JE: "'Iran’s Revolutionary Guard will soon be deemed a terrorist organization by the U.S.

[cali]

As president, Edwards will ensure that such steps are not just more rhetoric, but actually lead to results.'
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_Edwards

On his website until scrubbed in September of this year.

How do you interpret this? What did Edwards mean when he said he'd ensure that such words aren't just rhetoric but will lead to results?

I'm sure I'll get flamed for bringing up this inconvenient bit of information, but frankly I think it speaks to why some of us just don't trust him.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. Let's be even-handed and include Senator Obama's statements as well

I will grant that web-site scrubbing is even lower than usual, and that Edwards is a con-man, but Saint Barack shouldn't get a pass on his utterly bogus pretense of being an Iran dove.
(I am assuming no documentation of Hillary's Iran hawkishness is needed.)

Link to Obama positions on Iran:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3789491&mesg_id=3789491

[cali]

2. I'm glad you provided Obama's statements

I think it should be acknowledged that all three have made comments that are troubling.

[The Magistrate]

3. While The 'Terrorist' Usage, Ma'am

Is a base and meaningless coinage, unfit for circulation in any serious discussion, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a foul body, a sort of Persian K.G.B. in its broadest outline. It is engaged in brutal suppression of dissent at home, and covert violence abroad in the interests of a dictatorial body of fundamentalist clerics. It predates on economic life in Iran, and economic activities of others with Iran, in a flagrantly corrupt and corrupting manner. A serious collection of bad hats, and no mistake....

[cali]

4. I'm not arguing that point, Mr. Magistrate

From what I've read, it is indeed the furthest thing from a laudable body. My point is that Senator Edwards' position was on his website before the Kyle/Lieberman vote and was scrubbed after the vote. I can only assume it was for political advantage.

[The Magistrate]

6. Doubtless It Was, Ma'am

But that is what politicians do: all of them, without exception, engage in calculation of what will best serve the interest of their political advancement, and guide their actions accordingly. Those who act otherwise are far more likely to be cranks than statesmen.

"Saints should be presumed guilty till judged innocent."

[Luminous Animal]

7. What position did Edwards change?

Here is O'Reilly on Edwards position...

"Edwards opposed the Senate bill that would officially label Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. So the USA could take aggressive action against that group if need be. The bill passed in the Senate 76-22. The Guard is the SS of Iran, repressing Iranian citizens, training terrorists, and actively supplying some of the bombs that are killing American soldiers in Iraq. Yet John Edwards does not want to label them terrorists."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301152,00.html

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

9. serious question

Did Edwards ever oppose "labeling Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization"?

We know for a fact that at least two candidates who "opposed" K/L actually favored the IRG designation. They are not interchangeable.

I don't know if Edwards did or did not, but citing opposition to K/L doesn't address the question. (Bill O'Reiley's characterization of K/L aside.)

[Luminous Animal]

10. What difference would it make?

Do you doubt that the IRG promotes "terrorist" activity? I don't but so has and does the U.S. military. For example, School of the Americas, Contras, Osama bin Laden.

The point is not whether or not the IRG promotes terrorist activity, the point is that worthless symbolic votes like Kyl-Lieberman do nothing to advance a diplomatic solutions. It is cheap sabre-rattling giving cover to war mongers.

[Luminous Animal]

5. "The rest of text... is unchanged"

The Source Watch link also reports this:

"The rest of the text of the 2,000-word foreign policy page is unchanged. And while this is obviously an update to keep pace with the news, the first version lacks any condemnation of the planned terrorist designation," Smith wrote.<1>"


So let's take a look at the rest of the text, shall we?

http://johnedwards.com/issues/terrorism/

"Congress recently passed a bill to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. We saw in Iraq where such steps by Congress can lead President Bush. Edwards has announced his opposition to this bill. As president, Edwards will increase both diplomatic contact with the Iranian government and diplomatic pressure on the Revolutionary Guard..."

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. Edwards, Obama and Dodd announced "opposition" to the bill while SUPPORTING THE IRG DESIGNATION

It is very easy to "oppose" a bill because Hillary voted for it while entering into babbling incoherence when pressed on what ABOUT the bill one opposes.

The question is what practical measures JE stands for or against on Iran.

The K/L propaganda scam has been cleverly used by several candidates to paper over their own explicit support for the IRG designation.

Obama, Dodd and Clinton all co-sponsored the designation.

And Edwards doesn't seem to have opposed it... though who can say with JE?