
Edwards’ double talk on Iran

At the Democratic debate Tuesday night, John Edwards led the charge against frontrunner Hillary Clinton, accusing her of double talk and saber rattling on Iran, especially with regards to her vote for a resolution backing U.S. sanctions against the Revolutionary Guard.
On both counts, however, Edwards might as well have been talking about himself.
Last January, at an annual gathering of top members of the Israeli security establishment, Edwards gave a Rudy-sounding speech on Iran (click here and scroll to the right to find the text). It contained more saber rattling than anything Clinton has said in recent weeks, and certainly sounded a strong note for tougher sanctions. Here are a few of the highlights:
* "Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons."* "Iran must know that the world won't back down. The recent UN resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough. We need meaningful political and economic sanctions. We have muddled along for far too long. 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."
* "My analysis of Iran is if you start with the President of Iran coming to the UN in New York denouncing America and his extraordinary and nasty statements about the Holocaust and goal of wiping Israel off map, married with his attempts to obtain nuclear weapons over a long period of time, they are buying time. They are the foremost state sponsors of terrorism. If they have nuclear weapons, other states in the area will want them, and this is unacceptable."
Compare all that to what he had to say just a few weeks later on "Meet The Press." When asked if President Edwards would allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, he said: "I there's no answer to that question at this moment .I think I think the we don't know, and you have to make a judgment as you go along, and that's what I would do as president."
Say what you want about Clinton's recent vote or her general approach to Iran, but she's pushed a consistent message: tough sanctions and robust diplomacy, while refusing to take the military option off of the table.
She stressed all sides of the equation during a speech to an AIPAC gathering in January. That same month, during his speech in Israel, Edwards was so busy talking tough that he forgot to issue a call for stepped up diplomacy, until he was asked about the issue during the question and answer session.
4 Comments
Share This
2008 Election,
Iran
Comments RSS Feed Reader Comments
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.
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 .
Leave a Comment
To comment on this article, you must first be registered with JTA.
Not Registered?
There are real advantages to a FREE registration with JTA.org:
- Make your voice heard through comments on articles
- Receive our e-mailed Daily Briefing, an invaluable quick-read
- Help decide what Jewish news matters most with interactive tools
Register Now
Already a JTA member?
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Mark S. Devenow on After prayer and punch, Foreman takes Jewish victory lap
- M.A. Kinnaman on After prayer and punch, Foreman takes Jewish victory lap
- Steve007 on After prayer and punch, Foreman takes Jewish victory lap
- steve ariza on After prayer and punch, Foreman takes Jewish victory lap
- Lauryn on NIF on defense for 'rape' poster demonizing Israel




Mike
10/31/07 05:08 PM
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.