EDWARDS on IRAN: An Interview with The American Prospect (2/02/07)

[liberalpragmatist]

I don't agree with everything he says here, but I think he explains himself well and makes clear than Edwards isn't following a Bush-like policy on Iran.

Edwards On Iran
TAP talks to John Edwards about America's foreign policy challenges in the Middle East.

By Ezra Klein
Web Exclusive: 02.02.07

The following is an interview conducted on February 2, 2007 at the Washington, D.C., Hilton. Some of the background for the interview is in this Tapped post from earlier in the day. The interview is slightly edited for length, coherence, and the removal of a short off-the-record passage. (Thanks to TAP intern Alina Hoffman for the transcription.)

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?

I did not.

It’ll be easy to find. Take a look at it, I think it’s very smart and he’s thinking about this exactly the right way.

He says should we do something sensible, that both sides can agree on?

(laughs) Amazing yeah.

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

I think would have very bad consequences.

So when you said that all options are on the table?

It would be foolish for any American president to ever take any option off the table.

(continued...)

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

[FrenchieCat]

1. 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:

[stillcool]

2. nicely put...

I'd get my self in a heap of trouble trying to parse out a response that would not even come close. Thanks:toast:

[benny05]

3. Edwards was aware that bloggers were concerned

so, he decided to take it head-on.

And I thought Edwards' comments clarified pretty well.

[CarolNYC]

4. So he says one thing in front of the crowd that wants war....

and then another thing for "the concerned bloggers" who don't...and somehow that's supposed to make me feel good? Kind makes me think I can't trust that he really means what he's saying but maybe that's just me. :shrug:

I've said it before, I've found that what people really want in their politicians is not honesty but someone who will tell them what they want to be told. It seems folks like that are not too hard to find.

[benny05]

5. I think he is being honest

Let me clarify what I mean by the bloggers concern.

Edwards has a really healthy respect for what we say and think out here. The MSM shut us out for the longest time. Most of the time, they still do because they are interested in who will fill their pockets first, which is big money pols like Mrs. Clinton.

Edwards announced his candidacy to the bloggers first, then posted on YT, then went to the MSM. I've noticed that he tends to meet with bloggers who write good columns/blogs, and he really means it when he said he would be running his campaign from the grassroots, and in our case, Netroots. It is not a top-down campaign; it is the other way around.

[Skwmom]

17. Edwards has a healthy respect for bloggers?

I think Edwards thinks we are stupid and will buy into any spin.

Hmm... why would Edwards suck up to the bloggers? Could it be $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

[FrenchieCat]

6. Well show Mr." Stand up for Courage to do what's right" to read this post of mine, hear?

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:

[benny05]

8. Bloggers brought up the Iran Issue

At his blog, but since you don't blog there, you wouldn't know, would you?

[Clark2008]

10. But not all bloggers visit his website.

Shouldn't there be a place to quick reference it without having to go through miles of net babblings to read it?

[LSK]

9. do you really think he puts up every one one of his speeches??

When you are running for President, you are probably doing several speeches a day.

[benny05]

12. That's true

and no, he doesn't put up all of his speeches, not even on his web site.

[FrenchieCat]

13. Oh...yeah...why not? Any speech one is "proud" of that is....

But sorry LSK, you can like Edwards all you want....and wake up one day and say WTF?

I much more discerning.

Bush fooled too many that way.

I'm not going for the Okey Doke just cause the man has a nice smile that some voters go to bed dreaming about. This is not about JOhn Edwards...this is about my children's future.

I want honesty and openeness...not trickery and manipulation!

[Faryn Balyncd]

14. so am i

[Adelante]

11. I just posted in GDP

An analysis by Digby's Hullabaloo - long and interesting.

What they will be left with, if anybody is left with anything, is an argument that while they thought it should be left on the table, they didn't ever really mean for him to use it ----- or that they wanted him to do other things first --- or some other nonsense that will sound just as convoluted as their excuses about the Iraq war resolution did in the last election.

This actually isn't a hypothetical question, you see. George W. Bush is doing this as we speak. The question today is, "Do you believe he has the right to attack Iran preventively or don't you?"

Politicians apparently feel they must say that they can't take any options off the table. But there is no reason they must go before a particular political constituency and forcefully imply that they would use the Bush Doctrine against Iran if it failed to meet certain conditions. The Bush Doctrine must be repudiated not reinforced. Until we restore the post WWII international legal consensus against wars of aggression, we are going to be attacking countries who quite rationally have decided that they are better off getting nukes while the getting's good.

The Bush Doctrine is not a non-proliferation policy. It's a recipe for disaster and until Bush is out of office it pays to remember that he's the guy who can pull the trigger. It's not a good idea to say things that anyone, including Bush, may very well see as an endorsement of doing that.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_digbysblog_archive.html#117046464485756663

[Faryn Balyncd]

15. In 2006, Chuck Hagel voted for the IWR, and advised Bush to NOT ACTUALLY USE IT.....

(Hagel, in fact, was, even in 2002 and early 2003, outspoken in his belief that the IWR should be used by the president only to force a diplomatic solution, not to actually go to war.)

Now John Edwards says attacking Iran should be "on the table". When Edwards is not speaking to audiences filled with those who desire to bomb Iran, he says its just an "option", a negotiating tool. (What he says when speaking to audiences of hawks we saw at Herzliya).

Regarding the IWR, both Hagel and Edwards now say their 2002 support was wrong.



But has John Edwards actually LEARNED ANYTHING from all of this?

[The Count]

21. He managed to keep the IWR sponsorship under the radar through the 2004 run

so, I guess he's pretty good at this....
To this day he only coped to voting on it
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SJ00046:@@@P

[swag]

7. Sorry for not seeing you posted this first.

[Clarkie1]

16. It's obvious lately he's been educating himself on what Clark has said re: Iran.

And modifying his public position accordingly. He is suddenly using quite a bit of the same phraseology and cutting back on the saber-rattling and equating of Iran with the President of Iran...at least in public.

[Skwmom]

18. If he thinks attacking Iran was bad, then what did he plan on educating

us on?


EDWARDS IN HIS OWN WORDS

As to the American people, this is a difficult question. The vast majority of people are concerned about what is going on in Iraq. (What is going on in IRAQ is war.) This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran. (Going for Iran - he can't mean diplomacy or sanctions b/c I've never known the American public to be reticent on using sanctions or diplomacy.) But I think the American people are smart if they are told the truth (It doesn't seem like Edwards really thinks we are all that bright), and if they trust their president. So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran." (So I guess Edwards plans on educating us - I just shiver with anticipation.)
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_kno ...

And as promised in another post, EDWARDS IN HIS OWN WORDS

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

"I think would have very bad consequences."

You gotta love that damage control.
Politicians - they say one thing one day, another thing the next. But what the heck, he Co-SPONSORS the IWR, being one of its biggest cheerleaders, then says I'm sorry when support for the war plummets to an all-time low, says I "accept responsibility," now reward me by electing me the next president. Whether his actions were bad judgment or self-serving (I must appear strong on national security) either one makes him unfit to become the next commander-in-chief.

[liberalpragmatist]

19. kicking this

:kick:

[The Count]

20. Adding a thread on digby's comments on this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3093334&mesg_id=3093334