What EDWARDS Really Said About IRAN to Israel Last Week

[McCamy Taylor]

I realized something was up when our resident Hillary Ninja at Salon began spamming an IsraelInsider write up of a speech John Edwards has delivered in every thread where it might possibly be appropriate. The story was alarming. The way IsraelInsider told it, Edwards called Iran the source of all evil and hinted that the military option was right there on the table.

This did not sound like the Edwards I knew. Suspecting some journalistic bias, I did a google and found a RAW Story link that had a very different write up. In their version, Edwards spent a lot of time bringing the hammer down on the Bush Administration for failing to pursue peace between Israel and Palestine for the last six years. They portrayed an Edwards who ready to engage in some serious negotiations.

Read the two write ups side by side for a real Rashoman experience. It will remind you to never, ever trust one journalistic source again:

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/10435.htm

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html

The best part about RAW Story is they printed the actual speech!! Hurray. That allows you, the reader, to form your own opinion. Here is my own reading based upon context. I am an Edwards 2008 supporter, and I am a supporter of Palestinian rights:

Context is important. This is the Herzliya Conference. Edwards starts out by praising the Herzliya Conference and Sharon for one of his most unpopular moves (among right wing Israelis), namely the unilateral disengagement plan "his historic decision to evacuate Gaza".

Next paragraph Edwards creates common ground w/ the Israelis, talking about freedom and democracy, his own visits to Israel, the kidnapped soldiers. "I feel that I understand on a very personal level those threats." Standard rhetorical stuff.

Next paragraph is fascinating because he paints Iran as a threat to Israel. Not the US specifically, read this one carefully, he never says that NYC is 30 minutes away from a mushroom cloud. Iran threatens to destabilize the Middle East which threatens the world. What makes the paragraph so interesting is that Edwards also portrays the current U.S. administration as a threat.

"For years, the US hasn’t done enough to deal with what I have seen as a threat from Iran. As my country stayed on the sidelines, these problems got worse. To a large extent, the US abdicated its responsibility to the Europeans."

Consider this in light of the recent revelation that Iran offered to stop funding Hamas and Hezzbolah and stabilize Iraq in 2003 if the US would disband Saddam's anti-Iranian terrorist cells in Iraq. Cheney's response---destabilizing Iran was more important than cutting off aid to Israel's enemies. The exchange made the US and Iran look like the US and the USSR engaged in one of their cold war games with small countries as pawns. In a situation like this, Israel might be excused for worrying that the US would allow a nuclear Iran to nuke Israel because it would give the US excellent justification to invade Tehran or at least bomb its oil fields back into the stone age. And Iran might threaten Israel in order to win concessions from the US.

The paragraphs about Lebanon are weak in that they ignore Israel's culpability, but remember to whom he is talking. Israel knows that it killed civilians and wrecked havoc on the infrastructure of Lebanon. It knows that it was played for a fool by Bush-Cheney AND Iran-Syria which used Israel and Lebanon like pieces on a chess board in their greater battle. Both sides have much to answer for. Iran-Syria took their ideological battle with the US into Lebanon so that they would not have to fight it at home. Forget Axis of Evil. Ethically speaking, Iran and the Bush Administration are two ends of the teeter-totter of doom and have been ever since George Sr. negotiated his hostages for votes deal in 1980.

More praise for the unilateral disengagement. "Israel made many concessions. Many settlers gave up there land in order to advance peace.Israel can take more steps to advance peace like bolstering Abbas against Hamas."

More criticism of the Bush administration for abandoning the MidEast peace process. "For peace, Israel needs a partner.Absent this partnership, Israel not only has the right to defend itself, it has an obligation to defend itself. This means continuing to ensure Israel’s military strength, diplomatically and economically. The hurdles are clear.

"For too long, the current US administration’s commitment to this issue has been halfhearted. Now, on the backdrop of Iraq, they have tried to bring the two sides together. This is especially significant since they have squandered America’s moral authority in the Middle East and around the world."



Now, before preparing a wish list of THINGS EDWARDS SHOULD HAVE INCLUDED IN HIS SPEECH remember that context counts. When I first read the speech I wanted him to denounce Israel for its segregation of its arab muslim citizens and force them to apologize for the invasion of Lebanon. But that speech would not have been intended for the audience to whom he was speaking. That speech would have been for people like us at DU. It would have been designed to pander to primary voters and the activists who work on campaigns and who blog. PLUS, to stand up and start getting righteous at a meeting where Israelis are taking baby steps toward solving some of their problems might be just a tad counter productive, not to mention very un statesmanlike.

[confludemocrat]

1. The first story was fine, Edwards comes off the same in both versions.

i.e., NOT GOOD. You've wasted alot of space confirming that the story you criticize accurately portrays the man and his message.

[The Count]

5. Yup. Attack Iran + blah, blah, blah.....Also attacking * doesn't excuse warmongering

Everyone attacks * today - even GOP-ers like Warner. Not really a reason to trust some one now a days.

[Old and In the Way]

2. Thanks for posting this.

Nominated. It sickens me how people will twist the words of one Democrat to further the political fortunes of their favorite. I suspect that, as bad as the run up to 2004 was, this one will be even worse.

[saltpoint]

3. Agree. And please let me second that nomination. n/t

[Leilani]

4. The 2nd write up has ALL of the same points

made in story #1.

[McCamy Taylor]

8. Did you guys never take English Lit 101? OK, I will walk you through this.

In the RAW Story here are the charges against Iran. Note that its crime is that it is trying to get nuclear weapons which will upset the balance of power in the Middle East, which will inconvenience the US. (Hey, RAW Story has a US readership.)

1. Iran, whose nuclear ambition "threatens the security of Israel and the entire world."

2."The Iranian president’s statements such as his description of the Holocaust as a myth and his goals to wipe Israel off the map indicate that Iran is serious about its threats."

3."Once Iran goes nuclear, other countries in the Middle East will go nuclear, making Israel’s neighborhood much more volatile," Edwards said.

In the IsraeliInsider story here are the charges against Iran/Syria/Hamas/Hezzbolah/Palestine: Iran's crimes are its funding of Hezzbolah and Hamas, which kill Israeli citizens.

1. '"Iran is serious about its threats," former US Senator John Edwards told the Herzliya Conference at the Interdisciplinary Center on Monday.'

2. "Addressing the second Lebanon war, Edwards accused the Islamic Republic of having a significant role, saying Hizbullah was an instrument of Iran, and Iranian rockets were what made the organization's attack on Israel possible."

3. "The former senator also said that Syria has been a great source of destabilization in the area, from its support of Hizbullah and Hamas, to its relationship with Iran, and for this it should be held accountable."

4. "Edwards also spoke against the Palestinian Authority, saying the Hamas government was no partner, and that Israel should make efforts to strengthen Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas against Hamas."

Regarding what Edwards plans to do about Iran:

The RAW Story version:

"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."

The IsraeliInsider version:

"Hinting to possible military action, Edwards stressed that "in order to ensure Iran never gets nuclear weapons, all options must remain on table."'


That Hinting to possible military action is where the two stories really diverge. Consider for a moment what was taken off the table by the W. administration---direct negotiation. How do we know that RAW Story is not more accurate with its direct quote? Maybe what Edwards really meant to say is "I will talk those damn Shia clerics to death. They want direct negotiations? They will get all the direct negotiations they can handle--and then some."

The US NEVER takes the military option off the table. Our long range weapons and nukes are always there. So Edwards could not have meant that he is taking them off the table or putting them back on. Given enough provocation, we will drop bombs from the air on anyone, though we might not invade. Even Bill Clinton dropped bombs, even in the middle of the impeachment.

[Leilani]

11. Don't you dare patronize me

I would post the exact same points from both articles, but you're not worth the effort.

We could have had a nice discussion on the issue, but you had to be obnoxious, so see ya!!!!

:nuke:

PS: I thought Edwards supporters were so NICE, like their candidate?

[McCamy Taylor]

13. Sorry if your feelings got hurt. I thought you were just pretending not

to be able to see the difference between the two articles. If you truly could not see the difference between the way that the two stories were presented, then I apologize. However, if you really can not see the difference, then I humbly suggest that you begin studying journalistic bias, because it is a very important topic.

[The Count]

16. Thanks for the walk. "Attack Iran" blah blah, blah it is. After the IWR precedent

I don't need a lot of help walking through his actions. There is a pattern to them.
This is the guy who told Tweety that if he were POTUS he would have started both wars - Afghanistan and Iraq:
MATTHEWS: OK. I just want to get one thing straight so that we know how
you would have been different in president if you had been in office
the last four years as president. Would you have gone to Afghanistan?

EDWARDS: I would.

MATTHEWS: Would you have gone to Iraq?

EDWARDS: I would have gone to Iraq.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295 /

[Tom Joad]

6. Anyone who praises Sharon... A mass murderer...

is the kind of person who would push a resolution through congress to give W Bush war resolution on Iraq (then apologize when such a position becomes politically impossible to defend)

The bottom line is that Edwards has NEVER crticized Israel, whatever its policies, despite US sponsorship for same. Where is he as settlers expand the illegal settlements in the West Bank, making the chance for peace more and more difficult? Where was he when Israel was dropping one million US-made cluster bomblets (most in the last hours of the war) in Lebanon--right out there in front supporting Israel's actions, and not ONE word of criticism--- never contradicting Bush/Olmert's line that they opposed a "premature" ceasefire--- that was only accepted by Israel when it knew it was not goint to win against Lebanese fighters.

John Edwards is as committed to supporting the militaristic policies of Israel as he was to supporting the militaristic policies of Bush back in his "wayward youth" of 2002-3.

[thethinker]

7. I wish

I wish I could accept what you are saying, but I don't.

The speech, as reported by rawstory, is just as bad.

I really like Edward's focus on the two Americas. This needs to be said. It is a message that both Democrats and Republicans can get behind. I really believe he is the strongest candidate so far to retake the White House.

But, I cannot and will not support any candidate that does not have clear message on Iraq and Iran. I won't support any candidate that talks out of both sides of his mouth - depending on who the audience is.

So, I hope Edwards picked up lots of votes in Israel. He lost plenty of votes here.

[leveymg]

9. Edwards has lost my support.

I did support him (tentatively, contingently, weakly) before, only because there's no one in the Democratic field right now who lights my fire, and I thought he was the most electable of the declared candidates.

But, after this, he has no credibility as an anti-war candidate. Quite the opposite.

I wish that American politicians smartened up, and realize that theatening Iran is totally counter-productive and antithetical to regional peace and stability.

[confludemocrat]

18. Me too. I had him up there just below Gore, so essentially he was #1

in my book until the gist of this speech was posted a few days ago. But again, his "progressive" domestic positions will never come to pass if he opts for the language of war when he could take another tack than codewords for "attack Iran" and thereby contributes to bringing about war, which will destroy us. Think of Lyndon Johnson.

[McCamy Taylor]

10. BTW, If anyone has a video link, this would help a lot. Delivery is important too.

I am posting this partly as a study in how to analyze the news, not just accept whatever pablum we are fed. Remember that all sources have bias and context always counts.

[FrenchieCat]

12. Whatever.....

You should find what you can....

I found this...

Homage to Herzliya
The Lobby wants war with Iran

"US presidential hopefuls Mitt Romney, John Edwards and John McCain, along with Newt Gingrich, were in Israel, seemingly competing to see who can be most strident in defense of the Jewish state during personal or video appearances at the conference here, just north of Tel Aviv.

"The four politicians called for ways to prevent Iran's government from acquiring nuclear weapons. While stressing the strong US-Israel ties, the presidential hopefuls all agreed that the US has to ratchet up sanctions on Iran and leave the possibility of a military attack ‘on the table'."

Romney may have won the hyperbole contest, but the big surprise was Edwards, who came in second with his declaration that preventing Iran from getting nukes is "is the greatest challenge of our generation." On the same day he ran an ad in Roll Call calling on Congress to oppose the "surge" in Iraq, he was telling the Herzliya conference that "All options are on the table to ensure that Iran will never get a nuclear weapon."

"At a time when most Democrats in the United States are calling for less military involvement abroad," notes the Jersusalem Post, "Edwards, of South Carolina, told the Seventh Annual Herzliya Conference on Monday that his country must do everything that it can to stop Iran from possessing nuclear weapons."

When John Edwards, who poses as a peace candidate, declares that we will go to war with Iran before we'll let them break Israel's nuclear monopoly in the Middle East, that should tell us something about how the power of the Lobby has distorted our foreign policy and deformed the American political process. In paying homage to Herzliya, Edwards and his fellow candidates are betraying and subverting American interests.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10399

[McCamy Taylor]

14. Great link! Thanks Frenchiecat. I recommend this to everyone

This expresses my worries about Edward's speech, too. Though he says all the right things---diplomacy first etc.---I am very uncomfortable about the crowd that he is moving with right now. He is giving the impression that he is drinking some spiked Kool-Aid.

[Tom Joad]

15. Diplomacy first. If the Israel/US position is accepted, fine, if not...bomb, bomb, bomb

What reasonable country would not understand that? :nuke:

[confludemocrat]

17. I saw the link you post, too. Viewed from ANY angle it is truly "Attack Iran" blah blah

and Edwards lays it on especially thick, placing second (AGAIN) in the over-the-top category at this AIPAC-whore pageant.

[mnhtnbb]

19. Correction in the report: Edwards is of North Carolina. What else

are they misrepresenting? There's a clear journalistic bias here.

[The Count]

20. We read the actual speech - his very words - love them or not:

""So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran."

[FrenchieCat]

21. Well, he was born in Seneca, South Carolina

and so that could account for the mix up.....