Comments on: Edwards’ double talk on Iran http://blogs.jta.org/telegraph/2007/10/31/49/edwards-double-talk-on-iran/ Odds & ends from the staff of JTA Sun, 07 Sep 2008 03:06:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Homemade Porn Clip http://blogs.jta.org/telegraph/2007/10/31/49/edwards-double-talk-on-iran/#comment-2198 Homemade Porn Clip Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:39:52 +0000 http://blogs.jta.org/telegraph/2007/10/31/edwards-double-talk-on-iran/#comment-2198 <strong>Homemade Porn Clip...</strong> Its interesting, THX... Homemade Porn Clip…

Its interesting, THX…

]]> By: Alex Lapidus http://blogs.jta.org/telegraph/2007/10/31/49/edwards-double-talk-on-iran/#comment-31 Alex Lapidus Fri, 02 Nov 2007 05:40:17 +0000 http://blogs.jta.org/telegraph/2007/10/31/edwards-double-talk-on-iran/#comment-31 They always say what group they address to wants to hear. To Jews - how they will protect Israel and stop Iran from achieving a nuclear arms, to Muslim that Israel separating wall is against the peace (John Kerry), to gays that their struggle is compared to the struggle civil rights (Bill Clinton), to Christians about religious and family values etc, etc, etc. What ever is needed to be said to get money and votes. Typical now day democrat . They always say what group they address to wants to hear. To Jews - how they will protect Israel and stop Iran from achieving a nuclear arms, to Muslim that Israel separating wall is against the peace (John Kerry), to gays that their struggle is compared to the struggle civil rights (Bill Clinton), to Christians about religious and family values etc, etc, etc. What ever is needed to be said to get money and votes. Typical now day democrat .

]]> By: Canaan http://blogs.jta.org/telegraph/2007/10/31/49/edwards-double-talk-on-iran/#comment-29 Canaan Thu, 01 Nov 2007 04:44:25 +0000 http://blogs.jta.org/telegraph/2007/10/31/edwards-double-talk-on-iran/#comment-29 So it's okay for Edwards to attack Iran if he becomes President, but not for Bush--that's his point? Does he ever say that to the anti-war left? No, the issue is attacking Iran. Edwards was warmongering in front of the Israeli national security team - you know, the people who just bombed Syria. Here's more from Edwards at the Herzliya conference: "The war in Lebanon had Iranian fingerprints all over it ... Hezbollah is an instrument of the Iranian government, and Iranian rockets allowed Hezbollah to attack and wage war against Israel." What could Lieberman add to that? In the debate, the issue was: I'm free to attack Hillary because it would be stupid for her to drag the campaign down into the mud. I'm losing anyway so I have nothing to lose by attacking. So I can just stand here and take potshots at her. So it’s okay for Edwards to attack Iran if he becomes President, but not for Bush–that’s his point? Does he ever say that to the anti-war left?

No, the issue is attacking Iran. Edwards was warmongering in front of the Israeli national security team - you know, the people who just bombed Syria.

Here’s more from Edwards at the Herzliya conference:

“The war in Lebanon had Iranian fingerprints all over it … Hezbollah is an instrument of the Iranian government, and Iranian rockets allowed Hezbollah to attack and wage war against Israel.”

What could Lieberman add to that?

In the debate, the issue was: I’m free to attack Hillary because it would be stupid for her to drag the campaign down into the mud. I’m losing anyway so I have nothing to lose by attacking. So I can just stand here and take potshots at her.

]]> By: Mike http://blogs.jta.org/telegraph/2007/10/31/49/edwards-double-talk-on-iran/#comment-28 Mike Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:08:47 +0000 http://blogs.jta.org/telegraph/2007/10/31/edwards-double-talk-on-iran/#comment-28 I took the issue he was taking her to task on as her vote for Kyl-Lieberman and little else. The narrative of this was how that vote can parallel the Iraq authorization vote when looked at through the eyes of this administration. In the debate the issue was more about what the administration wants to do with Iran and what Democrats should be doing about THAT way more than it was about Iran and nuclear technology. I took the issue he was taking her to task on as her vote for Kyl-Lieberman and little else. The narrative of this was how that vote can parallel the Iraq authorization vote when looked at through the eyes of this administration.
In the debate the issue was more about what the administration wants to do with Iran and what Democrats should be doing about THAT way more than it was about Iran and nuclear technology.

]]>