Those words were spoken by a presidential hopeful at a recent conference in Herzliya, Israel. Who was it?
Mitt Romney, whose attendance and tough talk at the conference got lots of press?
Nope. It was one of the “progressives” in the race, John Edwards, who also emphasized that “all options must remain on the table” with respect to Iran. Somewhat reminiscent of John Edwards in 2002, who said of a different middle-eastern country:
I mean, we have three different countries [Iran, Iraq, and North Korea] that, while they all present serious problems for the United States — they’re dictatorships, they’re involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction — you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country…. And they do, in my judgment, present different threats. And I think Iraq and Saddam Hussein present the most serious and most imminent threat.
Discuss.
Here’s the lead up to that statement, to give it a little more context:
Don’t make it sound like Edwards is clamoring for us to bomb Iran.
My point, though, is mostly that Edwards was pretty credulous back in 2002, despite warning signs that the intel that they were being fed about Iraq was, to say the least, suspect.
<
p>
The same thing appears to be going on now. Despite repeated claims that Iran is behind the attacks in Iraq, there’s very little actual evidence that that’s the case (HT: Greenwald).
<
p>
Also, note that Edwards was the only Democrat to participate. Republican presidential hopefuls included Romney in person, and McCain and Giuliani by satellite. The rest of the guest list reads like a neocon love-in:
<
p>
<
p>
The mere fact that Edwards showed up is, IMHO, quite noteworthy.
on the Iran situation is here.
Must add these to my bibliography.
And they have a full right to be, there’s a low-grade civil war happening on their border. Of course their intelligence services are knee-deep in it trying to influence things or just get a feel for the situation and hang out until something needs doing.
<
p>
Maybe instead of actually shipping arms over the border, they’re just meeting people in hotel rooms and transferring some numbers to some bank accounts but they’ve gotta be involved.
<
p>
Not that this makes an attack on Iran a reasonable idea in the slightest, but sabre-rattling is totally ok.
<
p>
As far as their dummy president, This shows where his ridiculous oil-money-spending and pursuit of macho goals is getting him. If we keep a cool head, we’ll be fine with Iran.
Speak softly and carry a big stick.
<
p>
I am concerned that the Lamontniks will extract pacifist promises by any Democratic presedential candidate, thus undermining the soft speaking part.
<
p>
Of course, I am less than sanguine that “we” will keep a cool head until January 21, 2009.
who sided with Bush in 2000 or 2004. IIRC, Republicans strong pro-Israel stance won them a better percentage of the Jewish vote recently. It helped Republicans differentiate themselves from Democrats–remember how Clinton had had so many photos taken with Arafat (and an Israeli leader) during the talks of the 1990s?
<
p>
And elderly Jewish voters have significant numbers in Florida with its juicy 27 electoral votes.
<
p>
But sco has a damn good point: Edwards has been very clear that the U.S. should talk to Iran and Syria–his satellite image may have been in the same room as Richard Perle but he’s no neo-con.
The percent of Florida that is Jewish: 4.1. I’d bet that they make up more than 4.1% of the votes though, since Jews have historically come out to the polls and are less likely to be in jail than the average.
<
p>
So, just guess and say they make up 6% of the voters in Florida for the presidential race. There’s not much data out there, but this article suggested that Bush:Gore was 19:80 amongst FL Jews, but Bush:Kerry was 24:69. Now, since Bush lost the popular vote in 00 but won the popular vote in 04, it’s unclear how much of that 16 point swing was due to national trends and how much was a Jewish-specific issue. Nevertheless, the swing of 16% was responsible for almost a 1 point change in the Florida outcome (0.06 * 0.16 = 0.0096). How much of that 1 point gain was due Bush’s rising popularity amongst all voters and how much was due to a greater appeal among Jews isn’t easy to pinpoint, but it is pretty clear that while NY, MA, NJ, MD, and CA are pretty much foregone conclusions for the Dems, the Jewish vote is an important — although not essential — part of both Florida (4.1%, 27 EVs) and Nevada (4.1%, 5 EVs).
Maybe it is simply the circles I travel in, but I as a Jew, know no other American Jews who think bombing Iran is in either the US or Israel’s best long term interest. I think this blindly pro-Israel Jewish vote meme is nothing more than a myth being pushed by politicians who WANT to bomb Iran and am sick of people calling those of us who do not want to blindly follow ISRAELI foreign policy antisemites. Stop buying in to this BS.
just the demographics. I have no idea where Jews line up on assorted Middle East policy. I just ran the numbers, that’s all.
I get the sense that the aggressive Likudnik voices get a much wider hearing in the U.S. than their popular support — even among American Jewish voters — would merit. I know all of one person who is an eager supporter of Likud.
<
p>
Come to think of it, he’s pretty loud about it, too.
Although David and I have been sparring over Barack Obama and we can debate his merits as a progressive, both of us know that he has been sincerely against the war since the beginning. That said Edwards ran as the Southern blue dog moderate-conservative in 04, as a hawk on Iraq, I recall his convention speech was a little hawkish with a message to terrorists that “we will destroy you”. And now he is being hawkish on Iran the current rogue state de jeur while also flip flopping on Iraq. He is not a trustworthy politician to say the least.
http://www.chicagotr…
The Edwards comments were made very recently.
We also, though, don’t want to encourage Muslims to become terrorists or turn countries into chaos.
Nice for a presidential candidate to talk about “Americans” in the third person–as people who can be manipulated into supporting pre-determined policy–while referring to himself (and the Israeli security conference audience, I guess?) as “we”. Sums up the situation pretty well, actually.
“That was the Edwards of 2004!”
<
p>
Exactly, and now he’s flip flopped, I want a President who granted is flexible, Bush is completely unflexible, he sticks to a policy he knows is wrong and is not working, Kerry, Gore, even Clinton wouldn’t have done that. But nuanced policy making is different from political pandering, Obama while becoming more nuanced on the issue has consistently been against the war and has not equivocated on the issue for political gain. Edwards learned in 2004 that moderate voters wont win him the primary, and now he has moved to the far left proposing a lot of bad policies
<
p>
-100 billion dollar anti-poverty program, I personally like them, but I’m sorry we need to control the deficit first
-Protectionist trade policies, (this not only contradicts his Senate record as a free trader its also disastrous policy)
-Immediate withdrawl from Iraq, I might see that as a solution down the road, but I am sure that there has to be a better way, also doing it without a timetable or phased plan would create more chaos and disaster
-Hawkish language on Syria, North Korea, and iran
<
p>
I don’t like any of these ideas and they will woo the Kos faction of the party allowing a true liberal-progressive like Obama to lose to a center-right candidate called Hillary Clinton.
Manchurian Candidates controlled by corporate interests come in two flavors of KoolAide. Both however serve the Illuminati.