John Edwards on Iran (interview with Ezra Klein, American Prospect)

[swag]

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=12434

EK: So, the Iran speech to Herzliya. That caused me to think a little bit more about what we had spoken about Iraq . And so I wanted to talk to you for a minute about --

JE: Do you mind me taking just a minute to lay out where I am on Iran and then you can just ask anything you want? Here’s my view about what we ought to be doing in Iran.

Number one, you have a radical leader, Ahmadinejad, who is politically unstable in his own country. The political elite have begun to leave him, the religious leaders have begun to leave him, the people aren’t happy with him, for at least two reasons: one, they don’t like his sort of bellicose rhetoric, and second, he was elected on a platform of economic reform and helping the poor and the middle class, and he hasn’t done anything. In fact, while he was traveling, the leaders of the legislature sent him a letter saying, ‘when are you gonna pay attention to the economic problems of our country.’ So, I think we have an opportunity here that we need to be taking advantage of.

First, America should be negotiating directly with Iran, which Bush won’t do. Second, we need to get our European friends, not just the banking system, but the governments themselves, to help us do two things -- put a group, a system of carrots and sticks on the table. The carrots are, we’ll make nuclear fuel available to you, we’ll control the cycle, but you can use it for any civilian purpose. Second, an economic package, which I don’t think has been seriously proposed up until now. Because there economy is already struggling, and it would be very attractive to them. And then on the flip side, the stick side, to say if you don’t do that, there are going to be more serious economic sanctions than you’ve seen up until now. Now of course we need the Europeans for this, cause they’re the ones with the economic relationship with Iran, but the whole purpose of this is number one to get an agreement. Number two, to isolate this radical leader so that the moderates and those within the country who want to see Iran succeed economically, can take advantage of it.

Now that’s on the one hand, the flip side of this is what happens if America were to militarily strike Iran? Well you take this unstable, radical leader, and you make him a hero -- that’s the first thing that’ll happen. The Iranian people will rally around him. The second thing that will happen is they will retaliate. And they have certainly some potential for retaliating here in the United States through some of these terrorist organizations they’re close to, but we’ve got over a hundred thousand people right next door. And most people believe that they have an infrastructure for retaliation inside Iraq. So, that’s the second thing that’ll happen. And the third thing is there are a lot of analysts who believe that an air strike or a missile strike is not enough to be successful. To be successful we’d actually have to have troops on the ground, and where in the world would they come from? So, to me, this is the path, I don’t know if you read Tom Friedman’s column either yesterday or the day before?

much more at

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=12434

[still_one]

1. Edward isn't my first choice, but nothig I disagree with on his position in the interview /nt

[swag]

2. I don't have a first choice, but I think that he could do well in the job.

[Gloria]

3. Thanks for posting. His discussion is much better than the

"sound bite" things we've been seeing. Sounds much closer to Wes Clark than a "warmonger".

The whole discussion is very interesting, particularly how he views his Iraq vote wrong for two reasons.

[FrenchieCat]

17. Yes, GLoria...cause that John Edwards wants for you.....

Problem is, his website is devoid of any Iran references although they are everywhere on the net.

No speeches,
No photos
No audio
No clippings

So why is that?

So all of the sudden you get one single story from a "new" interview...in where it is Edwards who says he wants to talk about Iran...

and now, he modulates.

Meaning he's talking out of both sides of his mouth depending on his audience.

I Hope he clears all of this up on MTP!

[PATRICK]

4. let's return to the brouhaha

which was vastly more important than that house thing. At the conference he was talking to that audience and was reported on and spun by the papers of israel- which was reported back to us. Now comes the American prospect clarification.

The common thread is the perspective of Edwards offering himself and his ideas as a presidential candidate. It veers off like a the reverse of static cling ever so when it comes to Bush. After all, insult and vilify the office you are seeking is to empower what vision of the presidency? Criticism of Bush and his policies is in strict parallel to trying to recoup American policy and the security of its allies. Something jars there that is typically American and more the Edwards is there. Even Clark, who is likely kept on at FOX because of treading the thin line while damning Bush policies, is focused on the threat of Iran. The greater threat of course to everyone is Bush and deflecting attention to other issues, whatever they are, especially issues Bush intends to game horribly, is actually helping Bush by indirection.

ANY such deflection makes everyone here justly uncomfortable yet that is the stance of the MSM, most Congressional representatives, most of the American consciousness. Bust must be stopped. Bush must go by his clear intentions and endangering actions, far greater than anything than any Iranian can dream of is the first and only priority. Presumption that we must and can wait until 2008 seems to be rebuilding the sucker syndrome one last time in the American psyche.

No, there is nothing to fault very much except for the impotent arguments dancing around our mad lame duck dictator. Impeachment is the issue and the abuse of power to commit criminal war for criminal motives is the impediment to discussing US policy at all seriously.

That bending away is something Edwards abjures sincerely but suffers from like most other Americans, even those passionate for immediate impeachment. It is part of the tragedy that makes this farcical rerun inevitable and Bush still legitimate in his crime. But the region is very much a believer this time and that is exactly what Bush needs to make this war actually easier. The mere positioning of carriers in this obvious circumstance is more than tantamount to a declaration of war-no-matter-what. No denial by Bush has any significance. It will be understood this way and that is why he does it and no words make a difference. He's done it before and we are doing it just enough to let him get away with it.

[saltpoint]

5. I've heard Dubya's saber-rattling blather and now read this

interview.

Only one of the two sounds presidential to me, and it ain't the one from Connecticut.

[LSK]

6. swag, thank you SO MUCH for posting this K&R and bookmarking

I had concerns about Edwards regarding Iran and this clears them up a bit. I can support him again, house be damned.

[LSK]

7. this is key

Q: So, I just want to get it very clear, you think that attacking Iran would be a bad idea?

A: I think would have very bad consequences.

[KoKo]

8. Edwards says for us to attack and be successful, though, it would take more Forces.

So, he favors more forces if we are going to attack anyone. I wish he hadn't put that into his comments. I'd trust him more if he hadn't added that. :-( Sounds like the plan Bush wished he'd gone with but didn't in Iraq.

[LSK]

9. I think you are reading too much into his statements

But what do I know?

[LSK]

10. we cant get this on greatest? this is important

[FrenchieCat]

11. He's just doing Damage control...which is good....but

That's all this is.

Notice that Edwards is the one that bring it up in the interview, not the interviewer....and he brings it up right away. He probably called them up specifically to talk about Iran.

I'm certain that his paid operatives that are all over the internet have told him that he's been losing support with his threats at Iran on the net in particular, so he's toning it down.....

John Edwards works at it.

Wondered what he told AIPAC last night? Most likely not this.

when you go to his website you find this:

Senator Edwards Speaks at AIPAC's Annual Policy Conference
Senator Edwards speaks at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's Annual Policy Conference in Washington, D.C. on March 6, 2006.
Watch (Real Video)

and hit play.....you find "requested file not found"
http://johnedwards.com/media/video/aipac20060306/

And there's nothing on his website at all about last night's conference....
nor about the Herzliya Conference of a week ago.
http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/world/?content_id=5400l
Nothing to read, nothing to hear, and nothing to play.

but the DNC video is up and running just fine!

So I guess that watching him actually "doing" foreign policy with groups other than Democratic activists is not our business.....but everything else is. :shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

12. Why is John Edward's site devoid of any Iran references? Hey?

If one can't find anything on Edwards' website that allows us to hear or to see or to read what he actually said when he was addressing both the AIPAC and the Herzliya Conference those 4 times since March of 2006, then it can only lead one to better understand that he's working the various angle without being honest about his views...being two faced sort of speak, which goes to the heart of his "authenticity"....which many of us have doubted for quite some time.....and others are starting to see better.

I also couldn't find any News clippings about these meetings at his website!

So then I checked his "speeches" on his website...and found this list:

DNC Winter Meeting - Remarks as Prepared for Delivery
Feb 2, 2007
National Press Club Policy Address
Jun 22, 2006
The Transatlantic Partnership in an Age of Global Challenges
Apr 30, 2006
Senator John Edwards Speaks at the United Against Poverty Conference
Feb 8, 2006
Hindustan Times Conference
Nov 16, 2005
Restoring the American Dream: Combating Poverty and Building One America
Sep 19, 2005
American Constitution Society
Jul 29, 2005
London School of Economics
May 25, 2005
http://johnedwards.com/news/speeches/

So his speeches to the Herzliya Conferences are also not being put up.

so I look elsewhere, and there was his most recent!
http://www.herzliyaconference.org/Eng/_Articles/Article.asp?ArticleID=1728&CategoryID=223

Then, I couldn't find any articles about John Edwards at the conference at his website...although there are plenty of press clipping over there...just none dealing with the issue of Iran.....

Like these:
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/10435.htm
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html
http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/world/?content_id=5400
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/printer_23828.shtml
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3355802,00.html


Meanwhile, Romney, who was also at the Herzliya conference on the same day as John Edwards is proudly displaying a picture, a video of his speech and a prominent link to the text of his speech on his Romney for President website.
http://idahoansformitt.wordpress.com/2007/01/23/mitt-romneys-speech-at-the-herzliya-conference-the-plan-to-confront-iran/


I'm fucking tired of "Secrets" being kept! :eyes:

[LSK]

13. well it is possible hes just giving AIPAC a line of BS just to get money

Who knows. I wish Gore would fucking announce already!

[FrenchieCat]

14. Well I certainly would welcome Gore into it......

Cause I don't trust JOhn Edwards.


He called the prospect for an interview...specifically to clear this shit up.....with the bloggers.

So this is for our menu.

I like that even less.

[LSK]

15. the good thing is we have time to figure this out

The bad thing is what if Edwards is legit but doesnt get support and falls too far behind Hillary.

[saltpoint]

16. Recommended. n/t

[Leopolds Ghost]

18. I haven't said much about Edwards' Herzliya statements, but it sounds like he was just pandering

To the Israeli government so as not to piss off donors here at home who support Israel.

This speech sounds much, MUCH more educated and reasonable, I'm impressed.

[Clarkie1]

19. Did it occur to you that in this speech perhaps he's pandering to you?

I mean, if he can pander to one constituency why not pander to the other?

[Clarkie1]

20. He's learned how to talk the talk.

"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."

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_kno...

"To come along with what needs to be done with Iran," can only be interpreted to mean one thing....war. It is not a problem to get the American people to "go for" or "come along with" sanctions.

Well, Senator Edwards, since you are obviously assuming war with Iran is inevitable if you should ever become president, it assuredly will be inevitable should you become President and hold to that view in mind and heart.

Yes, Senator Edwards, I know you are backtracking today...I've seen the posts of your supports and the damage control you're engaging in, but I don't buy it. You've made the same wrong-headed assumptions about Iran that you made when you voted for war with Iraq, and it's clear you are not qualified to implement a new American foreign policy for the 21st century. Your new words about Iran are just words you think will fix the damage...they not conviction or true understanding.

You're a dangerous man, Senator Edwards. You're dangerous not because of any malicious intent, but because of your ignorance and your willingness to say whatever you think is necessary to get yourself elected. You may be well-intentioned or not in you advocacy for the poor...I honestly don't know if you're more interested in helping the poor, or using them to help your campaign. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that with that perhaps at least you are sincere. What I do know is that you lack the judgment and understanding of the world we need in the oval office. You can't work the global poverty issue effectively without truly understanding the world and how to engage with the rest of the world to bring greater peace and
prosperity to all humankind.

This isn't the time or place of on the job training, Senator Edwards. America and the world cannot afford that option.

[Mass]

21. So he did not trust Bush, but voted to give him full war powers without coming

back to Congress.

Sorry, that worries me a lot.

Except that, I need a guide: which side is he pandering to? Why should I believe he is pandering to AIPAC rather than to us?

[CarolNYC]

22. Pandering...

Exactly. If he says one thing to one audience, which is what that audience wants to hear...and another thing to another audience, which is what that auidence wants to hear...how can anyone know if he really means anything he's saying or if he's just saying what he thinks people want to hear just because they want to hear it.

This is serious stuff. We need someone we can really trust with this, not someone who tailors his thoughts and opinions to match those of whoever he's speaking to.

[Toots]

23. We agree on several points but conspicuously absent was how to act/react to

Bush* and his war mongering.....I don't want to wait for two plus years for sanity to prevail.. I want to know what he suggests for our current Congressional leaders to do now....Granted he is no longer in Congress but apparently he does have a National Voice and I would like to hear him use it for the here and now and not a few years down the road if and only if he were to somehow miraculously win the election...

[Blackhatjack]

25. Here is the answer to your question ... LINK ... What Edwards Proposes for Iran

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/feb/01/edwards_ill_travel_the_world_in_my_first_100_days

He is stating clearly what needs to be done, what he would do, and what Congress should be doing.

THis should answer your question in that regard.

[Blackhatjack]

24. So How Many Geniuses Here Have Never Been Misled By The Bush Administration??

IF the 'evidence' which Bush presented as coming from a close and comprehensive examination by the CIA and NSA had been true, I doubt anyone here would have voted against the Authorization to use force in dealing with Iraq.

Now we know that the 'evidence' was not true, that it was part of a conspiracy of lies to get us into a war in Iraq, and now some are saying 'well, I would not have voted for the authorization to use force if I had been a senator.'

THat is nothing more than hindsight. THe same thing as saying you could have predicted the winning lottery numbers for yesterday after reading them in today's paper.

John Edwards has done the right thing --according to most people at this site --he has admitted his vote to authorize force was 'wrong' and said if he knew that the evidence presented was doctored he would not have voted to support the authorization.

So does he get any credit for doing the right thing? Not according to these geniuses.

I have great respect for those who did not see 'enough' evidence to convince them to vote for the autorization to use force in Iraq. However, being a senator requires you to vote your conscience on issues in which American lives are at stake. Senators on both sides of the voting likely had the same goals in mind, but different ideas on how to do that.

Read what John Edwards has to say about Iran today, and how we should disarm this powderkeg, and you cannot come away with the idea that he is Bush's lapdog since his ideas are 180 degrees different from what the present Administration is proposing.

Whoever is elected the next President in 2008, I hope they have the integrity to come out and tell us if they made a mistake and change course to correct that mistake. John Edwards has proven he is capable of doing that.

And for the geniuses that have never been misled by the Bush Administration on anything over the last 6 years, fortune tellers and tarot card readers are waiting to hire you.