John Edwards - Enabling Neo-Con Aggression

by Curt Matlock, Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 04:58:01 AM EST

Speeches are nice. John Edwards made one recently at the Herzliya Conference in Israel that can't be ignored.

Via Kevin Drum, here's what Edwards had to say on U.S. relations with Iran to the Herzliya Conference in Israel:

Edwards: 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.....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....

Question: ....Would you be prepared, if diplomacy failed, to take further action against Iran?....Secondly, you as grassroots person, who has an understanding of the American people, is there understanding of this threat across US?
Edwards: ....As to what to do, we should not take anything off the table....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.

With rhetoric like this, unless you support war with Iran, John Edwards is not a safe choice for President.

Edwards later tried to soft-pedal his hawkish Iran comments when he talked to the liberal blogosphere. Talking with Ezra Klein he downplays, but does not retract his comments at Herzliya.

Klein: So, I just want to get it very clear, you think that attacking Iran would be a bad idea?
Edwards: I think would have very bad consequences.
Klein: So when you said that all options are on the table?
Edwards: It would be foolish for any American president to ever take any option off the table.
Klein: Can we live with a nuclear Iran?
Edwards: I'm not ready to cross that bridge yet. I think that we have lots of opportunities that we've ... We're not negotiating with them directly, what I just proposed has not been done. We're not being smart about how we engage with them. But I'm not ready to cross that bridge yet. And I think the reason people react the way they do -- I understand it, because, when George Bush uses this kind of language, it means something very different for most people. I mean when he uses this kind of language "options are on the table," he does it in a very threatening kind of way -- with a country that he's not engaging with or making any serious diplomatic proposals to. I mean I think that he's just dead wrong about that.

Like McCain, Edwards will plummet in popularity if he tries to appease the hawkish right-wing. Mumbling double-speak to liberal audiences won't erase the fact that with George Bush still President, John Edwards is saber rattling against the radical right-wing's number one target for broadened war!

Americans don't want war with Iran Mr. Edwards!

Update:

I'm willing to believe that John Edwards isn't as hawkish as his comments at Herzliya would indicate. In fact I do believe that. Nevertheless. It's 2007 now ... not 2008. If Democrats help make war more likely with Iran NOW then I'll speak against them. Striking just the right balance of rhetoric to appeal to target demographics is a reality of Presidential politics. But some issues cross lines that constituents won't triangulate on. This rhetoric is dangerous. John Edwards seems to get it ... sort of:

I understand it, because, when George Bush uses this kind of language, it means something very different for most people. I mean when he uses this kind of language "options are on the table," he does it in a very threatening kind of way -- with a country that he's not engaging with or making any serious diplomatic proposals to.

Right ... and he's still President. Edwards concludes the above thought with this judgement:

I mean I think that he's just dead wrong about that.

Yes George Bush is indeed wrong about that. The part Edwards doesn't seem to get is that it's also wrong when he himself engages in this kind of aggressive talk. His rhetoric aimed at Iran isn't happening in a vacuum. Many right-wing Americans are eager to start a war. It shouldn't be a surprise to the Edwards camp when hawkish statements made by their candidate are met in return with strident, damaging talk from Americans opposed to war with Iran.

Tags: 2008, Iran, John Edwards (all tags)

Comments

45 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Re: John Edwards - Enabling Neo-Con Aggression

And Edwards isn't in favor of war with Iran. He wants direct engagement. Enough with the distortion.

by Marylander 2007-02-04 05:09AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: John Edwards - Enabling Neo-Con Aggression

Distortion? How am I distorting this?

Edwards: For years, the US hasn't done enough to deal with what I have seen as a threat from Iran.....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....

George Bush IS President and John Edwards DID vote for the last ill-conceived war ... the war with Iraq.

That's fact ... as are the words of John Edwards at Herzliya. In a time when there is great concern that George Bush may lead us into a war with Iran the last thing I want to hear from a leading Democrat is support for the George Bush position.

Why shouldn't I trust John Edward's own hawkish words now that he's running for President?

by Curt Matlock 2007-02-04 05:20AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: John Edwards - Enabling Neo-Con Aggression

Your posts on this have at least two significant distortions regarding Edwards' position on Iraq. First, by selectively quoting what Edwards says you are leaving the impression that Edwards' main criticism of Bush is that he hasnt been agressive enough regarding Iraq. In fact, Edwards' main point, from what I can tell from more complete excerpts of his speech that have been posted here, was that Bush was not directly engaging in diplomacy with Iran. So, when Edwards says "we have not done enough to deal with what I have seen as a threat to Iran" you imply he means force here but what Edwards is really saying is the thing we have not done enough of is diplomacy.

And for you to say that Edwards is "supporting" Bush's positin is just a mistatement. Edwards' policy on Iran centers on diplomacy and Bush's policy is to refuse to talk to them. So, how is Edwards supporting Bush's policy?

The irony is that Edwards went in front of a neo-conservative group and made the argument for a peaceful resolution of this issue, an act of bravery in my book. Instead, you and others are distorting what he meant to make it seem the opposite. Honestly, at first I thought you were just some hack from one of the other campaigns. After reading your updates, I think you really are concerned with what we might do in Iran and have misunderstood what Edwards meant.

Look I am a big Edwards supporter, but I try to be honest, so I am willing to admit that someone can criticize his statements by making the case that we should take any type of military strike off the table and Edwards is wrong for taking the position he has. If someone wants to make that argument, then fine. But I disagree with this attempt to somehow equate Edwards' position with Bush's just because they both use one phrase in common.

by Andy Katz 2007-02-04 07:42AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: John Edwards - Enabling Neo-Con Aggression

Why shouldn't I trust John Edward's own hawkish words now that he's running for President?

"Hawkish"? That's a matter of interpretation. Edwards said he wouldn't take any options off the table.

Edwards clarified what he meant in an interview.

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.

When Edwards said "all options" he wasn't saying that he support an immediate military, he was saying this is the context where "all options" means direct negotiation with Iran, and denying Ahmadinejad the ability to stir up nationalist sentiment by engaging in coversations with the Iranian government. If successful in denying Ahmadinejad that refuge, Iranian domestic politics will refocus on the economic issues that have driven much of the opposition within the country.

Jar, jar is better than war, war.

And that's what Edwards is talking about when he says "all options"? He means direct negotiations with Iran.

Or would it be better to take this option off the table, and proceed directly to thermonuclear war?

by ManfromMiddletown 2007-02-04 08:16AM | 0 recs

permalink

HIllary top AIPAC recepient Edwards 0$

Edwards less AIPAC money than Obama

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2 /4/102227/3801

The following is a list of AIPAC contributions to each candidate, (during their last run for office and during their entire career):

Year Last Career
Biden 2006 $2,500 $101,007
Clark 2004 - -
Clinton 2006 $37,118 $56,118
Dodd 2004 $38,250 $221,178
Edwards 2004 - n/a1
Gavel 1976 n/a n/a2
Gore 2000 - n/a3
Kucinich2006 - $14,500
Obama 2004 $2,500 $2,500
Richardson2002 n/a n/a4
Vilsak 2002 n/a n/a4

Edwards doesn't take PAC money in contrast to Hillary and Obama

by TarHeel 2007-02-04 05:33AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: HIllary top AIPAC recepient Edwards 0$

Yeah, I'm sure that whopping $2500 will heavily influence Obama...

by yitbos96bb 2007-02-05 10:31AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: John Edwards - Enabling Neo-Con Aggression

Uh- this has been discussed to death here at MyDD. Edwards said at the Herzliya Conference (not just later in the Ezra Klein interview) that the US needs direct talks with Iran.

I also don't believe that any candidate has ruled out the use of force with regard to Iran, so if that's your only beef, you think the entire field is enabling neocon aggression. Well, except Kucinich, of course.

by clarkent 2007-02-04 05:49AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: John Edwards - Enabling Neo-Con Aggression

Expect to hear more about it because the issue isn't closed.

I especially liked what Digby had to say on the issue of Democrats reinforcing President Bush on Iran (emphasis mine):

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.

by Curt Matlock 2007-02-04 06:08AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: John Edwards - Enabling Neo-Con Aggression

Edwards has called Congress out on non-binding resolutions on Iraq that Bush will ignore anyway. He's consistently called for direct negotiations with Iran, as well as negotiations with Russia and China on the Iran question. He did so again at the very conference that supposedly he was being hawkish, and "all options on the table" includes a lot of very dovish options as well. He showed in the Ezra Klein interview that he understands the serious problems of attacking Iran.

Of course, we'll see in the long-term if he holds this course. I'm not going to continue to back him if he indeed gets hawkish on Iran. But I don't see what's wrong with refusing to rule out military force while at the same time urging that we hold direct talks with an avowed enemy.

by clarkent 2007-02-04 06:46AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: John Edwards - Enabling Neo-Con Aggression

Actually, in a subliminal way, I think they are validating the agenda which can't be named. Just by talking about it. Sounds like a minor key of the Bush Doctrine to me.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-05 08:28PM | 0 recs

permalink

That quote is very enlightening!

Curt, the question here is "What did John Edwards mean when he said "all options". Was he talking about war, nuclear war? This turns on the question of what the meaning of "all" is.

I think you may be exaggerating the meaning of "all" to include something that "all" does not include.

But, I think it's worth asking why John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Dick Cheney are all using the same phrase, "all options". It seems to indicate that there is a consensus between these very different political figures, and that should trouble us all, I think.

What did John Edwards and Hillary Clinton and Dick Cheney mean when they says "all" options?

by Manic Lawyer 2007-02-04 06:10AM | 0 recs

permalink

probably the same options as Clark

http://securingamerica.com/node/2163

by TarHeel 2007-02-04 08:19AM | 0 recs

permalink

or the same options as Barack Obama

on pre-emptive missile strikes on Iran and Pakistan

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/print edition/chi-0409250111sep25,1,4555304.st ory?ctrack=1&cset=true

by TarHeel 2007-02-04 08:20AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: probably the same options as Clark

Clark has the balls to go on Right Wing TV (FOX) and argue that the United States should attempt peaceful coexistence with Iran. Clark brings up that Nikita Krushchev threatened to bury America, and we kept talking with him and kept our embassy open in Moscow. Clark points out that we lived with a Soviet threat and ultimately our values prevailed, that we can attempt the same with Iran. And Clark says all that on Right Wing TV arguing with Right Wing Hosts. He never gives aid and comfort to the neocons by being the only Democratic Presidential candidate to share the same virtual stage with them at a conference underlining with them how dangerous Iran is, and how Iran can't be allowed to get nuclear weapons.

by Tom Rinaldo 2007-02-04 11:37AM | 0 recs

permalink

I have absolutely no problem with Clark

whatsover,, just to henpeck Edwards over the Iran comments at ONE meeting, with the "off the table" remarks is crazy

by TarHeel 2007-02-04 12:08PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: John Edwards - Enabling Neo-Con Aggression

I agree with Edwards that taking options off the table is foolish. But I've also said that to 99% of people, nuclear war is NOT an option.

Has anyone asked Edwards if he supports pre-emptive nuclear strikes against Iran?

In the same speech you cite, he calls for direct, tough negotiations with Iran. Aren't we all for that? Isn't this president avoiding that?

At some point the military option may become more viable. What if there is hard proof that Iranian agents are responsible for attacking our troops in Iraq? Do we say "oh well"? Do we remain in Iraq for another 14 months, like Obama wants, and allow Iranians to attack us? If we begin taking options off the table, that will happen with impunity.

by Vox Populi 2007-02-04 06:38AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: John Edwards - Enabling Neo-Con Aggression

The Iranians have a perfect right to be in Iraq, since their nation enjoys close affiliation with the elected government of Iraq. The government of Iraq has asked the US to leave, but we refused to do so.

At the meeting in Israel, Clinton and Edwards each started this same rap about 'take nothing off the table' regarding an attack on Iran. You can always say that, but it still enables Bush if you do so. One could just as easily say the US should 'take nothing off the table' in regard to an attack on, say, Israel, right?

Edwards qualified the position later on. Clinton just let it stand. These politicians had better be ready for some serious blow-back if things go crazy with Iran. I feel that this hawk bullshit is going to be mighty unpopular come '08. If we make it without having WW III.

by blues 2007-02-04 08:01AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: John Edwards - Enabling Neo-Con Aggression

Nobody should say "we take... of the table." That would foolishly embolden countries' leaders who are not necessarily friendly with us. It does not enable Bush, it insures Americans that we will respond if we are attacked or if, as in this case, Iran is shown to be building nuclear weapons. Without Bush's slash-and-burn scorched-earth politics we will have diplomacy as the first and foremost option, but taking any option off the table whatsoever, regardless of what we are responding to, makes no sense. None of the candidates will do so. None.

by georgep 2007-02-04 09:07AM | 0 recs

permalink

You might want to get the transcripts of Meet the

Press today to update your diary.

there have been several lenght iran discussions since the Israeli conference that shed more light than your diary.

by TarHeel 2007-02-04 08:12AM | 0 recs

permalink

Wes Clark - military options on the table

you guys are going bannanas over nothing
From General Clarks own websit:
http://securingamerica.com/node/2163

Sean Hannity: But do you really believe there's hope in talking to him?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I do believe that the United States, as the most powerful country in the world, should always talk to adversaries. I'm not saying take the military option off the table - it's an option, but it's a lot better for everybody in the region if we don't have to use the military option.

by TarHeel 2007-02-04 08:16AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Wes Clark - military options on the table

I would have provided a link to this Hannity thing with Clark. If he said that, then it's just as dumb ass coming from him as well. Like I said, bombing Israel is 'always an option' that we 'cannot take off the table.' Where did they all get this 'table' rap? If or, maybe when, Bush pulls this bullshit and the US loses half its navy, and the Iranian hackers take out all the computers in the US, maybe people will be happy. Right now two of the US Navy's 12 nuclear carrier battle groups are cruising around in the Persian Gulf. Most military people think there is a high likelihood that those ships can be taken out by Iranian supersonic cruise missiles.

by blues 2007-02-04 09:04AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Wes Clark - military options on the table

I did provide the link..

http://securingamerica.com/node/2163

by TarHeel 2007-02-04 09:52AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Wes Clark - military options on the table

What you leave out is the differences in their rhetoric. They all say "all options on the table"

BUT

Wes Clark never says "we cannot allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons"

Never.

But that's the phrase that Edwards and Clinton use ALL the time.

A smart diplomat, one who has actually done diplomacy, will not draw a line in the sand that the other party has a good chance of crossing. It is called...backing yourself into a corner.

So the question is, will Edwards and Clinton take the country to war with Iran if diplomacy fails. By their own rhetoric...." Iran must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons"......I think they will.

On the other hand, I don't think Clark would. He didn't think that Saddam having weapons of mass distruction was worth taking the ocuntry to war and I assume, he feels the same way about Iran.

Along these lines he commented on a round table discussion at the Milken Institute last year that Iran with nuclear weapons is actually less scary than Iran threatening to acquire them.

Clark believes that the only reason to go to war is if there is an urgent imminent thread to the U.S.

by pelican 2007-02-04 12:22PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Wes Clark - military options on the table

and......if there is a chance to stop genocide. He would have done Rwanda for instance

by pelican 2007-02-04 12:31PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Wes Clark - military options on the table

(Well, heh, I'm not perfect.) THIS IS NOT AN APOLOGY!

by blues 2007-02-04 09:24PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: John Edwards - Enabling Neo-Con Aggression

I suppose those quoting Digby in the past to condemn Edwards will be quoting him again today to praise Edwards.

by clarkent 2007-02-04 08:53AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: John Edwards - Enabling Neo-Con Aggression

nobody is taking options off the table. That would be foolish. Not Obama, not Clinton, not Clark, not Edwards.

I saw him on Meet the Press this morning. He is a decent guy. He stated that if he were in the Senate he would NOT vote for a resolution to cut off funding for the troops in Iraq, a position many of the Dems in Congress have taken because it would punish the troops in Iraq and would lay every subsequent death at the Democrats' feet "for not funding the troops properly" (as the GOPers will argue.)

Where I disagree with Edwards is the immediate withdrawal of 40,000 troops he advocates. Too many, too soon, IMHO. A phased withdrawal is needed, a handover of responsibilities of returning National Guard units and Reserves first, to start within a few months of passing such legislation. Start with 20,000 troops, then, layered, bring them back in similar increments until mid-2008.

by georgep 2007-02-04 09:02AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: John Edwards - Enabling Neo-Con Aggression

I think the point that those who are slamming Edwards for his Herzliya remarks are trying to make is that he didn't have to go to Herzliya and say what he said there and he shouldn't have.

Like the poster, I'm willing to believe (and do believe) that Edwards' position is more nuanced and more to my liking. As Edwards says, he didn't mean the same thing as Bush meant by his bellicose rhetoric. But if he hadn't gone to Herzliya and said what he said, he wouldn't have to clarify now. No one forced him to do this. The wound, if it proves to be one, is self-inflicted.

And you can almost bet that his "clarifications" will be taken as waffling by the Republicans and/or the media at some point.

by sTiVo 2007-02-04 09:09AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: John Edwards - Enabling Neo-Con Aggression

by sTiVo 2007-02-04 09:10AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: John Edwards

Does anyone truly beleive that John Edwards is as or more trigger-happy than GWB? Come on!

Senator Edwards is still not my first choice for the nomination, but his Meet the Press performance this morning was terrific! He was unequivocal in saying that his Iraq vote was a mistake on his part, and even complimented Senator Obama on his foresight. Edwards emphasized direct negotiation and economic pressure with Iran; a military strike did not even come up in conversation with Tim Russert.

His commitment to helping the working class has always seemed genuine. Instituting a single-payer system for uninsured Americans is a good way to start down that road, paid for with higher taxes on wealthier Americans and efficiency improvements. Edwards supports full equality for gay and lesbian couples UP TO full marriage. At least it's positive movement from where we are now.

There are more orthodox progressives than John Edwards out there. The question remains just how far to the left has the country really gone in the wake of the Bush's disastrous administration.

by CLLGADEM 2007-02-04 10:11AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: John Edwards - Enabling Neo-Con Aggression

This is what drives my cynicism about politicians. This on the table/off the table discussion is ridiculous. In every situation you have to look at the threat posed in the short term, midterm and long term. Is the short term/immediate threat from Iran such that the US must take military strikes now or is it one where we can negotiate or talk with Iran. It seems that in our attempt to outhawk the Republicans, we get cauught up in their rhetoric and end up supporting their positions. This is how the Iraq resolution came about, where the Demcorats wanted to look tough on terrorism and security, so they cast a shortsighted vote.

by Kingstongirl 2007-02-04 11:54AM | 0 recs

permalink

Tempest Meet Teapot

From Edwards interview with Ezra Klein at PEJ (link below)

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

JE: I think it would have very bad consequences.

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

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

EK: Can we live with a nuclear Iran?

JE: I'm not ready to cross that bridge yet. I think that we have lots of opportunities that we've ... We're not negotiating with them directly, what I just proposed has not been done. We're not being smart about how we engage with them. But I'm not ready to cross that bridge yet. And I think the reason people react the way they do -- I understand it, because, when George Bush uses this kind of language, it means something very different for most people. I mean when he uses this kind of language "options are on the table," he does it in a very threatening kind of way -- with a country that he's not engaging with or making any serious diplomatic proposals to. I mean I think that he's just dead wrong about that.

EK: So we should, first step, talk to Iran, try to open up negotiations?

JE: Correct

EK: Do it, if necessary, bilaterally?

JE: Absolutely.

http://www.pej.org/html/modules.php?op=m odload&name=News&file=article&am p;sid=6578&mode=thread&order=0&a mp;thold=0

by MassEyesandEars 2007-02-04 12:11PM | 0 recs

permalink

No splicing words

this is what got Kerry in trouble. We need a candidate who is clear on issues like this. I still like Edwards but he fell a few places in my book with talk like this.

by jkfp2004 2007-02-04 12:23PM | 0 recs

permalink

The Neoconservative Kool-Aid

I agree entirely with Curt's thesis and all of the prevaricating, argumentative, apologetic bullsh*t on the subject in this dairy rather proves his point, don't you think?

Firstly, I reckon anyone who doesn't believe that the dog-whistle phrase all the options on the table refers, specifically, to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike is just being coy for reasons I have elaborated here.

Secondly, he is correct that this is a basic tenet of the neoconservative agenda, the right of the US to unilaterally attack a sovereign state in the absence of a casus belli and formal declaration of war. If Democratic candidates are making these statements because they feel they must to win the support of the electorate then this is a tacit admission of defeat on the subject. If we expected, as I do, that progressive Democrats were the most likely leaders to challenge this agenda and set the US back on a sane and legal course in the internationally community we are sorely disappointed. If they pay lip-service to it in their policy statements then, ipso facto, they have bought into the concept at some level and are actively supporting the agenda even if their hearts may not be in the policy.

Furthermore, if any of you believe that this option is a reasonable idea or that in the current political climate it is forgivable for candidates to say this, hoping that it is just a throw-away remark or that your candidate doesn't really support it, or would never actually do it, then even you need to have a think about when and where you sipped this egregious Kool-Aid yourself. If you really want to see the US attack Iran then vote for the Republicans, there are surely enough of them suggesting we do exactly that.

We have met the enemy and he is us.

Walt Kelly

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-04 01:59PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The Neoconservative Kool-Aid

In other words, our next president should let a Holocaust denier and Hezbollah sponsor know right off the bat that he will face no military consequences whatsoever if he develops nuclear weapons.

Call me a neo-con, pro-Israel dipwad if you must, but I have a problem with your thesis. It is more important that this country has a leader who will use force as the absolute last resort that it is rather than someone who will not pull the trigger no matter what.

In the end, Ahmedinejad is a reactive political creation of Bush and his policies in the Middle East (no Iraq war, no Ahmedinejad victory). The upcoming departure of Bush and the advent of a Democratic president ending our involvement in Iraq will do much to weaken hard-line sentiment in Iran. Hopefully, THAT will render the military argument moot.

by CLLGADEM 2007-02-05 12:39AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The Neoconservative Kool-Aid

I take your point but you took the fun out of it by answering your own argument. In short, yes. That will take the wind out of his sails because Ahmadinejad, for all his chutzpah is, as you say, a creature of the neoconservatives and demogogic Iranian domestic politics. The Academy of Experts and the Supreme Leader are not.

And in the meantime, between now and the departure of Bush and/or Ahmadinejad, the motivations we might have to pull the trigger, as you say, and bring the roof down on our heads in the Middle East and all of our panicky Gulf allies are, what?? And therefore to assert we are not going to do it anyhow costs us, what? Nothing to lose, everything to gain.

We have the mightiest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world which could strike anywhere on the planet with overwhelming, I mean thermonuclear Armageddon-style, force at any time, well, say thirty minutes later. We may have forgotten that but they haven't. Mecca, Tehran, you name it.

Why do we have to get down in the mud and wrestle with this Rhinestone Cowboy? Or even use tactical nuclear bunker-busters to spoil his tinkertoy nuclear program? It just makes no sense.

But you seem to have already figured that out yourself.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-05 03:10AM | 0 recs

permalink

Edwards says what he thinks people want to hear...

the sign of a weak leader.

In Israel, pandering to US Jewish hawk voters, he says US must protect Israel by attacking Iran to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

That is what he said.

He comes back to US and backpedals on what he said in Israel...but leaving a war with Iran on the table.

It is the sign of weak leader and a dangerously weak leader, one who is going to lead the US into a war with Iran that is even more disastrous and unjustified than Bush Jr's war with Iraq.

But hey...the netroots say he is a "progressive" and he just hired some blog girls so we can over look little things like starting nuclear wars in the Middle East.

by BrionLutz 2007-02-04 02:45PM | 0 recs

permalink

Where's Obama?

As opposed to Obama who like on most other issues has no position?

by Vox Populi 2007-02-05 04:30AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Where's Obama?

Actually, Vox, and much to my shame Obama not only advocated keeping the options on the table in respect of Iran he went and included Pakistan too! Just for good measure.

Can you believe that? Now, I take his point. You can't really threaten Iran without keeping your options open to nail Pakistan if it fell into the hands of theocratic radicals, which is the context he described. Mind you it was two years ago when he was running for Senate, two whole long years.

So there we are. Every major candidate for the Democratic nomination for president is on record to, potentially, if all else fails, if we get bored and cranky, do what no other power has done since Hiroshima and Nagasaki and preemptively attack a sovereign power with nuclear weapons. At least back then we had a declaration of war, but what the f*ck. Nobody likes paperwork these days. Maybe we could get an on-line eDeclaration these days.

It's not like the Congress is doing any other bloody thing at the moment. Half of them are running for president and the other half are arguing over whether to send a non-binding sense of Congress pointless bill about Iraq through Congress to a bat-sh*t crazy president or not. As if it mattered a tinker's damn.

Ain't you proud to be an American? Can't tell you how proud I am 'cuz I am so disappointed I could spit.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-05 04:50AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Where's Obama?

I don't see any of the Democratic candidates making a case for nuclear war against Iran. I think that is grossly overstated. That so many of the Democratic candidates agree that Iran is a threat to stability in the region and in the world should tell us there is a problem.

Edwards laid out a case about why a preemptive strike would be a bad thing. He believes a preemptive strike would rally the Iranian people to their whack-job president like Osama bin Laden did with George Bush.

At the same time, Edwards does not believe in taking a military option off the table if Iran attacks American interests. But only the fringe elements of our society believe that military option is a nuclear strike.

by Vox Populi 2007-02-05 05:53AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Where's Obama?

Bollocks. Every one of them has been suckered in to the all options on the table bullsh*t. If you don't think that means what everyone thinks it means then I have been wasting my time posting here for the last 48 hours.

And in some ways I wouldn't disagree with that at all.

Edwards is a mealy-mouthed white boy just trying to put it all together and I don't hold it against him but if he said all the options and then repeated it in capital letters 'and I mean ALL the options' like he did (read the transcipt again) what am I supposed to think he meant? Did you see my post about Seymour Hersh's article in the New Yorker last April?

Happy to post it again if you missed it.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-05 06:08AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Where's Obama?

And you have a very good point on that whack-job thing.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-05 06:16AM | 0 recs

permalink

Are Edwards hired bloggers on the case?

"As opposed to Obama who like on most other issues has no position?"

So you agree with Edwards position that US can attack Iran.

That Edwards started to distance himself from his own comments promoting war with Iran so quickly, deploying his newly hired bloggers to deflect attention, is probably the most interesting aspect.

I'm not sure it helps Edwards though, it makes him seem like he is just following what he thinks the particular audience wants to hear.

It tends to lose both constituencies. The Jewish hawks he was appealing to Israel will feel he's hedging on their push for US attacking Iran. The rest of America, the 70% who oppose Iraq war, will feel he's really planning an Iran atack a la Bush Jr.

by BrionLutz 2007-02-05 04:52AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Are Edwards hired bloggers on the case?

His comments didn't promote war. Leaving all options on the table is not promoting war. Saying we need aggressive, direct negotion with Iran (and Syria) is not promoting war.

Edwards has called for Congress to withold funding the troop increase. That is not promoting war. That is promoting peace.

Where is Obama on these issues? He has no comment on Iran. Does he not think Iran is a threat? He will vote to fund the surge in Iraq, while speaking out against it.

by Vox Populi 2007-02-05 05:49AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Are Edwards hired bloggers on the case?

C'mon Vox, fair's fair. He went on a fundraising fishing trip to the Isrealis and got suckered into a speech he wished he hadn't made.

I know he's got good hair and that counts for a lot these days and y'all think he is the second coming of FDR and so forth.

He just wants to corner the market on the unions and get to the convention and wishes it would all go away in the meantime.

And y'know, if he made to the WH he would probaly be a really decent chap, another Clinton maybe.

But when it comes to foreign policy he's like Mickey Mantle trying to play cricket. As for Obama on Iran, just scroll up a little and you'll see he is in the same boat.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-05 06:01AM | 0 recs