John Edwards 2008: What’s not to like

A blogger who’s plugged into New York politics notes:

“Many in the blogsphere (Jewish or otherwise) are giddy today about Saint Rudy saying Israel should be in NATO. Did not John Edwards say it more directly, at the Herziliya conference last January?”

I’d forgotten — but yes. Here’s the January 22 Edwards quote:

“We should be finding ways to upgrade Israel’s relationship with NATO. This could even some day mean membership. NATO’s mission now goes far beyond just Europe. Therefore, it is only natural that NATO seeks to include Israel.”

And that is a bit more direct than Rudy’s line that “we should open the organization’s membership to any willing state that meets basic standards of good governance, military readiness, global responsibility — regardless of location,” Giuliani said yesterday. “I think we should consider countries such as Australia, Singapore, India, Israel, Japan.”

The Politico 9/20/07
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0907/Israel_into_NATO_Edwards_then_Rudy.html

John Edwards believes it is of the utmost importance that we prevent Iran from possessing nuclear weapons. Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a politically unstable leader and an open supporter of terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons could also set off a regional nuclear arms race in an unstable region in the world, which would directly threaten US interests. As president, Edwards would take aggressive steps to resolve the situation and to protect the United States and our allies.

snip

Pressure Iran to stop supporting insurgents in Iraq. Iran is one of the most dangerous countries in the world, actively supporting terrorist and insurgent activity not only in Iraq but in other areas, such as Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. Our policy must aim to stamp out state-sponsored terrorism targeting Israel, our strongest ally in the region. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard will soon be deemed a terrorist organization by the U.S. As president, Edwards will ensure that such steps are not just more rhetoric, but actually lead to results. He will increase both diplomatic contact with the Iranian government and diplomatic pressure on the Revolutionary Guard to shut down its support of insurgent activity in Iraq and in other areas, such as Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. He will also work with multilateral partners to forge a coalition to apply diplomatic and economic pressure to stop Iran’s involvement in insurgent and terrorist activity in Iraq.

John Edwards 08
http://johnedwards.com/issues/iran/

Columnist Peter Bart reports that Edwards told a Hollywood fundraiser last month that the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities is perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace.

Edwards’ spokesman Jonathan Prince says the article is erroneous. He says Edwards says one of the greatest short-term threats to world peace is Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Bart says Variety stands by its report. The host of the fundraiser, Adam Venit of the Endeavor talent agency, didn’t respond to a message seeking comment.

Associated Press 2/21/07
http://www.wwaytv3.com/node/501

Let me say first off that I like Edwards. I always have. And I’d very much like to go along with the conventional wisdom that he “backed off” his hawkish Iran comments when he talked to the Prospect yesterday.But, really, does anyone believe that? I don’t. Instead, he was engaging in Politics 101: telling different audiences what they each want to hear. When he’s talking to an Israeli conference, he emphasizes the supreme danger Iran presents and implies strongly that military action is a real possibility, while barely even mentioning the idea of engagement and economic aid. When he’s talking to a liberal American magazine, he emphasizes engagement and economic aid and downplays the possibility of military action as vanishingly unlikely during an Edwards presidency.

Technically, there was no contradiction between what he said in these two venues. At the Israeli conference he did mention direct engagement with Iran, even if it was only in response to a question at the end. And with the Prospect, he did say that all options had to be left on the table — including, presumably, military action. Still, you’d barely know it was the same person talking if you read both conversations with no names attached.

There’s nothing new about this. It’s standard issue politics. But the internet is making this game harder to play, because every word you speak, at every venue, is now easily accessible to people who aren’t quite as jaded about this kind of thing as most political reporters are. People like me. And I’ll tell you: I’d sure feel a lot better if even a small part of Edwards’ comments to the Prospect had made their way into his speech at Herzliya.

Washington Monthly, 2/3/07
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010678.php

It sounds like the stuff that conspiracy theories are made of. In a coastal resort near Tel Aviv, senior Israeli politicians and generals confer with top officials and politicians from Washington to discuss the threat of a nuclear Iran. In any good conspiracy theory, however, these talks would be going on in secret – preferably in an underground bunker. In fact the Herzliya conference on “Israel’s national security” is taking place perfectly openly in a smart hotel. And I am in the audience.

The Israel participation is, as one would expect, high level. The conference is scheduled to close with a speech from Ehud Olmert, the prime minister. The lunch-time speaker yesterday was Benjamin Netanyahu, the Likud leader, and maybe the next prime minister. We’re hearing from the foreign minister, the defence minister and a string of present and former generals.

But what has really struck me is the number of top Americans who have bothered to come over for the conference. The speaker at dinner last night was Gordon England, America’s deputy defence secretary; earlier in the day we heard from Nick Burns, the number three at the State Department. Several contenders for the presidency in 2008 have also felt obliged to tip their hat to Herzliya. Mitt Romney, who is probably second favourite for the Republican nomination, is turning up in person. John McCain, the GOP front-runner is appearing by satellite, so is Rudy Giuliani. For the Democrats, John Edwards is also scheduled to make a satellite address. I cannot think of any other country in the world that could summon up this level of American participation for a conference like this. Certainly not Britain.

Also well represented among the participants are well-known hawks like Richard Perle, Jim Woolsey (the former CIA director), Newt Gingrich and Jose Maria Aznar, the former Spanish prime minister. A lot of these chaps were very prominent in the drive to go to war in Iraq. Now, flushed by their undoubted success there, they are turning their attention to Iran.

There is no doubt that the war drums are beating pretty loudly here in Herzliya. The main topics of conversation that keep coming back and back – in the corridors and also in the conference hall – is how close is Iran to the bomb. Can anything short of military action stop the Iranians? If it comes to bombing, could the Israelis do it alone – or would they have to rely on the United States? Would President Bush give the order? (This place is full of people who claim to have spoken to somebody who has spoken to the president about this very issue, but they all seem to have different stories).

Financial Times 1/22/07
http://blogs.ft.com/rachmanblog/2007/01/israelis_americ.html#more

The aggressively photogenic John Edwards was cruising along, detailing his litany of liberal causes last week until, during question time, he invoked the “I” word — Israel. Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close.

Variety 1/19/07
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117957727.html?categoryid=1&cs=1

“We cannot allow Iran to have nuclear weapons,” he declared, endorsing America’s current approach of working with the Europeans using diplomatic levers.

But he said the “carrots” on offer have to come with heavy pressure, such as “serious sanctions.”

In terms of the “stick” of military strikes, he said, “I would never take any option off the table.”

-snip

“Israel is in the unfortunate position of having to act without an agreement. I think American [officials] are supportive of that and want to be helpful in that effort - including me,” he said.

Those words were stronger than those used by President George W. Bush to assess the realignment plan during Olmert’s visit to the Oval Office last month.

“I would call them bold ideas. These ideas could lead to a two-state solution if a pathway to progress on the road map is not open in the period ahead,” Bush said at a press conference during the visit. “No party should prejudice the outcome of negotiations on a final status agreement, [but] the prime minister’s ideas could be an important step toward the peace we both support.”

-snip

Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Defense Minister Amir Peretz and Internal Security Minister Avi Dichter were among the government officials who met with Edwards during his four-day trip, which ended Wednesday. His schedule also included meetings with Likud chairman Binyamin Netanyahu, Labor secretary-general Ephraim Sneh and former PA finance minister Salaam Fayad.

The visit, Edward’s second, included a helicopter tour surveying the route of the security barrier, the northern border and the Golan Heights.

“It gave a very physical sense of the threat the Israeli people face every day,” he said.

The trip was arranged by the American-Israel Education Foundation, an AIPAC sister organization. Each year the foundation hosts dozens of congressmen, presidential candidates, political consultants and other American political heavyweights.

Jerusalem Post, 6/8/06
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1149572637421&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Senate Intelligence Committee Confirms Faulty Foundation of Bush Administration’s Push for War in Iraq

Under pressure from congressional Democrats last year, the Senate Intelligence Committee agreed to conduct an investigation of our government’s actions and statements on Iraq in the period before the start of the conflict there. However, rather than conduct a single comprehensive investigation of these issues, Intelligence Committee Chairman Roberts decided to split this inquiry into two phases. The Committee released the results of the first phase of its investigation on July 17, 2004. Entitled “U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” the Committee’s report concludes that the Bush Administration’s case for war with Iraq was dramatically overstated and largely inaccurate.

In their additional views to the report, Vice Chairman Rockefeller and Senators Levin and Durbin argue that phase one paints an incomplete picture of what occurred prior to the war and make a compelling case for the committee to quickly complete phase two - an analysis of the Administration’s use of this intelligence. According to these Senators, forceful public statements by senior Administration officials about the threat posed by Iraq created an intense climate of pressure on the intelligence community as it conducted its own analyses of these issues. This document presents key conclusions from the report and from the additional views submitted by Senators Rockefeller, Levin, and Durbin.

Democratic Policy Committee 7/22/04
http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=fs-108-2-210

This week, the U.S. Senate will have an historic debate on the most difficult decision a country ever makes: whether to send American soldiers into harm’s way to defend our nation. The President will address these issues in his speech tonight.

My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. I am a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution we’re currently considering.

Saddam Hussein’s regime is a grave threat to America and our allies — including our vital ally, Israel.

snip

After 11 years of watching Saddam play shell games with his weapons programs, there is no reason to believe he has any real intention to disarm.

At the end of the day, there must be no question that America and our allies are willing to use force to eliminate the threat of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction once and for all. And I believe if America leads, the world will join us.

Eliminating Iraq’s destructive capacity is only part one of our responsibility, however.

We must make a genuine commitment to help build a democratic Iraq after the fall of Saddam. And let’s be clear: a genuine commitment means a real commitment of time, resources, and yes, leadership. Democracy will not spring up by itself or overnight in a multi-ethnic, complicated, society that has suffered under one repressive regime after another for generations. The Iraqi people deserve and need our help to rebuild their lives and to create a prosperous, thriving, open society. All Iraqis — including Sunnis, Shia and Kurds — deserve to be represented.

This is not just a moral imperative. It is a security imperative. It is in America’s national interest to help build an Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors, because a democratic, tolerant and accountable Iraq will be a peaceful regional partner. And such an Iraq could serve as a model for the entire Arab world.

snip

We must also remember why disarming Saddam is critical to American security – because halting the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and ensuring they don’t fall into the wrong hands, including terrorist hands, is critical to American security. This is a problem much bigger than Iraq.

snip

Even as we lead the world to eliminate the Iraqi weapons threat in particular and global proliferation in general, we must maintain our resolve in the long-term fight against terrorist groups like al-Qaeda.

I reject the notion that this is an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we are up to the challenge. We fought World War II on four continents simultaneously. America worked to rebuild Germany and Japan at the same time, under the Marshall Plan. We waged the Cold War in every corner of the globe, and we won.

Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, D.C., 10/7/02
http://www.cfr.org/publication/5441/

“Congress must also make clear that any actions against Iraq are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security in the Middle East.

Iraq is a grave and growing threat. Hussein has proven his willingness to act irrationally and brutally against his neighbors and against his own people.

Iraq’s destructive capacity has the potential to throw the entire Middle East into chaos, and it poses a mortal threat to our vital ally, Israel. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam Hussein’s arsenal and would stop at nothing to use it against us. America must act, and Congress must make clear to Hussein that he faces a united nation.”

Washington Post, 9/17/02
http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_09/alia/a2091910.htm