzliyah speech, I would still find him the most enlightened, war-avoiding candidate, simply based upon the totality of his statements. Some disagree, but I wonder what they say about his enlightened comments on Russert, his statement in the fundraiser in LA, his admonitions about war with Iran, etc. It's as if these statements don't exist. And they are far more extensive and persuasive and unambiguous than the one, cryptic Herzliyah speech.

People can not like Edwards, that's fine. But it's neither fair nor honest to pretend he is trying to wage war with Iran, when he is the most articulate spokesperson for dialogue, at least among the current candidates. IMO.

[MichDem10]

7. Speaking the truth...

Now we just need America and the MSM to pay attention!

[calteacherguy]

10. All the candidates need to hold a joint news conference to endorse the Webb bill.

Until they do, I will not believe any of them are truly serious about stopping the upcoming war. Whoever you support, please tell them to stop playing politics when it comes to issues of war and peace.

[slipslidingaway]

14. I'm still supporting Kucinich, he has been speaking out about

this for quite some time, he knows the correct stance and the past games played. The Democrats had a chance to make a stand on this issue with the supplemental bills last spring...they removed the 'no war for Iran language from the bill.'

On several issues Kucinich has been saying that this is a fight within the Democratic party :think:

I'm not saying it's too late, although I do feel we are approaching that time. At some point you have to wonder if people are ignorant, have a poor sense of judgement or are complicit.

Also you may want to read the latest Gareth Porter article.

[CarolNYC]

19. People just don't care, I think....

And it's too bad because this is really serious.

Dennis is fighting the good fight, as usual.

[slipslidingaway]

20. More people will care after the fact :( n/t

[bunnies]

23. again. :( n/t

[slipslidingaway]

27. Welcome to DU, we need to do better this time. n/t

[calteacherguy]

24. Edwards clearly needs a remedial course in reading comprehension.

The Kyl-Lieberman bill is not the issue; it did not give the President any "authority" he didn't already have.

I think Edwards is just blowing hot air; I wish all the candidates would make a real effort to get together and stop this war. Unfortunately, many seem more interested in politics and attacking their opponents than working together for real change. Edwards is a prime example.

[Milo_Bloom]

29. You still trying to sell this lie?

Of course Edwards is blowing hot air... we have only his own record to prove it.

However, to suggest that Kyl-Lieberman isn't an issue requires complete and total ignorance of how we went to war in Iraq and the build up to it over the years.

[Hieronymus]

35. Obviously, you support Hillary .. I'm sure Edwards reads just fine.

[AtomicKitten]

28. too bad Edwards can't send himself back in his time machine

and take his own advice

[Ninga]

30. There isn't a person walking this earth who would be exempt from your advice.

To confine it to Edwards, is rather short sighted. Bill Clinton, Hillary, Biden with his abdication of Anita Hill, etc, etc, etc......all of them need a time machine.


If Edwards makes it though the primary process, and wins the WH, he will be a stellar President.

[AtomicKitten]

31. It matters.

Edwards was at the front of the parade leading the charge into Iraq. His Op-Ed advocating invading Iraq was posted on the State Department's website. He cosponsored the IWR and rallied for it.

So you'll have to pardon my skepticism about Edwards' current cause celebre which is, in fact, getting elected president by leading the parade in the now opposite direction.

[venable]

34. Those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

Edwards is not doomed to repeat them.

He shows that with every breath he takes.

Don't believe it, if you choose not to, but many do, thankfully.

[AtomicKitten]

36. I have an opportunity to vote for someone who didn't make those mistakes.

I feel my skepticism is valid, but I don't begrudge others a different view on this. We are rolling the dice on anyone this primary; I just feel going with the kid that didn't f*ck up the first go is right for me.

I'll throw you a bone :): I do appreciate that Edwards recognized the poo-factor of Kyl-Lieberman.
An excellent start at rebuilding trust.

[venable]

37. fair enough

I completely understand those who choose as you do, especially if they are not absolute in their condemnation. The only ones I object to are those who refuse to acknowledge even the slightest possibility of humanity or intelligence in someone who made a ghastly mistake, even if, as in this case, it was a mistake made with the best motives, however wrongly they were applied, and who now understands fully the consequences of the vote.

I think w would have gone to war no matter what the vote was, but Edwards has to live with the fact that sons and daughters have died and he did less than he could have to prevent this. He misread reality - he thought that the vote would save lives. He was wrong. He will not ever forget the lessons of history.

Cheers and peace.