Of course, like Reagan with the Ayatollah Khomenei, he might actually “negotiate with terrorists” even when he said he wouldn’t. I guess that is what you are saying. But it seems to me that there would never be any way out of the situation.

As regards to Edward’s stand on Israel I believe that his position is actually to the right of Clinton and Obama. He praised Sharon, has argued that Israel has an absolute right to pre-emptively attack any threats to its security. He supported the invasion of Lebanon…perhaps the most extreme case of disproportionate response since the Iraq invasion. Clinton was actually BOOED by A*P*C for insisting that a two-state solution required Israel required territorial concessions by Israel to create a climate of success for Abbas. Edwards said that Isarel should make no more concessions and that he would work for Israel to be admitted to NATO, an utterly implausible idea that demonstrates just how isolated Edwards is from international opinion.

And John Edward’s speeches to the Herzliya Conference and AIPAC earlier this year show that he is just as supportive of preemptive attacks on Iran and considers Iran a “terrorist state” just as much as Obama and Clinton. Edward’s has attacked Obama’s willingness to have unconditional talks with Iran, saying that he would require such fantastic requirements as making Iran recognize Israel, admit and terminate their support to Palestinian and Lebanese groups fighting Israel, and to agree that they would reach an agreement with the US in any negotiation or face international sanctions. These are preconditions that no Iranian leader would agree to. In fact the former President of Iran, Khatami, as well as the Nobel Peace Prize Winner, Shirin Ebadi, has warned the West against making any such “preconditions” as they would simply sabotage the negotiations before they started.

Yet Edwards has insisted of “poisoning” the effort before they can even occur.

Isn’t the position that Iran will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons the standard Democratic Party position which has existed for decades? Isn’t the idea to defend Israel’s existence against stated opponents?

Show where Edwards position isn’t standard issue?

Are you suggesting that a candidate or president wouldn’t continue to make such statements, even if they were in fact having discussions behind closed doors?

One criticism of Obama was that he appeared willing to naively rush to a summit meeting without any preparations by State and risk embarrassment. Are you suggesting that’s better than maintaining the public appearance of continuing our standard policy toward Iran before anything substantial could be achieved?

I don’t like Hillary’s sabre rattling (”prepare for the next war”) or vote on Kyl-Lieberman, but Obama’s senate bill (what was it S-970?) was no better.

Aren’t they deviating from the standard Democratic Party line and free-lancing it? Isn’t it better to ‘keep all the options on the table’ as Edwards has suggested?

I think your reading of their behaviors doesn’t differentiate very well. I feel certain that if we were talking about relations with the former Soviet Union there would be more interest in the details of their statements and votes. You reduce it to muddle and lump Edwards in without proper attention to their differences.

Edwards has benefitted from his being out of the Senate for several years. He thus hasn’t been tied to a legislative record. But when one looks at his statements before groups like A*P*C he is demonstrably just as oily a politician as Clinton. He says one thing to the Zionist lobby and another before progressives. For example, when Ezra Klein called Edwards on his hawkish statements to Herzliya…Edwards basically lied about what he said there. He said that he really hadn’t stated that the US would NEVER allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons…instead he said that he wouldn’t consider hypotheticals.

It seems that Edwards and Obama are quite adept at this capacity to sound “all things to all people”. They almost never provide enough clarity to really offend people. In that regard, at least Hillary is much more of a target.

Not to mention “Bomb, bomb, bomb; bomb bomb Iran”…eat crow McCain!!!

Looks like McCain’s revival was heralded too soon.

What I want to know is whether Hillary (and the other Dem Senators) knew Iran was no nuke threat when they voted for Kyl-Lieberman. If they did, then it was all for show and Hillary let us believe she was ’strong’ when it was really b.s. Her continual triangulation is getting very annoying.

What I want to know is how exactly Obama plans to end the nasty partisanship Republicans have been using for several decades now as their primary means of getting elected. His naivete is getting annoying.

Get past the garbage and just vote for Edwards.

“8) The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and the Secretary of the Treasury should place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224 (66 Fed. Reg. 186; relating to blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism).”

http://www.govtrack.us/congres…..l=s110-970

He’s also the Co-AUTHOR of the IRAN SANCTIONS ENABLING ACT (H.R. 2347/S. 1430), legislation he sponsored in May. The bill would clear the way for more states to divest their pension funds from companies that support Iran’s oil and gas industry. Iran uses the revenue it generates from its energy sector to finance its pursuit of nuclear weapons and support for terrorist groups.

He stated:
“Today’s passage of the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act by the House of Representatives is an important step forward in our efforts to stop Iran from acquiring the nuclear weapons it seeks. Allowing a radical theocracy that sponsors terrorism and threatens its neighbors to possess such dangerous weapons is a risk we cannot afford to take.”

“ We have the ability to take more action unilaterally. Citizens in many states have taken matters into their own hands, moving to divest their pension funds of companies that support Iran’s oil and gas industry, which provides the revenue Iran uses to pursue nuclear weapons and sponsor terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.”

“The Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, once enacted, will provided needed information about which companies are supporting Iran’s energy industry, clarify that state and local governments have the authority to divest of such companies, and provide legal protection for those governments that wish to do so.”

“I am very encouraged by this important step forward in our campaign to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. I will work closely with the Senate leadership and my colleagues to get this bill passed and to the President’s desk as quickly as possible.”

http://obama.senate.gov/press/…..urges_swi/

Recall that Obama said in 20004: “[A] nuclear-armed Iran is an unacceptable risk to us and our allies…With John Kerry as commander-in-chief, we will never wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake.” So much with having a unified effort to deal with Iran, and there is not a hint that he wouldn’t attack without provocation. Iran obtaining nuclear weapons would be sufficient to trigger it.

Obama on September 24, 2006 suggested “surgical missile strikes” on Iran may become necessary. “[L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in” given the ongoing war in Iraq, Obama told the Chicago Tribune. “On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse,” he said. Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if “violent Islamic extremists” were to “take over.”

Uhmmmm!! That sounds like pre-emptive attacks are just part and parcel of Obama’s policy repertoire as well.

Obama was one of the first Democratic Co-Sponsor’s of S.970, a bill many feel was even more provocative towards Iran than the Kyl-Lieberman Resolution, containing almost identical language designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a “terrorist organization” while lacking the Dodd Amendment specifically stating the Bill did not represent an authorization for any attack on Iran.

And John Edward’s speeches to the Herzliya Conference and AIPAC earlier this year show that he is just as supportive of preemptive attacks on Iran and considers Iran a “terrorist state” just as much as Obama and Clinton. Edward’s has attacked Obama’s willingness to have unconditional talks with Iran, saying that he would require such fantastic requirements as making Iran recognize Israel, admit and terminate their support to Palestinian and Lebanese groups fighting Israel, and to agree that they would reach an agreement with the US in any negotiation or face international sanctions. These are preconditions that no Iranian leader would agree to. In fact the former President of Iran, Khatami, as well as the Nobel Peace Prize Winner, Shirin Ebadi, has warned the West against making any such “preconditions” as they would simply sabotage the negotiations before they started.

Yet Edwards has insisted of “poisoning” the effort before they can even occur.